My Perceptive Remarks On The Doctrine Of The Atonement

Atonement – Is (A Hebrew word that literally means “to cover over” or “make propitiation) The aspect of the work of Christ, particularly in the death, that makes possible the restoration of fellowship between God and man. The doctrine of the atonement states that Christ died and atoned for the sins of the elect. The core meaning of the atonement, for the Christian, is the satisfaction of a demand for justice. The doctrine of the atonement has been explained from several different perspectives: (Murphy 2009).

Ransom Theory – Says Christ was given by God as a ransom to Satan in order to cancel the debt Satan had on man. This theory was also taught by Augustine. This is a false view of the atonement according to classical Reformed theology. (Murphy 2009).

My Perceptive Remarks on “Ransom Theory”:
According to my religious experience the “Ransom Theory” merges with my understanding of the “Atonement.” In (Gen. 3) Satan tempted Eve and succeeded in getting her to sin. Yet, God turned Satan’s victory into defeat when Jesus rose from the dead. Thus, death is no longer a source of dread or fear. Christ overcame it, and one day we will also. God allowed his Son to die as a ransom, just so God could offer us pardon and “Salvation”. God forgives all the sin we have committed or will ever commit, for this I am grateful. (Tyndale House
Publishers and Wycliffe Bible Translators 2012).

Satisfaction Theory - A theory of the atonement in scholastic theology: according to the requirements of divine justice, God and humankind could not be reconciled until human guilt was punished or acceptable satisfaction was made and Christ made such satisfaction by freely and vicariously suffering and dying. (Merriam Webster Editors 2017).

My Perceptive Remarks on “Satisfaction Theory”.
According to my religious experience the “Satisfaction Theory” merges with my understanding of the “Atonement,”also. However, various religions have different rituals, beliefs and understandings of the atonement, just as it were centuries ago, when theologians such as St. Anselm of Cantebury, St.Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin expressed their views and disagreements regarding the atonement.

In addition, still today, as with pretty much everything, some oppose and or favor various views of the atonement. I find it difficult to mention the “Satisfaction Theory” without mentioning these (3) Theologians who’s view nonetheless, does not merge with my religious understanding of the atonement, but worth mentioning; as follows:

Anselm, the first to articulated the satisfaction view stated that humanity owe God a debt of “Justice” and “Honor.” And the person that does not give “Honor” to God, owes God, and that person is considered to have committed a sin. Therefore the “Ransom” would sacrifice for the debt, and should be paid to God only. It was also mentioned in (Terrell’s Lecture 2017) that Anselm believed that love and merit have no relationship with each other, “you get it anyhow.”

Whereas, Aquinas believed that it wasn’t the death alone that satisfied the penalty owed for inherited and future sins, it was Christ’s “Passion,” also. And that Christ’s death in the atonement is more than enough to have made up for inherited and future sins of the entire world. Aquinas also believed that we should make up for our own sins? Hmmmm, thank God for “Passion”!

Nevertheless, Calvin wanted to solve the issue according to scripture, he did not believe that Christ’s dying paid the penalty for humanities sins as a whole, he believed the penalties for sins were individually paid only for those that were saved, and for those that God had chosen to be saved, prior to Christ’s death at the crucifixion.

Moral Influence Theory – Refers to Jesus and the self giving love that Jesus provides. It states that Jesus died a martyr as a victim of unjust people. This view does not reflect cosmic full satisfaction. This is a false view of the atonement according to classical Reformed theology. (Murphy 2009).

My Perceptive Remarks on “Moral Influence Theory.”
Nevertheless, according to my religious experience the “Moral Influence Theory” merges with my understanding of the “Atonement,” for the reason that this theory also believes that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity according to (Revolvy 2017), by way of teaching and examples. It is the oldest view of the atonement in Christian theology, morally it teaches us how much God loves us. Christ’s death by example, teaches us how we should live.

Substitutionary Atonement – Teaches that the priestly work of Christ removes God’s anger and wrath by the covering over of our sins through the Substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ to God, thus securing acceptance for the elect. This is the view of the atonement according to orthodox Reformed theologians. (Murphy 2009).

My Perceptive Remarks on “Substitutionary Atonement”:
According to (Tyndale House Publishers and Wycliffe Bible Translators 2012), these methods of sacrifice were God’s Old Testament way for people to ask forgiveness for their sins.
Back in those days the animal took the sinner’s place and paid the penalty for sin, and the animal’s death represented one life given so that another life could be saved. But after Christ’s death, no more sacrifices were needed. God took our punishment and animal sacrifice was no longer required. Now any person can be freed from the penalty of sin by simply believing in Jesus, acknowledging Jesus’ sacrifice in exchange, and accepting the forgiveness Jesus
offers.

According to my religious experience “Substitutionary Atonement Theory” does not merge today with my understanding of the mission of Jesus’s life and death.