Little Essay on Atonement

Man, Sin, & Salvation
Post Reply
User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Little Essay on Atonement

Post by mattrose » Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:57 pm

I tried to write a little essay on atonement theology for my congregations. It's difficult to keep things simple and still communicate very deep theological paradigms. I used the Unholy Trinity of Sin, Satan, System as an organizing paradigm. Feel free to provide feedback.

A Simple Summary of
Complex Atonement Theories

Quite obviously, there is something not quite right with reality (to put it mildly). Indeed, there are numerous problems. Satan and humans are in rebellion against God and the world that God created is suffering as a result. How has God responded to this rebellion and brokenness? Certainly God’s response was not to give up on creation. Instead, God has taken drastic steps to reconcile rebellious humanity to their original purpose.

This reconciliation of humanity is accomplished through the good news of Jesus Christ and, most especially, through His death on the cross. Through Jesus’ death, we can be ‘at-one-with’ God again. But how does atonement work? How does the death of Jesus solve the problem of SIN, SATAN, and the broken SYSTEMS of this world? Below you’ll find some of the leading theories of atonement… simply put.

The SIN Problem
Fallen humans sin. Sin is not part of God’s original intention for human beings. Something had to be done to eliminate sin from God’s people. The following theories attempt to explain how Jesus solves the sin problem.

Sacrifice
Under the Old Covenant, there was a sacrificial system that included a way to get rid of sin. Sins could be transferred (symbolically) from a representative human to an animal which would then be slaughtered. Its blood brought new life to the sinning community. Under the New Covenant, Jesus offers himself as the once-for-all, final sacrifice (this is emphasized in Hebrews). Our sins are dealt with by being transferred to Jesus and his blood brings new life to his people.

Satisfaction
About 1,000 years after Hebrews was written, Anselm considered a slightly different way that Jesus addresses the sin problem. For Anselm, human sin dishonored God. It put God in the awkward position of needing to satisfy justice while simultaneously extending loving mercy. God’s honor is satisfied by Christ’s offering.

Penal Substitution
About 500 years after Anselm, another variation of handling the sin problem became popular. Many of the Protestant Reformers taught that sin was an offense to God which demanded punishment (death). Gracefully, God offered His own Son to bear that punishment. Jesus served as our substitute and suffered the penalty for sin.


The SATAN Problem
Satan is a rebellious spiritual creature who is called, in Scripture, the ‘god of this world’ and the ‘ruler of this age.’ Something had to be done to end his reign. The following theories attempt to explain how Jesus solves the Satan problem.

Christus-Victor
For the first 1,000 years of church history, it seems the primary way of talking about how the atonement works was to speak of it as a military victory of sorts. Jesus conquered Satan, Sin & Death. Christ proved victorious. Christians are no longer under the rule of Satan. Sin no longer reigns in them. They no longer need to fear death because they will share in Jesus’ resurrection life. This motif was brought back to prominence in the 20th century by Gustaf Aulen.

Ransom
A particularly important word for the early church in understanding Christ’s victory was the word ‘ransom’. The idea here is that Satan, in a sense, owned the world and its people. He was their ruler. If God wanted the world and humanity back, He’d have to pay a ransom price. The price demanded by Satan was Jesus. The Father and Son agreed to these terms. But Satan had made a foolish exchange, for he had no ability to keep Jesus’ captive. Satan lost his prisoners and his ransom price (Jesus). The power of death had lost its sting.


The SYSTEM Problem
The world is broken. It is run by systems which are fed by sin and led by Satan. Something had to be done to begin the reparation of this world. The following theories attempt to explain how Jesus solves the System problem.

Recapitulation
Some of the earliest writers on atonement spoke of Jesus un-doing the damage caused by Adam and re-doing humanity the way it was meant to be. Whereas Adam sinned, Jesus was sinless. Whereas Adam died and stayed dead, Jesus died and rose again. We are given two paths to choose from: The path of Adam (sin and death) and the path of Jesus (righteousness and life). We choose whether to be ‘in Adam’ or ‘in Christ’. Those who are ‘in Christ’ are the beginning of the new world… the new system. Christ took on flesh so that the fleshly realm might be restored.

Moral Magnet
Shortly after Anselm, Peter Abelard objected to both Christus-Victor and Satisfaction theories. According to Abelard, Jesus didn’t need to die in order for God to forgive sinners. And Jesus didn’t need to die in order to defeat Satan. Instead, Jesus died to demonstrate the amazing love of God. Dying on the cross was God’s way of showing how far He’d go to reach us. This love draws us in, like a magnet. We become lovers and this changes the world (and systems) one lover at a time.

