Views Regarding the Theory of Atonement

Fuller describes three main theories of atonement namely the ransom theory that teaches atonement as a price paid by God through Christ to the devil, the view of Saint Anselm that taught a deficit from man's inability to have perfect obedience to the law, and the exemplarist theory that teaches a human response to the event of the crucifixion that causes love in man to atone for the sin of man. (See Fuller) The subject of atonement can next be subdivided into two main schools namely the school of limited atonement and the school of unlimited atonement. Elwell points out that, "…either the death of Jesus was intended to secure salvation for a limited number or the death of Jesus was intended to provide salvation for everyone." (See Elwell) Regardless of what happened on the cross of Christ to work atonement (this work being described by the various theories of atonement) the fact of the matter is that some would argue that Christ's atoning work was for everyone while others argue that Christ's atoning work was only for a chosen few.

The most important point in defending the view of limited atonement is that if Christ died for everyone, then God would be unfair for sending people to hell because of their own sins. (See Elwell) Some would even argue that the doctrine of general redemption was taught almost unanimously by early theologians except Augustine, and a major point in promoting general redemption over limited atonement is that God is not unfair by condemning everyone to hell that does not accept God's salvation. (See Elwell) Unfortunately accepting or rejecting God's salvation is not a subject that is well covered by the scripture, but instead people are seen to respond in faith to the message of the gospel.

Towns makes a special point to show the error of a certain group of those that believe in the limited atonement and this group is namely the Calvinists. Towns thus states that, "The Calvinist has misunderstood the separation between the historic accomplishments of salvation and how an individual obtains salvation. First, to teach that Christ died for all does not mean all will be saved, nor does it mean God has failed if some are lost." (Towns, 431) The fact of the matter is that the historic accomplishments of salvation are that Christ suddenly saved people like Paul from killing Christians when he was on the road to Damascus, and God saved people like Jonah when he was in, "rebellion" to God's will and was eaten by the fish. The point to be made is that not everyone that would rebel against God's will and be eaten by a fish would be salved, and for this reason limited atonement is indeed a biblical view despite the argument of Towns against Calvinist misunderstanding.

One of the main problems with the limited atonement when seen in a Calvinist understanding of scripture is that it can suggest that God saves based upon election and that sin does not relate at all to the subject of salvation. In this case the exemplarist theory of atonement might be hard to believe under such a view as Calvinism, and the ransom theory of atonement might not prove very useful in explaining salvation. In this case God is seen to be making artwork out of human morality, and in this way he would choose how to raise evil empires and how to conquer them. One could argue that God's choice of who to save in this case would be based upon who he chooses to put in what position of leadership and how God chooses to use that person.

REFERENCES

Elwell, W. Extent of the Atonement, Limited Atonement. http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/atonemen.htm (accessed, August 4, 2011).

Fuller, Reginald. Atonement. http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/atonemen.htm (accessed, August 4, 2011).

Towns, Elmer. 2008. Theology for Today. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.