Doctrine of
Atonement
Classical
theories of Atonement and Evaluation
The English word ‘atonement’ is
derived from the word ‘at-one-ment,’ to make two parties at one, to reconcile
two parties one to another. It means essentially reconciliation. The phrase, ‘to atone for’ means the undertaking of a
course of action designed to undo the consequences of a wrong act with a view
to restoration of relationship broken by the wrong act. The Hebrew root is Kaphar-
in New Testament καταλαγε ‘reconciliation’.
1.
Satisfaction/ Juridical Theory (The Atonement as Compensation to the Father)
Satisfaction
theories start from the idea that human sin constitutes a grave offense against
God, the magnitude of which renders forgiveness and reconciliation morally
impossible unless something is done either to satisfy the demands of justice or
to compensate God for the wrong done to him. These theories go on to note that
human beings are absolutely incapable on their own of compensating God for the
wrong they have done to him, and that the only way for them to satisfy the
demands of justice is to suffer death and eternal separation from God. Thus, in
order to avoid this fate, they are in dire need of help. Christ, through his
death (and, on some versions, through his sinless life as well) has provided
that help. The different versions of the satisfaction theory are differentiated
by their claims about what sort of help the work of Christ has provided.
This
theory was propounded by St. Anselm in the 11th
century(1033-1109). He calls it ‘debt-cancellation’ theory. Sin is ‘not to
render God his due’ and human being has dishonoured God by obeying his enemy
Satan. Therefore, human must either be punished or they must make adequate
satisfaction to God. Human being’s sin is Infinite, and so the satisfaction
which God’s honour requires is infinite also. Only God can render such
satisfaction and yet human must make it. The only solution was –God himself
become human, and in the person of Jesus Christ, the God-Human, should make the
full satisfaction, which human must make but only God can make. So God gives
himself to Christ, he accepts the satisfaction offered by Christ on the cross-
human is free. Christ makes the satisfaction of our behalf.
Interpretation
of Jesus’s death in the light of European feudal culture. The disobedience of
slave is equal to dishonoring of the master. Christian believe that the sin
enter to the world because of disobedience of Adam. That means the disobedience
of Adam took away the honor of God. Dishonor of master will bring the
punishment. This disobedience increased the wrath of God. Jesus Death was
consider as Satisfaction wrath of God at the same time to restoring the honor
of God. Adam sin dishonor God and Jesus death Honor to God.
Critical
Evaluation
It
is clear that Anselm raised the atoning discussion to a higher level
(a) He makes God too much like one
whose dignity has been affected.
(b) He overlooked God’s sovereign
ability to exhibit mercy and forgiveness, without doing harm to his kingdom.
Also, Anselm forced no necessary connection between Christ death and salvation
of Sinners.[1]
2.
Ransom theory (The Atonement as Victory over the Forces of
Sin and Evil) [I Cor. 6:20, I Tim.
2:6.]
The
Ransom Theory was introduced in the 3rd Century by Church Father
Origen, who was a theologian from Alexandria. Gustav Aulen calls it the classic
view and in various forms, this theory dominated the church thinking until the
time of Anselm and Peter Abelard. Origen held the view that the ransom was paid
to Satan rather than to God.[2]
According to this Theory, people belong to Satan because of Sin, but God
offered his son as a ransom to Satan which the latter eagerly accepted.
However, the evil one could not hold Christ any longer as a result Christ
emerged victorious, meaning that Christ defeated the Devil once and for all.[3] This
theory is also called the Fishhook theory, where Christ is described as the
worm on the hook which finally caught Satan.[4] Christ death was secure God victory over Satan.
On the day of Easter Jesus rose became victories living Satan without captive
and ransom. (Jesus became victories over Satan).
Critical
evaluation:
The
ransom theory, according to Wayne Grudem finds no direct confirmation in
Scripture and also has few supporters in the history of the church.
(a) The falsely thinks of Satan,
rather than God as the one who rejected required that a payment be made for sin
and thus neglecting the demands of God’s justice with respect to sin.
(b) It also views Satan as having
much more power than he actually does, namely, power to demand whatever he
wants to God.
(c) Thirdly, nowhere in the
Scripture says that we as sinners owe anything to Satan.
3.
Penal Substitution theory (Rom. 8: 32, 5:8,
Eph. 5:2, Gal. 3:13, Jn. 10:15.)
