Here I summarize seven atonement theories.

Johann

Well-known member
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m more of a hybrid with victor/ scapegoat concepts. :)
Here is a book I would recommend you read-The History of Christian doctrines by Louis Berkhof.

For me, personally, I hold to Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Listen to



21:11 / 50:14

Answering Objections to the Atonement with Dr. William Lane Craig.

Shalom brother.
J.
 
Here is a book I would recommend you read-The History of Christian doctrines by Louis Berkhof.

For me, personally, I hold to Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Listen to



21:11 / 50:14

Answering Objections to the Atonement with Dr. William Lane Craig.

Shalom brother.
J.
Yes I held to PSA for 40 years. Now I reject it as you read in my paper for the reasons stated. I believe in ransom, Passover , expiation, forgiveness, victor and some of the scapegoat mentioned in the video . But reject the penal aspect and God needing satisfaction and to be appeased. God atoned for man. God has no needs, we were the one with the needs and God provided it with Christs sacrifice for our sins. He is our substitute and made us right with God. Just like God did with Adam by providing a covering for his sin. God did the same with covering us through and with Christ.
 
Yes I held to PSA for 40 years. Now I reject it as you read in my paper for the reasons stated. I believe in ransom, Passover , expiation, forgiveness, victor and some of the scapegoat mentioned in the video . But reject the penal aspect and God needing satisfaction and to be appeased. God atoned for man. God has no needs, we were the one with the needs and God provided it with Christs sacrifice for our sins. He is our substitute and made us right with God. Just like God did with Adam by providing a covering for his sin. God did the same with covering us through and with Christ.
The average Christian don't know what we are talking about here-I said-Listen to Dr. William Lane Craig on the video clip posted-and the book I recommended.


I. The Doctrine of the Atonement from Anselm to the
Reformation
The Doctrine of the Atonement in the Period of the
Reformation
THE REFORMERS IMPROVING ON THE DOCTRINE OF
ANSELM. There is substantial agreement between the Reformers
and Anselm. Both maintain the objective nature of the atonement
and both regard it as a necessity. They differed, however, as to the
nature of this necessity. Anselm speaks of this as absolute, while
some of the Reformers regard it as relative or hypothetical.
Speaking
of the requirement that the Mediator should be both God and man,
Calvin says: "If the necessity be inquired into (the very question of
Anselm), it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but
flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of mankind
depended. What was best for us, our most merciful Father
determined." Institutes II. 12. 1. They are all agreed, however, that
the atonement through the sufferings and death of Christ is most in
harmony with divine wisdom and highly appropriate.
And it is
certainly unfair to say that Calvin, like Duns Scotus, makes the
atonement dependent on the arbitrary will of God. He knows of no
indeterminate will in God, but only of a will that is determined by the
whole complex of His attributes, and duly emphasizes the fact that
the atonement in Christ fully satisfies the justice of God-
In several points the doctrine of the atonement, as developed by the
Reformers, is superior to its Anselmian form.

While Anselm regards
sin primarily as an infringement on the honour of God, the
Reformers look upon it first of all as transgression of the law of God
and therefore as guilt rather than as an insult.


And while the former
views the atonement in the death of Christ as a superabundant gift to
God in vindication of His honour, the latter think of it as a penal
sacrifice to satisfy the justice of God.


Thus the atonement is lifted out
of the sphere of private rights into that of public law.
This means that the Reformers also rejected the Anselmian
alternative "satisfaction or punishment", and pointed out that the
one does not exclude the other, but that the satisfaction rendered
through the sacrifice of Christ was satisfaction through punishment.
In other words, they stressed the fact that the sufferings of Christ

were penal and vicarious.

--a sample of the book.

For me it is sad so many don't read what the Church fathers wrote and the Reformers-but a radical departure FROM them-hence so many sects of Protestants.

Although the language of vicarious satisfaction to describe the atonement is more prevalent among evangelicals today, a somewhat different metaphor to describe elements of Christ’s atoning work has come to be called the Christus Victor view, which is Latin for “Christ the Victor.” This view, which characterizes much of the language of the New Testament and early church fathers like Irenaeus, brings out the themes of the victory of God in Christ over the evil powers of the world, mainly Satan. By defeating the evil powers that oppose God, Jesus Christ rescued his people from Satan and established himself as the rightful king of the cosmos. This view is not exclusive to the penal substitutionary view, as can be seen by the presence of both in the writings of figures such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. This view was brought into discussion again in contemporary times by Gustaf Aulén, an early-20th century Swedish theologian.

