Terms of Redemption:

What's the Atonement really about?

by Pastor Terry L. Reese

 

The Atonement is vicarious—Christ died on our behalf. Vicarius is a Latin term meaning “one in place of another.”

 

It is a substitutionary atonement—He became our penal substitute, bearing the wrath rightly due sinners. Our guilt was imputed to Him in such a way that He representatively bore our punishment. It was a penal substitution; God’s law has been violated, requiring punitive action.

 

Propitiation refers to the fact that in the atonement, the wrath and righteous demands of Almighty God were fully satisfied or appeased in the substitutionary death of Christ.

 

Because God is holy and righteous He cannot overlook sin.  Through the work of Jesus Christ, God is fully satisfied that His righteous standard has been met. The death of Christ was fully sufficient to meet and placate this demand.

 -------------------------------

False or Incomplete Theories regarding the Atonement

 

1. Origen (AD 185-254), an ancient interpreter, claimed that…

…Christ’s death was a ransom payment made unto Satan, who held certain rights over the captives acquired by him in the conflict, in accordance with the traditional rights of war. a.k.a., The Ransom Theory (Mk 10:45, Col. 2:15)

 

2. The Gnostics (circa, 1^st to 4^th Cent. AD) proposed that…

…Jesus wasn’t really a man, but only appeared to be. Not being genuinely human, Jesus didn’t even really die!  a.k.a., Docetic Theory (IJn 4:1-3, 2Jn 1:7).

 

3. Mohammed (AD 570-632), in the Koran, also claimed…

…that Jesus didn’t actually die upon the cross; Allah only caused it to appear that way to His enemies. Authoritative Islamic tradition (i.e., the Hadith) further teaches that it was actually Judas who died upon the cross!

 

4. Anselm (AD 1033-1109), a medieval theologian, said that…

…human sin robbed God of His honor, which necessitated some sort of satisfaction. Through His death, Christ brought honor to God, thus achieving the reward of a supra-abundant treasury of merits, which can now be passed on to His People. This teaching has been employed to bolster Rome’s teaching on Penance. a.k.a., The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory.

 

5. Abelard (AD 1079-1142), a medieval philosopher, said that...

…Christ did not actually satisfy or make payment for our sin debt, but rather, revealed the love of God through His acts of suffering. This Divine love awakens within us a reciprocal love, born out of appreciation, which in turn produces a sanctifying, ethical change within us, according to which God accepts, pardons, and justifies us. a.k.a., The Moral Influence Theory (I Jn 3:16).

 

6. Socinus (AD 1539-1604), a rationalist heretic, said that…

…Christ, in His death, simply showed us an example of faith and obedience. He did not die for anyone’s sins. His power to save is purely exemplar in nature. a.k.a., The Example (or Martyr) Theory (cf. Mt. 16:24, 1 Pet. 2:21-23).

 

7. Grotius (AD 1583-1645), a leading Arminian, taught that…

…God, as Moral Governor of the Universe, required the death of Christ in order to demonstrate the extent of His displeasure with human sin. Christ did not actually suffer the penalty of Law’s demands for our sins, but His death was even so accepted as a token payment by God, who then set aside the Law’s demands. a.k.a., the Moral Government Theory (Rm 3:21-26).

 

8. Gustaf Aulen (AD 1879-1978), a modern theologian, said…

…that the importance in Christ’s death lies in the fact that He was victorious over the powers of sin and evil; it is a sort of “Passion Play,” or drama. a.k.a., the Dramatic Theory (cf. John 16:33, Col. 2:15, I Jn 3:8).

 

9. Albert Schweitzer (AD 1875-1965), modern radical theologian…

…believed that Christ’s death was a “mistake.” Obsessed with Jewish ideas concerning the End-of-the-World, Jesus attempted to force God’s hand in bringing about the Kingdom, and was thus crushed by His own delusion. a.k.a., the Accident Theory (cf. Matt. 26:54).