What is Your View of The Atonement By Jesus Christ?

Ransom to Satan Theory

This theory was developed by Origen (A.D. 185–254), and it advocated that Satan held people
captive as a victor in war. This theory, which was also held by Augustine, advocated that because
Satan held people captive, a ransom had to be paid, not to God, but to Satan. In response to this view it should be noted that God’s holiness, not Satan’s, was offended, and payment (ransom) had to be made to God to avert His wrath. Furthermore, Satan did not have the power to free man; God alone had the power. This theory is false because it makes Satan the benefactor of Christ’s death. This view has too high a view of Satan; the cross was a judgment of Satan, not a ransom to Satan.

Recapitulation Theory

The recapitulation theory, advanced by Irenaeus (A.D. 130–200?), taught that Christ went through
all the phases of Adam’s life and experience, including the experience of sin. In this way, Christ was
able to succeed wherein Adam failed. The element of truth is that Christ is known as the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45); however, Christ had no personal encounter with sin whatsoever (1 John 3:5; John 8:46). The theory is incomplete in that it neglects the atonement; it is the death of Christ that saves, not His life.

Commercial Theory

The commercial theory was set forth by Anselm (A.D. 1033–1109), who taught that through sin, God
was robbed of the honor that was due Him. This necessitated a resolution that could be achieved
either through punishing sinners or through satisfaction. God chose to resolve the matter through
satisfaction by the gift of His Son. Through His death Christ brought honor to God and received a
reward, which He passed on to sinners. The gift was forgiveness for the sinner and eternal life for
those who live by the gospel. Although this view changed the focus from payment to Satan to a proper
emphasis on payment to God, there are nonetheless problems with this view. It emphasizes God’s
mercy at the expense of other attributes of God, namely, justice or holiness. It also neglects the
obedience of the life of Christ, and in addition, it ignores the vicarious suffering of Christ. Rather than
emphasizing Christ died for the penalty of sin, this view embraces the Roman Catholic concept of
penance, “so much satisfaction for so much violation.”

Moral Influence Theory

Abelard (A.D. 1079–1142) first advocated this theory that has since been taught by modern liberals
such as Horace Bushnell and others of a more “moderate” liberal stance. The moral influence view
was originally a reaction to the commercial theory of Anselm. This view taught that the death of
Christ was not necessary as an expiation for sin; rather, through the death of Christ, God demonstrated
His love for humanity in such a way that sinners’ hearts would be softened and brought to repentance.
The weaknesses of the moral influence view are obvious. The basis for the death of Christ is His
love rather than His holiness; this view also teaches that somehow the moving of people’s emotions
will lead them to repentance. Scripture affirms that the death of Christ was substitutionary (Matt.
20:28), and thereby the sinner is justified before a holy God, not merely influenced by a
demonstration of love.

Accident Theory

A more recent view, the accident theory, was advocated by Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965), who
taught that Christ became enamored with His messiahship. This theory saw Him preaching the coming
kingdom and being mistakenly crushed in the process. Schweitzer saw no value to others in the death
of Christ.The deficiency of Schweitzer’s view centers on the suggestion that Christ’s death was a mistake.Scripture does not present it in that way. On numerous occasions Jesus predicted His death (Matt.16:21; 17:22; 20:17–19; 26:1–5); Christ’s death was in the plan of God (Acts 2:23). Moreover, His
death had infinite value as a substitutionary atonement (Isa. 53:4–6).

Example (Martyr) Theory

In reaction to the Reformers, the example theory was first advocated by the Socinians in the
sixteenth century and more recently by Unitarians. This view, which is a more liberal view than the
moral influence view, suggests the death of Christ was unnecessary in atoning for sin; sin did not need
to be punished. There was no relationship between the salvation of sinners and Christ’s death. Rather,
Christ was an example of obedience, and it was that example of obedience to the point of death that
ought to inspire people to reform and live as Christ lived. The weaknesses of this view are multiple. Christ is viewed only as a man in this theory; atonement is unnecessary yet Scripture emphasizes the need for atonement (Rom. 3:24). This view emphasizes Christ as an example for unbelievers, but 1 Peter 2:21 teaches that Christ’s example was for believers, not unbelievers.

Governmental Theory

Grotius (1583–1645) taught the governmental theory as a reaction to the example theory of Socinus.
The governmental theory served as a compromise between the example theory and the view of the
Reformers. Grotius taught that God forgives sinners without requiring an equivalent payment. Grotius
reasoned that Christ upheld the principle of government in God’s law by making a token payment for
sin through His death. God accepted the token payment of Christ, set aside the requirement of the law,
and was able to forgive sinners because the principle of His government had been upheld.
Among the problems with this view are the following. God is subject to change—He threatens but
does not carry out (and in fact changes) the sentence. According to this view God forgives sin without
payment for sin. Scripture, however, teaches the necessity of propitiating God (Rom. 3:24; 1 John
2:2)—the wrath of God must be assuaged. Also, substitutionary atonement must be made for sin (2
Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24).

Substitution

The death of Christ was substitutionary—He died in the stead of sinners and in their place. This is
also described as vicarious, from the Latin word vicarius, meaning “one in place of another.” The
death of Christ “is vicarious in the sense that Christ is the Substitute who bears the punishment rightly
due sinners, their guilt being imputed to Him in such a way that He representatively bore their
punishment.” There are many passages that emphasize Christ’s substitutionary atonement in the place
of mankind. Christ was a substitute in being made sin for others (2 Cor. 5:21); He bore the sins of
others in His body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24); He suffered once to bear the sins of others (Heb.
9:28); He experienced horrible suffering, scourging, and death in place of sinners (Isa. 53:4–6).

(From, Paul Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology)

 

Why do you think?

 

My own view is, that the last of "substitution" is the only possible from Scripture. One of the worst is the "ransom", especially that of Origen, which was followed by a few of the early Orthodox Church, who also sadly also adopted Origen's heresy of the "eternal generation of the Son out of the Father", which I equate with blasphemy!

 

The Bible clearly says that Jesus Christ is completely sinless, in thought, word and deed. He as the God-Man could never have sinned. He alone is impeccable. As His life is an example for all of us, He submitted to water baptism, as we ought to, though His reason is not the same as ours, as it was not the outward witness for any forgiveness of sin. We cannot read too much into what happened in Jesus' Baptism, but work with the Gospel data.

 

As in Jesus Died in the place of sinners, who are pardoned only when they repent and accept His salvation. Paul puts it quite well, when he says, "Christ died for (ὑπέρ) our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3).