Theories of Atonement

[MattY]

My take on the atonement: There is absolutely a legal element to the atonement, and it is complementary, interplaying with the other aspects of the atonement. If we do not have Christ's substitutionary atonement taking away our debt, our penalty, that we owed due to sin - the debt that HE paid - then we are still under shame and condemnation due to the legal penalty we owe, and we are not clothed in Christ's righteousness because His righteousness has not been imputed to us, and we are still in our own filthy rags. But if Christ has paid our penalty by the shedding of His blood in His death on the cross, then we can live without fear and shame. We need more than just that - and He accomplished more than that, certainly. (Perhaps there has been a tendency among evangelical PSA adherents to forget about the rest of His accomplishment). But we do not need less than that. We can't eliminate that part of what He accomplished. Christus Victor is the overarching theme of the atonement - it is the WHAT of the atonement. But it is a bit lacking when it tries to be the whole thing - yes, Christ achieved victory over Satan, but the "how" is a bit lacking. PSA is an important part of the "how".

I've heard the atonement described as a Christ-shaped mosaic. Christus Victor is the head - it is essential, it motivates and drives the rest of the body. PSA is the beating heart of the atonement - central to His work. Recapitulation is the feet - "How beautiful the feet of Him who brings good news." He lived and walked in our steps, so that we can walk in His. And moral influence is the hands of the atonement.

Penal substitution is good news. In the overall picture, from PSA, to Christus Victor, moral influence, and recapitulation, and any other aspects I might be missing, His saving work covers all we need; Jesus accomplished a perfect salvation. As He said on the cross, "It is finished."

[JayP]

Ypu cannot have it both ways. Christs work at Calvary is penal or atonement. One or the other.
One makes sense, is scriptural and in consistent with other aspects of God we know to be true.
Penal is none of those.

Frankly it’s Protestant particularly reformist thinking, not Anabaptist or Catholic.
The whole concept of penal appeals to the small minded view of God that comes from Protestant thinking.

There is no quantifying what price had to be paid. That is the point of the idea of a gulf between man and God due to sin
It is unmeasurable, not quantifiable. Someone that agrees with the use of the word penal needs to explain what putting that word in there does to our understanding, what changes in our practice because of it.

[Nomad]

My take on the atonement: There is absolutely a legal element to the atonement, and it is complementary, interplaying with the other aspects of the atonement. If we do not have Christ's substitutionary atonement taking away our debt, our penalty, that we owed due to sin - the debt that HE paid - then we are still under shame and condemnation due to the legal penalty we owe, and we are not clothed in Christ's righteousness because His righteousness has not been imputed to us, and we are still in our own filthy rags. But if Christ has paid our penalty by the shedding of His blood in His death on the cross, then we can live without fear and shame. We need more than just that - and He accomplished more than that, certainly. (Perhaps there has been a tendency among evangelical PSA adherents to forget about the rest of His accomplishment). But we do not need less than that. We can't eliminate that part of what He accomplished. Christus Victor is the overarching theme of the atonement - it is the WHAT of the atonement. But it is a bit lacking when it tries to be the whole thing - yes, Christ achieved victory over Satan, but the "how" is a bit lacking. PSA is an important part of the "how".

I've heard the atonement described as a Christ-shaped mosaic. Christus Victor is the head - it is essential, it motivates and drives the rest of the body. PSA is the beating heart of the atonement - central to His work. Recapitulation is the feet - "How beautiful the feet of Him who brings good news." He lived and walked in our steps, so that we can walk in His. And moral influence is the hands of the atonement.

Penal substitution is good news. In the overall picture, from PSA, to Christus Victor, moral influence, and recapitulation, and any other aspects I might be missing, His saving work covers all we need; Jesus accomplished a perfect salvation. As He said on the cross, "It is finished."

I agree with this statement. Jesus is a sin offering (Heb 10) and Eph 5:2 says Jesus was a "sacrifice to God". So we know who Jesus crucifixion was an offering too (His Father) and on who's behalf it was made (us). I think if we are comparing Gods wrath with how we as fallible humanity react in our childish anger, then the "penal" side of PSA sounds wrong. Our wrath is often a bit of a loose cannon and can be unreasonable or unjust. Gods wrath is always just and we are all deserving of it because of our sin. We all need Jesus sacrifice to be saved from the judgement of God which we justly deserve. I'm more fearful of being at odds with God who can judge my soul for eternity rather than in the the hands of Satan who has no power to judge my soul...

