7 Atonement Theories Summarized
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июл 2024
- Here I summarize seven atonement theories. This is adapted from an article I wrote several years ago, which you can read here: www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories...
Enjoy my work? Buy me a coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/MorrisonSDM
Further reading on the atonement:
Gustaf Aulen, "Christus Victor" - amzn.to/3cUFYDD
St. Anselm, "Cur Deus Homo: Why God Became Man" - amzn.to/3uuNY4l
St. Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" - amzn.to/3fLRkf5
"The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views" - amzn.to/3fP3Vyk
Rene Girard, "Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World" - amzn.to/3sYiWSa
S. Mark Heim, "Saved from Sacrifice" - amzn.to/3mnkEKk
A few other resources not mentioned in this video:
Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, "Atonement, Justice, and Peace" - amzn.to/3dMxQVk
Fleming Rutledge, "The Crucifixion" - amzn.to/3dFoJWd
John McLeod Campbell, "The Nature of the Atonement" - amzn.to/39QEyrX
T. F. Torrance, "Atonement" - amzn.to/3fSdOLw
Karl Barth, "Church Dogmatics vol. IV/1" - amzn.to/31TNyIs
Jürgen Moltmann, "The Crucified God" - amzn.to/3t9ORPL
**Please note that all Amazon links are associate links, wherein I receive a percentage of your total purchase.
You just made it into my favourite channels list.
This is really good, just what I was looking for. A lot of Christians are confused when I mention that the version of the Gospel they are sharing is only one version of what happened on the cross. Thank you for this.
Thanks for watching, Jorge! I agree, it is unfortunate that most Christians are only ever taught one perspective of the cross.
Very informative!!!
On the web page, you said "...we aren’t saved by theories. We’re saved by Jesus!"
How we view Jesus and God certainly has a great influence on our walk. I give Christus Victor a 10 out of 5.
I appreciated the overview of theories. “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, than are dreamt of in my Protestantism.” Looking forward to subsequent installments on this subject.
Thank you so much for this helpful explanation. I only recently realised there were various ways of understanding the atonement other than penal substitution, which is what I grew up being taught. It’s disheartening that these theories are not more widely taught in churches. I’d definitely love it if you make more videos on atonement, especially on the scapegoat theory.
Thanks for watching, Hannah! Glad to hear it was helpful. I also grew up with PSA. It was such a freeing experience to realize that is not the only way to interpret the meaning of Christ's death.
Thank Goodness it’s really a modern understanding of the atonement and that our more modern translations of scripture have are biases towards PSA. Best bet is to grab you a NASB, KJV, and or NKJV. THE REST ARE FULL WITH PSA
Great summation. Thank you for this video.
Thank you Stephen D. Morrison ❤
I really enjoy your videos! Thank you!
Glad to hear it, James. Thanks for watching!
Totally AMAZINGLY helpful. Thank you!!!!
Loving the videos! I'd put in a request for a primer on recapitulation theory
Thanks, Matthew! Recapitulation theory is definitely worth a deeper dive.
Thank you very much. Excellent summary.
This is great thanks for doing this
Absolutely awesome! Thanks so much. I am doing a degree in theology and this has helped so much!!!
Thanks for watching, Daniele! Glad it was helpful. Best of luck with your degree!
Really, really good. Thanks for this.
Thanks for watching!
Really well presented. Thank you for this wonderful attempt at explaining these 7 theories. I feel I need to learn more about the scapegoat theory. It's something that I have not researched enough
Thanks, Toby! Glad the video was helpful. I have another video specifically on Girard's Scapegoating theory, which you can watch here if you'd like: ruclips.net/video/F6tm3EJxQ1M/видео.html.
@@StephenDMorrison Thank you once again. Really looking forward to watching this. God Bless Stephen
Man! You are really knockin’ ‘em out of the park! Thanks so much! If you do expand this I hope you go deeper into the Scapegoat Theory.
