Skip to main content

Thoughts On Three Models of the Atonement

Over the past several weeks, I have attempted to broaden my theological understanding by listening to different theological viewpoints and evaluating them. To do this, I have employed three primary resources. First, I have used Norman Geisler's "Systematic Theology: In One Volume" to understand his perspective on various theological topics. Second, I have employed theologian H. Ray Dunning's systematic theology, "Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology". Finally, I have been utilizing the "Defenders" podcast by William Lane Craig.

In particular, over the past week, I have been examining different theories surrounding the atonement. Several theories stand out to me, some for good reasons and some for bad. One theory that sticks out as a good theory is the "Christus Victor" model of the atonement. In this model, Christ overpowered the devil in His death and resurrection. The devil saw the man Jesus and killed Him in exchange for setting mankind free, not fully realizing that he had no power over Christ. Thus, according to this model, the devil ends up with nothing. As others have pointed out, this is the model implied in Aslan's sacrifice in C.S. Lewis's "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe". There are aspects of this model that are incredibly attractive, and it makes sense of quite a bit of the biblical data that I have seen regarding the atonement. However, it seems to me that it is deficient because it gives the devil too much credit. While there are aspects of this theory that definitely ring true, it makes me uncomfortable to think about Christ being paid as a random to the devil.

A second theory that I find attractive is the substitutionary atonement model, or the penal substitution model. In this view, Christ is our sacrificial Lamb, offered up by God on our behalf to atone for our sins. To fully appreciate this view, one would need to have a basic understanding of the Old Testament laws regarding sacrifice (Leviticus 1:1-7:21). This view, as well, makes sense of much of the biblical data. However, there are questions that need answered regarding this view. However, as a view of the atonement, the substitutionary atonement model appears to be sufficient as an understanding of the atonement, despite the questions.

A third theory of the atonement, and one that I find not-so-impressive, is called the moral inspiration theory. In this theory of the atonement, what matters is not so much salvation from our sins, but the moral good that Christ's sacrifice has done throughout history. On this view, the point of the cross was moral good rather than atonement. While I do believe that the cross has inspired moral good, the Bible clearly speaks about Christ's work on the cross as an atoning work (1 John 2:2). Thus, this theory is not biblical. Others have pointed out that, if there was ultimately no atoning work done on our behalf, how can the cross and the suffering of Christ be seen as good?However, as I was learning about the theory, I noticed something. When a conversation with an atheist turns to morality and the cross, this is typically the view that they default to. Why? First, because it is easy to say, on this view, that the cross and Christ's suffering was not a good thing if there was no atoning work. Second, this theory of the atonement does not require a commitment to Christ's divinity. In fact, the individual who first articulated the theory did not believe that Christ was divine. Again, this theory as it stands does not find support from Scripture, but that won't stop someone from assuming it in debate. We need to be aware of the assumptions that are made when we speak to others about the redemption found in Christ.

One final point: while it is helpful to study the doctrine of the atonement, we do not need to understand exactly HOW Christ atoned for our sins in order to receive salvation. We only need to understand THAT Christ atoned for our sins to receive salvation. We can disagree on theories of the atonement. At the end of the day, we can be sure that Christ atoned for us if we put our trust in Him.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

5 Things That Are Best Explained By Theism

When discussing my faith with non-believers, I find that the average person is oblivious to the explanatory scope of theism. That is, God's existence explains several things that would be difficult to explain in any other way. In this post, I am not presenting any formal arguments, but am just pointing out what these things are. Arguments will be addressed in subsequent posts.

1. The Origin of the Universe

Neither atheism, nor alternative views of God can adequately explain the origin of the universe. Modern science has lead us to the conclusion that the space-time universe that we inhabit had a definite beginning some 14 billion years ago (give or take a little). The problem for the atheist comes when we realize that any contingent thing has an explanation for its existence that is not found within itself, and that if something had a beginning or could have failed to exist (which describes the universe), it is by its very nature contingent. Neither do other views of God adequatel…

7 Problems With "Lack-Theism" Atheism

In recent years, atheists have increasingly attempted to redefine the words "atheism" and "atheist". Now, rather than being the negative position on the question of God's existence, many atheists have redefined atheism to be a mere "lack of belief" in God. They do not seem to care that there was already a term for this position ("non-theism"). This is often done in an attempt to avoid the burden of proof that comes from taking the negative position on God's existence. Yet, in attempting to eliminate this burden of proof, the one who redefines atheism in this manner has jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Here are 7 reasons why this definition of atheism is problematic for those who use this definition:

1. It Is Rooted In The Etymological Fallacy

In order to justify this redefinition, many atheists will appeal to the etymology of the word "atheist." The term "atheist" comes from two Greek roots, "a-" me…

Why Does God Condemn Homosexuality?

Q: Why would God create someone as a homosexual and then condemn them to hell for all eternity for it?

A: This is a question that I have heard more than one person ask. I suspect that there are more who want to ask this question, but have not had the courage to ask me. I think it is important that we clarify a few points before we go any further. Let me begin this post by making a distinction between a person's sexual orientation and their actions. A person's sexual orientation is the individual's preference. A person can engage in actions contrary to their preference. Thus, we must draw a distinction between the two.

It is also vital that we understand what the Bible actually condemns. The reason that I drew the distinction above is so that I can make this point: the Bible does not condemn a person's orientation. My challenge to anyone on either side of this debate is to find a passage of Scripture that clearly condemns a person's orientation. Such a passage does n…