------------------
As you can see, there are a lot of different ways to think of the atonement. Each of these perspectives contains truth. Each way of looking at atonement can be stretched so far as to produce theological error or neglected too often so as to produce theological anemia. We do not necessarily need to choose between them. Since the problem is tri-fold (Sin, Satan, Systems), it makes sense that the solutions will be manifold as well.

I recommend that the church familiarize itself with these varied ways of looking at the atonement question (how does God solve the problems that we face?). We can be confident that Jesus is the solution even as we learn exactly how He solved and solves the complex problems of Sin, Satan, and Systems.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Little Essay on Atonement

Post by Paidion » Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:45 pm

The way I see Jesus' purpose in dying for our benefit ("υπερ"—for the benefit of, not "αντι"—in the place of) is to have made available God's enabling grace to overcome wrongdoing and to live consistently righteous lives. I don't understand the logistics of this, but the FACT of it is stated by Paul in Titus, Chapter 2:

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Little Essay on Atonement

Post by steve » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:17 pm

What a helpful summary, Matt! Thanks for posting it!

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Little Essay on Atonement

Post by Homer » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:26 am

Matt,

I agree with what Steve said. The only thing I think you might want to say differently was a closing comment:
even as we learn exactly how He solved and solves the complex problems of Sin, Satan, and Systems.
It doesn't seem to me that we will ever be able to "learn exactly how".

Last night on "Socrates in the City" Eric Metaxas' guest commented that we will never be able to fully comprehend or understand God and that if we could He would be the same as our little minds and not worth believing in.

Isaiah 55:8-9 (NASB)
8
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
9
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Little Essay on Atonement

Post by Paidion » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:28 am

Yes, that summary was great, Matt!

Here is George MacDonald's view of penal substitution. I would appreciate learning everyone's thoughts on this:
George MacDonald wrote:They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.
—Unspoken Sermons III, Righteousness
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Little Essay on Atonement

Post by mattrose » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:33 am

Homer wrote:Matt,

I agree with what Steve said. The only thing I think you might want to say differently was a closing comment:
even as we learn exactly how He solved and solves the complex problems of Sin, Satan, and Systems.
It doesn't seem to me that we will ever be able to "learn exactly how".
Good point. My intention was to encourage continual learning, not to anticipate some sort of arrival at the whole truth.

So I should have said "Even as we continue to learn how..."

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Little Essay on Atonement

Post by mattrose » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:49 am

Paidion wrote:Yes, that summary was great, Matt!

Here is George MacDonald's view of penal substitution. I would appreciate learning everyone's thoughts on this:
George MacDonald wrote:They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.
—Unspoken Sermons III, Righteousness
Personally, I don't like the traditional 'penal substitution' view either and would have some of the same critiques as MacDonald.

But I think the terms themselves are redeemable.

"Penal" is about penalty/punishment. Did Jesus experience punishment on the cross. Absolutely. He was punished by the Roman Government. He suffered a penalty enacted by their system. What I'm not on board with is the idea of a vindictive God who is in need of punishing someone(s) for sin and is willing to pour out that punishment on his son to appease his wrath. I think that is largely the product of some of the legal-minded Protestant Reformers taking Anselm's already slightly erring trajectory further off course.

Was Jesus a "substitute"? I don't think that's the BEST term. Jesus didn't die instead of us (we still die), but on our behalf and for our benefit (as you said). A better term, I think, would be "representative". An athlete might have a "substitute" (a player that goes in for him when he can't perform well any more) and a representative (an agent that helps him get a new contract). Jesus is a "substitute" for us in one sense. We don't do well with death. It destroys us. But Jesus subs in for us and powers through death. He allows us to "Check back into the game" (so to speak) at the point of resurrection. But more broadly, Jesus is more of a representing agent than a substitute. We don't "check out" and avoid death. We begin to live "in Him" and therefore experience the benefits of His way of dying (which includes resurrecting).

So there's a sense in which the term "Penal substitution" is redeemable. Jesus substituted in for us to experience a representative punishment and death which allows us to experience His eternal life. He experienced our condemnation so we could experience His glorification.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Little Essay on Atonement

Post by Paidion » Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:04 pm

Thank you for those thoughts, Matt. I appreciate very much the fact that you took the time to express them.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Anthropology, Hamartiology, Soteriology”