Thanks for watching! And I may do a deeper look into Scapegoat since it is the least known. Thanks again and God bless! :)
Good video thanks
Very concise and non judgemental. These are after all theories, constructed by man, to explain how and why God does what He does. I have come to believe that if God didn't explain something clearly, either we didn't need to know lack the capacity.to understand it. Still, we cannot help but be curious about such a magnificent God.
The cross of Christ is the central focus of scripture and all valid gospel preaching. What Jesus accomplished is not a secret or hidden.
Great video. Thanks.
I see these various theories as facets of the grander mystery of atonement. One way I look at it is through the psychological lens of cognitive reframing. God was reframing our transgressions against his identity by experiencing death in Jesus. In this way, he was able to empathize and sympathize with humanity in its spiritual death, without identifying with the sins that led to that death.
Similarly, if we mindfully observe the memory of a traumatic event in our lives, we are able to emotionally reconcile ourselves with that event, so that it no longer weighs on our ability to function in life.
Great video. Would it be possible to hold many of these beliefs in tandem? Many of them don’t appear contradictory.
Yes, definitely. This has sometimes been called a periscopic atonement model. Thanks for watching!
Very nice video, man! Amazing, really liked it a lot! I have one question, more because of my curiosity in Karl Barth's theology: in his CD, he does any mention to which atonement theory he believed was more biblically and theologically accurate? Thanks!
Thanks, Victor! In my reading of Barth, he doesn’t embrace wholesale one particular theory. He structured his doctrine of reconciliation around Christ as priest, king, and prophet. Thus, Christ is the “Judge judged in our place” in CD IV/1, which I read as a kind of reformulated substitutionary atonement. He explicitly rejects the idea that the cross acted on God, ie, psa, but he does hint to the idea that God’s love is satisfied in the atonement. CD IV/2 centers around “Jesus is Victor,” and IV/3 focuses on Jesus as “true witness.” All of this reinforces his main idea, that Jesus *is* the atonement as the fulfillment of the covenant. So he does not have a theory in mind but a person. Theories can be a helpful way to categorize the ways we interpret the cross, but for someone like Barth, I think he’s too complex a thinker for that reduction. Hope that’s helpful! I once planned to write a book on Barth and the atonement but decided against it-for now at least.
@@StephenDMorrison Thank you so much, it was really helpful! Now I want to read Barth even more! :D
I'm a reformed Christian lawyer, here in Brazil, so the PSA is the atonement theory that drew my attention and curiosity to reformed theology, about 6 years ago. When I've started my LLM, some brothers in Christ have said to me about the Christus Victor theory and I've liked it a lot. Now I'm learning with you that are 7 theories at least! That's really nice to know and to see Barth, that I've only read some of his books (the CD I've read some portions here and there), that he has a person in mind, our Christ Jesus. Thanks again, bro! I've always seen your videos and I'm subscribed to your channel since the "Barth in 5 minutes" video. You're helping the Church a lot, believe me! :D Looking forward to your book on Barth and the atonement when the time comes! See ya!
@@VitorPVTB thank you for sharing a bit of your story! Glad to hear my videos have been helpful. Blessings! :)
@@StephenDMorrison Amen! Blessings to you too! :)
I definitely see myself drawn to both the Moral Influence Theory and Scapegoat Theory.
This is the best video I've found so far on this topic. I'm 'just' a theist exploring Christianity and trying to return to it, and the atonement is one of the most confusing aspects of the religion, and a lot of resources just say 'Jesus died for ours sins, that's it, you just have to get it', and I don't get it. The penal substitution theory is very popular but I find it very difficult to wrap my head around in particular. I quite like the idea of a combination of the moral influence and the scapegoat theory, Jesus dying was the ultimate was of showing how wicked humans can be, and how much we sin. If we had to die to show us that, then in an awful way it might make us 'wake up' and realise what we've done, that we've strayed from God, and that we need to change things.
