06b_WorkOfChrist

Throughout the history of the church, various theories have been proposed to explain the significance of the Atonement. These include the Recapitulation Theory, Ransom to Satan Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Penal Substitution Atonement Theory, Example Theory, Governmental Theory, Unlimited Atonement, Limited Atonement, Amoraldeanism, and Christ as a Victor Theory. Key figures in the discussion include Irenaeus, Origen, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and J.I. Packer. The Atonement is described as accomplishing multiple things, such as expiation, propitiation, redemption, reconciliation, victory over Satan, and an exemplary model. Different perspectives on the Atonement emerged, including the idea of Christ's death as a rescue from Satan, the need for restitution of honor, and the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. The Penal Substitution Atonement Theory became prominent among Protestants, The Atonement, key terms, Recapitulation Theory, Ransom to Satan Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Penal Substitution Atonement Theory, Example Theory, Governmental Theory, Unlimited Atonement, Limited Atonement, Amoraldeanism, and Christ as a Victor Theory. Key people, Irenaeus, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, John of Damascus, Anselm, Avalard, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Faustus Sosinus, Faustus Sant'Zeni, Hugo Grotius, Moses Amora, William G. T. Shedd, Charles Hodge, Gustav Aulin, Bruce Demarest, and J.I. Packer. Key points, throughout the history of the church, numerous and differing models have been put forward to describe the significance of the Atonement. The New Testament presents the atoning death of Jesus as a multifaceted diamond, in that it accomplishes a number of important things, including expiation, propitiation, redemption, reconciliation, victory over Satan and the demons, an exemplary model, and exchange. Origen promoted the Ransom to Satan Theory. The Atonement served as a rescue from Satan. According to Origen, Satan had usurped God's rightful ownership of humanity. Christ's death was the ransom payment that would release people from Satan's ownership. Satan was the one who demanded the death of Christ. Nevertheless, Satan did not anticipate the results of the transaction that would take place. Once Satan had Christ in his grasp and had released humanity, he could no longer hold on to Christ. Ann Salm, with his Satisfaction Theory, believed that it is not right for God to forgive us, then, out of mercy alone. Instead, restitution for the honor taken away must be made. Man could not restore this honor by himself. He rightly deserved punishment. But God could be satisfied through one other means. Did the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for God-man? The Reformers introduced the Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory. This perspective was similar to Ann Salm's Satisfaction Theory, though it differed in that it grounded the atonement and the justice of God rather than the honor of God. Because God is holy, he hates sin and righteously judges it. Thus, a penalty must be made, either by man's punishment or by Christ. While the Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory continued to be prominent among Protestants during the modern era, new challenges arose in opposition to it. In speaking of the atoning work of Christ, the Church has historically addressed the matter in various ways. Numerous and differing models have been put forward to describe the significance of the atonement. Unlike many doctrines, the atonement has never been the subject of discussion in an ecumenical church council. Thus, no official doctrinal formulation has ever been dogmatized. For Protestants, the primary view has been that of penal substitution. The view has recently come under attack. Apart from the nature of the atonement, the extent of the atonement has also been a subject of great discussion among Protestants. The early Church formulated its doctrine of the atonement in light of the Old Testament sacrificial system and the teachings of Christ himself. Jesus' sufferings were linked to the Passover and to the sacrificial lamb that was offered during the festival. According to New Testament writers, the Old Testament sacrificial system was unable to remove sin and merely pointed forward to the sacrifice of Jesus. The New Testament presents the atoning death of Jesus as a multifaceted diamond in that it accomplishes a number of important things, including expiation, propitiation, redemption, reconciliation, victory over Satan and the demons, and exemplary model and exchange. Taking each of these descriptions into account, early writers at first offered rather simple explanations of the atonement. Clement of Rome spoke of Christ's work of substitution. Justin Martyr spoke of the themes of curse and healing. Both Melito of Sardis and Irenaeus developed the theme of redemption by means of sacrifice. Irenaeus would also formulate what would become known as the recapitulation theory, which suggested that Christ repeated the course of human existence in his life with one exception, the sinful life was reversed, and Christ's obedience was exchanged for it. That, however, was not just Christ's life, but also his death that brought about the undoing of human sin. Origen promoted another view called the ransom to Satan theory. In this view, the atonement served as a rescue from Satan. According to Origen, Satan had usurped God's rightful ownership of humanity. Christ's death was a ransom payment that would release people from Satan's ownership. Satan was the one who demanded the death of Christ. Nevertheless, Satan did not anticipate the results of the transaction that would take place. Once Satan had Christ in his grasp and had released humanity, he could no longer hold Christ and thus had to let him go. This ransom to Satan theory would be reworked by others. John of Damascus used the same ransom language, but he proposed that the ransom was paid to God, the Father, since humans had sinned against him. It was death that was lured by the debate of Christ's humanity and deceived by his deity. Others, such