Dan's Marinations

For many of you who read these ramblings the idea of atonement I critique today will be familiar.  Love it or hate it, most Protestants have heard the language of substitutionary atonement more than any other.  If you are among the more conservative Protestants, this is probably the language that comes to mind first when you think of atonement. In very condensed form substitutionary atonement works like this.  Jesus is born of a virgin, and leads an absolutely sinless life.    Because he is sinless and perfect Jesus alone is able to atone for human sin by taking the guilt/penalty for the sins of the world.  In essence Jesus becomes a substitute for us.  Both the virgin birth and sinless life are essential for this model of atonement because the atoning sacrifice must be perfect in order to bear sin for everyone else.  Since he bore the penalty of sin, we don't bear it any more and we have peace with God.  Typically, substitutionary atonement is thought of in penal terms were Jesu

One of the more unfortunate aspects of discussion of atonement in the current culture is that it has become polarized.  It is difficult now to separate this academic discussion from the emotional hand grenades that have been lobbed back and forth between liberals and conservatives for years.  I hope that you who read this can take a look at some of this different atonement language again.  None of them is sufficient all by itself, just as none of them is totally without merit or warrant.  In this week's entry and in next week's, I will critique the favorite atonement theories for liberals and then for conservatives.  I guess that if today's post doesn't step on your toes, that next week's will. As the ransom theory began to fade in popularity in the middle ages, Peter Abelarde made famous the idea that Jesus is primarily an example for us.  Focusing primarily on the love of God, he believed that God's love was so great that he could forgive without anything be

As will become clear, the difficulty in looking at the atonement is not that any one theory is really bad, but that all of them are insufficient.  No one theory can do justice what occurred because human language is insufficient to adequately describe it.  The first of the various ways believers have looked at the atonement is as a ransom.  This is sometimes called the classical theory of atonement.  The term "classical" theory stems from the fact that the early church fathers used ransom language far more than any other in describing Christ's death.  This remained the predominant view of atonement until the middle ages when it was subjected to withering criticism. In the pages of scripture there is no lack of warrant for looking at the atonement as a ransom that was paid on our behalf.  The term "ransom" is used seven times to refer to what God/Jesus does for us.  The related term "redeem" or "redeemer" is found over ninety times.  Both te