Atonement model?

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Post Reply
Soloist
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:49 pm
Affiliation: CM Seeker

Atonement model?

Post by Soloist »

I'm starting a series of questions on various doctrines to find out some specifics, All of theses posts I'll be making will be focused.

rules,

1: No debating/arguing in this thread

2: State your view on the question.

3: List church affiliation or closest alignment.

4: Questions for clarifying positions are permitted.


What atonement model do you believe in? or in other words, what did Jesus die for?
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone
Soloist, but my wife posts with me
Soloist, but I believe in community
Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
joshuabgood
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:23 pm
Affiliation: BMA

Re: Atonement model?

Post by joshuabgood »

I would go probably with all three in more or less this order of priority.

1. Christus victor
2. Moral influence
3. Substitutionary atonement (as opposed to penal substitutionary atonement)

There are also aspects, though not all, to J Denny Weaver's atonement articulation that I find compelling. What he calls "narrative Christus Victor."
0 x
Neto
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Neto »

I have a copy of a chart that someone at our congregation gave me several years ago which lists 9 theories of atonement. I find Biblical support for at least parts of most of them, and there is a tenth which the chart does not include: Reconciliation.

The ones on the chart [from Charts of Christian Theology & Doctrine (1992: 104-105), H. Wayne House]
Ransom to Satan (buy back from Satan)
Recapitulation (reversal of human history)
Dramatic (aka: Christus Victor or something like that)
Mystical (Christ's triumph over his own sinful nature creates a mystical ability for those who hear of it, to do the same)
Example (Christ is a inspirational example)
Moral Influence (Christ's death demonstrates God's love in such a way as to draw people to Him)
Commercial/Satisfaction (Christ's death honored God so infinitely that God awarded him an honor he did not need, so he passed it on to mankind)
Governmental (God's high regard for his law demonstrated, and through this he has the rationale to forgive sin.)
Penal Substitution (demands of justice satisfied)
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Soloist
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:49 pm
Affiliation: CM Seeker

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Soloist »

joshuabgood wrote:I would go probably with all three in more or less this order of priority.

1. Christus victor
2. Moral influence
3. Substitutionary atonement (as opposed to penal substitutionary atonement)

There are also aspects, though not all, to J Denny Weaver's atonement articulation that I find compelling. What he calls "narrative Christus Victor."
can you expand on what you mean for the uneducated for what the ones on your list might actually be?
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone
Soloist, but my wife posts with me
Soloist, but I believe in community
Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Josh »

I would go with N. T. Wright's view ("all of them").

I haven't really been able to figure out what my church believes about this - it doesn't seem to be of very high importance or on people's minds, other than a simple "well Jesus saves you, that's why everyone needs to get born again so they can be saved, and then they will be able to have victory over sin".
0 x
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Atonement model?

Post by MattY »

Beachy here.

My former senior pastor is unsatisfied with the idea of Christ's death as a substitute. He says he prefers simply to speak of it as a sacrifice. And once or twice, he has mentioned that he disagrees with the lyrics in the hymn, "Jesus signed my pardon" where it says, "took my place on Calvary now I don't have to go." (But he likes the rest of the song - he led it recently during an evening when he was sharing his life story).

But I've only heard that from him; it wasn't presented as an official church view, and we're free to disagree.

My view is that most views have at least some validity. The Bible describes the atonement in many ways, using many metaphors and themes.

But I would see penal substitution as the overarching or primary model. Several others have validity within PST - perhaps as a result of it, or perhaps they need it to make sense otherwise, or perhaps as additional truths that are not at the forefront of PST.

I would order the models something like this -

1) Penal Substitution
2) Christus Victor
3) Recapitulation
4) Moral influence
5) Ransom theory

There are two views similar or related to penal substitution that I left out: Anselm's satisfaction view, as I think it is a bit bizarrely feudal in its idea of sin (it deprives God of honor) and how Jesus' death and resurrection produced a surplus of honor that could be passed on to others, and the governmental view, which I can't quite wrap my head around - with its explanation that the death on the Cross was necessary for maintaining God's moral government, as a "demonstration" of the seriousness of sin. I think penal substitution better explains what both of those theories are trying to get at, so I prefer to leave those out.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
Adam
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:35 pm
Location: Papua New Guinea
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Adam »

Soloist wrote:I'm starting a series of questions on various doctrines to find out some specifics, All of theses posts I'll be making will be focused.

rules,

1: No debating/arguing in this thread

2: State your view on the question.

3: List church affiliation or closest alignment.

4: Questions for clarifying positions are permitted.


