Christianity2c Flashcards
Term: AtonementDefinition: The process by which individuals are reconciled with God through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Additional Information: Biblical passages such as Colossians 1:20, 1 John 2:2, and Revelation 7:14 emphasize the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins in Christianity.
Old Testament Sacrificial Practices:
Leviticus 16:20-22 describes the symbolic transfer of sins onto a goat, which is then cast out into the wilderness.Exodus 12:24-27 commands the slaughter and consumption of a lamb during Passover, symbolizing deliverance from Egypt.
John the Baptist’s Reference:
John 1:29 portrays Jesus as “the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,” drawing on the sacrificial imagery.
New Testament Perspective:
The Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes Jesus’ sacrifice as the ultimate atonement for sin, offering a final expiation (Hebrews 7:27).
Criticism
Some critics argue that a loving God wouldn’t sacrifice his only Son to satisfy justice, portraying God as an angry tyrant in need of appeasement.
Term: Ransom ModelDefinition: A variant of the sacrificial model of atonement where Jesus’ death is seen as a ransom payment to redeem humanity from sin.
Biblical Basis: Matthew 20:28, 1 Timothy 2:5-6Interpretations: Origen’s view of Jesus’ death as a ransom paid to Satan, and Gregory the Great’s perspective on Satan’s acquired rights over humanity and Jesus’ sinless death exceeding Satan’s authority.Outcome: Liberation of humanity from the power of sin and death.Criticism: Concerns about attributing excessive power to Satan and portraying God as indebted and deceptive.
Term: Christus VictorDefinition: A model of atonement popularized by Gustaf Aulén, emphasizing Jesus’ victory over the powers of death and the devil, liberating humanity from sin and death.
Introduction: Gustaf Aulén’s repopularization of the ransom model in his 1931 book “Christus Victor.”Interpretation: Unlike Anselm’s debt of honor perspective, Aulén sees atonement as liberation from the slavery of sin, with Jesus’ incarnation as redemption of human suffering.Outcome: Portrays Jesus’ atonement as a triumph over evil powers, resulting in humanity’s liberation from sin and death.Criticism: Concerns about downplaying the seriousness of human sin and presenting a triumphalist view of salvation.
Term: Satisfaction ModelDefinition: A model of atonement proposed by Anselm, suggesting that human sin offended God’s honor to the extent that only the death of the divine-human Jesus could satisfy it.
Introduction: Anselm’s proposal in his book “Cur Deus Homo” (1097).Explanation of “Satisfaction”: Refers to reparation or propitiation, not pleasure or fulfillment.Anselm’s View: Human sin created a debt to God greater than humans could pay, so God had to pay the debt himself by becoming human in Jesus.Outcome: Jesus’ death brought infinite honor to God and gained him a surplus of merit, which is passed on to believers for reconciliation with God.Criticism: Based on the feudal concept of honor, which is unbiblical and portrays God in feudal terms
Term: Penal Substitution ModelDefinition: A model of atonement proposed by 16th Century Protestant reformers, suggesting that Jesus took upon himself the punishment for humanity’s sins on the cross, satisfying the justice of God.
Introduction: Proposed as an alternative to Anselm’s Satisfaction model, emphasizing the concept of God’s justice.Biblical Basis: Derived from passages like Isaiah 53:6 and Galatians 3:13.Issues: Critics argue it portrays God as vengeful and perpetrates ‘cosmic child abuse,’ separating the Father and the Son, and is incompatible with a proper Christian understanding of God’s nature.Other Perspectives: Some argue it serves as the mechanism for other aspects of atonement, such as ransom, moral example, and victory.
Term: Moral Example ModelDefinition: A model of atonement proposing that Jesus’ death was not to appease God but to demonstrate God’s love for humanity and lead people to repentance and moral improvement.
Introduction: Formulated by Augustine and restated by Peter Abelard as a reaction against Anselm’s Satisfaction theory.Explanation: Jesus’ death serves as a moral example rather than a means of appeasing God’s honor or justice.Atonement Achieved: Humans achieve atonement by following Jesus’ example, leading to moral improvement.Issues: Criticisms include the lack of explanation for why Jesus had to die, the implication that humans can achieve salvation through their own efforts, and the downplaying of the seriousness of sin and God’s anger against it.
Explain two theories of the Atonement that you have studied. [AO1 30]
Explain two theories of the Atonement that you have studied. [AO1 30]
Candidates could include some or all of the following, but other relevant points should be credited.
Note that only two of the following theories should be covered in the candidate’s answer.
