Theories of Atonements

Table of Contents

Thesis Statement3

Introduction3

Background3

Major Theories of Atonements9

Penal Substitution Theory11

The Moral Exemplar Theory14

The Government Theory15

Conclusion15

End Notes15

Theories of Atonements

Thesis Statement

Christians believes on Death, Sins and Sacrifices according to Theories of Atonements

Introduction

Background

Atonement Since the publication of G. Aulén's (1879-1977) classic typology, classifications of atonement theories have generally followed his lead: employing a more or less chronological order which moves from the early Church theories, through western ideas from the Middle Ages through the post-Reformation period, to modern theories. Aulén's own rubrics for describing these theories were, respectively, the classic' or dramatic' view (which he also called the 'Christ Victor' model), the 'Latin' view, and subjective' theories. The central question shaping this division of the material was not, however, historical, but dogmatic: who is the subject who performs the saving work accomplished in Jesus of Nazareth? Is the work a continuous divine work, in which God is the subject throughout? Is the work a discontinuous divine work, in which God is the architect of the plan of redemption but the human Jesus is the effective agent in its accomplishment1?

The work a continuous human work as the more subjective' theories would suggest? A closely related issue for Aulén was that of locating the centre of gravity in the relation between the objective accomplishment of redemption in Christ and its subjective appropriation by the believer. Is the primary centre of gravity found in Christ's work2?.

Aulén's book has been much criticized, but the basic questions with which he worked have to be taken into consideration by any historian of doctrine. The problems facing Aulén's typology are fairly obvious today. In the first place, 'Christ Victor' does not adequately describe patristic reflection on the work of Christ because it makes primary what for the fathers was a theme of secondary importance - enslavement to the Devil. Aulén was certainly right to find in Anselm a shift to juridical thinking.Anselm made satisfaction' and punishment' alternatives: either God would receive an adequate satisfaction or God would have to punish5.

That satisfaction' might occur through punishment did not occur to Anselm, though it was basic to the thinking of a host of medieval and Reformation thinkers and represented a development whose importance Aulén underestimated. For if God was actively punishing sin in the death of Jesus, and then God was no longer simply the passive recipient of Christ's voluntary self-oblation4&5. Finally, while the use of the term subjective' as a description of moral influence theories has much to be said for it, it is woefully inadequate as a comprehensive term for the whole of nineteenth-century reflection on atonement. Of all the mistakes committed by Aulén, his interpretation of F. Schleiermacher is arguably the most egregious.. To treat either of these figures under the same heading as the moral-influence theories (see below) of A. Ritschl (1822-89) and his followers is seriously misleading6. These problems surrounding the rubrics employed in Aulén's typology can easily be addressed by a different nomenclature, with no loss of the valid insights in his ...