A Synthesized Theory of Atonement
No doctrine it seems has spurned more debate and change over the centuries than that of the doctrine of atonement. While most doctrines one can at least see a consensus developing among a majority of scholars, the issue of atonement is quite the opposite; we more easily see a splintering of views as times goes on. The unique aspect of most of the theories of atonement is that many of them have an element of truth to them, but all seem incapable of adequately synthesizing all the aspects of atonement into their theory. This can be mostly attributed to the plethora of scriptural variety concerning this doctrine. It seems the biblical writers themselves could not converge upon one set upon description of Christ’s atoning work on the cross, so the question is should we?
The answer to that question is a most resounding yes. Just because the biblical authors chose to represent Christ’s atonement for humanity in many colorful and descriptive ways does not mean that one cannot find a suitable working theory of atonement to sum up the biblical data.
The question now then lies in the ability of any current theories of atonement to meet the universal requirements necessary to be seen as a complete theory of atonement. If the common assertion among many theologians today is that no one theory seems to do the argument complete justice, then no current theory seems to fit that mold.
Secondly, if one is to understand that all elements of the atonement are to be equal in nature and not secondary in any way; it can then be concluded that a modified theory of atonement is required, that satisfactorily covers all areas of this critical doctrine equally.
Before we can begin to look at the current theories of atonement, one must first take a careful look at all the elements involved in this doctrine. A complete theory of atonement will sufficiently cover all of these elements with equal focus as they are all a critical component to the doctrine itself.
The first essential element to be found in atonement would be God himself. One of the most interesting aspects of all the theories of atonement is that they all essentially say that God acted on our behalf. Where they differ is in how God acted, and what exactly God did in his action. We are told by Paul that, “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,” (Rom. 3:25). Perhaps a better rendering of the word presented would be that God designed Christ, or appointed him to this task.[1] God then must be at the heart of any theory that one is to support concerning atonement.
By the same verse we can also clearly see that another key element within the atonement is Jesus Christ. What is even more compelling is that this atonement was achieved by no other means than the bloody death of Jesus Christ which is also found in Romans 3:25.[2]
By default we can also conclude that humanity itself is a key element in the issue of atonement. It is for humanity that Christ himself would die thus atoning us. Simply put, atonement is necessary because God and man are not “at one”.[3]
Another key element to atonement as seen in Scripture would be the issue of sin. As one can clearly see from Genesis 3, humanity would not need saving if it wasn’t for the issue of sin. Paul clearly shows the bondage of sin in Romans 3:9. Sin therefore is a critical element that must be covered in any theory of atonement.
The final element as it pertains to the doctrine of atonement would be Satan and the forces of evil. Jesus himself clearly saw Satan as the functional ruler of this world, and stated so (John 12:31).[4] Bruce holds that the ruler of the world was clearly the adversary of Jesus and the believers.[5] Carson goes even further, attributing this description to Satan himself.[6] John himself would squarely place the control of the entire world under Satan’s domain (1 John 5:19). Thus any theory of atonement will equally treat the element of satanic power and its destruction into the overarching theory itself. It must be qualified that Satan is not to be thought of on equal footing to God as that would be dualism, but rather simply an essential element to deal with concerning atonement.
In order to establish a comprehensive theory of atonement one must treat all the elements found within atonement equally. Any theory that simply relegates one aspect or dimension of the doctrine to a secondary status simply does not line up with the biblical model, and thus fails in its endeavor to be comprehensive in nature. A thorough look at some of the more prominent theories is warranted.
Over the centuries since the death of Christ many views have been espoused concerning the atonement. Many of them spring from the cultural distinctives of the times in which they were conceived. It must be stated that the purpose of this paper is not to provide an exhaustive account of all the theories of atonement, or even many of them for that matter; but rather a critical look at some of the more prominent theories that have been held throughout the centuries. While looking at each theory we will also point out where they fall within the balance of treating each essential element in atonement equally, and some critical issues that arise from each one.