This
theory was defended by John Calvin and many others in the reformed tradition
including Martin Luther. According to this theory, the just punishment for sin
is death and separation from God. Moreover, on this view, though God strongly
desires for us not to receive this punishment it would be unfitting for God
simply to waive our punishment. But, as in the case of monetary fines, the
punishment can be paid by a willing substitute. Thus, out of love for us, God
the Father sent the willing Son to be our substitute and to satisfy the demands
of justice on our behalf.
Jesus
death was a substitutionary sacrifices and this substitutionary sacrifices
satisfy god’s justice upon human sin. In other word die on behalf of us. Human
beings are spiritually dead and because of sin. Martin Luther- Christ, in
becoming a voluntary substitution the punishment due to man/ women was reckoned
by God a sinner in men’s or women’s place. John Calvin- the sinless Christ took
the punishment for men’s women’s sin upon himself Christ in his soul bore the
tortures of a condemned man.
4.
Sacrificial Theory
According
to this theory, the only sacrificed life which could avail for the remission of
the sin of man is one that has conquered sin and temptation. the bloods of the
animals could never really cleanse the sinful heart of the humans. The real
sacrifice was to be made in perfect obedience to God. A true sacrifice can
neither be sub-human like an animal or superhuman as a god, but one who have
conquered temptation and sin in man’s own nature. The Priest and the victim had
to be fully and perfect who had to be fully human to avail anything for humans.
Christ is seen as the perfect priest and the victim whose atoning works by God
as the Priest-Victim apopointed by God for the sinners.[5]
Critical
Evaluation:
The
sacrificial theory is clearly seen in Paul’s Epistle to Hebrews. However, the
liberating power of the Pauline Theology is missing. Thus, the sacrificial
Theory even though constitute much theology was considered as an old concept of
understanding to the works of Christ.[6]
5.
Subject View/Moral Influence theory (The Atonement as a
Demonstration of God’s Love)
It
emphasizes the importance of the effect of Christ’s cross on the sinner. This
view is generally attributed to Peter Abelard (1079-1142), who said that
Christ in his death is the manifestation of God’s love. He holds that
the work of Christ is fundamentally aimed at bringing about moral and spiritual
reform in the sinner—a kind of reform that is not fully possible apart from
Christ’s work. The Son of God became incarnate, on this view, in order to set
this example and thus provide a necessary condition for the moral reform that
is, in turn, necessary for the full restoration of the relationship between
creature and Creator. This theory is sometimes called the exemplarism theory.
Looking at the cross (greatness of divine love) delivers us from fear and
kindles in us an answering love. The sight of the selfless Christ dying for
sinners moves us to repentance and faith. We are saved by repentance. The
thrust is on ‘personal experience.’ Both Schleiermacher and Ritschl used this
theory. The former said, ‘Christ’s loving compassion for sinner lift them from
the sin and takes them into fellowship with God.’
In
India, P. Chenchiah and Appasamy were greatly influenced by this theory.
Chenchiah said, ‘…redemption is affected not by death but by the larger
life…. Salvation is not just sinlessness but lifefulness.’ For Appasamy
cross is the uttermost expression of God’s love. It works through its moral
influence on human beings rather than by any kind of actual transaction.
Critical
Evaluation
Wayne
Grudem , in his book, Systematic Theology brings out three Criticisms to this
theory
(a) He argues that the viewpoint of
moral influence theory is contrary to many passages in the Scripture that speak
of Christ dying for sin, boring our sins or dying as propitiation.
(b) This theory also robs the
objective character of the atonement because it holds that the atonement had no
effect on God Himself.
(c) Thirdly, he is of the view that
this theory has no way of dealing with our guilt because if Christ did not die
to pay for our Sins then, we do not have the right to trust in him for
forgiveness of sins.[7]
(d) This theory ignores the death of
as the source of salvation. This also ignores God justice demand the punishment
for sin.
[1]
L.L. Morris, “Theories of Atonement,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology
(ed. Sinclair B. Fergusson; Illinois: IVP, 2003), 116-119.
[2]
Millard J. Erikson, Christian Theology Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker book House,
1984), 792-793.
[3]
L.L. Morris, “Theories of Atonement,”…, 47.
[4]
James Atkinson, “Atonement,” in A Dictionary of Christian Theology (ed.
Alan Richardson; London: S.C.M. Press, 1981), 23.
[5]
James Atkinson, “Atonement,”…, 24.
[6]
James Atkinson, “Atonement,”…, 24.
[7]
Walter A. Elwell,ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Michigan:
Zondervan, 1993), 47.