The Atonement Series Intro: Sin, Forgiveness, & Atonement Theories

Doc Ryan and Matt begin a series on Biblical Atonement.


Today’s Episode covers


What is Atonement? Atonement is a made-up word in English
because we didn’t have a word to completely express what the
action of sacrifice accomplished from a Hebrew perspective.

Sin: In the OT we have a few terms for sins such as rebellion
(pesha), infidelity (meshubah), disloyalty (beged), getting dirty
or stained (tum’ah), wandering (‘avon), trespass (ma’al),
transgression (‘abar), and missing the mark (chatta’t). Most of
these can be summed up under the last word here of missing the
mark. But what mark are we missing???

The Image of God- we are cracked icons (images) and Jesus
puts us back together modeled after him, the true image. This
missing the mark not only stains us, but it stains the world and
the systems we create.

Does the popular view of Atonement (Penal Substitution)
actually take Sin seriously?

Forgiveness: If forgiveness requires payment or blood is it
actually forgiveness?

Exile thinking



Some questions to think about on this journey through
Atonement:


Retribution or Restoration?

Substitution or Representation?

Transaction or Transformation?

Judicial or Relational?

Did God need his mind changed about us or our mind about God?

Is there a debt owed? How does the cross bring about justice?

Holiness and/or Love… are they opposed to each other?

Who killed Jesus? God or us?

Is our view of the cross to individualistic?

What does the cross solve? Sin? Death? Evil? (Powers) All of
the above?



Atonement Theories


Moral Influence

Ransom Theory

Christus Victor

Satisfaction Theory

Penal Substitution

Scapegoat Theory

Recapitulation

New Covenant



Some interesting History


Though PSA is seen in evangelicalism as the gospel (This has been
depicted in the recent documentary “the American Gospel”) but it
is interesting to note that in all the orthodox creeds and early
church ecumenical councils there is no definition of the
atonement in terms of accepted or rejected theories. Where the
early church agreed that Christ had saved the human race from sin
and its consequences, there was no unambiguous tradition as to
how this was brought about. The only line in the creeds that
talks about the cross is in the Nicaean Creed and it’s “For us
and for our salvation”. There was no discussion on the mechanics
of the cross except in Christ’s victory over sin and death, and
our salvation because of that. So, to make PSA “the gospel” and
the rejection of that view as heresy actually flies in the face
of church history.