Satisfaction Theory
The next theory to take hold in the church would be the Satisfaction theory which originated by Anselm during the Middle Ages. Anselm saw the world as one of order and honor due to the feudal system that had been in place culturally throughout Europe during his life.[7] To Anselm, if humanity refused to give God his due as one would give their feudal lord, then they had violated the very structure of the moral order in which they lived, and God must act to restore order in some way.[8] To Anselm, satisfaction for wrong is demanded by God due to his holiness and justice.[9] Man’s sin is infinite in nature because it offends an infinite God. Thus, humanity is incapable of making effective payment due to our finiteness. God could only make such a payment, but man must be the one to do it, so only a God-man could satisfy the insult to God’s honor and make the infinite payment for forgiveness.[10]
Some critical issues arise in this theory as well. Anselm view of a feudal lord never allows for a sovereign God that could in fact be merciful to his people and not lose his honor. To Anselm, God had to have payment, but that does not line up with the biblical representation of God. This theory also seems to present a conflict between God’s love and his justice that is directly contrary to Scripture. Kant also has a stinging criticism in that he believes that humanity’s debt cannot be transferred to another; an innocent person according to Kant, could not carry it even if he wanted to do so.[11]
With a look at the critical elements we can see that the Satisfaction theory rightly emphasizes God as sovereign, and also humanity’s distance from God due to their sin. Where it seems to lack is that it seems to focus exclusively on the importance of Jesus’ death while ignoring the importance of his resurrection. There is also clearly no thought to the forces of evil as it involves atonement, and thus only treats three essential elements as primary while relegating Jesus full role and cosmic evil to a secondary nature.
The Governmental Theory
The Governmental theory came about by a Dutch Jurist and theologian by the name of Hugo Grotius in the 17th[12] Century. Grotius viewed God as a Lawgiver who enacts and sustains laws.[13] God’s law states that the punishment for sin is death, and thus justice demands death. God could not simply forgive them as this would fail to carry out his law which is a contradiction. So God sent his Son not to appease his wrath, but to show an example of how far God would go to uphold the moral order of the universe.[14] Christ’s primary focus then was not to save sinners, but to uphold the law.
The primary critical issue with this theory of atonement is the fact that it simply does not square up with the Bible. It also fails to answer why God had to make a sacrifice of a sinless person rather than the most sinful person to uphold the law.[15] In regards to our essential elements test we see again God as a sovereign Lawgiver juxtaposed against humanity’s violation of that law. The divinity of Christ however in this theory is not necessary in that no payment was made, but an example was made. Christ’s humanity is affirmed, but his deity is relegated to non-essential. We also see no need or mention of cosmic evil in this theory, and sin seems to be relegated to simple breaking of the law. Hence only two of the essential elements are treated equally in this theory.
Christus Victor or Ransom Theory
This theory was initially the most widely accepted theory of the early church, and it was originally popularized by Origen. During the middle ages it would fall off as an acceptable theory until Gustaf Aulen in his work, Christus Victor, popularized it in the twentieth Century. The central tenet of this theory is that atonement is Christ’s divine conflict and ultimate victory over the evil powers of this world.[16] In short, humanity is in bondage to the cosmic forces of evil, and through Christ, God reconciles the world to himself.[17] In his death Christ identifies with our suffering, and in his resurrection Christ is made victor over all oppressive forces.[18] This war-like motif is seen throughout the Bible to describe the cosmic conflict between God and his enemies. According to this theory, God does not act deviously at all, but rather acting like a cunning and wise military strategist, he understood that his outrageous act of love would not be understood by the powers whose evil blinds them to such love.[19] In effect, Christ did not die with our transferred punishment upon his shoulders so that God could forgive humanity. The cross reconciled the world to God, not God to the world.[20]
Some questions arise when considering this view. First, it seems that sin would play a secondary role to the cosmological battle that is being played out upon the earth. Why has humanity fallen into bondage to the dark forces of this world? Christus Victor theory seems to have no answer for this fundamental question. Are we to simply take for granted that we simply are in bondage, although no logical reason is given to show why? Secondly, if the forces of evil had truly been beaten at the cross, would there not be more evidence to show for it? Would the world not be in a better place now then it was then? Why then does the exact opposite seem to be true? Thirdly, how does the ransom theory escape the idea that it presents a dualistic theology where Satan and God are near equals? The idea that God had to bargain with Satan for humanity seams to connote that good and evil are nearly equivalent cosmic forces.[21]
When it comes to the essential elements needed for a complete theory of atonement we can see that Christus Victor places a great emphasis upon God as the will to action for the atoning work, and Christ himself as the weapon to defeat cosmic evil. What seems to be missing is a realization of the power of sin, and its affects upon humanity. Sin is a central issue to atonement, and it takes a back seat to Satan and the forces of evil. Humanity here also seems to be downplayed as but a role player in this cosmic battle. Where is humanity’s responsibility regarding their plight and bondage? Where does our choice to sin come into play? In light of this, Christus Victor essentially covers three of the five essential elements necessary for a complete theory of atonement.
