1. The Ransom Theory (100AD) 1. The Ransom Theory: (close)

Originating with the Early Church Fathers,
this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mk 10:45).
Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan,
but that is not really clearly defined.

This idea entails Satan having power over people's souls in the afterlife,
but that Christ rescued people from his power by his death.
The view appears to have arisen during the 3rd century,
in the writings of Origen and other theologians.

In one version of the idea, Satan attempted to take the soul of Jesus after he had died,
but in doing so over-extended his authority, as Jesus had never sinned.
As a consequence, Satan lost his authority completely, and all humanity gained freedom.
In another version, God entered into a deal with Satan,
offering to trade Jesus' soul in exchange for the souls of all people,
but after the trade, God raised Jesus from the dead and left Satan with nothing.
Other versions held that Jesus' divinity was masked by his human form.
Satan tried to take the soul of Jesus without realizing
that his divinity would destroy the power of Satan.

2. The Recapitulation Theory: (200) 2. The Recapitulation Theory: (close)

Irenaeus (125-202 AD) saw Christ as the new Adam,
who systematically undid all that Adam did
when bringing sin into the world
Where Adam disobeyed God's edict
about the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge,
Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree.

3. The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: (1100) 3. The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: (close)

In the view of Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109),
God's offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied
by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ.

Anselm offered "compelling biblical evidence"
that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil
but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners.

Anselm's work was a foundation for the Protestant Reformation
understanding of justification by faith.

He depicted God as a feudal lord,
whose honour had been offended by the sins of humankind.
In this view, people needed salvation from the divine punishment,
since nothing that they could do could repay the debt of honour.

Anselm held that Christ could repay what humanity owed God,
thus satisfying the offence to God's dignity and honour
and doing away with the need for punishment.

4. Penal-Substitution : (1500) 4. Penal-Substitution : (close)

In the 16th century, the Protestant Reformers reinterpreted
Anselm's satisfaction theory of salvation within a legal paradigm.
In the legal system, offences required punishment,
and no satisfaction could avert this need.

The Reformers proposed that Christ takes the penalty of sin as our substitute,
thus saving people from God's jusified anger against sin.
Penal substitution thus presents Jesus saving people
from the divine punishment for past wrong doings,
if they put their faith in him.

The penal substitution concept of salvation is widely held ,
as central to Christianity among Protestants.
However, it has also been widely critiqued.

Advocates of the New Perspective on Paul argue
that many New Testament books by Paul
used to support this theory
may be read differently.

4a. Conditonal Subsitution : 4a. Conditonal Substitution : (close)

John Calvin, one of the first systematic theologians of the Reformation,
wanted to solve the problem of Christ's atonement
in a way that was just to the Scriptures and Church Fathers.

His solution was that Christ's death on the cross
did not pay a general penalty for humanity's sins,
but a specific penalty for the sins of individual people.

That is, when Jesus died on the cross,
his death paid the penalty at that time for the sins
of all those who are saved.

One obviously necessary feature of this idea
is that Christ's atonement is limited in its effect
to those whom God has chosen to be saved.

Since the debt for sins was paid at a particular point in time
(at the crucifixion).
For Calvin, this also required Augustine's theory of predestination.

Additionally, in rejecting the idea of penance, Calvin shifted
from Aquinas' idea of satisfaction as a change in humanity,
to the idea of satisfying God's wrath.

This ideological shift places the focus on a change in God,
who is propitiated through Christ's death.

The Calvinist understanding of the atonement and satisfaction
is penal substitution:
Christ is a substitute taking our punishment
and thus satisfying the demands of justice
and appeasing God's wrath
so that God can justly show grace.

John Stott has stressed that this must be understood
not as the Son placating the Father,
but rather in Trinitarian terms
of the Godhead initiating and carrying out the atonement,
motivated by a desire to save humanity.
Thus the key distinction of penal substitution
is the idea that restitution is made through punishment.

Hence, for Calvin, one is saved by becoming united to Christ
At the point of becoming united with Christ through faith,
one receives all the benefits of the atonement.
However, because Christ paid for sins when he died,
it is not possible for those for whom he died
to fail to receive the benefits:
the saved are predestined to believe.

5. The Moral-Example (or Moral-Influence): 5. The Moral-Example (or Moral-Influence): (close)

Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement.
This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice,
but teaches instead that His death was designed to impress mankind with God's love,
resulting in a softening of their hearts and leading them to repentance.
Formed by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction to Anselm's Satisfaction theory,
this view was held by the 16th century Socinians.

This was the predominant understanding of salvation during the first three centuries AD,
and continues to be held by some denominations today.

In this view, Jesus saved people from sinfulness through his life and teachings,
thus transforming their character to become righteous.
This salvation is seen as undeserved, since God graciously sent Jesus
to save people when they were unrighteous and did not in any way deserve such a favour.
A person is saved from sinfulness by faithfully following the teachings and example of Jesus.
Consequently, a person becomes righteous in God's sight,
and can expect a positive final judgment by God.
Perfection is not required, and mistakes are forgiven after repentance.
In this view, Jesus' crucifixion is understood primarily as martyrdom.

The moral transformation view has been criticised and rejected by many Protestant Christians.
Critics believe that the moral transformation view conflicts with various biblical passages
(particularly ones by Paul regarding 'faith' and 'works'),
underestimates the seriousness of sin
and denies the atoning value of Jesus' death.

6. The Governmental Theory: 6. The Governmental Theory: (close)

God made Christ an example of suffering
to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him.
God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him
to evince his wrath against sin in Christ.

Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin
and it was accepted by God as sufficient;
but actually God does not exact strict justice.

7. The Declaratory Theory: (1800S) 7. The Declaratory Theory: (close)

A version of the Moral Influence theory,
wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them.
This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).

8. The Guarantee Theory: (1800S) 8. The Guarantee Theory: (close)

Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin,
but on His guarantee to win followers
and thus to conquer human sinfulness.
This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).

9. The Vicarious Repentance Theory (1800S) 9. The Vicarious Repentance Theory (close)

It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin.
In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin,
condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.

10. The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory (1900S) 10. The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory (close)

The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory
over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection.
This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory
with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil.

In this view, people needed salvation from the powers of evil.
Jesus achieved salvation for people by defeating the powers of evil, particularly Satan.
This view has been dated in writings of the Church Fathers to the 4th centuries AD,
although it remained popular for several centuries.
Several variants on this idea existed, from conquest of Satan and rescue from Satan's power.
In the conquest of Satan version, writers such as Eusebius of Caesarea
depicted Jesus defeating Satan in a great spiritual battle
that occurred between his death and resurrection.
By winning this battle, Jesus overthrew Satan and saved people from his dominion.
The Christus Victor view is not widely held in the West.

11. The Accident Theory: 11. The Accident Theory: (close)

Christ's death was an accident,
as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred.
This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

12. The Martyr Theory: 12. The Martyr Theory: (close)

Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth
that was opposed to the spirit of His day.
This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

13. The Life Model Theory: 13. The Life Model Theory: (close)

This is a variation of the Moral Influence Theory merged with the Accident Theory.
Christ died as a result of miscalculating his support in Jerusalem.
He had expected that people would rally to him
when he was arrested and refused to soften
the radical nature of his message.

His example shows us how far we are meant to go
in the support of righteousness;
in growing the Kingdom of God
where and when we are.

This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

Can there be any credibility in the face of such diversity?
Is not such uncertainty a model of human intervention,
driven by a very human desire for position and power?

What a tangled web we weave
when first we practice to deceive!