Atonement

This article argues that the Roman Catholic Church (“Rome”) is wrong about the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. In fact, she is so incorrect that her teaching on this matter is grave error that distorts the gospel.

By “Christ’s atonement,” we mean the action by which Christ’s vicarious death reconciles us to God and restores fellowship with him. The dispute here is about the sufficiency of this atonement. Did Christ atone for the consequences of all our sins? Is his atonement permanent or conditional?

Discussion

“In most people’s understanding, ransoms are paid by good people, but demanded by horrible people…. ‘the kidnappers demanded a ransom.’” - Randy Alcorn

Discussion

“there are no evangelistic sermons in Acts where this precise language is used. If Peter and Paul could evangelize without saying ‘Jesus died for you,’ then you shouldn’t make it a litmus test for gospel orthodoxy.” - TGC

Discussion

“The doctrine of limited atonement, in reality, is helpful in evangelism. The Calvinist knows that not everyone will respond to the gospel message, but he also knows with certainty that some will respond to it.” - R.C. Sproul

Discussion

“Overall, Mapping Atonement accomplishes its goals of providing a historical and theological survey and a critique…. many of us will wish the authors were less reticent to embrace penal substitution as the central motif of an integrated atonement theology.” - TGC

Discussion

“he demonstrates conclusively that the ancient church fathers—from Irenaeus to Augustine (and he could have gone further) believed in and taught substitutionary atonement. It is simply a myth that they taught the Christus Victor or ransom theories instead.” - Roger Olson

Discussion

According to one writer at Beliefnet, Jesus didn’t die on the Cross for our Sins. She further added under the title of her articles that, “The idea Jesus ‘paid the price’ isn’t found in the Bible.”

Discussion

“It seems that Wu misunderstands what we mean, however, when we say that biblical categories must take precedence over cultural ones (and when we imply that honor / shame proponents elevate cultural categories over biblical ones).” - 9 Marks

Discussion

“Three significant things have shaped my thinking about the death of Christ, and I’m now much closer to where I started than I imagined I might be.” - TGC

Discussion

Anselm was a brilliant guy. A genius. He published his book Why God Became Man in 1097, so you could say it’s a bit of an antique. Anselm’s book is really about why Christ had to take on a human nature and be conceived of and born to a virgin. But, along the way, he tackled the reason for Christ’s death and thus popularized the “satisfaction theory” of atonement, which envisioned God as an overlord of sorts who was owed “satisfaction” or payment by his subjects for crimes committed, in order to set things right.

Holy and Perfect Forever: Why Rome Is Wrong About Christ’s Atonement

Discussion

What Does It Mean That Christ Ransomed Us?

Discussion

Can I Tell an Unbeliever ‘Jesus Died for You’?

Discussion

Does the Doctrine of Limited Atonement Undermine Evangelism?

Discussion

Can We Integrate 8 Views of the Atonement? A Review of ‘Mapping Atonement’ by William G. Witt and Joel Scandrett

Discussion

Best Newish Book about the Atonement: William Lane Craig's Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration

Discussion

Jesus Didn’t Die on the Cross for Our Sins?

Discussion

“the categories that form the basis for penal substitutionary atonement do not arise from an ‘Enlightenment worldview’ or from the interpretive biases of a Western judicial framework”

Discussion

3 Reasons I Changed My Mind About Penal Substitution

Discussion

Theology Thursday – Anselm on the Atonement

Discussion

Since 2005

Atonement

Discussion

Body

Discussion

Body

Discussion

Body

Discussion

Body

Discussion

Body

Discussion

Discussion

Body

Discussion

Body

Discussion

Discussion

Image

Since 2005

Image