Moral Influence Theory
This theory developed by Peter Abelard in rebuttal of Anselm’s, Satisfaction theory is more subjective in nature. This theory holds that man is really only distant from God, lacking in moral development.[22] Christ’s death was not a payment for sin, or an appeasement of divine wrath, but an outrageous demonstration of God’s love for humanity. Here the totality of Jesus’ life is taken into context as it concerns atonement. Jesus is an example of what it truly means to be tuned into God, and is an example of moral development.[23] Christ’s love so inspires us that we cannot help but love God and our neighbors the way we always should have.[24] Humanity, therefore, is moved closer to God, not God to humanity. This theory fits very well with many non-violent atonement theologians as the emphasis is not on the death of Christ, but rather on his life in totality. This takes redemption out of the area of payment to God, and into a continuous atonement that lives on in the community of Christ, thus making violence a non-factor in the atonement debate.[25]
Many serious issues arise from this theory. The first being, if Christ’s death was nothing more than the provision of an example, why then did he need to suffer and die? What did Christ’s death do other than that? It seems like a cruel example to set forth if that is all it is. Simply put, if the act of Jesus’ death did not accomplish anything objective, then what exactly is the example being provided by it?[26] Secondly, if one were to follow this theory to its fullest, would they not ultimately be led to the conclusion that there really was no need for atonement? If the power of the example lies in the story, it is powerful whether the story is true or not, inspiration does not need fact to make it go.[27]
When looking at what essential elements are present in this argument one sees very few covered. God himself is relegated to a secondary status in that other than willing the provision of an example to humanity, nothing is achieved or done on his part in atonement. Christ need not even be divine in order for this theory to hold true. There is no forgiveness of sin, only a correction of attitude and morality is necessary. In other words, inspiration trumps forgiveness. Likewise, there is absolutely no need for the forces of Evil or Satan here because at heart is simply humanity. The only essential element present in this theory is humanity itself.
The Penal-Substitution Theory
This theory holds that Christ being our substitute, took the full penalty of our sin that was due us. His death is purely vicarious in nature, meaning that he did not suffer simply for our advantage, but in our place.[28] In essence, Christ’s death on the cross paid the penalty for our sins which demanded death as justice to God. This theory emphasizes God’s holiness juxtaposed with the sinfulness of humankind.[29] The central issue here is man’s absolute sinfulness and the punishment required because of it in light of God’s holiness. Humanity has been found guilty before God, but because of his great love for us, he sends his Son Jesus as our substitute satisfying the demand for punishment under the law.[30] In this way God is able to continue to be righteous in his judgment of sinners, while saving those who accept what his Son has done.[31] You may notice many similarities between this theory and that of Satisfaction by Anselm, however with a key difference. Where Anselm saw God demanding satisfaction for a wrong we committed against him by improperly honoring him, Penal-Substitution sees God demanding punishment and judgment for our transgressions.
While clearly this is a compelling theory, critical questions abound. First, Penal-Substitution seems to place God’s holiness and justice as his overarching characteristics. God’s justice demands penalty and punishment, but where is his mercy? Many would say that his sending Jesus as our substitute was merciful and indeed it was, but this would still place mercy at the feet of justice. Why could God not simply have been merciful? Secondly, penalty and punishment is not always necessary concerning sin. Jesus simply forgave the paralytic of his sins (Luke 5:20), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43). No substitution had been made yet in either case, no penalty had been paid. Jesus exercised his right as fully God to be merciful and forgive sins, could not God do the same? We must also ask, since sin is not external by nature, can it be transferred to another?[32]
In looking at the essential elements present within the Penal-Substitution theory we see that many are in fact present. A sovereign and Holy God who demands justice is front and center in this doctrine. Jesus Christ must be both God and man in order to be the only acceptable substitute for our sin, and humanity is need of repair both in its relationship to God, and in its utter bondage to sin itself. Where this theory seems to fall short is in its presentation of the cosmic forces of evil. While it fully allows for Jesus’ victory over evil under its umbrella, clearly Penal-Substitution relegates Satan and the cosmological battle to secondary status. Overall though, it equally valued four of the five essential elements.
