Theology of atonement and salvation assignment

This is why and where the diversity of atonement arises. The understanding of how exactly God went about the act of saving and restoring humanity with himself, as there is no distinct answer found in the bible, has brought out many different understanding of atonement over the ages. The first issue that arises when looking at atonement is the extent of atonement. Who did Jesus die for and atone? There are two common answers to this question. The first is limited atonement, which believes that Jesus died for the elect. The elect being God’s sheep and his Church and this is who atonement covers.

This view is part of Calling’s five points. The view of limited atonement arises from the misinterpretation of the words ‘ the world’ and ‘ all’ in the New Testament. The opposing view, also the historical view, is general atonement, where Jesus died for all of humanity. This view is the classical view held by most Christians. Jesus Christ died for us all and it is up to us to accept his salvation. The result of limited atonement on our view of salvation is that it leads to redefinition and takes away our role in accepting salvation.

This view corrupts the foundation of salvation as our saving is based on lies and deceit. The second theory is the satisfaction theory. Ansell of Canterbury wanted to replace the ransom theory with a theory that he believed was more rationally intelligible and more biblically faithful. He used the example of a feudal contract based on honor. When a peasant dishonored his king, he owed his king satisfaction for affront caused to him. Since humans could not pay the satisfaction that is deserved by God, Jesus paid the satisfaction through his death.

However, Jesus had to pay this satisfaction as a man, as man owed the attestation, and as God, as only God could pay the needed satisfaction. Therefore, Jesus’ crucifixion was a substitution payment paid by Christ to God. Though some see this theory as portraying God as bloodthirsty, Ansell credits this to God’s love, mercy and compassion. Through Chrism’s death, God is satisfied, his wrath is satisfied and the penalty of death is satisfied. This means that we are atoned and it is up to us now to take part in the restored relationship with God.

Rather than dying as a payment for the wages of sin, this theory suggests that Jesus died on the cross so that he may enter the Nevis territory and wage a war to set all the captives free. This theory does not deal with consequences of sin and does not deal with human guilt and response. The final theory I will be looking at is the penal substitution theory. This theory is probably the most well-known and widely held by Protestants who have been influenced by Calvin as this is his theory of atonement. Calvin uses the analogy of a law courtroom where humans are being judged guilty for their sins and are sentenced to death.

The main issues here is the need for satisfying God’s justice. It is here that God’s shows us his love by sending Jesus as a substitute to take our place at death. Through Christ death, God’s justice is satisfied as punishment for sin is paid. It is then through his resurrection that Jesus offers us salvation to those who are willing to receive it. This theory highlights both the love of God for us, as well as his righteous anger towards sin. Both of these things needed to be reconciled and are done so through Chrism’s death and resurrection.