But it is your opinion-and if I disagree-that should not estrange us.
J.
 
The average Christian don't know what we are talking about here-I said-Listen to Dr. William Lane Craig on the video clip posted-and the book I recommended.


I. The Doctrine of the Atonement from Anselm to the
Reformation
The Doctrine of the Atonement in the Period of the
Reformation
THE REFORMERS IMPROVING ON THE DOCTRINE OF
ANSELM. There is substantial agreement between the Reformers
and Anselm. Both maintain the objective nature of the atonement
and both regard it as a necessity. They differed, however, as to the
nature of this necessity. Anselm speaks of this as absolute, while
some of the Reformers regard it as relative or hypothetical.
Speaking
of the requirement that the Mediator should be both God and man,
Calvin says: "If the necessity be inquired into (the very question of
Anselm), it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but
flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of mankind
depended. What was best for us, our most merciful Father
determined." Institutes II. 12. 1. They are all agreed, however, that
the atonement through the sufferings and death of Christ is most in
harmony with divine wisdom and highly appropriate.
And it is
certainly unfair to say that Calvin, like Duns Scotus, makes the
atonement dependent on the arbitrary will of God. He knows of no
indeterminate will in God, but only of a will that is determined by the
whole complex of His attributes, and duly emphasizes the fact that
the atonement in Christ fully satisfies the justice of God-
In several points the doctrine of the atonement, as developed by the
Reformers, is superior to its Anselmian form.

While Anselm regards
sin primarily as an infringement on the honour of God, the
Reformers look upon it first of all as transgression of the law of God
and therefore as guilt rather than as an insult.

And while the former
views the atonement in the death of Christ as a superabundant gift to
God in vindication of His honour, the latter think of it as a penal
sacrifice to satisfy the justice of God.


Thus the atonement is lifted out
of the sphere of private rights into that of public law.
This means that the Reformers also rejected the Anselmian
alternative "satisfaction or punishment", and pointed out that the
one does not exclude the other, but that the satisfaction rendered
through the sacrifice of Christ was satisfaction through punishment.
In other words, they stressed the fact that the sufferings of Christ

were penal and vicarious.

--a sample of the book.

For me it is sad so many don't read what the Church fathers wrote and the Reformers-but a radical departure FROM them-hence so many sects of Protestants.

Although the language of vicarious satisfaction to describe the atonement is more prevalent among evangelicals today, a somewhat different metaphor to describe elements of Christ’s atoning work has come to be called the Christus Victor view, which is Latin for “Christ the Victor.” This view, which characterizes much of the language of the New Testament and early church fathers like Irenaeus, brings out the themes of the victory of God in Christ over the evil powers of the world, mainly Satan. By defeating the evil powers that oppose God, Jesus Christ rescued his people from Satan and established himself as the rightful king of the cosmos. This view is not exclusive to the penal substitutionary view, as can be seen by the presence of both in the writings of figures such as Martin Luther and John Calvin. This view was brought into discussion again in contemporary times by Gustaf Aulén, an early-20th century Swedish theologian.

But it is your opinion-and if I disagree-that should not estrange us.
J.
I have the book and I’ve listened to Craig . I have his books too :)
 
Then you should know William is all for PSA.
I do and I have lots of books by Calvinist Theologians in my library and several systematic theological works that are reformed too. I just recently over the past couple of years started collecting Arminian and non reformed books, sources, theological works etc …
 
I do and I have lots of books by Calvinist Theologians in my library and several systematic theological works that are reformed too. I just recently over the past couple of years started collecting Arminian and non reformed books, sources, theological works etc …
Edit Admin / 1 video per page.

William Lane Craig Reacts to the Progressive Christian View of the Atonement

Then it would appear you have departed from Dr. William Lane Craig-listen to this clip.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
William Lane Craig Reacts to the Progressive Christian View of the Atonement

Then it would appear you have departed from Dr. William Lane Craig-listen to this clip.
To be honest-I have a copy of William's expository hermeneutical approach on atonement.
A must read for the ordinary Christian.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since God is immutable and self sufficient, God has no needs.

