Featured Theory of atonement, do you have one?

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?

 

Would you find Scriptures to share that support this?

The early church had similar thinking of a debt owed, but their cultural and social structure was different enough that it isn’t in the same manner some might express, today.

That is why I ask for Scripture..

 

Certainly, as Romans 1 illustrates when God withholds Himself from the thankless (gives them over), and the Scripture principle of sowing and repeating is seen in the life of every person.

Also, the wages, payment due, remuneration, of sin is death.

What greater wrath can be found then the eternity in the lake of fire?

As a result of all the principles of Scripture and the prepared place for both those whom He redeemed and another place prepared for those unbelievers, the wages, and the results of sin already exposed, a desire for some special need of God to dispense punishment is not necessary, and some might even suggest superimposed upon Scripture.

There is a neat picture of the “bowls of God’s wrath,” or more commonly written as “bowls of the wrath of God,” poured out on the earth. Great calamity follows each pouring.

Years ago, I pondered the dilemma of 1) why the bowls, and 2) what did they contain. Time and again as I worked through various evidences, it came to me that the bowls had to be empty if God places the final estate for the unbeliever as torment (double jeopardy) and if God pour out some special wrath on sinners and sin while they lived.

Then it came to me that great promise that 1) vengeance is mine, and 2) storing my tears in a bottle. What greater rebuke of vengeance can come but from the very sorrows inflicted by the world upon God’s beloved turned back on the world?

There is no Scripture proof that I know, and the silence is always intriguing, but it does make for a neatly fit package and consistency.

 

Part of the misunderstanding of the wrath of God abides in the concept of the terms.

When God withholds His hand of approval or protection, from the human perspective, great calamity emerges.

This is seen throughout both Scripture and History.

All God has done is withhold Himself from interfering. Such was witnessed on the cross as Christ ask , “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Christ was not abandoned by the Father, He wasn’t renounced, He experienced what no believer can, for did not the Lord say, “I will never leave you, never forsake you.” The Father withheld His protection and authority from the Son.



How does this relate to the OP?

Each theory must address the central issue of the character of both the Son and the Father at the crucifixion.

Those theories that in some manner have the Father renouncing and abandoning the Son, must demonstrate how God can have such a split personality, and how God can die.

Those theories that present the Father as vengeful toward the Son, must show how God can beat up Himself, destroy Himself.

Those theories in which call for separation of the hypostatic union must find a Scripture of support.

What is your theory?

 

These are wonderful statements from Scripture!