Thank you for the clarity of your explanation of the theories of atonement. I have had a painful idea that the death of Christ on the cross was also or even primarily to suffer death and abandonment with us, because God created us and nature as inherently violent. Christ shows us that the way to salvation is to follow his teachings, but also to at tone ourselves through our own sufferings and dying. I am frightened by this rather heretical view and wonder if others have had similar thoughts.
I'm new to this faith and find it interesting to note the difference between God's Word and man's words. Reading Bible never causes me difficult feelings, even though it does convince me of how guilty I am. However, learning all sorts of "theories" complicates my understanding on God, the Book and this religion. So I'll only stick to Bible and development my own theory. If any man's words triggers heavy feelings in me (even when i agree on them), I'll just say bye to their interpretation. i think God intends more to save us than to fill us with heavy feelings.
This is very well-worded. Funny, at first I thought this was plagiarized because I came across your website some time ago. I kept watching thinking, "geez, this is very similar to that website".
I do think there are some more theories out there that this video needs. Like, for example, the belief that we died with Jesus and we rose with him. None of the theories summarized seem to consider the resurrection.
That's funny! Yes, I guess you could say I have plagiarized myself with this video. :D I've considered a follow-up with more theories, especially the one you mentioned. It is on my list of video ideas so maybe soon! Thanks for watching!
Very good
Fantastic overview!
Thanks for watching!
Way better than your PSA videos…thanks for the overview.
Great job. We were talking about this in our small group tonight with many of us not knowing there was more than one thought on this. So I am now passing around your video.
Thanks, Glenn! Glad to hear you and your small group found it helpful. Blessings!
God with violent urges. “What’s wrong with you people!” -RCSproul
what about the recapitulation theories like Barth's or Torrance's?
Yes, this is an important view as well. I talk about it more at length in my video on penal substitution.
Recapitalation theory goes hand in hand with christus victor theory. Both theories are held by the eastern Orthodox church.
Not sure if they'd be supportive of Governmental theory though...
Does Recapitulation fall under Christus Victor? It's how I've come to understand atonement most. In terms of reconciling us from sin and death. The Last Adam succeeded in His vocation redeeming us from what was lost in the first.
Sometimes. But I separate them because I think recapitulation stresses the important concept of being buried with Christ and rising with Christ, whereas traditional CV can sometimes be transactional.
@@StephenDMorrison Not entirely accurate. Recapitulation stresses the incarnation itself and all of its aspects, as well as the cosmic scope too, with the primary importance being placed on the resurrection itself. The recapitulation theory is the oldest being set forth by Irenaus in the 2nd century, and held by Anthanasius, Cyril, and all of the Orthodox church until the present day. It’s also impossible to fully explain atonement without reference to the Day of Atonement ritual in the OT. In addition to being the Passover lamb, Christ fulfills the Day of Atonement ritual by taking the role of both goats as well. So it’s not just humanity that is redeemed, but the whole creation itself. The trampling down of death, sin, the devil and demonic powers is also inherent in the recapitulation view. Christ becomes the new Adam, and the Virgin Mary becomes the new Eve. Also, the descent into Hades is essential too for understanding the Orthodox view of atonement.
It is totally contrary to the substitutionary views though, for God gave his only son because he so loved the world. God didn’t need punishment in order to love and forgive us, but we needed a way to be restored to Him.
I thought this is a video about the movie Atonement and the 'theories' in the movie
Is there a general time frame for each view?
How would these be partitioned into:
Eastern Orthodox
Catholic
Protestant
(Modern/Liberal)
David Bently Hart's essay on synthesizing Vicarious Satisfaction with the East, is beneficial in seeing the difference between Anselm and Calvin.