God doesn’t need to be appeased, satisfied or reconciled to us. We are the recipients of His grace, mercy , love and provision made possible via the atonement of Christ which expiates not propitiates.

The atonement boils down to a proper understanding of Gods nature and character. PSA is a direct assault on His character in the same way double predestination and tulip are on His Good character and nature.

hope this helps !!!
 
Since God is immutable and self sufficient, God has no needs.

God doesn’t need to be appeased, satisfied or reconciled to us. We are the recipients of His grace, mercy , love and provision made possible via the atonement of Christ which expiates not propitiates.

The atonement boils down to a proper understanding of Gods nature and character. PSA is a direct assault on His character in the same way double predestination and tulip are on His Good character and nature.

hope this helps !!!
Here is your view.



Edited For Continual rule violation Of large amount of copy and paste

Excerpt from the book Atonement from William Graig.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2. Misrepresenting the church fathers. Aulén misconstrues what the church fathers taught. First, they rarely reflect consciously on the meaning and workings of the atonement. They did not develop a ‘theory’ of the atonement. Aulén systematizes what they did not systematize. (He admits this, but only in the final section of his book, page 158.) Second, the church fathers have a broad view of the atonement; their statements include various themes, images, and ideas. There certainly is a strong theme (not theory) of victory over Satan, but it is not the only theme. They cannot be made to fit any single model or theory of the atonement (cf. Crisp 2020: 45).

The remarks of the Fathers on the atonement tend to reflect the multiplicity and diversity of the NT motifs concerning the atonement that the Fathers had inherited from the biblical authors. Hence, it would be inappropriate to ascribe to the Church Fathers any unified or developed theory of the atonement. All the NT motifs concerning atonement – sacrifice, substitutionary punishment, ransom, satisfaction, and so on – may be found in their pages. (Craig 2020: 107)

The notion that the Fathers were singularly committed to a Christus Victor theory of the atonement is a popular misimpression generated by the secondary literature. (Ibid.: 123)
 
Penal is found where in the ECFs ?


Thought you said you have read William's book?
An aside-do you hold to Christos Victor-or Moral Government?

1.1.2.1 Propitiatory Sacrifices
At least some of the OT sacrifices were clearly propitiatory.


A premier example is the sacrifice of the Passover lamb. This
sacrifice was not originally instituted for the purpose of expiation;
rather, the blood of the lamb smeared on the doorframes of
Israelite homes served to shelter them as God’s judgment swept
over Egypt (Exod 12.13).

Had they not offered the sacrifices, God’s
deadly judgment would have fallen on the Israelites, as well.

Propitiation is also in view in the various priestly sacrifices
offered in the Tabernacle (and later, in the Temple). The careful
regulations concerning the sacrificial offerings are to be understood against the background of God’s striking down Aaron’s sons
for their unlawful offering of sacrifices in the Tabernacle precincts

4 A popular account may be found in Morris (1983, ch. 2). For detailed, scholarly
discussion, see Milgrom (1991, pp. 133–72). We have little knowledge of sacrifices outside the Levitical system. The so-called burnt offering seems to have
existed prior to its incorporation into the Levitical sacrificial system and was
offered both to propitiate God (Gen 8.21) and to expiate sin (Job 1.5; 42.8)
10 Elements in the Philosophy of Religion

of use,

available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108558020

(Lev 10.1–2; 16.1). God was conceived to be specially present in the
innermost sanctum of the Tabernacle, which therefore had to be
approached with utmost care. It was a dangerous business to have
a holy God dwelling in the midst of a sinful and impure people, as
we see in God’s warning to the people of Israel: “You are a stiffnecked people; if for a single moment I should go up among you,
I would consume you” (Exod 33.5).

The sacrificial system functioned to facilitate the juxtaposition of the holy and the unholy.
It did this, not merely by purging the Tabernacle and its paraphernalia of impurity, but also by propitiating God and so averting His
wrath upon the people.

