Atonement Theories

[Yeshua1]

I don't know anyone who believes in the "Christus Loser" View, but Christ is only the Victor because He fulfilled the will of the Father by laying down His life to redeem those whom the Father gave Him (John 10:11-18 etc.). This He did by paying the penalty for their sins in full on the cross (1 Peter 2:24 etc.).

More detail here: The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution
and here: Penal Substitution and the Trinity

Again, hopw are sins paid for and atonementmade if not the PST viewpoint?

 

[Yeshua1]

All believe it was God's will to crush Him. But all don't hold to the Theory of Penal Substitution. All believe Christ conquered sin and death, but not all hold the Christus Victor view. All believe Jesus to be the "last Adam", but not all hold to recapitulation theory. All believe Jesus' teachings to be moral teachings for us to follow, but not all hold to the Moral Influence Theory.

Typically those who hold to Penal Substitution Theory believe that the opponent to natural man is ultimately God (because of man's rebellion). The problem is how God can be just and yet justify sinners. Christus Victor doesn't look in this direction. Instead the problem is sin and the need is for God to overcome evil (rather than satisfying divine justice). God is just and justified, but because of a righteousness apart from the Law (in a different manner than the theory of penal substitution). Historically (and apart from the neo-theories that have been developing over the past 2 decades) these two theories mix like oil and water.

Romans and Galatians both seem to see the basic problem as being sinners nened to get reconciled back towards Holy God, owe Him a hugh sin debt obligation, so needs to have someone pay thatin full so God can remain Holy and also redeem lost sinners at same time!

 

[Yeshua1]

I like the Moral Influence Theory.

What I’m really , and for the 1st time in my life, wondering about is the doctrine of original sin. Why would God not forgive the human race and not teach love . I mean is Suffering and death really necessary in order to make us perfect? I don’t know but penal substitution theory is really tied to sacrificial lamb/ Old Testament stuff where we still have to shed blood. Christ cannot just be Lord, just be exemplary and pure... no he has to die

Sin debt obligation has to be paid by someone!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. All Christian's realize that Christ was crucified and raised on the third day. Our redemption incorporates Christ from cradle through the cross and resurrection to Him as our High Priest. Paul even tells us that this resurrection is our hope. That is why believers can be invited in Christ while disagreeing on other issues. But the fact that Christ died and was resurrected is nonnegotiable- one can't deny Christ's death and resurrection and be Christian.

I think tha main point martin and I are making is that if one does not hold to Pst, then how are our sin debt obligations actually be ing paid in full to God, so that he can remain Holy and freely justify sinners at same time?

 

[JonC]

I think tha main point martin and I are making is that if one does not hold to Pst, then how are our sin debt obligations actually be ing paid in full to God, so that he can remain Holy and freely justify sinners at same time?

Most other orthodox views (that I know of) look to Christ's nature (to His divinity) as God Incarnate. Early views considered mankind as still suffering the consequences of sin but those consequences being made empty as they are redeemed out of the bondage of sin and death. Perhaps this is a less spiritualizing than many would prefer, but throughout history people have looked at the world differently and have sought answers to different questions.

 

[Yeshua1]

But how would the sin debt obligated due God be atoned for if not the Pst theory?

 

[JonC]

But how would the sin debt obligated due God be atoned for if not the Pst theory?

Your idea of this "sin debt" is unique to Penal Substitution Theory. It would be like Origen complaining that PSA didn't address what was paid to Satan.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your idea of this "sin debt" is unique to Penal Substitution Theory. It would be like Origen complaining that PSA didn't address what was paid to Satan.

Whp pays for us breaking the law of God?

 

[JonC]

Whp pays for us breaking the law of God?

I don't believe you understand what I am saying.

Your question is relevant to PSA but not necessarily to other views. For example, the early church would answer that we pay for sin but Christ redeems us from its grip. This is very apparent in the Ransom Theory but probably evident in most others as well.

Just as you would dismiss the question about how PSA accounts for paying Satan for human kind, so also would others dismiss your question. It is not relevant to other theories. Just as you and I see Origin as making a false presupposition regarding the ransom, most Christian's would see PSA as making a false presupposition about divine justice.

The differences simply are not as superficial as one might expect. There is more involved so we can't merely evaluate one theory under the presuppositions of another. There are reasons each comes to their conclusions.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't believe you understand what I am saying.

Your question is relevant to PSA but not necessarily to other views. For example, the early church would answer that we pay for sin but Christ redeems us from its grip. This is very apparent in the Ransom Theory but probably evident in most others as well.

Just as you would dismiss the question about how PSA accounts for paying Satan for human kind, so also would others dismiss your question. It is not relevant to other theories. Just as you and I see Origin as making a false presupposition regarding the ransom, most Christian's would see PSA as making a false presupposition about divine justice.