In Anselm, man is being reconciled to God because the sacrifice is bottom-up... Jesus is both God and Man and as the God-man, he begins the process of restoring humanity's orientation back toward God. Put another way: God is Love (the Law, his own Nature) and Life is the result of fellowship with God, as His creatures.. Sin breaks our connection to God (Life) and thus incurs death, like unplugging life-support. Jesus lives Life in the groove designed for God's creatures and thus puts us back on track toward Love and Life. His death is not a wrathful killing (top-down), but a consensual self-offering to God (bottom-up) as the culmination and ultimate act of alignment with the Will of God (ultimate self-denial and thus absence of Sin; the curving in on ourselves). Christ is personally declared Righteous (justified) and thus restored to Life (Resurrection) as a result of having bridged the gap between the Living Creator and His dying, sinful creatures...
Through Union with Christ, the Christian participates in Christ's Life, Death and Resurrection (justification)... thus beginning the turn back toward God (sanctification). No where in this whole schema is God punishing His Son (nor us, if "judgement" is understood as a metaphor for putting ourselves outside of union with God -- God confirming us in our refusal of friendship/life and embrace of death, likened to Pharaoh's hardened heart).
What creates the gap between God and man? Man’s hardness of heart, sin, rebellion and the purposes of God for his creation.
It seems that the curse hanging over mankind’s labor and the confusion of language at Babel, are “subjections to futility in order to redeem earth”, as much as the sending of the flood on the world and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah are displays of God’s wrath against sin “in order to redeem the earth.”
Jesus was baptized, meaning he got wet because the water of the Jordan did not part for him as the Red Sea did for Israel. The dry ground in the sea represents the inside of Noah’s ark which in turn remembers the dry ground (mountain) of Eden.
If the church is to descend down as the ark upon the high mountain as a bride adorned for her husband, it is because she has first ascended above the waters of Gods wrath upon the whole earth.
I can’t see it any other way but I want to understand through the biblical imagery if that makes sense.
My father held that Jesus, lived to show us how to live and died to show us how to die. He found the idea that he died in our place to be confusing. If I committed a crime and someone else confessed and suffered for that crime, that would not make me innocent. When I search to see, if what he believed, with historically, correct, I find it difficult to decide because of some of the theological complexity theologians communicate with. Can you give me some help here?
It sounds like your father held a similar interpretation as the moral influence theory of Abelard, i.e., that Christ's influence is primarily moral to show us how to live. Abelard's theory was directly written against Anselm's satisfaction theory, so the debate between those two might be interesting to look into.
My view has been that multiple of these views aren’t mutually exclusive… but only one explains the actual concept of atonement as the Bible does (penal substitution), while others do explain other things accomplished by Christ’s death as the Bible does (moral influence, Christus victor, scapegoat).
How would you group them?
I did not make clear in my previous comment that I thought of the death of Christ as itself an atonement for the creation of a violent (as well as loving and beautiful) universe in which sin and evil were inevitable.
I pray you would one day soon research the "antitypical day of atonement" and "the cleansing of the sanctuary" as taught by the SDA church. Please read the book: the Great Controversy. Or see : Stephen Bohr with "Secrets Unsealed" or Doug Batchelor with Amazing Facts.
just watched an excellent podcast with William Lane Craig on the remnant radio show....I think you might benefit greatly it is very thorough on atonement theory.... title of podcast...did Jesus have to die.... he's also written a book... 'atonement and the death of Jesus '
Dun Scotus? Franciscan theory?
Would you ever do a video explaining why the Jews don't accept that the Atonement of Jesus as being a thing that could be done?