What atonement model do you believe in? or in other words, what did Jesus die for?
I am an ordained Assemblies of God minister trending toward Conservative Anabaptist belief and practice.

Something like Christus Victor / Ransom from Satan:

I believe that we by our own will sinned against God and thereby became enslaved to sin, death, and Satan. Jesus gave his own life as a ransom for us so that we could be freed from our enslavement. Because the devil is a liar, it was necessary not only for Jesus to die but also to defeat Satan and rise from the dead in order to set us free. Jesus's blood cleanses us from the stench of sin from us so that we can be pure and be restored to right relationship to God. When the Bible says 'The wages of sin is death', I don't believe that it is talking about a punishment that God metes out to us. Rather I believe that [spiritual] death is the natural consequence of sin, just like lung cancer is the natural consequence of smoking.
0 x
joshuabgood
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:23 pm
Affiliation: BMA

Re: Atonement model?

Post by joshuabgood »

Soloist wrote:
joshuabgood wrote:I would go probably with all three in more or less this order of priority.

1. Christus victor
2. Moral influence
3. Substitutionary atonement (as opposed to penal substitutionary atonement)

There are also aspects, though not all, to J Denny Weaver's atonement articulation that I find compelling. What he calls "narrative Christus Victor."
can you expand on what you mean for the uneducated for what the ones on your list might actually be?
Here is how I see it

Christus Victor - It isn't so much that God was really mad, and therefore, in a case of cosmic child abuse killed his son, so he wouldn't be angry at us anymore and then we get a "get out of hell free card cause we are under the blood." Rather, the work of the cross was that Jesus came and set us free from the law of sin and death. He paid our debt through his work on the cross. We were in bondage to satan, because of Adam's (and our) sin and unable to get free. Through Jesus' death and resurrection he set us free and makes us new. Therefore, God did not kill Jesus, it was Satan and the kingdom's of this world. Satan thought he won a great victory, not realizing that Jesus would rise again and conquer death and sin. We are empowered to live like the first Adam now.

Moral Influence - It isn't so much that the cross is the means of salvation and immortality, as it is the cross is the method of those things. In a sense, the way we obtain the hope of immortality is by doing what Jesus did, picking up our cross and laying down our lives in service of others and God's kingdom. In so doing, like Jesus Christ, as we follow him, we also have the hope of the resurrection of the dead. Therefore the "finished work" was finished work for Jesus Christ as he had completed his "cross carrying" however for the rest of us, we must yet carry our cross so to also partake in the immortality of Jesus.

Substitutionary Atonement - Jesus was our substitute - think sacrifice and Isaiah 53. Definitely some biblical data for this motif methinks and I would say it is true to an extent.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement - God killed Jesus so we can get off scott free. The problem here is, that as Finny says, it really isn't forgiveness. If you owe me $100 dollars, I am mad about it, and extort it from another friend, or even my son, I haven't really forgiven anybody. I got back my $100. Further, penal substitutionary atonement carries no ethical entailments. This is empirically observable in the protestant churches. Further, it allows the Jonathon Edwards' and Martin Luther's of the world (I could name many many many others - who are still lauded by the PSA folks as great saints), to claim Jesus as their Lord while killing Indians, torturing quakers, burning witches, hating Jews, owning slaves, fighting wars in pagan kingdoms, taking oaths, etc, and still not seeing any logical inconsistencies with their version of Christianity. I think this is because their view of Christianity, and atonement in particular, has no moral implications really.

I'll add this yet - my affiliation would generally favor PSA, though a lot of lay members probably wouldn't really be that aware of what the differing perspectives are. Because of fundamentalisms influence on Mennonites over the last 100 years or so, most members would automatically associate PSA with what happened on the cross. This is strongly reinforced in the songs we sing. The conference leaders would be very strong PSA folks and preach against the dangers of other atonement angles...in settings where people would have familiarity with other atonement theories.
0 x
Adam
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:35 pm
Location: Papua New Guinea
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Adam »

joshuabgood wrote:
Soloist wrote:
joshuabgood wrote:I would go probably with all three in more or less this order of priority.

1. Christus victor
2. Moral influence
3. Substitutionary atonement (as opposed to penal substitutionary atonement)

There are also aspects, though not all, to J Denny Weaver's atonement articulation that I find compelling. What he calls "narrative Christus Victor."
can you expand on what you mean for the uneducated for what the ones on your list might actually be?
Here is how I see it

Christus Victor - It isn't so much that God was really mad, and therefore, in a case of cosmic child abuse killed his son, so he wouldn't be angry at us anymore and then we get a "get out of hell free card cause we are under the blood." Rather, the work of the cross was that Jesus came and set us free from the law of sin and death. He paid our debt through his work on the cross. We were in bondage to satan, because of Adam's (and our) sin and unable to get free. Through Jesus' death and resurrection he set us free and makes us new. Therefore, God did not kill Jesus, it was Satan and the kingdom's of this world. Satan thought he won a great victory, not realizing that Jesus would rise again and conquer death and sin. We are empowered to live like the first Adam now.

