Time to talk about Atonement Theory

 I watched Tim Jennings video "Want Salvation? Here's the Surprising Reason Jesus Had to Die." I was not too impressed with it but was astounded by what Jennings said when trying to explain the Recapitulation Theory of the Atonement (at 25:45). I won't recount Jennings's explanation; I will just post the article that I wrote on the topic of Atonement Theories sometime ago, but I don't think it has been posted on this blog.

Time to talk about Atonement Theory
By Ron Corson

In a Time magazine article entitled Why Did Jesus Die? [April 12, 2004] The author quotes a conversation on the subject by a men’s group, the leader of the group concludes: “It physically had to happen, I’m not sure I would have said that before I saw the movie [Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ]. But now it’s much clearer to me. I can’t say why he had to suffer the way he did. But Christ had to die.” In theological terms, we are have entered the area known as soteriology, which is the theology that deals with salvation as effected by Jesus Christ. In Bible terms, we are dealing with Atonement which means the reconciliation between God and man. As the Time article noted The Atonement is the centerpiece of Christianity. Which theory a person holds defines their Christian views as well as their particular view of God.

There have been several Atonement Theories throughout church history all with their own catchy Theological names. They range from simple to complex. Beginning with the Apostolic Fathers we see the simplest theory which is known as the Moral Influence Theory.  Christ imparted to us: new Knowledge, Fresh life, and Immortality. Clement states: Through Him, God has called us from darkness to light from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name. Clement further says that Christ endured it all on account of us and that His sufferings should bring us to repentance. Hemas adds that Christ reveals to us the true God. Barnabas notes that He came to abolish death and to demonstrate resurrection from the dead. Peter Abelard who is most notable for his promotion of this theory one thousand years later said, “Love answers love’s appeal”.  The Moral Influence theory is directed at mankind, to draw them back to God through the knowledge revealed by Christ, God is love He offers forgiveness, reconciliation, and life.

A little later the Theory of Recapitulation was put forward by Irenaeus.  This theory states that just as Adam contained in himself all his descendants so Christ recapitulated in Himself all the dispersed peoples dating back to Adam, the whole race of mankind, along with Adam himself. His conclusion is that humanity which was seminally present in Adam has been given the opportunity of making a new start in Christ, the second Adam, through incorporation in his mystical body. The original Adam by disobedience introduced the principle of sin and death, but Christ by His obedience has reintroduced the principle of life and immortality. Because He is identified with the human race at every phase of its existence, He restores fellowship with God to all. To Irenaeus, it is obedience that God requires, and in order to exhibit such obedience, Christ had to live His life through all its stages, including death.

Later a more fanciful theory gained several centuries of acceptance. The Ransom theory with elements taken from Origin interprets the death of Christ as a Ransom paid by God to Satan to secure the redemption of humanity, which has been brought under his dominion by sin. Different writers had various options on this theory. Some admitted the possession of his captives, and the death of Jesus is interpreted as a ransom due to the devil on grounds of justice. Others denied the devil has a right to sinners, but saw God as too gracious to take what was His by force. Still, others felt that man’s deliverance was secured by deception on God’s part. Satan was deceived by the humble appearance of the Redeemer supposing that he had to do with a mere man. Finding too late that the Deity whose presence he had not perceived escaped his clutches through the Resurrection. Some of the adherents to this view include Augustine, Gregory the Great, and Gregory of Nyssa. While this theory has been forgotten by most Christians, remnants are still seen in many Christian Churches today. An example of this is seen in this statement by the late professor  Arnold V. Wallenkampf:“Satan had challenged Jesus' resurrection of Moses on Mount Nebo (see Jude 9); and legally Satan had a point. Moses had been a sinner, and as such he belonged to Satan.”