On the damage the Penal Substitution and Imputed Righteousness:
"As to the justice of God requiring the punishment of the sinner, I have said enough. That the mere suffering of the sinner can be no satisfaction to justice, I have also tried to show. If the suffering of the sinner be indeed required by the justice of God, let it be administered. But what shall we say adequate to confront the base representation that it is not punishment, not the suffering of the sinner that is required, but suffering! nay, as if this were not depth enough of baseness to crown all heathenish representation of the ways of God, that the suffering of the innocent is unspeakably preferable in his eyes to that of the wicked, as a make-up for wrong done! nay, again, 'in the lowest deep a lower deep,' that the suffering of the holy, the suffering of the loving, the suffering of the eternally and perfectly good, is supremely satisfactory to the pure justice of the Father of spirits! Not all the suffering that could be heaped upon the wicked could buy them a moment's respite, so little is their suffering a counterpoise to their wrong; in the working of this law of equivalents, this lex talionis, the suffering of millions of years could not equal the sin of a moment, could not pay off one farthing of the deep debt. But so much more valuable, precious, and dear, is the suffering of the innocent, so much more of a satisfaction--observe--to the justice of God, that in return for that suffering another wrong is done: the sinners who deserve and ought to be punished are set free."
- George MacDonald, Justice
When people get sick in the hospital they wonder if God has forsaken them!
When Jesus was on the cross he cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me!"
Jesus is quoting and taking us to Psalm 22, and when we read the entire Psalm we learn that God has not forsaken Jesus. God is with Jesus and God is not pouring out his wrath on God - that is - Jesus who is truly God and truly man in one person.
Jesus is being murdered by sinful creatures and Jesus is going through this death to identify with us but he will raise from the dead and is this way conquer death, sin, and the devil.
Hebrews 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8
Jesus Christ is VICTORIOUS by raising from the dead but he had to lovingly sacrifice to die first.
Jesus who is truly man and truly God without separation, division, mixture, or confusion cannot suffer wrath and damnation from God.
Malachi 3:6 1 John 4:8
There is only one God and Jesus is one person of the Holy Trinity!
Penal substitution atonement is pure Nestorian heresy and never taught in the Bible or until the eleventh century.
In summary, PSA believes God poured out his wrath on God to please God who is one.
Thinking Atheists have a hey day with PSA heresy and it keeps them from being Christians.
The Orthodox Church has the correct Biblical doctrine of the atonement.
Christ is risen!
Truly he has risen!
"Christus Victor" which has been taught since the Apostles and the Bible.
Why do you think that ransom theory makes Satan a god? If people run off in their sin to be part of Satan's Kingdom, God needs a legal purchase to get them back if He wants to be more than just a conqueror and become seen once again as rightful owner rather than a mere plunderer.
It’s almost like it’s Christus victor, ransom, and substitution all at the same time but not penal substitution.
The main reason people don’t like the ransom theory is cause if God is all powerful and we’re under satan’s heel he could just use His power to destroy Satan freeing us and the death of Christ didn’t need to happen Satan doesn’t have a right to anything but the Hell that was created for him
I think Isa 53 is describing the scapegoat. History has proven Jesus is the Jewish adopted scapegoat and they are taught this from a young age. The Atonement sacrifice foreshadowed Israel’s future. The scapegoat was supposed to be led to the city gates and handed over to a caretaker. The caretaker at some point sets the goat free. The picture is that gods favor was on Israel because of the sacrifice of the goat that most likely chooses to remain in the wilderness with these Bedouin tribesmen. Instead the rabbis chose to make a habit of just leading the goat over a cliff. And that itself was a good enough reason to destroy the temple, serving no purpose then. As long as that goat was suffering the punishment Israel deserved was averted. It’s a beautiful picture of the suffering servant in Isa 53.
Isa 53 also describes the sin that causes Israel to repent. They despised him of course and his followers have had to face the same gauntlet and shunning throughout history. Here’s a hypothetical reason for the sacrifice. The messiah in modern times is in fact Palestinian and once Israel looks upon the one they’ve been piercing there will be a national repentance. Jesus’s sacrifice was specifically directed to the Jewish people and they now have an off ramp and can repent from this genocidal virus that’s infected both sides. If he’s half Palestinian then peace will be possible. The scapegoat was always living among the Jews and Jacob was like the angels in his vision. He ascends and descends. Those passages are all singular and Jacob’s name was changed to Israel. In the same way, Jesus was Israel and the covenant was solely on him. Because of that one man’s obedience throughout Israel’s history and living like a Palestinian in every life.
