Thoughts on the Atonement

[PetrChelcicky]

My ideas about the atonement:
1. Debt, damage, guilt or sin are first and foremost relations between humans.
2. Debt, damage, guilt or sin mean that either we owe something to our neighbor (reparation) or we justly fall prey to his vengeance (retaliation).
3, God only comes in it, because he is the last resort the creditor/the victim may invoke - the ultimate representant of our victims as opposed to us, and the last judge.
4. The Jesus movement had already expressed a longing for a general forgiving of sins (in the Lord's Prayer). In the end they found out that this was a nearly impossible wish - made possible only when God himself (under the persona of his son) offered himself as the object of a last, ultimate retaliation.
5. Christians, happy people, because they believe that that ultimate retaliation has already happened, are truely able to forgive each other. As for the other people (unhappy people), we cannot demand of them that they forgive.

[Neto]

I am still thinking about what God’s primary purpose is in providing for salvation. Earlier I said I think a primary focus is reconciliation, and that the theories of the atonement tend to focus on the How, instead of the why. In considering this more, at least two ideas can be put forward,
Reconciliation, which I mentioned already, and
Saving humankind from sin and death (and thus also freeing the creation from bondage).

Can one of these be said to be primary? I can also see how some might say that reconciliation is the HOW for the other. Or, vice versa.
So what did God want? I do tend to think that he wants fellowship, and so perhaps both of these can be seen as the HOW, not the WHY.

[Falco Underhill]

Categories for each row in the chart:
Definition, Proponents, Scriptural Support, Object, Man's Spiritual Condition, Meaning of Christ's Death, Value to Man.

The different views present in this chart: (These titles run across the top, in the first row of the spreadsheet.)
"Ransom to Satan Theory",
"Recapitulation Theory",
"Dramatic Theory",
"Mystical Theory",
"Example Theory", "Moral Influence Theory",
"Commercial/(Satisfaction) Theory",
"Governmental Theory",
"Penal Substitution Theory"

The first two appealed to me very much. Apparently, they were the main theories till St. Anselm and St. Abelard. (This is coming from a Catholic perspective.) However, the Catholic Church officially reminds us that while conquest, captivity and ransom are common human experiences in history, we have to keep in mind such human phrases are used only by analogy. The reality of their meaning is never really the literal meaning.

Only two of these eight views use any form of the word 'reconcile' in any part of the respective column.

Just an interesting aside, "atonement," means "reconciliation" etymologically. It literally means "to make one" -- "at-one" + ment.

Penal Substitution Theory – Definition: Christ's death was a vicarious (substitutionary) sacrifice that satisfied the demand's of God's justice upon sin, paying the penalty for man's sin, bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness, and reconciling man to God.

Regarding the Penal Substitution Theory, I'll quote the Catholic perspective from newadvent.org:

The .... mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.

As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, "making peace through the blood of His Cross".

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

So, though the atoning sacrifice took the place of our punishment, it was not exactly a vicarious sacrifice.

If I am understanding this correctly, it means that the Penal Substitution Theory is a distorted view of the truth. God was not vicariously "punishing US" in Christ (what good would that do, anyway?) The atonement consisted in what he did in love and obedience for us.

Personally, I think there's also something to the ransom theory and something to the recapitulation theory. There's also something to Anselm and Abelards' theories (which i think were synthesized somewhat by Thomas Aquinas.)

(See the article to understand Anselm and Abelard's theories better.)

Ultimately - and this might sound like a cop out - but the atonement is considered one of the "mysteries" of the faith that cannot be fully penetrated by analysis.

Don't know how much we can actually know.

Now, I'm curious to see what Pope Benedict XVI had to say about it.

[Falco Underhill]

Addendum: According to St. Anselm there was a satisfaction that had to be met for divine justice, but this was beyond what any mere man could do. This, according to Anselm, was one of the reasons for the incarnation, for God becoming man, in Jesus. (See the article for a better understanding.)

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

[Neto]

I've been thinking about the meaning of the atonement more lately.
1.) God confronts us about our sin, not to condemn or 'judge', but to draw us back into relationship. Thinking about Adam & Eve, after their sin, they each made excuses, and blamed someone else. I do believe, however, that God confronted them in love.

