Atonement Theory

[Sargon]

There are a variety of Atonement theories in Christian thought. For those unfamiliar with this idea, I refer to theories that try to explain how and why the Atonement works. Most Christians (including Latter-day Saints) are content to leave the mechanics of the Atonement a mystery, which is fine. But for those interested in pursuing the question, here is a summary of the four traditional theories of atonement throughout Christian history. I'm borrowing from a post by Kevin Barney at BCC:

(i)

substitution

(imagery from the sacrificial cult of the Jewish temple),

(ii)

ransom

(which focuses on the claims of the Devil and a transaction in which God uses Jesus as the purchase price or ransom to free sinful men, but the Devil is tricked when he is not able to keep Jesus

[mercyngrace]

I do have a theory. I think it is closest to the moral theory but includes the KFD and other unique LDS teachings like God being bound by laws, as well as our understanding of dominion, glory, etc. in the explanation of how and why the atonement works.

[nicolasconnault]

My favourite theory is McConkie's: "In some way, incomprehensible to us, his suffering satisfied the demands of justice, ransomed penitent souls from the pains and penalties of sin, and made mercy available to those who believe in his holy name."

[David T]

I think (mostly) all of them help us understand one aspect of the principle of Atonement, without being complete and definitive in and of themselves. While I don't believe any single 'theory' is comprehensive, I believe that most are profitable.

There are a variety of Atonement theories in Christian thought. For those unfamiliar with this idea, I refer to theories that try to explain how and why the Atonement works. Most Christians (including Latter-day Saints) are content to leave the mechanics of the Atonement a mystery, which is fine. But for those interested in pursuing the question, here is a summary of the four traditional theories of atonement throughout Christian history. I'm borrowing from a post by Kevin Barney at BCC:

(i)

substitution

(imagery from the sacrificial cult of the Jewish temple),

(ii)

ransom

(which focuses on the claims of the Devil and a transaction in which God uses Jesus as the purchase price or ransom to free sinful men, but the Devil is tricked when he is not able to keep Jesus

[Sargon]

I think (mostly) all of them help us understand one aspect of the principle of Atonement, without being complete and definitive in and of themselves. While I don't believe any single 'theory' is comprehensive, I believe that most are profitable.

I agree. I find things to like and things to dislike about each of the four theories. It is somewhat ironic that the keystone of Christianity is so difficult to understand. It causes me to pause and think about our tendency to tease Trinitarians on account of the mystery inherent in their theology.

[Kevin Christensen]

I like Lorin Hansen's Dialogue essay on The Moral Atonement, which compares the basic historical approaches, and notes the unique qualities of the Book of Mormon treatment. He notes that traditional theories were either objective, filing some legal obligation (typically in these theories, expressed in terms quite distinct from the imagery of the High Priest in the temple on the Day of Atonement), or subjective, some of kind of demonstration that had no formal necessity Abelard and Jonathon Edwards. He observes the in the Book of Mormon, the atonement has both objective requirement and subjective appeal as inherent qualities.

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N01_207.pdf

I've also been personally touched by Eugene England's essay "Shakespeare and the Atonement of Christ,"

Nibley on The Meaning of the Atonement, and Margaret Barker on Atonement: The Rite of Healing.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

Among other things, I like how Margaret observes that from the first, the early Christians interpreted Jesus' death and resurrection in terms of the role of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, but as that background was lost, so was the key to understanding the atonement.

What was assumed by the New testament writers was a traditional understanding of the temple rituals and myths of atonement. When the rituals had ceased and the myths were no longer recognised for what they really were, the key to understanding the imagery of atonement was lost.

For me, being "at-one" is the key to the meaning. And the Book of Mormon ties it all to original temple imagery.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[3DOP]

There are a variety of Atonement theories in Christian thought. For those unfamiliar with this idea, I refer to theories that try to explain how and why the Atonement works. Most Christians (including Latter-day Saints) are content to leave the mechanics of the Atonement a mystery, which is fine. But for those interested in pursuing the question, here is a summary of the four traditional theories of atonement throughout Christian history. I'm borrowing from a post by Kevin Barney at BCC:

(i)

substitution

(imagery from the sacrificial cult of the Jewish temple),

(ii)

ransom

(which focuses on the claims of the Devil and a transaction in which God uses Jesus as the purchase price or ransom to free sinful men, but the Devil is tricked when he is not able to keep Jesus

[DavidC]

I like the idea that when Jesus accepted the commission to create the earth, he covenanted to take upon himself the punishment for the evil that would occur within that creation.