I may have missed it if you mentioned reincarnation but Jacob was the Atonement plan from the beginning. He’s the lamb slain since the foundation. This Atonement restores the reputation of god. It pleased god to bring Jacob back because of the love they share in the wilderness and to shut the mouths of the Jewish rabbis that whisper sweet nothings and deceive them into worshipping their own image.
My question is why atonement is so different between old and new testaments. Atonement was made in the OT by a priest, atonement is made in the NT by the priest, Jesus. Hebrews explains that Jesus qualified himself through his obedience even to death on a cross to step into service in the heavenly temple. Maybe this should be a new atonement theory, High Priestly Atonement. Jesus intercedes for us so when we do sin, he is just and able to forgive us and to wash us from all unrighteousness. I don’t believe any transaction took place on the cross itself, though it was an important step in the process. After all the scripture tells us in numerous places that we will all stand before the judge to give an account for everything we’ve done and said, believers included. It also tells us very plainly that sin and righteousness are non transferable.
Doesn't Isaiah 53 suggest that sin and righteousness are, in some way shape or form, transferable? It may relate to bringing us out of a life of sin into a life of righteousness, but at the same time it has language of the penalty of one falling on another.
Does anyone in the internet know of an Christian Oneness Universalist theologian who is on the internet who does Not believe in the Trinity but believes in Oneness Universalism ?
Did I miss the simple concept of the Jewish Passover? That all who come under the blood will be spared and become the family of the one who provides the lamb? Becoming the sons of God. (Paul says so in Ephesians)
Jesus is the lamb according to my bible, so the father of the household saves His family, as many as shelter under the blood (call on that name). They become a new creation! salvation to all who call on that promise.
He did die on a Passover, a jubilee passover apparently. Peter said in Acts2 that "this man...... has been raised... and made Lord and Christ (Greek for anointed) this Jesus you crucified."
Done deal.
No fancy theories needed, just what bible says.
Could it be as simple as that?
Your objections to ransom theory are not convincing. Satan does not need equal power to God. He needs a legal claim. God has set up many elohim as sub-Gods over the nations and selected only Israel for himself according to Michael Heiser's reading of Deuteronomy 32, 8-9.
A claim on a Jew in Jerusalem by a Satan is rejected by God by simply God asserting his claim on his selected people in Zec 3, 2. After rebuking this claim, God deals with Joshua's sin without Satan's presence according to v. 5.
God was not happy with the works of the sub-Gods. He sentenced them to death according to Psalm 82. He had to get their peoples out of their clutches to not destroy the peoples with their sub-Gods like in Isa 34, 2-4.
According to Rev 5, 9, the Lamb has bought people from every nation with his blood. The Greek verb in the vers meaning buying, like in the market place, in many passages in the Bible. The first point of the sacrifice is creating the legal possibility of opening up the new covenant for the nations. God respects the legal claim of Satan because he is just.
Satan is not just, he doesn't care that he is paid what is due and still continues his efforts against the believers. That's why is thrown out of the courtroom by violence according to Rev. 12, 7-10. He is an accuser in his own interest, not a persecutor for the law or authority of God, just like the accusers against Paul in Acts 23 + 25 where representing their own interest, not the Roman law or government.
His body was placed in a tomb.
But three days later, the tomb was empty ?!
And the man, alive once again but still with his wounds
(so anyone who doubted could see them and touch them), appeared to many people in many places.
Then he ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of his god the father almighty, never to be seen again....?? wow!
hahaha
There is a difference between the "Jesus Saves Gospel" of 1 Cor 15:1-4 and the various quote "models of the gospel" which like parables will always fail to perfectly represent the original. Missing out the simple "Jesus Saves" so called theory (true gospel) from 1 Cor 15:1-4 is a mistake if you don't mind me saying so. I would also like to see your proof that the ransom theory was the most prevalent, so called "Atonement Theory" (a term from the get go outside of the bible) as it is one of several "models of the gospel" not the core centre gospel itself. You seem to be implying that to be saved we do not need simply to believe in Christ crucified buried and resurrected for our salvation, but to give an oversimplified analysis of God's reasoning, reactions etc.