Moral Influence - It isn't so much that the cross is the means of salvation and immortality, as it is the cross is the method of those things. In a sense, the way we obtain the hope of immortality is by doing what Jesus did, picking up our cross and laying down our lives in service of others and God's kingdom. In so doing, like Jesus Christ, as we follow him, we also have the hope of the resurrection of the dead. Therefore the "finished work" was finished work for Jesus Christ as he had completed his "cross carrying" however for the rest of us, we must yet carry our cross so to also partake in the immortality of Jesus.

Substitutionary Atonement - Jesus was our substitute - think sacrifice and Isaiah 53. Definitely some biblical data for this motif methinks and I would say it is true to an extent.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement - God killed Jesus so we can get off scott free. The problem here is, that as Finny says, it really isn't forgiveness. If you owe me $100 dollars, I am mad about it, and extort it from another friend, or even my son, I haven't really forgiven anybody. I got back my $100. Further, penal substitutionary atonement carries no ethical entailments. This is empirically observable in the protestant churches. Further, it allows the Jonathon Edwards' and Martin Luther's of the world (I could name many many many others - who are still lauded by the PSA folks as great saints), to claim Jesus as their Lord while killing Indians, torturing quakers, burning witches, hating Jews, owning slaves, fighting wars in pagan kingdoms, taking oaths, etc, and still not seeing any logical inconsistencies with their version of Christianity. I think this is because their view of Christianity, and atonement in particular, has no moral implications really.

I'll add this yet - my affiliation would generally favor PSA, though a lot of lay members probably wouldn't really be that aware of what the differing perspectives are. Because of fundamentalisms influence on Mennonites over the last 100 years or so, most members would automatically associate PSA with what happened on the cross. This is strongly reinforced in the songs we sing. The conference leaders would be very strong PSA folks and preach against the dangers of other atonement angles...in settings where people would have familiarity with other atonement theories.
In accordance with the stated rules, what I am saying is not debate or argument. Rather, I appreciate your descriptions of Christus Victor, Moral Influence, and Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and I would appreciate seeing a bit of a longer description from you on Substitutionary Atonement and how it differs in your mind from Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
0 x
joshuabgood
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:23 pm
Affiliation: BMA

Re: Atonement model?

Post by joshuabgood »

So the function of satisfaction for Aquinas is not to placate a wrathful God or in some other way remove the constraints which compel God to damn sinners. Instead, the function of satisfaction is to restore a sinner to a state of harmony with God by repairing or restoring in the sinner what sin has damaged. [13]This is Aquinas' major difference with Anselm. Rather than seeing the debt as one of honor, he sees the debt as a moral injustice to be righted.

In his section on the Incarnation, Aquinas argues that Christ's death satisfies the penalty owed by sin,[14] and that it was Christ's Passion specifically that was needed to pay the debt of man's sin.[15] For Aquinas, the Passion of Jesus provided the merit needed to pay for sin: "Consequently Christ by His Passion merited salvation, not only for Himself, but likewise for all His members,"[16] and that the atonement consisted in Christ's giving to God more "than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race." So, Aquinas believes that the atonement is God’s solution to two problems. Christ’s passion and death, insofar as they serve to make satisfaction, are the solution to the problem of past sin; and, insofar as Christ merits grace by his passion and death, they are the solution to the problem of future sin. [17] In this way, Aquinas articulated the formal beginning of the idea of a superabundance of merit, which became the basis for the Catholic concept of the Treasury of Merit (see Indulgence). Aquinas also articulated the ideas of salvation that are now standard within the Catholic Church: that justifying grace is provided through the sacraments; that the condign merit of our actions is matched by Christ's merit from the Treasury of Merit; and that sins can be classified as mortal or venial. For Aquinas, one is saved by drawing on Christ's merit, which is provided through the sacraments of the church.[citation needed]

This sounds like penal substitution, but Aquinas is careful to say that he does not mean this to be taken in legal terms:[18]
"If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment…. If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin."
— Thomas Aquinas
This from wikipedia notes a substitutionary model that isn't "penal." This is in fact the official position of the Catholic church. Adaptations of Anselm by Aquinas, more or less.
0 x
Post Reply