Many may think this takes the "relationship" aspect of God out of the picture and that He becomes unrelatable if there truly is a "penal" aspect in the cross. But I disagree, a father can have a disciplinary/ loving relationship with a son in combination. The PSA aspect of the cross has attributes of Gods wrath in it but it also has attributes of His love and mercy. And it shows us the ultimate cost of sin...which is death. Thinking of Gods wrath is uncomfortable...but its also undeniably a biblical aspect of Gods character.

[Nomad]

Ypu cannot have it both ways. Christs work at Calvary is penal or atonement. One or the other.
One makes sense, is scriptural and in consistent with other aspects of God we know to be true.
Penal is none of those.

Frankly it’s Protestant particularly reformist thinking, not Anabaptist or Catholic.
The whole concept of penal appeals to the small minded view of God that comes from Protestant thinking.

There is no quantifying what price had to be paid. That is the point of the idea of a gulf between man and God due to sin
It is unmeasurable, not quantifiable. Someone that agrees with the use of the word penal needs to explain what putting that word in there does to our understanding, what changes in our practice because of it.

While I've been Anabaptist all my life...I'm not really overly concerned about whether my belief system or identification fits into the classification of what one labels as "Anabaptist". I do greatly respect the history of Anabaptism, and when asked by others, thats the classification I give for myself. But "Anabaptist" don't fit into the theological dogmatism of the Catholic vs. Protestant debates. In the past, we did't usually alienate others who hold to different sides of the debates we have chosen nor do we usually allow a specific theology box become our identity. You will find a wide variety of beliefs in the church I attend...whether its prophecy, soteriology, atonement, etc...I would say this is one thing that sets us apart from Catholicism and Protestantism. That and (though this appears to be changing) we don't usually have a hair trigger finger on the word "heresy". We do have some things we are unified on...but in the case of atonement its pretty diverse...and I dont mind it being that way as long as we aren't constantly bickering about it.

[Ernie]

My take on the atonement: There is absolutely a legal element to the atonement, and it is complementary, interplaying with the other aspects of the atonement. If we do not have Christ's substitutionary atonement taking away our debt, our penalty, that we owed due to sin - the debt that HE paid - then we are still under shame and condemnation due to the legal penalty we owe, and we are not clothed in Christ's righteousness because His righteousness has not been imputed to us, and we are still in our own filthy rags. But if Christ has paid our penalty by the shedding of His blood in His death on the cross, then we can live without fear and shame. We need more than just that - and He accomplished more than that, certainly. (Perhaps there has been a tendency among evangelical PSA adherents to forget about the rest of His accomplishment). But we do not need less than that. We can't eliminate that part of what He accomplished. Christus Victor is the overarching theme of the atonement - it is the WHAT of the atonement. But it is a bit lacking when it tries to be the whole thing - yes, Christ achieved victory over Satan, but the "how" is a bit lacking. PSA is an important part of the "how".

I've heard the atonement described as a Christ-shaped mosaic. Christus Victor is the head - it is essential, it motivates and drives the rest of the body. PSA is the beating heart of the atonement - central to His work. Recapitulation is the feet - "How beautiful the feet of Him who brings good news." He lived and walked in our steps, so that we can walk in His. And moral influence is the hands of the atonement.

Penal substitution is good news. In the overall picture, from PSA, to Christus Victor, moral influence, and recapitulation, and any other aspects I might be missing, His saving work covers all we need; Jesus accomplished a perfect salvation. As He said on the cross, "It is finished."

There are many comments I could make about this post but I will only comment on the filthy rags part.
The context for filthy rags has to do with emptiness in religious rituals when they are divorced from true repentance. It does not refer to God or Christ's righteousness being imputed.
Most people who refer to this (folks influenced by Protestant thought) haven't thought much about the context of the phrase that they use freely when speaking of things related to salvation and the Gospel.
Paul says that works done in the right spirit are a sweet-smelling savor to God.
I feel sorry for the millions of listeners in Protestant and Protestant influenced settings who don't study the word deeply for themselves, and who hear this filthy rags stuff, and assume that good works are not* something to be esteemed. Such folks don't get to experience the favor that God intends for them to experience as they do the works of God and live lives that are pleasing to Him.