Around 1100 C.E. a more complex theory of the Atonement gained precedence. The Satisfaction theory was first produced in a clear coherent manner by Anselm, in his treatise, Cur Deus Homo, ( Why a Godman?) Anselm finds no reason in justice why God was under any obligation to Satan. Christ’s Atonement concerns God, not the devil. Man by his sin has violated the honor of God and defiled His handiwork. It is not consistent with the Divine self-respect that He should permit His purpose to be thwarted. Yet this purpose requires the fulfillment by man of the perfect law of God. For this transgression, repentance is no remedy, since penitence, however sincere, cannot atone for the guilt of past sin. Nor can any finite substitute, whether man or angel make reparation. Sin being against the infinite God, is infinitely guilty and can be atoned for only by an infinite satisfaction. Thus either man must be punished and God’s purpose fails or man must make an infinite satisfaction, which is impossible. The only escape is that someone is found who can unite in his own person the attributes both of humanity and of infinity. This is brought about by the incarnation of Christ. In Christ, we have one who is very man and can therefore make satisfaction to God on behalf of humanity, but who is at the same time very God, and whose person therefore gives infinite worth to the satisfaction which He makes. Christ's death voluntarily given when it is not due since He was without sin, is the infinite satisfaction that secures the salvation of man.

From this, the majority of Christian Churches both Roman Catholic and Protestants have moved to the Theory put forth in the 1500’s known as the Substitution Theory (Penal Theory). With the exception of the Eastern Orthodox Church which really does not focus on any particular Atonement theory instead focusing on Jesus’ triumph over death and the way made to join Him.

The Substitutionary view held many of Anselm’s presuppositions regarding Christ’s Atonement. However, it was modified in one very substantial way. The central position of the Atonement was interpreted not as satisfaction, but as punishment, and hence given a substitutionary significance. The infinite guilt of man’s sin which has so utterly alienated mankind from the Kingdom of Heaven that none but a person reaching to God can be the medium of restoring peace. Such an efficient mediator is found in Christ alone. Through whose atoning death the price of man’s forgiveness is paid and a way of salvation made open. John Calvin considers the Atonement not as a meritorious satisfaction accepted as a substitute for punishment, but as the vicarious endurance by Christ of that punishment itself. Calvin denies that God was ever hostile to Christ or angry with Him, yet in His Divine providence He suffered His Son to go through the experience of those against whom God is thus hostile. In His own consciousness, Christ bore the weight of the Divine anger, was smitten and afflicted, and experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God.

The Penal Theory was severely criticized by the Socinians, who attacked the entire concept of substitutionary punishment. They held that punishment and forgiveness are inconsistent ideas. If a man is punished he cannot be forgiven, and vice versa. Under the theory of distributive justice, punishment, being a matter of the relation between individual guilt and its consequences, is strictly untransferable. The Socinians held to the Moral Influence Theory as mentioned by the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists of the second-century church.

Governmental theory of atonement

In response to the Socinians Hugo Grotius wrote a work entitled The Satisfaction of Christ. Grotius was writing in defense of the Penal/Substitution Theory, however, he, perhaps unknowingly modified the theory. In this view, God does not deal with men as a judge but as a governor, who unlike a judge may temper justice with mercy, but the motives which lead him so to be temperate are never arbitrary. Thus Christ’s death is a substitute for punishment, a suffering inflicted by God and voluntarily accepted by Christ, which works upon men by moral influence in order to conserve the ends of righteousness. Such suffering on Christ’s part is necessary since forgiveness on the basis of repentance alone might be misinterpreted by men and lead to grave carelessness. Among Arminians, it has practically supplanted the older Penal Theory.

Sources:
Early Christian Doctrines J.N.D. Kelly Harper & Row, Pub. New York 1960 pp. 163-183, 375-395
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Vol. 5 pp. 640-650
The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia pp. 349-356

Ellen White believed and taught Penal Substitution atonement

I often listen to some of the Sabbath School studies on the internet that are generally opposed to the Penal Substitutionary view of the Atonement (I also disagree with the substitutionary view of atonement.) There are three in particular that I listen to. ComeandReason.com usually led by Dr. Tim Jennings. Ken Hart and Friends TV and The lesson study offered by PineKnoll. 

