I am not giving full and complete details of every theory of atonement, but merely doing a very brief statement of a few just to allow the reader to get an overview of some highlights and tease some to think.
Generally it is accepted that the early church basically taught that there was some price owed to God or Satan which had to be paid in order for salvation to take place.
Personally, I consider such a ransom paid is basic extortion, and counter to the revealed character and nature of God. Sometimes, this thinking is illustrated by a boy having made a boat and loosing it, finds it displayed in the pawnshop widow. He then must work to earn the price of the boat, and being successful is heard saying as he walks out of the shop, “You are twice mine.”
Along the way, others taught theories that were more along the line of Christ being the substitute, a stand in replacement for the human. One might hear an illustration were a child is going to undergo some sever punishment, but the strong one comes to take the punishment instead.
The reformation came along and after some time a theory called forensic or penal was developed. The basic idea is that sin results in both wrath of God and death. That Christ met both these demands on the cross. Typical stories emphasize the suffering and agony and the violent angry God taking it all out on the pitiful who cries in agony about being abandoned all so some lost soul can be saved.
Each theory may have some very valid thinking, however the times and political influences (IMO) caused an overreaching of each so that some must grapple with aspects of the theory that the Scriptures do not support. Recent threads on some of the problems of one theory are on the B.B.
The purpose of this thread is to reveal:
1) Is it necessary for the believer to have a working theory of atonement?
2j If one does, what might you call your theory and the statements of fact you use to support it?
3) Did the reader of this OP need to make modifications to an existing theory to allow the theory greater Scriptural support?
In case anyone cares, I was confronted with these issues more than once in my early days and came to realize that I basically held to a forensic theory with modifications.
This causes some, who cling to some theory as it were the holy grail of being superior and pushing it as to be above some need for adjustment, to become greatly exercised.
But that is the reason the atonement ideas are laid out as theories and not chiseled into stone tablets. They are theories and not the Law.
It is my opinion that if an atonement theory one holds is not modified to conform to Scripture then it does automatically create a bias in favor or against certain aspects of soteriology views that ultimately are weak and without Scripture foundation.
This also removes the discussion from being considered unimportant to that of profoundly intriguing. Often on the B.B. debate would be more of a discussion IF participants held similar atonement theory views.
Therefore, how would you answer the three questions?
Generally it is accepted that the early church basically taught that there was some price owed to God or Satan which had to be paid in order for salvation to take place.
Personally, I consider such a ransom paid is basic extortion, and counter to the revealed character and nature of God. Sometimes, this thinking is illustrated by a boy having made a boat and loosing it, finds it displayed in the pawnshop widow. He then must work to earn the price of the boat, and being successful is heard saying as he walks out of the shop, “You are twice mine.”
Along the way, others taught theories that were more along the line of Christ being the substitute, a stand in replacement for the human. One might hear an illustration were a child is going to undergo some sever punishment, but the strong one comes to take the punishment instead.
The reformation came along and after some time a theory called forensic or penal was developed. The basic idea is that sin results in both wrath of God and death. That Christ met both these demands on the cross. Typical stories emphasize the suffering and agony and the violent angry God taking it all out on the pitiful who cries in agony about being abandoned all so some lost soul can be saved.
Each theory may have some very valid thinking, however the times and political influences (IMO) caused an overreaching of each so that some must grapple with aspects of the theory that the Scriptures do not support. Recent threads on some of the problems of one theory are on the B.B.
The purpose of this thread is to reveal:
1) Is it necessary for the believer to have a working theory of atonement?
2j If one does, what might you call your theory and the statements of fact you use to support it?
3) Did the reader of this OP need to make modifications to an existing theory to allow the theory greater Scriptural support?
In case anyone cares, I was confronted with these issues more than once in my early days and came to realize that I basically held to a forensic theory with modifications.
This causes some, who cling to some theory as it were the holy grail of being superior and pushing it as to be above some need for adjustment, to become greatly exercised.
But that is the reason the atonement ideas are laid out as theories and not chiseled into stone tablets. They are theories and not the Law.
It is my opinion that if an atonement theory one holds is not modified to conform to Scripture then it does automatically create a bias in favor or against certain aspects of soteriology views that ultimately are weak and without Scripture foundation.
This also removes the discussion from being considered unimportant to that of profoundly intriguing. Often on the B.B. debate would be more of a discussion IF participants held similar atonement theory views.
Therefore, how would you answer the three questions?