A SYNTHETIC THEORY OF ATONEMENT
It is not hard to conclude that truly no theory of atonement manages to effectively answer each essential element in the doctrine of atonement. Are we then to conclude that due to this issue that all of these theories are entirely wrong? Absolutely not. What we must now look at is whether or not a melding or balance can be brought to any of these views that will effectively treat all the essential elements equally. The goal here is to see if there is a way to modify one or multiple approaches to create a more all encompassing theory.
A few things must guide us in our approach. First we must take Conner’s heed that any theory of atonement must be one that grows up out of the saving work of Christ.[33] This is essential because it makes the death of Christ of fundamental importance. Any theory proposed that does not adequately answer Christ’s death on the cross is hollow at best. The second rule we must realize is that the writers of the New Testament freely used analogy to try to make clear the meaning of his death on the cross.[34] One must be careful not to super-impose literal language when only figurative was given. The third rule is that one must be careful to treat all the essential elements present in atonement equally. This does not mean that each facet is in fact equal in nature as that would be illogical. However, while they may not be equal in nature, they are equally important to the doctrine of atonement as we have already pointed out. This means that just because a theory allows for an essential component, if that element is not treated as equally important as the others, that theory is flawed.
What is being proposed here is a synthesized view of atonement, a marriage of two or more theories to create an overarching one that fundamentally covers all aspects of atonement. It is with this goal in mind that a merging between the Penal-Substitution and Christus Victor theories works best. This does not mean that all aspects from these two theories will be incorporated, but rather a synthesis of the two that will present the best theory possible. First, a case will be made for the synthetic view being presented.
This theory is the belief that humanity in their sin is both separated from God, utterly lost, and in bondage to the forces of evil. God in his holiness cannot reconcile his people to himself without their cleansing, and at the same time no earthly finite sacrifice makes that possible. Without the hope of reconciliation to God, people will remain in bondage to Satan. God in his infinite love and wisdom sends his son to the earth as a sacrifice for humanity’s sin; whereas his death acts as the cleansing agent necessary for restitution, and his resurrection provides the means to defeat God’s enemies and free his people. Both the cleansing of sins and the defeat of evil are essential to the atoning work of Christ. We will call this theory the Victorious Sacrifice theory.
This view takes the strengths of possibly the two strongest theories of atonement and successfully merges them into one overarching theory, while leaving their weaknesses behind. In this view God is holy and just, and due to that holiness is separated from his people, but his holiness and justice are not the overriding characteristics of God. His perfection does not demand payment or retribution for sin, but rather perfection from his people (Matt. 5:48). What is clear from the Old Testament is that God understood that his people would never achieve perfection and thus he set up the sacrificial system to atone for their sins, making them pure again. Are we saying that God does not punish or penalize sin in any way? No, what we are stating is that punishment is not always required. Jesus was our substitute much in the same way that the animals were the substitute for the sins of the Israelites. If Christ had paid our penalty to God, would it not be paid infinitely? Would not all our sins be covered by the infinite payment of Christ? However, if we look at Christ as being our substitute and sacrifice, it is easy to see how our cleansing takes place. Our cleansing has been given, but we must transfer our guilt consciously to the sacrifice to make it count, much like the Israelites did by touching the animal.[35] Therefore, an infinite cleansing sacrificial substitute is much more likely than a penal substitute.
This theory also manages to take into account the cosmic aspects that seem to run through the entirety of the Bible. Where sacrifice and substitution are geared more specifically to the individual, we must also take into account that humanity is in fact lost and in bondage to the forces of evil. If Jesus clearly recognized Satan as the prince of this world, then that comes with authority. Any atonement of humanity must deal with freeing his people from the bondage they put themselves into with their sin. Simply put, it is not good enough to simply free people from their sin, but still leave the powers of evil in charge, nor is it good enough to simply vanquish the forces of evil. Sin and evil must be dealt with separately, but equally if any atoning work is to be done.
What is most at issue here is priority. Substitution theory believes that sin must be dealt with first, which is true. Christus Victor believes that the destruction of evil must logically be prior, but does this have to be so? Could not God cleanse his people from their sin and then defeat evil? Could Jesus’ death truly be the sacrifice necessary to defeat sin, and his resurrection the power to defeat evil? In essence, could God not use his Son in his own current system of atonement (sacrifice) to also defeat the forces of evil? Yes he could. This does not make the cosmic battle between God and Satan secondary in any sense, if anything it establishes that no duality exists. God saw sin to be the problem of the individual, and the rule of Satan as the global result of that sin. What one must realize is that just because an action is taken first does not mean that the object of that action is primary.
