In a response to a lively debate going on at
the bench press, i thought i better put a post on here about theories of the atonement.
There are three main theories of the atonement: Christus Victor, Satisfaction (penal substitution), and Moral Influence.
Very briefly i will try to explain these three theories.
Christus Victor is the 'classic' view - it goes back at least to the time of Iranaeus (c. 120-200). It argues that in the atonement God intervenes on behalf of his people and defeats the enemy that enslaves humanity. In this theory, the atonement saves us from bondage to sin/satan/evil, and we are saved by the
ransom paid by God in allowing Jesus to win a victory over the Powers. The major effect of the atonement is on Evil/the Powers/Satan. Christus Victor fell out of favour around 1100AD when the other two competing theories became predominant, but is finding favour again in the 20th Century thanks to Gustav Aulen and others.
The Satisfaction theory has been the predominant view of the church since Anselm (1033-1109). Sometimes called "objective" view as God himself is seen as the
object of Christs atoning work. It is God who is reconciled to humanity through Christ's death. It is argued that Satan does not have any "rights" over humanity (contrary to CV), but that the primary need for redemption comes from the wrong done to God by humanity. Humanity
chooses sin over faithfulness. Therefore the jusice of God requires satisfaction, which must be payed by humanity as it is humanity who has sinned. However this is impossible because of the gravity of sin, so God himself has to make reparation. Humanity
should but only God
can. The solution being Christ the God-man pays the penalty on behalf of humanity. In this view, humanity is saved from guilt/penalty and judgement becuase Jesus's death enables reconciliation between God and Humanity. The major effect of the atonement is on God, without it He is alienated from the people He created.
The moral influence theory came about at a similar time and was the work of Abelard (1079-1142), who reacted against both the satisfaction and the CV views. Abelard depicted Jesus as a teacher and an example - the atonement is the ultimate manifestation of God's love. Inspired by this example, humanity turns to God, forsaking Sin, and follows Christ. In this view we are saved from being distant from God, and we are saved by being touchedd and changed by God's immense love. The major effect of the atonement is on humanity.
I know that's all a bit deep, but its good to outline the main competing theories.
I am most persauded by the CV model presently, although i don't think its perfect by any means. I like it because it brings all three parties into the equation - God, humanity, and the powers. The Powers require the death of Jesus to supposedly win ultimate victory over God, but actually God wins the victory in the end, the people and the Powers carry out the atonement in partnership, and the people of God can now live in the new kingdom because of that victory. In Satisfaction the atonement is required because of Gods law, it is carried out by God in sending his Son to earth to die, and it's effect is on God, in reconciling Him to His people. The other parties are bit-parts.
Also it doesn't require me to come to terms with a violent God as does Satisfaction - in Satisfaction the only way God can bring about salvation (peace?) is by the violent death of his Son. Whereas in CV, the violent death is required by Satan because of the dominion he has over the world, God complies, but in that hoodwinks the devil into thinking he has won the victory, when in fact God is winning the victory.
Any thoughts on all that? if you got this far...