[* not added by Mods at request of poster.]

[cmbl]

I do not currently have my copy of Keeping Salvation Ethical by J. Denny Weaver (I have lent it out), but in that book he studies a handful of 19th century Amish and Mennonite authors (including Jacob Stauffer of the Stauffer Mennonites, David Beiler of the Old Order Amish, Heinrich Egly, a Wiebe of the Russian Mennonites, C.H. Wedel, and perhaps a couple others). Where his analysis winds up is that most of these authors basically took or assumed a satisfaction view of the atonement, but that it can be misleading to talk of their view of the atonement without making the connections that they all made to living a Christian life. Atonement and Christian ethics were related in all their minds. Weaver notes a difference between this linking that the pre-Fundamentalist Mennonites made and a more separated, compartmentalized, two-track mindset of Daniel Kauffman's Doctrines of the Bible.

(Note: J. Denny Weaver himself does not believe the way these men believed - he argues for a "historicized Christus Victor" view at the end of this book and in other places for a "Nonviolent Atonement" which has been mentioned upthread as a liberal view to avoid. I concur with that assessment of Weaver's view. That said, the fact that his view differs from the men he writes about if anything strengthens the claim that they did actually believe how he describes them: he's not reading his view into the past.)

[cmbl]

What Weaver identified in the 19th-century Amish and Mennonites is an echo of early Anabaptist views regarding the atonement. Robert Friedmann writes in The Theology of Anabaptism,

In the entire Anabaptist tract literature, we encounter only one tract: Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, anonymous to be sure (but possibly written by Sattler), and of a rather early date (before 1530). Strictly speaking, this tract typically does not really discuss the subject of "atonement" or the satisfaction of Christ. It rather deals with the more existential question: To whom may the blessings of the atonement apply? Who is entitled to claim that Christ "died for Him," and what does it mean to the believer that Christ, according to Paul, "is the reconciliation of the world?" To this, the unknown author gives the answer that the "satisfaction" is efficacious only for those who, in faith, live the Christian life (meaning in self-denial, good works, and cross-bearing), and who expose themselves to suffering in the world. In brief, the faith which may hope for salvation through atonement must be a tested or tried faith...

How then did Christ make satisfaction ("do enough") for our sins? Answer: [He did enough] not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world...insofar as they believe on Him and follow Him according to the demands of faith... Repentance is not apart from works, yea not apart from love...Only such an anointed faith...is reckoned for righteousness.

[Neto]

What Weaver identified in the 19th-century Amish and Mennonites is an echo of early Anabaptist views regarding the atonement. Robert Friedmann writes in The Theology of Anabaptism,

In the entire Anabaptist tract literature, we encounter only one tract: Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ, anonymous to be sure (but possibly written by Sattler), and of a rather early date (before 1530). Strictly speaking, this tract typically does not really discuss the subject of "atonement" or the satisfaction of Christ. It rather deals with the more existential question: To whom may the blessings of the atonement apply? Who is entitled to claim that Christ "died for Him," and what does it mean to the believer that Christ, according to Paul, "is the reconciliation of the world?" To this, the unknown author gives the answer that the "satisfaction" is efficacious only for those who, in faith, live the Christian life (meaning in self-denial, good works, and cross-bearing), and who expose themselves to suffering in the world. In brief, the faith which may hope for salvation through atonement must be a tested or tried faith...

How then did Christ make satisfaction ("do enough") for our sins? Answer: [He did enough] not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world...insofar as they believe on Him and follow Him according to the demands of faith... Repentance is not apart from works, yea not apart from love...Only such an anointed faith...is reckoned for righteousness.

I like the emphasis of this quotation. It addition to showing in whom we may have assurance, it "gives us our marching orders" for how to live in response, and to whom we should take the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection - what it can mean for them as well.

[joshuabgood]

I guess I, having both Nonviolemt Atonement, and Nonviolent God, am a bit more sympathetic to J Denny Weaver than some. I think he makes a number of points well.worth considering seriously .

[barnhart]

Thinking further, one aspect of isolating PSA as the primary atonement that doesn't appeal to me is the storyline seems different from Jesus own telling and from the general story of the Bible where God comes near to establish relationship with man. PSA seems about God doing something for his own purpose, not so much to create relationship.