What is meant to be argued here is that the argument of primacy between sin and evil is not necessary. Both elements had to be taken care of equally, but most definitely differently. This difference does not speak to the essential nature of these elements in atonement, but rather to God’s methodology.
In conclusion, we have seen that all the current theories of atonement do not seem to treat all the essential elements and parties involved in the doctrine of atonement equally. These elements are: God, Christ, humanity, sin, and Satan. Not only do these theories have gaps, but also strong theological questions have been raised as to their biblical representation. If no theory successfully encompasses all the aspects of atonement, then a synthesis of one or more could in fact do so.
In looking at the plethora of theories available, a merging of specific aspects of Christus Victor and Penal-Substitution theory seem best to synthesize an overarching theory of atonement in what we call the Victorious Sacrifice Theory. We have adopted the cosmic battle between good and evil, and the necessity of its defeat in regards to atonement. We have also dealt with the seriousness of sin in humanity as it has led to separation from God, and bondage to evil. We have also given Christ his due as both God and man. He is our sacrifice, cleansing humanity of their sin, and making possible restitution with a perfect God. He is also the destruction of the power of evil over humanity, freeing humanity from bondage. We have also effectively treated the individual sin and need of propitiation, and the global results of that sin.
Looking at the atoning work of Christ, we can see in his death our cleansing, and in his resurrection, our freedom. We now have the freedom and the means to reconcile to God. It is with this in mind that we can wholeheartedly agree with Karl Barth’s assessment of salvation that we were saved not at the moment of our conversion, but “one afternoon in A.D. 34 when Jesus died on the cross.”[36]
Aulen, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea
of Atonement. New York: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2003.
Beilby, James, and Eddy, Paul, eds. The Nature of Atonement: Four Views. Downers
Grove, Ill.: IVP Academics, 2006.
Benner, Drayton C. “Immanuel Kant’s demythologization of Christian theories of
Atonement.” Evangelical Quarterly 79, no. 2 (April 1, 2007): 99-111.
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November
4, 2010).
Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. The Gospel of John Introduction, Exposition and Notes.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary).
Leicester, England: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.
Conner, Walter Thomas. "Theories of atonement." Review & Expositor 44, no. 3 (July 1,
1947): 301-311. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 16, 2010).
Dillistone, F W. “Biblical and historical appraisal of theories of atonement.” Theology
Today 10, no. 2 (July 1, 1953): 185-195. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 4, 2010).
Erickson, Milliard J. Systematic Theology, 2nd Edition. (Grand Rapids MI: Baker
Books). 2000.
Finger, Reta Halterman. “How can Jesus save women: three theories of atonement.”
Daughters of Sarah 14, no. 6 (1988): 14-18. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 17, 2010).
Horton, Stanley H., ed. Systematic Theology. (Springfield, MO: Logion Press).
Morgan, Jacob. “The Divine-infusion theory: rethinking the atonement.” Dialogue 39,
No. 1 (March 1, 2006): 57-81. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed November 17, 2010).
Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary). Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.
Murphy, George L. “Atonement as Fiducial Influence.” Currents in Theology and
Mission 37, no. 1 (February 1, 2010): 23-27. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 4, 2010).
Placher, William C. “How does Jesus Save? An Alternative View of Atonement.”
Christian Century 126, no. 11 (June 2, 2009): 23-27. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 4, 2010).
Schmiechen, Mr. Peter. Saving Power: Theories of Atonement and Forms of the
Church. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005.
Spence, Alan. “A unified theory of atonement.” International Journal of Systematic
Theology 6, no. 4 (October 1, 2004): 404-420. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 4, 2010).
Streufert, Mary J. "Reclaiming Schleiermacher for twenty-first century atonement theory:
the human and the divine in feminist Christology." Feminist Theology 15, no. 1 (September 1, 2006): 98-120. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 16, 2010).
Tidball, Derek, David Hilborn, and Justin Thacker, eds. The Atonement Debate:
Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008.