The roasting of the sacrificial animals, in
particular, is repeatedly said to produce “a pleasing odor to the
LORD” (e.g., Lev 1.9), which implies that the sacrifices helped to
cultivate God’s favor (cf. Gen 8.21).



1.1.2.2 Expiatory Sacrifices

Certain OT sacrifices also served an expiatory function. In the
priestly system of sacrifices, the sacrificial offerings served to
remove ceremonial impurity and/or moral guilt.5

Some commentators have overemphasized the function of the sacrifices in purifying the Tabernacle and its sacred objects to the neglect of the
sacrifices’ role in cleansing the people themselves of guilt and
impurity.


Reducing the function of the sacrifices to the cleansing
of objects alone is implausible and fails to do justice to the biblical
text.

For purging objects of impurity while leaving the worshippers
themselves guilty and unclean would fail to address the root of the
problem. Moreover, the text repeatedly promises, “the priest shall
make atonement on your behalf for the sin that you have

5 Three broad categories of sin were recognized: unintentional sins, intentional
sins short of apostasy, and intentional sins of apostasy. The Levitical personal
sacrifices availed for expiation of sins only of the first two types; persons
committing “high-handed” sins were to be cut off from the people, unless
through the intercession of a mediator (such as Moses) God should pardon
them (Sklar 2015). The fact that sins could be thus pardoned without sacrifice
suggests already that the animal sacrifices served a ritual or symbolic function
(Heb 10.1–4).

Excerpt from William--
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ἱλαστήριον
hilastērion
hil-as-tay'-ree-on
Neuter of a derivative of G2433; an expiatory (place or thing), that is, (concretely) an atoning victim, or (specifically) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple): - mercyseat, propitiation.

LXX related word(s)
H3727 kapporet
H5835 azarah

Thayer Definition:
1) relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation
1a) used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory
1b) an expiatory sacrifice
1c) a expiatory victim
Part of Speech: noun neuter

6 For an overview of the debate, see Bailey (forthcoming). It is not disputed that
we find quite different meanings of hilastērion in the LXX and in extra-biblical
Greek literature, including the literature of Hellenistic Judaism. What is disputed is which is the relevant meaning of the word as used by Paul on this one
occasion. The predominant meaning in extra-biblical literature is “propitiation”
or “propitiatory offering.” Especially noteworthy are the deaths of the
Maccabean martyrs, which allayed God’s wrath upon Israel (2 Macc 7.38),
and thus served as “a propitiatory offering” (4 Macc 17.22 codex S; cf. Sibylline
Oracles 3.625–28, where God is propitiated by the sacrifice of hundreds of bulls
and lambs). This case belies any claims that hilastēria had to be concrete,
inanimate objects. The LXX, on the other hand, uses hilastērion to refer to the
kapporet or lid of the ark of the covenant, where the blood of the Yom Kippur
sacrifice was splashed, or, more widely, to altar faces where sacrificial blood was
smeared (Ezek 43.14, 17, 20; Amos 9.1). On this interpretation Christ is the locus
of atonement for sin.
 
The atonement is not the only thing we must believe in order to be saved, but it is certainly among the necessary truths for Christian salvation. Christ's atoning work was done at the cross.

The apostle John expressed his understanding of the atonement: “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). To receive eternal life, we must believe that Jesus is the Christ (the Greek word for the Hebrew Messiah)—we might give the word Savior as an equivalent—and that he is the Son of God.

The most important things about Christianity is that: “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). Jesus’ burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection are proofs of essential truths “of first importance” for Christians.
 
The atonement is not the only thing we must believe in order to be saved, but it is certainly among the necessary truths for Christian salvation. Christ's atoning work was done at the cross.

The apostle John expressed his understanding of the atonement: “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). To receive eternal life, we must believe that Jesus is the Christ (the Greek word for the Hebrew Messiah)—we might give the word Savior as an equivalent—and that he is the Son of God.

The most important things about Christianity is that: “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). Jesus’ burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection are proofs of essential truths “of first importance” for Christians.
Gospel 101.
 
I viewed this video up until Dr. Craig's 3rd faulty statement and then I had to stop. At that point he was promoting Vicarious Liability. How in the world would Jesus be vicarious liable for our faults? This warps the mind. I heard enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom