C. S. Lewis is well-known for not calling himself a theologian. Rather than seeking a systematic theological perspective, he understood the story of Christ as a "true myth." As he explains:
It is true, not in the sense of being a 'description' of God (that no finite mind could take in) but in the sense of being the way in which God chooses to (...
I see three questions beneath your one question, and I will handle them each separately.
Are Calvinists allowed to disagree with Calvin?
First of all, they get their name from him because they are believed to be in accord with him on most/all doctrine, not because they get their doctrine from him, although he is of course a highly esteemed and respected ...
I believe that this Bible verse confirms that Jesus took on the sins of mankind.
John 1:29 ESV
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the
Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
I think your answer lies in The Threefold Uses of the Law, and more specifically, Romans 7:1,11,24
1 Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." ... 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. ...
Isaiah 53:6 ESV
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to
his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all"
John 3:16 ESV
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting
1 John 2:2 ESV
And He Himself is the ...
The atonement theology is a complicated one to explain. To the believers, it is a simple acceptance of one's imperfection and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the perfect one to render us perfect in the eyes of God. To the unbelievers, it is foolishness that God would become human to die for their sins.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those ...
The Wesleyan Arminians recognised the problem implied by your analogy and resolved it by proffering the Governmental Theory of Atonement.
Applying this resolution to your analogy
Christ has 'made' the payment at the cross - and He can't unmake the payment because the cost to Him was real) - but rather than a completed individual transaction on behalf of ...
Proponents of penal substitution, like Louis Berkhof (ST, 6.2.1), indeed argue that Christ has "removed the penalty of sin" and that therefore "the penal element is removed from death." So why do Christians still die? Two arguments are given:
God continues to use death to sanctify his followers and increase their unity with Christ
Creation continues to ...
Articles 3 and 4 of the Augsburg Confession (part of the Lutheran Confessions) talk about this: The Augsburg Confession (Chief Articles of Faith: Article III: Of the Son of God and Article IV: Of Justification).
Article 3 makes the point that Christ "truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a ...
I once hear this story that really helped me understand
Do you know why Jesus had to die? Can I tell you a story that might
help make it clear? There is a story told about a particular Indian
tribe who was suffering from the effects of a severe drought. Food was
scarce and the members of the tribe were beginning to steal from each
other in order ...
I think the clearest statement to explicitly deal with atonement would be this one from the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians:
Through charity did the Lord join us unto himself; whilst, for the love that he bore towards us, our Lord Jesus Christ gave his own blood for us, by the will of God: his flesh for our flesh, his soul for our souls. [1 Clement, ...
Limited Atonement Defined
Limited atonement is defined in the Canons of Dort:
The Second Main Point of Doctrine: Christ's Death and Human Redemption Through It
Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death
This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice
and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more
To understand the Reformed approach to this challenging question, we should begin with the concept of the "wills" of God. Reformed theologians typically refer to the relevant ones as the decretive (or "secret") and preceptive (or "revealed") wills of God, which R. C. Sproul defines as follows:
Decretive will: The sovereign, ...
Reformed theologians who hold to penal substitutionary atonement emphasize a) the divine nature of Christ and the increased capacity for suffering that that implies and b) the intensity of God's wrath against him.
Louis Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology (3.2.1.B), writes:
[Christ's] capacity for suffering was commensurate with the ideal character of His ...
This brief addendum is intended only to corroborate OP's considered conclusion that Lewis
does not see any need to settle on a particular theory of the atonement, considering it to be something beyond human understanding.
In a letter written to a "Mr. Young" (otherwise unidentified) dated 31 October 1963 -- so less than a month before he died -- Lewis is ...
When Christians say "Jesus died for our sins", what do they mean?
This is a reference to 1 Corinthians 15:3:
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had
received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the
Different Christians understand "Christ died for our sins" in different ways; there have been many ...
What you are basically asking is for different models of soteriology, which is a fancy way of asking: "What must I do to be saved?"
Typically there are three general schools of thought, grouped into:
Satisfaction Theories (God's wrath needs to be 'satisfied' in some fashion)
Ransom Theoriess (Satan needs to be defeated in some fashion)
Nephi was not perfect in keeping the commandments. In fact, in 2 Nephi 4 he cries out:
17 Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities.
18 I am encompassed about,...
The strongest defenders of penal substitution are going to be conservative Calvinists: that is, those who hold to the "five points" of Calvinism and reject modernist approaches to Scripture. Outside this group, many nonetheless hold to penal substitution, but there is more diversity of opinion.
A few examples of conservative Calvinists who hold to ...
Jesus was not 'burnt'.
Jesus was not offered to Molech or any other god.
Jesus offered himself, voluntarily. He was not 'offered' by another.
The "commandment of the Father is everlasting life" (John 12:50) ergo, the sacrifice was not a contradiction of Deity in any way, as that sacrifice was the only possible way to fulfill that commandment.
Christ is not only the propitiation for the sins of Christians:
1 John 2:1-2 (ESV) My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.1
Anselm's satisfaction theory of the atonement is developed in his book, Cur Deus Homo, and, as presented, is not "based on the Bible" like we might expect. Instead, Anselm relies heavily on logic, and largely avoids citing Scripture to make his case.
However, he is forced to rely on it in a few places, and he also tangentially mentions it in ...
As you've said, being saved is a process more than an event. You can think of repentance as a continual process or something you do over and over again. The definition becomes blurry when you consider something you do over and over again as a process.
Sometimes we look at repentance within the scope of a particular sin, and once we stop doing that thing, it ...
The following answer shall be largely influenced by my Roman Catholic faith, so be aware of such a fact while reading. With that said, here we gooooooooo!!!
Penal Substitution And Its Failures
The problem with the penal substitution theory is that it confuses many points that need distinction in order to understand the nature of Christ's sacrifice. For ...
This question is a bit old, but there is an omission in the only answer. fi11222's answer states that both ransom and penal substitution theories of atonement view God as needing payment of some form. I agree with the description of penal substitution, but I believe the orthodox ransom theory generally teaches that the ransom was paid to death and not God ...
Irenaeus of Lyons is generally credited with being the first to fully present Recapitulation Theory. He explains that Jesus saves humanity be undoing the error of Adam by succeeding where Adam failed. A significant portion of this is to reveal the Father to all (and so includes Moral Influence as part of Recapitulation). The other aspect is the Recreation of ...
this is a good question, in the old Testament an animal sacrifice was required to be given to God as an offering to atone for the sins that were committed after the last sacrifice,
I have borrowed the first paragraph from Why did God require animal sacrifices in the Old Testament? a website I found with a quick search on animal sacrifice in the bible.
Given the massively fractured state of Christianity and the widely varied beliefs therein, a cross-denominational examination of soteriology could certainly yield strict, literal, and conflicting understandings of expiation and propitiation. However, I believe Roman Catholicism is a significant example wherein both concepts are used, amongst others, to ...
Hebrews 9:28 (KJV, King James Version):
"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."
Hebrews 9:28 (NRS, New Revised Standard):
". . . so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with ...