as Tertullian, Athanasius, and Augustine, emphasized the substitutionary nature of the death of Christ. Augustine believed Christ to be both the priest who offers and the sacrifice offered for sin. Furthermore, Augustine believed that Christ's death delivered mankind from Satan's power, removed divine wrath, reconciled humanity to God, demonstrated the love of God, and provided deliverance from the second death. During the Middle Ages, Anselm offered a new model of the Atonement called the Satisfaction Theory. As a member of a feudal society, Anselm believed that it is not right for God to forgive sin out of mercy alone. Instead, restitution of the honor taken away must be made. Man could not restore this honor by himself. He rightly deserved punishment. But God could be satisfied through one other means, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the God-man. Abelard developed the Moral Influence Theory of the Atonement. Rejecting the previous theories, he denied that Christ's death was necessary for the payment of sin. Instead, a simple exhibition of God's love is necessary. Christ demonstrated this through his life and death. The death of Christ, therefore, was significant in that it demonstrated God's love for man, though it did not have a necessary connection to the forgiveness of sins. Thomas Aquinas believed that both the life and the death of Christ was central to the Atonement. While he believed that Christ's death was a superabundant Atonement, he also believed that human cooperation with Christ's work is necessary. That is, humans must have faith and love, and participate in sacraments in order to be united to the Atonement of Christ. The Reformation and the Post-Reformation The Reformers introduced the Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory. This perspective was similar to Anselm's Satisfaction Theory, though it differed in that it grounded the Atonement in the justice of God rather than the honor of God. Because God is holy, he hates sin and righteously judges it. Thus, the penalty must be paid either by a man's punishment or by Christ. Martin Luther emphasized the awful state of the sinful human being, their breaking God's law and God's curse on all people. What is needed and what was provided in Christ's death was a propitiatory sacrifice. John Calvin spoke of penal substitution with regards to Christ's three offices of prophet, priest, and king. According to Calvin, both Christ's death and his obedience in life were significant to Christ's sacrifice, though his death was most significant. I should go and read Calvin on why those three offices matter. Calvin further emphasized the importance of Christ dying on a tree, the cross, and thus becoming a curse for humanity. Both Lutheran and Reformed theology continued after Luther and Calvin to affirm and develop this penal substitutionary theory. Although this theory became the prominent view among Protestants, it did not go without challenge. The heretical Thessalians rejected it in favor of what came to be known as the example theory. Thousand of Thousand believed that God can forgive sins without demanding the satisfaction of his justice. In the end, according to Thousand or Thousand of Thousand, God can forgive sins without demanding the satisfaction of his justice. According to Thessalianism, Jesus was a holy man, though not a god man. So, they pointed to Christ's example of virtue and integrity in his life as a model for mankind to follow. The apex of Christ's exemplary life came at his death, which served as a supreme act of obedience and as an example of forgiveness. Hugo Grotius proposed the governmental theory, which placed God as the governor of the world. God could thus choose to relax his standards and forgive people in his mercy. As the lawgiver, God himself is not subject to his law. While Sotzini or Sosinus believed that God could do away with the law, Grotius believed that God could not, could simply relax the law. Christ's death met the requirements of this relaxed law. Christ thus died not as a satisfaction for the exact penalty, but as a token of God's concern to uphold his moral law. In spite of all these competing theories of the atonement, the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement proved to be the most persuasive during this period. While Lutheranism and Reformed theology agree on most points, they parted ways when it came to the extent of the atonement. Lutheranism held to an unlimited atonement, the view that Christ died for all people. While Calvin's position is debatable, later Reformed theologians held to a limited atonement, the view that Christ died only for the sins of the elect. The classical statement of this was recorded in the Five Articles of Calvinism, which was written in response to the Arminian document, the Five Articles of Remonstrance. Amiraldianism, an alternative perspective named after Moses Amirud, proposed a hypothetical universalism which suggested that Christ's atonement was unlimited. However, because no one is able to respond in faith apart from God's work, God instituted a covenant of salvation only with the elect, in whom he worked to produce faith. The modern period While the penal substitutionary atonement continued to be prominent among Protestants during the modern era, new challenges arose in opposition to it. William G.T. Shedd argued in its favor, demonstrating its substitutionary and penal character. He further argued for a limited view of the extent of the atonement. Charles Hodge was another defender of this theory. Friedrich Schleiermacher presented a subjective idea of the atonement by maintaining that Christ redeemed humanity by providing an impeccable example of God-consciousness and dependence on God. Boussaf Aoulin returned to the ancient Christ-the-victor theory of the atonement and taught that Christ fights and triumphs over the evil powers. Debates over the extent of the atonement continued to persist in the modern era. Bruce Demarest believed that Christ's suffering and death are universal in provision, in particular in application. In the face of accusations of cosmic child abuse, theologians such as J.I. Packer have defended the penal substitutionary model of the atonement.