Edgework

It seems to me that many Christians prefer to decide on and stick with one image, metaphor or theory with respect to atonement.

Instead of tweaking one of the long-standing atonement theories, as J. Denny Weaver does by adding “narrative” to the Christus victor theory, Hendrik Berkoff chooses instead to simply unpack the Pauline understandings of how Christ “disarmed” the “principalities and powers.”

Our survey of the dominant atonement theories throughout the Christian era illustrates that they have all been heavily influenced by the political and social contexts of the times in which they came to light.

Pressing back toward the early Christian era, we encounter in the second century the formation of a perspective on the saving work of Christ which later came to be known as the Christus victor atonement theory.

In the generation following Anselm’s introduction of the satisfaction atonement theory, Peter Abelard (1079 – 1142) mounted a spirited defense of a much older view known as the moral influence atonement theory.

Pushing backward beyond the penal substitution atonement theory we reach back all the way to Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033 – 1109).

We now begin summarizing and evaluating various atonement theories that have emerged throughout the Christian era starting with the penal substitution theory.

We have made the point in previous essays that before we even begin formulating “theories of atonement” we must simply let the biblical text speak for itself when it addresses the entire Jesus event.

In most evangelical circles, the writings of Paul comprise the core of the Gospel. It is thought that in his theological reflections Paul brought us the true theological and practical meaning and implications of how the death of Christ saves us from damnation.

We turn now to the writings of the Apostle John. John stands right alongside of the other great theologian of the New Testament, Paul, but is often eclipsed by him. So we must let him speak for himself.