I Do tend to concentrate on God's PURPOSE for Christ's death & resurrection more than the HOW of it - exactly HOW did God do this atonement thing. That is the subject of all of the major theories of the atonement.

BUT

2.) Several of these theories about the doctrine of the atonement talk about a price that had to be paid, and do not agree on who received the payment. Are there any Scriptures that speak to this question?
Some say Jesus paid the debt to God, who was the one who required appeasement.
Others say that Jesus bought humanity back from the Satan, who had gained ownership in the Garden.
A different though occurred to me recently. I thought of Romans 6:23 in connection to the atonement. That verse says that "The wages of sin is death". So is it possible that it was death to 'whom' the payment was made - the wages were paid up. Then Christ defeated death, by rising again back to life.

I'm interested in any thoughts on this, even if it's just to say that I'm seriously "messed up".

[Neto]

Thoughts during the night.... (This time I managed to get the 't' on 'thought'....)

Maybe the use of words like "debt" and "wages" is all symbolic. That is, perhaps nothing was actually "paid" to anyone or anything. It would be similar to things we often say, like "My computer took a lighting strike, and it cost me a lot of time to assemble all of my files from different backups again." It would mean "to suffer a loss".

[silentreader]

Thoughts during the night.... (This time I managed to get the 't' on 'thought'....)

Maybe the use of words like "debt" and "wages" is all symbolic. That is, perhaps nothing was actually "paid" to anyone or anything. It would be similar to things we often say, like "My computer took a lighting strike, and it cost me a lot of time to assemble all of my files from different backups again." It would mean "to suffer a loss".

Do we see any reference to the idea of "payment' relating to the particular OT sacrifices relating to atonement or foreshadowing the Lamb of God?
I think the focus is more on "the shedding of blood for the remission of sins" and reconciliation.

[Neto]

Thoughts during the night.... (This time I managed to get the 't' on 'thought'....)

Maybe the use of words like "debt" and "wages" is all symbolic. That is, perhaps nothing was actually "paid" to anyone or anything. It would be similar to things we often say, like "My computer took a lighting strike, and it cost me a lot of time to assemble all of my files from different backups again." It would mean "to suffer a loss".

Do we see any reference to the idea of "payment' relating to the particular OT sacrifices relating to atonement or foreshadowing the Lamb of God?
I think the focus is more on "the shedding of blood for the remission of sins" and reconciliation.

Only in the sense that the sacrifice was made to God. The animal sacrifices stayed dead. Jesus didn't. So I tend to think that the victory over death - the punishment for sin - is very important. I heard a sermon on a Catholic radio station in Brazil that has stuck with me. The priest said that the cross is incomplete without the empty tomb. His illustration was that when you hang a hammock, you have to use two points. In this case, they are the cross and the empty tomb. Otherwise, you are just laying on the hard ground, in the dust or mud, your hammock without any benefit to you.

[barnhart]

Neto, I like your emphasis on reconciliation in atonement. It may lack a punchy proof text from Romans, but it does organize the whole of scripture into a coherent theme with the restoration of the garden in Revelation and the fellowship that entails.

[silentreader]

Thoughts during the night.... (This time I managed to get the 't' on 'thought'....)

Maybe the use of words like "debt" and "wages" is all symbolic. That is, perhaps nothing was actually "paid" to anyone or anything. It would be similar to things we often say, like "My computer took a lighting strike, and it cost me a lot of time to assemble all of my files from different backups again." It would mean "to suffer a loss".

Do we see any reference to the idea of "payment' relating to the particular OT sacrifices relating to atonement or foreshadowing the Lamb of God?
I think the focus is more on "the shedding of blood for the remission of sins" and reconciliation.

Only in the sense that the sacrifice was made to God. The animal sacrifices stayed dead. Jesus didn't. So I tend to think that the victory over death - the punishment for sin - is very important. I heard a sermon on a Catholic radio station in Brazil that has stuck with me. The priest said that the cross is incomplete without the empty tomb. His illustration was that when you hang a hammock, you have to use two points. In this case, they are the cross and the empty tomb. Otherwise, you are just laying on the hard ground, in the dust or mud, your hammock without any benefit to you.

I was not suggesting they were equal. The OT sacrifices "covered", I think is a legitimate term, until the Perfect Lamb was sacrificed at Calvary. There was no "real" reconciliation until the sacrifice was resurrected and went to sit at the right hand of the Father.