Most of these theories don’t stand on their own in that they don’t actually atone!
I think Moral Influence especially has no teeth as far as actually providing propitiation.
Even Christus Victor doesn’t consider propitiation.
The core Atonement mechanism is blood sacrifice- Substitution.
All the others are true, but without sacrifice Substitution- especially Penal Substitution, which is the whole picture provided in the Jewish sacrificial system and the Law.
It’s all over the OT and the NT.
"I believe in Jesus Christ. Nowhere am I requested to believe in any thing, or in any statement, but everywhere to believe in God and in Jesus Christ...I believe that Jesus Christ is our atonement; that through him we are reconciled to, made one with God. There is not one word in the New Testament about reconciling God to us; it is we that have to be reconciled to God. I am not writing, neither desire to write, a treatise on the atonement, my business being to persuade men to be atoned to God; but I will go so far to meet my questioner as to say--without the slightest expectation of satisfying him, or the least care whether I do so or not, for his opinion is of no value to me, though his truth is of endless value to me and to the universe--that, even in the sense of the atonement being a making-up for the evil done by men toward God, I believe in the atonement. Did not the Lord cast himself into the eternal gulf of evil yawning between the children and the Father? Did he not bring the Father to us, let us look on our eternal Sire in the face of his true son, that we might have that in our hearts which alone could make us love him--a true sight of him? Did he not insist on the one truth of the universe, the one saving truth, that God was just what he was? Did he not hold to that assertion to the last, in the face of contradiction and death? Did he not thus lay down his life persuading us to lay down ours at the feet of the Father? Has not his very life by which he died passed into those who have received him, and re-created theirs, so that now they live with the life which alone is life? Did he not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound--spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement! We sacrifice to God!--it is God who has sacrificed his own son to us; there was no way else of getting the gift of himself into our hearts. Jesus sacrificed himself to his father and the children to bring them together--all the love on the side of the Father and the Son, all the selfishness on the side of the children. If the joy that alone makes life worth living, the joy that God is such as Christ, be a true thing in my heart, how can I but believe in the atonement of Jesus Christ? I believe it heartily, as God means it."
- George MacDonald, Justice
Scapegoat theory is Not a new theory. SDA holds to scapegoat theory.
I'm looking for an atonement theory in which Christ actually saves us FROM our sins, instead of merely saving us DESPITE our sins.
It’s at the resurrection when Jesus calls out the names of the righteous before his father. This is possible because he attained his priesthood through his suffering. That’s how I see it. Sins are really only dealt with once we’ve got our new incorruptible bodies.
The Ransom Model.
I posted a comment that is along these lines. See if it's in the direction of what you're looking for.
@@collin501 I just read it.
The problem is that we still sin though.
I now hold to a more progressive form of Christianity, and hold to Recapitulation Atonement theory.
@@logicalcomrade7606
It seems to me that every one of the passages below connects the sacrifice of Christ with our conduct, at least in my reading of them. On the one hand it's not automatic, but on the other hand it's powerful. Everyone who is joined to the cross of Christ has at least some degree of freedom from sin, and I believe it affords us a great deal more freedom than most of us walk in. But I do feel that freedom, although not always. But I believe it's a necessary part of salvation, as Paul said, "But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: 'The Lord knows those who are his,' and, 'Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.'"(2 Timothy 2:19) I'm not already perfected (Philippians 3:12), but I am to press on in that direction(3:13-15) and hold fast to what I've attained(3:16).
