Theories of Atonement

[Bootstrap]

Hang in, people believe in penal substitutional atonement?
Would you say most anabaptists do?

I confess I never heard the term used in my years moving in plain circles.
If someone (not from the pulpit ever) used the phrase I just thought it another cause if fundamentalist inroad rot.

Would some of you be comfortable with it? How can Christs suffering, which atones, be held justifiable punishment ?
God cannot punish God.

Christians have used several biblical pictures to say what the cross and the empty tomb accomplished. To me, each picture is a limited analog that captures part of the truth. None captures the whole truth - which is probably beyond our grasp. These models get detailed and complicated. Even under "substitution", we have several distinct explanations, each supported by Scripture. The following was prepared with help from GPT, I believe it is accurate.

Substitution (He stands in our place) — “He bore our sins,” “made to be sin,” “became a curse for us.”
Different streams attempt to explain how this works:

• Penal substitution: He willingly bears sin’s judgment so God is just and merciful. (Isa 53:5–6; Rom 3:25–26; 2 Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13; 1 Pet 2:24)
• Governmental: God publicly upholds the moral order by passing over sin through a representative suffering. (Rom 3:25–26)
• Satisfaction (Anselm): Not penalty but restoring the honor/justice owed to God through a fitting act of obedience. (Phil 2:8–11; Heb 5:8–9)

But there are others:

Other major pictures of the atonement

• Christus Victor (Jesus defeats the powers) — The cross and resurrection break the grip of Satan, sin, and death. (Col 2:13–15; Heb 2:14–15; 1 Jn 3:8)
• Sacrifice / Cleansing (the Lamb of God) — His blood deals with sin’s defilement and opens the way to God. (Lev 16; Jn 1:29; Heb 9–10; 1 Jn 2:2; Rom 3:25)
• Moral Influence / Example — The cross reveals love that melts hard hearts and shapes our life of discipleship. (Rom 5:8; 1 Pet 2:21; 1 Jn 3:16; Jn 15:13)
• Recapitulation (Irenaeus) — Christ re-lives the human story rightly; in Him humanity is restarted. (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:21–22, 45–49; Eph 1:10)
• Scapegoat / Exposure of Violence — God unmasks and ends our cycle of blaming and sacred violence; Jesus bears it and forgives. (Lev 16; Jn 11:50; Lk 23:34)
• New Covenant / Passover Liberation — His death inaugurates a new covenant people and frees us from slavery. (Exod 12; Jer 31:31–34; Lk 22:20; Heb 8–10)
• Participation / Union with Christ — We die and rise with Him; His story becomes ours. (Rom 6:3–11; Gal 2:20; Col 2:12; Eph 2:4–6)

Thing is, a model is just a model. In physics, we have Newtonian physics and relativity. Each model explains some aspects of reality better than the other, they have incompatible axioms. Our minds are limited. I think that holds here.

And really, I think we overcomplicate it. Systematic theology tends to do that.

[ohio jones]

This started as a bunny trail in another thread, where this video is mentioned. Dean's point of reference is the early church, which is a little different from saying that Mennonites did, do, or should adopt PSA as the primary view of the atonement.

[Szdfan]

When I was in my liberal Mennonite seminary, we spent quite a bit of time on Christus Victor, which continues to be my primary view of the atonement.

[Nomad]

I appreciate Dean's approach and I like how he discusses this subject in a gracious manner. While I'm not an expert on this topic, PSA seems less to do with "God punishing God" and more to do with the Son fulfilling the role of the sacrificial Lamb who bore the wrath that we justly deserve as a sin offering on our behalf out of a love for humanity whom He created.

I remember Matthew Milioni speaking quite forcefully about the evil of PSA due to his perception of the abusive nature it exhibits. He said this while promoting "Ransom Theory". I really was scratching my head on this because, to me, the idea Ransom theory promotes sounds just as abusive. What loving father would hand his son over to the most abusive, sadistic, evil being (satan) as a ransom payment? What father would use his son as a bartering chip in a ransom negotiation to free hostages? Its easy to use strong language in a inflammatory way in order to sway people to ones own view during the heat of debate. Misrepresenting individuals viewpoint in a debate is a tactic politicians use all the time...

No matter how we look at the cross...something cruel is going to come out of it. Just thinking of God allowing it when He obviously had the power to stop it can seem cruel...if its misunderstood. But when you consider it juxtaposed with Gods love and His righteousness, then the picture makes more sense.

Regardless, I appreciated Deans talk and I think there are aspects of each atonement theory we could pull from for a richer understanding of the cross.

[Neto]

Some years ago a young man at our congregation & I got into a discussion about doctrines of the atonement after I made a statement to the effect that there is no salvation without repentance. Anyway, he later gave me a copy of a chart out of one of his Bible college (seminary? I don't remember which) course text books, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, pages 104-105. (The author is H. Wayne House. I have never seen this book, or heard of him in any other context.)

He covers 9 theories of the atonement, and includes summary statements about each one, for the following columns: Definition, Proponents, Scriptural Support, Object, Man's Spiritual Condition, Meaning of Christ's Death, and Value to Man. (If I could attach a file here, I would do that, as I later typed it all into a spreadsheet. I have used it in Sunday School classes several times since.)

But as I looked through each of them, I saw two things - They all contain Scriptural truth, and they all focus on an attempt to answer the How question, and basically ignore the Who, and the Why. Simply put, I say that God did it (through the death and resurrection of His son, Jesus the Christ), and He did it because he desires fellowship with His special creation - Humanity. It is about reconciliation. About that the Scripture is abundantly clear. But the How? That is basically all human philosophical 'wisdom' that is lacking Scriptural evidence. I think we gain more spiritual understanding contemplating on His desire for relationship with each of us, than trying to figure out the mechanics of it.

[barnhart]

When I was in my liberal Mennonite seminary, we spent quite a bit of time on Christus Victor, which continues to be my primary view of the atonement.

If I had to choose one to center the rest around, it would be Cristus Victor because it puts Jesus in his rightful place in relation to the powers of darkness.

[HondurasKeiser]

I’ve always preferred Christus Victor as well. I do not like J. Denny Weaver’s nonviolent atonement which denies the necessity of Christ’s death. I agree with Boot though, none of the theories are complete unto themselves and all have elements of truth to them. Rene Girard’s scapegoat theory has recently gotten my attention and I would recommend his works for an interesting take of the atoning work of Jesus.

[JohnH]

I like how Eastern and Western Catholics have found a way to hold multiple views on the atonement yet become church and accept their they are simply analogies or human ways of thinking to understand a great mystery. So with that said, I hold to both PSA and CV.

[ohio jones]

[Soloist]

I kind of view the atonement model the same way I view how the end times will happen.

It will all pan out. In the grand scheme of things, I don’t see how it will affect anything. If we hold the little saying we are saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved.

in other words as long as we’re being obedient sons and daughters, how or why does it actually matter.