Yancey, Philip. “Surveying the wondrous cross: understanding the atonement is about
more than just grasping a theory.” Christianity Today 53, no. 5 (May 1, 2009): 72- 318. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 17, 2010).
[1] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary) (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), Pg. 180.
[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, ed., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, ed. James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Downders Grove, Ill.: IVP Academics, 2006), pg. 87
[3] George, Murphy, “Atonement as Fiducial Influence.” Currents in Theology and Mission 37, no. 1st, 2010), pg. 24. (February 1
[4]Gregory A. Boyd, ed., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, ed. James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Downders Grove, Ill.: IVP Academics, 2006), pg. 27.
[5] Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdman Publishing Company, 1983), Pg. 267.
[6]Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s Publishing, 1991), Pg. 443.
[7] William Placher, “How does Jesus Save? An Alternative view of Atonement.” Christian Century 126, no. 11 (June 2, 2009), pg. 23.
[8] F.W. Dillistone, “Biblical and Historical Appraisal of Theories of Atonement.” Theology Today 10, no. 2 (July 1, 1953), pg. 191.
[9] Alan Spence, “A Unified Theory of Atonement.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 6, no. 4. (October 1, 2004), pg. 405.
[10] Daniel B. Pecota, “The Saving Work of Christ.” Systematic Theology, Edited by Horton, Stanley. (Springfield, MO: Logion Press), pg. 340.
[11] Drayton Benner, “Immanuel Kant’s demythologization of Christian theories of atonement in Religion within the limits of reason alone.” Evangelical Quarterly 79, no. 2 (April 1, 2007), pg. 104.
[12] Erickson, Milliard. Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books), Pg. 806.
[13] Daniel B. Pecota, “The Saving Work of Christ.” Systematic Theology, Edited by Horton, Stanley. (Springfield, MO: Logion Press), pg. 341
[14] Ibid, pg. 341.
[15] Ibid, pg. 341.
[16] Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement (New York: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2003), pg. 4.
[17] Ibid, pg. 4.
[18] Peter Schmiechen, Saving Power: Theories of Atonement and Forms of the Church, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 124.
[19]Gregory A. Boyd, ed., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, ed. James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Downders Grove, Ill.: IVP Academics, 2006), pg. 37..
[20] Ibid, pg. 43.
[21] Jacob Morgan, “Divine Infusion Theory: rethinking the atonement.” Dialogue 39, no. 1 (March 1, 2006), pg. 59.
[22] Reta Halterman Finger, “How can Jesus save women: three theories of atonement.” Daughters of Sarah 14, no. 6 (1988), pg. 15.
[23] Ibid, Pg. 15.
[24]William Placher, “How does Jesus Save? An Alternative view of Atonement.” Christian Century 126, no. 11 (June 2, 2009), pg. 24
[25] Streufert, Mary J. "Reclaiming Schleiermacher for twenty-first century atonement theory:
the human and the divine in feminist Christology." Feminist Theology 15, no. 1 (September 1, 2006), pg. 112.
[26]Jacob Morgan, “Divine Infusion Theory: rethinking the atonement.” Dialogue 39, no. 1 (March 1, 2006), pg. 60
[27] Ibid, Pg. 59.
[28]Daniel B. Pecota, “The Saving Work of Christ.” Systematic Theology, Edited by Horton, Stanley. (Springfield, MO: Logion Press), pg. 342.
[29] Reta Halterman Finger, “How can Jesus save women: three theories of atonement.” Daughters of Sarah 14, no. 6 (1988), pg. 15
[30] Peter Schmiechen, Saving Power: Theories of Atonement and Forms of the Church, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005), 104.
[31]Derek Tidball, David Hilborn and Justin Thacker, eds., The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008), page. 63.
[32] Daniel B. Pecota, “The Saving Work of Christ.” Systematic Theology, Edited by Horton, Stanley. (Springfield, MO: Logion Press), pg. 342
[33] Walter Conner, “Theories of atonement.” Review & Expositor 44, no. 3 (July 1, 1947), pg. 301.
[34] Ibid, Pg. 302.
[35]Thomas R. Schreiner, ed., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, ed. James Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Downders Grove, Ill.: IVP Academics, 2006), pg. 87
[36] Philip Yancey, “Surveying the wondrous cross: understanding the atonement is about more than just grasping a theory.” Christianity Today 53, no. 5 (May 1, 2009), pg. 72.
No comments:
Post a Comment