There has been a great deal of discussion lately on the subject of “atonement”, sin, and the nature of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection.

Thanks for that article, Phil, Chris and Chris. It was very helpful to see the view over the ages, and to see that should one view be “correct” there would be a thousand years of peope going to “hell”.

That’s why, in my opinion, the Christus Victor view (and even Ransom theory) seems to be a more compelling narrative. Jesus died in humanity’s place, and in doing so conquered death and the grave. It seems to me that a view that focuses more on the death than the resurrection is a bit lacking. Note, I’m not saying it’s wrong, but more like incomplete.

I am not an expert about all the parsings, but even if the penal essence is removed the substitionary essence remains – right?

The substitutionary essence does remain in the others, though it is more of a corporate substitution than an individualized one.

So, if the “Biblical view” wasn’t mentioned, what is it?

Let me take a wild guess…

It’s probably whichever one that he thinks is best. So convenient how that works out, isn’t it?

What about the Biblical view?

Not on the buffet menu here.

Uhmmmm, Chris – all 6 are ‘Biblical’ views. The Bible doesn’t proscribe one mechanism of atonement.

The article was already too long, or I would have also brought in the concept of Jesus’ death fulfilling the covenant between God and Abraham, which doesn’t describe an atonement method, but does shed light on at least one promise fulfilled by it.

We also did not get into all of the arguments for and against each view. For instance, since God does not sin, suggesting that penal substitution is the only viable view sits in contrast to multiple passages, the simplest being:

It is not good to punish an innocent man – Pr 17:26

So, if the “Biblical view” wasn’t mentioned, what is it?

Not on the buffet menu here.