The differences simply are not as superficial as one might expect. There is more involved so we can't merely evaluate one theory under the presuppositions of another. There are reasons each comes to their conclusions.

The scriptures clearlyteach that the wrath of Godwill come against sinners in judgement, so who atones for that wrath, satisfies it?

 

[JonC]

The scriptures clearlyteach that the wrath of Godwill come against sinners in judgement, so who atones for that wrath, satisfies it?

Anti-PSA theories seem to fairly consistently point to Scripture where it tells us that we must die to sin and live in Christ. So they would probably place the issue of a "sin debt" as defined by PSA as an error of interpretation (perhaps even a carry over from RCC doctrine/error).

PSA holds that Christ paid this "sin debt" by suffering our punishment so that we wouldn't.

Satisfaction theory holds that Christ's satisfied the demands of this debt (not necessary by experiencing our punishment in our stead but based on His merit).

Substitution theory holds that Christ was our substitute in some form.

 

[canadyjd]

The scriptures clearlyteach that the wrath of Godwill come against sinners in judgement, so who atones for that wrath, satisfies it?

Believers are covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ, even though we remain sinners, so that we are "justified" (declared not guilty) in the sight of God during the judgement.

Those without Jesus will suffer condemnation and sentenced to eternal punishment.

 

[Yeshua1]

Anti-PSA theories seem to fairly consistently point to Scripture where it tells us that we must die to sin and live in Christ. So they would probably place the issue of a "sin debt" as defined by PSA as an error of interpretation (perhaps even a carry over from RCC doctrine/error).

PSA holds that Christ paid this "sin debt" by suffering our punishment so that we wouldn't.

Satisfaction theory holds that Christ's satisfied the demands of this debt (not necessary by experiencing our punishment in our stead but based on His merit).

Substitution theory holds that Christ was our substitute in some form.

Its not just that Jesus kept perfectly the law, for in order to have God impute that towards us, he had to die in our stead and take on what God would give to us in judgement!

 

[JonC]

Its not just that Jesus kept perfectly the law, for in order to have God impute that towards us, he had to die in our stead and take on what God would give to us in judgement!

Although all (I believe) believe Jesus kept the Law perfectly, I don't know that all theories understand God's righteousness imputed to us as having its foundation in the Law. This seems more unique to the RCC (treasury of merit) and PSA.

 

[Yeshua1]

Although all (I believe) believe Jesus kept the Law perfectly, I don't know that all theories understand God's righteousness imputed to us as having its foundation in the Law. This seems more unique to the RCC (treasury of merit) and PSA.

How do we get right standing before God then?

 

[JonC]

How do we get right standing before God then?

I believe all theories present reconciliation through Christ - Christus Victor by Christ's victory over evil, breaking the bonds of sin and death; Moral Influence through a new way of life in Christ; recapitulation through Christ as the "Last Adam"; Satisfaction theory by Christ satisfying the demands of sin against us; and PSA by God punishing Jesus instead of us.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe all theories present reconciliation through Christ - Christus Victor by Christ's victory over evil, breaking the bonds of sin and death; Moral Influence through a new way of life in Christ; recapitulation through Christ as the "Last Adam"; Satisfaction theory by Christ satisfying the demands of sin against us; and PSA by God punishing Jesus instead of us.

Non eof the other theories though account for just How we all died in Adam, and just how the saved are now all alive in Christ!

 

[JonC]

Non eof the other theories though account for just How we all died in Adam, and just how the saved are now all alive in Christ!

This is not true.

They all account for our state estranged from God, our need for a Savior, and being made alive in Christ. The reason you cannot see this, I believe, is because they do not do so within your expectations.

Perhaps the clearest example is Christus Victor, which presents man as being dead in sin but freed from its bonds by being made alive in Christ. We see this in the moral influence theory (although I always saw it as a bit of progression). I think this is apparent in recapitulation as well. We see it in the Ransom theory (along the same lines as with Christus Victor). I'm not sure how this would be expressed in the government theory.

Bottom line is that most necessitate the cross and the blood of Christ shed in our place.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is not true.

They all account for our state estranged from God, our need for a Savior, and being made alive in Christ. The reason you cannot see this, I believe, is because they do not do so within your expectations.

Perhaps the clearest example is Christus Victor, which presents man as being dead in sin but freed from its bonds by being made alive in Christ. We see this in the moral influence theory (although I always saw it as a bit of progression). I think this is apparent in recapitulation as well. We see it in the Ransom theory (along the same lines as with Christus Victor). I'm not sure how this would be expressed in the government theory.

Bottom line is that most necessitate the cross and the blood of Christ shed in our place.

His blood being shed for what purpose, if not the Pst though?

 

[JonC]

His blood being shed for what purpose, if not the Pst though?

Redemption.