All three of these groups use a lot of Ellen White quotes. All three seem to cherry pick Ellen White statements so that they downplay her Penal Substitutionary views. Today 10/28/2017 on the ComeandReason lesson study lead this week by Lori Atkins, noted and tried to explain away an Ellen White quote that was used in the lesson study guide. You can listen or view here. Here is the lesson study quote which caused her to email Tim Jennings for guidance on how to deal with it (starting at about minute 36):

“Righteousness is obedience to the law. The law demands righteousness, and this the sinner owes to the law; but he is incapable of rendering it. The only way in which he can attain to righteousness is through faith. By faith he can bring to God the merits of Christ, and the Lord places the obedience of His Son to the sinner’s account. Christ’s righteousness is accepted in place of man’s failure, and God receives, pardons, justifies, the repentant, believing soul, treats him as though he were righteous, and loves him as He loves His Son.” —Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 1, p. 367 lesson study guide for Oct 23

Their answer was to read some of the previous paragraphs and interpret them in the light of a more non-penal view. Apparently thinking that the Penal view theorists could not equally read those other paragraphs within the Penal view. In other words, she acted as if she had solved the problem but really did not even deal with the main paragraph problem. Their answer was to fall back to the levels of understanding and thinking that Ellen White was using the words of Penal Substitution to lead them out of Penal Substitution. Which might have some merit if after using the Penal terms than showing a different or better way of looking at things, which of course Ellen White does not do. It should be noted that most all Penal Substitution proponents incorporated the moral influence view with the penal view. Because when the Bible says it is His kindness that leads us to repentance it is pretty hard to ignore that so most all of the atonement views will include the moral influence view but it is not their major component as it is with moral influence theory.

It is to my reading very obvious that Ellen White was a Penal Theorists when it comes to the atonement. I always wonder how these groups can use her so much and not realize this. Several years ago I compiled Ellen White quotes where she states her substitutionary view. Ellen White's quotes on Substitution.

Today I came upon a good dissertation on the subject A Comparative Study of the Concept of Atonement in the Writings of John R. W. Stott and Ellen G. White Lawrence O. Oladini Andrews University The Dissertation I think is pretty clear as it compares the Penal Atonement views of Stott and White.

Summary of Images of Atonement
Though she employs different images to present her understanding of the atonement, nevertheless, it is the penal-substitution theory that seemed to predominate in the writings of White on atonement. In her thought, this view is closely related to the satisfaction theory. Christ is the sinner‘s substitute who bore the penalty in order to satisfy the holy requirements of God‘s justice. It is usually in the context of penal substitution that she discusses the theme of justification by faith. Essentially her position is that God can justify sinners because Jesus has satisfied God‘s just requirement by both His perfect obedience to the law and by bearing the penalty of the broken law as the sinner‘s substitute.395 In this regard, White has written:

 Christ bore the penalty that would have fallen upon the transgressor; and through faith the helpless, hopeless sinner becomes a partaker of the divine nature, escaping the corruption that is in the world through lust. . . . Christ rendered perfect obedience to the law, and man could not possibly obey the holy precepts had it not been for the provision that was made for the salvation of the fallen sons and daughters of Adam.396 

 Christ‘s substitutionary atonement originates in God‘s love for us. White argues that ―the atonement of Christ was not made in order to induce God to love those whom he otherwise hated; it was not made to produce a love that was not in existence; but it was made as a manifestation of the love that was already in God‘s heart.‖397 In her classic on the life of Christ, Desire of Ages, White has written on what Christ‘s substitutionary atonement involves. She writes, ―Christ was treated as we deserve, that we might be treated as He deserves. He was condemned for our sins, in which He had no share, that we might be justified by His righteousness, in which we had no share. He suffered the death which was ours, that we might receive the life which was His.‖398 Therefore, the atonement originates from the love of God; God does not love us because of the atonement provided on the cross. 

 In light of her argument presented above, it is clear that White employs the different images of atonement (theories) in mutually complementary, but not contradictory, ways. Nevertheless, one must point out that the heart of her atonement thought centers in the concepts of penalty, substitution, and satisfaction. For the believer, the concepts of penalty, substitution, and satisfaction become the foundation of all significant victory over sin and sinfulness.399 Whidden concludes that ―the heart of her atonement thought revolved around the dialectic of law and grace, justice and mercy and the demonstration of this right relationship in the life of Christ—and ultimately—in the believer.‖400 In this way, the death of Christ becomes the basis of a universal vindication of God. The dialectic of justice and mercy permeates all that God does in the process of atonement.

This Dissertation also contains a good listing of the various atonement theories Similar to my old article (why did Jesus have to die) but more detailed.