All theories of the atonement aim to explain how humans can be reconciled to God through the death of
Jesus. Answers may unpack the concept with reference to the centrality of Jesus’ death in Christian
understandings of his role as saviour from sin, bringing forgiveness of sins and restoring a right relationship
with God.
• The death of Jesus as Christus Victor:
- This theory suggests that Jesus’ death and resurrection defeated the powers of evil, liberating humanity
from hostile powers.
- Those hostile powers can be understood in a number of ways: the devil, sin, the law, death, etc. (or a
combination thereof).
- Some modern liberal Christians understand this as a subversion of worldly powers, and view the
resurrection as a triumph over them.
• The death of Jesus as a substitution:
- This covers two related beliefs: (a) that Jesus died in place of the people to free humanity from sin – God
put the sins of humanity onto the sinless Jesus, who took the punishment that humanity deserved
(penal substitution theory); and (b) that, since the debt of sin is owed to the divine (God) by the people
(human), only Jesus (both divine and human) could act as sacrifice by God for the sake of humanity.
- The penal substitution theory emphasises God’s justice – God has to uphold God’s laws and teachings,
which means that justice must be served, and sin must be punished.
- However, some argue that substitution theories also emphasise God’s love for humans: rather than
punish people for their sin, God gave God’s self in the form of Jesus.
• The death of Jesus as a moral example:
- This theory (also called the “moral influence theory” or “moral exemplar theory”) suggests that the life
and works of Jesus were given to humanity as a moral example of how to live and die.
- This moral example inspires humans to overcome sin in their lives and grow closer to God.
- The focus in this theory is wider than just the death of Jesus (especially when compared to other theories
of the atonement), as it also entails Jesus’ teachings, the movement founded in his name, and God’s
redemptive love in Jesus. Jesus’ death is understood as a martyrdom because of these teachings.
Analysis: The extent to which the three models of the atonement are contradictory
three models propose different means of salvation and some have suggested these are contradictory
and incoherent.
The Moral Example model teaches that salvation can be achieved by personal moral effort/works.
Supporters claim this is the original basis for any atonement model as it was taught in the 3rd century CE
whereas the Penal Substitution model didn’t appear until the 16th century. Therefore, whilst they don’t see
any inconsistency, there is a sense of priority in understanding. The Moral Example model is also supported
by New Testament teaching on the need for repentance which, supporters argue, is the basis of the
Christian faith. Hence, this theory is favoured by Liberal Christians.
However, the Sacrificial and Penal Substitution theories teach that salvation can only be achieved by the
death of Christ and faith in him. Supporters argue that this is supported by New Testament teaching on
the necessity of faith for salvation and that, although the Penal Substitution model wasn’t formally
proposed until the 16th century it does have its origins in the New Testament. The Sacrificial model is much
earlier with roots in the Old Testament. It tends to be favoured by Conservative Christians.
However, in ‘The Cross of Christ’ (1986) the evangelical theologian John R.W. Stott proposed that the
Moral Example model can actually be seen as part of the Penal Substitution model meaning the two could
be harmonised. The Penal Substitution model focusses entirely on the death of Jesus whereas the Moral
Example model sees Jesus’ death in the wider context of his ethical teaching. Jesus was sentenced to die
because of what he taught. This means the two models are interconnected within the larger story of Jesus’
incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection.
However, it could be claimed that the Moral Example model clashes with Paul’s rejection of salvation
through works. This could be resolved, however, if we accept that Paul was referring to Jewish ritual
‘works’ such as circumcision and food laws rather than good works in general. Salvation through works
could then be harmonised with Salvation through faith in what Jesus achieved through his sacrificial death.
Moreover, the New Testament suggest that, in the words of James ‘show me your faith without deeds and
I will show you my faith by my deeds’, which suggests salvation through faith and salvation through moral
effort are not separate theories and can be harmonised.
Perhaps the three models of atonement are not contradictory or mutually exclusive but help to bring out
different aspects of the atonement. Each may help to support the other rather than contradict it outright.
(Note: You could consider the argument mentioned earlier that the Penal Substitution model is the
mechanism by which everything else is achieved by Jesus on the cross. The cross as ransom, victory and
moral example only work if Jesus took our punishment for us).
Task: Consider the three conclusions below. For each, try and think of arguments to support them. Which
conclusion do you think is the strongest and why? Which conclusion do you think is the weakest and why?
• The three images of the atonement (Sacrifice/Ransom; Satisfaction/Penal Substitution;
Moral Example) are contradictory.
• The three images of the atonement can be harmonised.
• It does not matter whether the three images are contradictory or not. They reflect the
mystery of the atonement
