Jesus and Atonement. What is Sin Really? A Prophetic Think Tank
Jesus and Atonement. What is sin, and what is wrong with us?
How does this atonement thing work? How is possible that a God-man can die for the sins of the world?
I think Christians take this truth for granted and never really think about it much. But it’s the main one, the Big-Kahuna. We settle for various theological statements about the fulfilling of justice, the paying of man’s ransom to Satan, the suffering or punishment in the place of another, but it still never answers the biggest question in it all. That is, how does believing any of this apply the touted positive effects of this atonement to the individual?
Note: Started a whole series on this here.
It is through faith? Ok, any kind of faith? What do we believe and why? Just believe that Jesus paid your sin debt, that you believe he was crucified and rose the third day? Have faith for any reason you so choose? How is faith the connective tissue of the atonement to the individual and, if it is, are we to assume that it need not substantially be of the same miraculous, historical, transcendent substance that is Jesus’ person between us and the Father? Are we to accept the insinuation of Christ as just another pagan worker of wonders and a spouter of homey wisdom?
In my presentation here I have chosen again a method that is as unconventional as my conclusions. I want to quote from one main source on the usual meanings of atonement in Christian theology that I think represent mainstream thought. That work is found here: Is Penal Substitution Biblical? I want to take each quote and point out, rather than the logic of those touted meanings against scripture, the presumptions behind the keywords that are being used against scripture, drawing my conclusions from there.
I don’t think there is a problem with our rational faculties. I think there is a very serious and perhaps incurable problem with our affections, and the easiest way they are exposed is by pointing out our unconscious habits with language. I think we will see that there is no atonement theory or any theory we can speak of as true if it is formulated fundamentally with a corrupt love for spiritual things.
The quoted author, from a reformed website, argues for the Penal Substitution Theory. However, we will see that the real atonement of which Jesus speaks is one in which his righteousness is imputed to us on the basis of a love that aligns with his, which is also to be expressed through the exclusive influence of miraculous informational object which aligns with Christ.
Christus Victor
The only major theory we will leave is the Christus Victor Theory. At least Gustav Aulén, in his Christus Victor of 1931, makes some attempt to get back to some version of an atonement theory before 1000 ad.1 Since his Christus Victor version is but, in my view, an innocuous semantical change from the Ransom Theory of the Church Fathers, we need not deal with it.
That leaves three, also minus the Moral Influence Theory:
Ransom Theory
Christ redeemed man from the power of Satan. 1. Satan gained mastery over man in the Garden of Eden, 2. The innocent life of Jesus was offered as a ransom to Satan for man’s liberation (1 Tim 2:6). Christ essentially outwitted Satan. This is the view of many of the Church Fathers: Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Gregory Nyssa2
The theory often minimizes the aspect of God demanding the curse of the Law of God to be fulfilled. It seems to be deficient in this regard.
The two main ones are the Satisfaction Theory, St. Anselm’s version which is popular in the Catholic Church, and the Penal Substitution Theory of the Reformers.
Satisfaction Theory
All emphasis below is mine. Try to ignore it for now. I will explain why I have done this later.
“Anselm speaks of human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ’s death, the ultimate act of obedience, brings God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ’s surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Hence Christ’s death is substitutionary; he pays the honour to the Father instead of us. Penal substitution differs in that it sees Christ’s death not as repaying God for lost honour but rather paying the penalty of death that had always been the moral consequence for sin (e.g., Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23). The key difference here is that for Anselm, satisfaction is an alternative to punishment, ‘The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow.’ By Christ satisfying our debt of honor to God, we avoid punishment. In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the punishment which satisfies the demands of justice.“3
Penal Substitution Theory
Again, it’s not my purpose to take a side except to the extent that these theories resolve “punishment,” how we “honor” God, why there is a “debt,” and what are the demands of God’s “justice.”
I will quote in italics all sources found on our Reformed website.
Another distinction between penal substitution and substitutionary atonement is that in the former Christ is punished instead of us rather than Christ suffering for us.
“Among other problems, satisfaction theory lacks a moral component. How can the punishment of one person who is innocent satisfy, pay for the crimes of others who are not? In penal substitution, faith covers us from the penalty of the law, effectively imputing us the righteousness of Christ while Christ is made liable for our sinful actions. This is not vengeance but justice. Imputation is the judge taking the place of the criminal, his crimes imputed to him and the innocence of the judge given to the other, where the criminal goes free and justice is still met.” “The atonement involves the substitution of Christ for us, by which, having taken upon himself our sins, he willingly undergoes the righteous wrath of the Father in our place.”4
On God’s wrath:
Keep in mind that the italics is our source of commentary.
Please go to the next page…
Aulen, Gustav. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. Wipf & Stock, 2003. ↩
Dyrness, William A, and Karkkainen Veli-Matti, Global Dictionary of Theology: A Resource for the Worldwide Church. Nottingham: Intervarsity Press, 2008. ↩
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement/satisfaction_view ↩
http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/08/is_penal_substitution_biblical.php ↩