Passages of scripture relating the cross of Christ to our conduct:
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Romans 6:1-4
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Romans 6:12-14
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin... My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
1 John 1:7-2:1-2,6
For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
Titus 2:11-14
And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
1 Peter 1:17-19
And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Galatians 5:24
Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
Hebrews 10:28-29
Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Romans 7:24-8:4, 10-13
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.
1 Timothy 1:9-16
there is no mystery in God's word. not talking about christ. no scripture in tanakh says god will come in flesh or have a son/human die for others.
hos 11:1
ex 4:22,23
Wow. People have some weird deep beliefs about simple non-complex issues.
The length humans have to go to forgive themselves and each other is astounding.
What about payment being made to sin itself? If sin is the thing that demands the payment of death ("the wages of sin is death"), then it stands to reason that the sacrifice redeemed us out of sin itself, and sin demanded that penalty. The only response to this is our being placed under the ownership of God, and slaves to righteousness, as God's own possession zealous for good works(Romans 6, Titus 2). Look at Isaac Watts hymn When I Survey the Wondrous Cross, and you see the message. Since the life of Christ poured out through His blood was of such value, worth it demands something in return, and that something is us, our whole life as a pure offering to God. It's a very beautiful thing and clearly pre figured in the Exodus.
The sacrifice freed us from 1 the condemnation of the law, 2. The power of Satan, and 3. Ultimately, first and foremost, to sin and death in order to live and walk free of that corruption. Refer to Romans 6 through 8, Galatians 5, to name a few. The cross delivers from the corruption of sin every bit as much as from the penalty of sin. The payment was made to sin as well as the law and indirectly released us from Satan.
This would be a version of Christus Victor, effectively.
@@StephenDMorrison Does Christus Victor include dealing with the requirements of the law? In my view God instituted the law in order to bring sin to an end, and sin brings wrath through the law. This was necessary to bring evil to an end so that it could not receive immorality. When Christ took away sin he took away wrath toward those who receive reconciliation through him. Probably not by taking the wrath upon himself, but in taking away sin and the requirement of the law he took away the reason for wrath(Romans 5, Colossians 1&2, 2 Corinthians 5, and Ephesians 2).
@@collin501 This is closer to PSA.
@@StephenDMorrison In that direction, perhaps, but PSA holds that the Father required payment because of His sense of justice, or something along those lines, rather than the law being in some sense a separate thing from Himself that was used for a purpose. Personally, I feel there is a cross between elements of PSA, ransom, and CV that makes the most sense out of all Scripture.
Without penal substitution there is no assurance of salvation. Enough said, penal substitution is the gospel, if you deny it you are not saved, and you will pay the penalty of your own sin in hell. Simple as that.
Then most of the Church wasn't saved until Anselm developed PSA in the 12th century, right? Athanasius, Origen, Basil, Gregory Nyssa, and countless other church fathers weren't saved either?
In all seriousness, this is an unreasonable position. No ecumenical creed has ever considered an atonement theory orthodox-neither the Nicene nor Apostles. You are excluding millions of Christians from the faith-myself included-because they disagree with how you interpret atonement.
There was language about substitution from the beginning, and in the fathers and it penalty was a part of it. Doesn't have to be how Anselm or the reformers articulated it, but it has to be included in some way shape or form, especially to account for Isaiah 53. Whenever any believer throughout the ages said that Christ died for his own sins, and considered the sacrament itself where blood was shed for the remission of sins, those elements of substitution for sins were involved in that believer's faith. I think that was present all along.
@@collin501 Substitution is not the same as PSA and satisfaction. But even with that said, substitution was not the most dominant theory, historically. Christus Victor was the most common understanding pre-Anselm, usually combined with a sense of substitution but not in satisfaction. Gustaf Aulen has demonstrated that in his book with the same title. The narrative of a wrathful judge needing satisfaction and a pound of flesh for sins is original to PSA.
Ransom, satisfaction and penal are all anti Trinitarian or you’re either Nestorian or Arian. None make sense.