Are you familiar with the various theories on the atonement?
Perhaps you have heard of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. This is a very popular one, and you are likely to have inherited it. But...
Did you know that there are actually multiple positions? Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Here are some of the major theories:
1. Christus Victor Theory 2. Ransom Theory 3. Satisfaction Theory 4. Penal Substitutionary Theory 5. Moral Influence Theory 6. Governmental Theory 7. Scapegoat Theory
I am partial to the Christus Victor/Ransom/Moral Influence theories. I think a form of Substitutionary theory fits nicely with the Ransom theory, but not in a penal substitutionary form.
But what about you? What sorts of questions do you have about them? Which one do you hold to, and why? Is there a runner-up?
I want to hear what you think!
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2026 6:36 am
Scarlet_Teardrops
Are you familiar with the various theories on the atonement?
Perhaps you have heard of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. This is a very popular one, and you are likely to have inherited it. But...
Did you know that there are actually multiple positions? Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Here are some of the major theories:
1. Christus Victor Theory 2. Ransom Theory 3. Satisfaction Theory 4. Penal Substitutionary Theory 5. Moral Influence Theory 6. Governmental Theory 7. Scapegoat Theory
I am partial to the Christus Victor/Ransom/Moral Influence theories. I think a form of Substitutionary theory fits nicely with the Ransom theory, but not in a penal substitutionary form.
But what about you? What sorts of questions do you have about them? Which one do you hold to, and why? Is there a runner-up?
I want to hear what you think!
From what I am researching I think there are a few that cover aspects of atonement that I agree with presently. My thoughts on each are below.
• Moral Influence - I believe Christ's work on the cross does show God's great love, and that it is a motivator, but I do not believe that it is the main factor in convincing man to belief. The inciting work is of the Holy Spirit from which we then can perceive God's love and be morally influenced (respond in love to do actions that are pleasing to the Lord).
• Christus Victor - Jesus Christ has certainly died in order to defeat the powers of sin, death, and the devil.
• Penal Substitution - Jesus' sacrifice satisfies God's justice, without which we would not be able to be reconciled with God.
====
I do not hold to Ransom theory as God is not beholden to Satan, especially as far as justice is concerned, but allows Satan to have certain freedoms that are for God's purposes and ultimately give glory to God. (Not that that's Satan's motivation... xd)
Elora Lore
Vice Captain
Online
Scarlet_Teardrops Captain
Sparkly Genius
Offline
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2026 10:53 am
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
Are you familiar with the various theories on the atonement?
Perhaps you have heard of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. This is a very popular one, and you are likely to have inherited it. But...
Did you know that there are actually multiple positions? Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Here are some of the major theories:
1. Christus Victor Theory 2. Ransom Theory 3. Satisfaction Theory 4. Penal Substitutionary Theory 5. Moral Influence Theory 6. Governmental Theory 7. Scapegoat Theory
I am partial to the Christus Victor/Ransom/Moral Influence theories. I think a form of Substitutionary theory fits nicely with the Ransom theory, but not in a penal substitutionary form.
But what about you? What sorts of questions do you have about them? Which one do you hold to, and why? Is there a runner-up?
I want to hear what you think!
From what I am researching I think there are a few that cover aspects of atonement that I agree with presently. My thoughts on each are below.
• Moral Influence - I believe Christ's work on the cross does show God's great love, and that it is a motivator, but I do not believe that it is the main factor in convincing man to belief. The inciting work is of the Holy Spirit from which we then can perceive God's love and be morally influenced (respond in love to do actions that are pleasing to the Lord).
• Christus Victor - Jesus Christ has certainly died in order to defeat the powers of sin, death, and the devil.
• Penal Substitution - Jesus' sacrifice satisfies God's justice, without which we would not be able to be reconciled with God.
====
I do not hold to Ransom theory as God is not beholden to Satan, especially as far as justice is concerned, but allows Satan to have certain freedoms that are for God's purposes and ultimately give glory to God. (Not that that's Satan's motivation... xd)
I agree that God is not beholden to Satan. That's not how I understand the ransom theory. If you'd like, I can go into it. But only if you want me to clarify in detail. 3nodding
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2026 11:16 am
Scarlet_Teardrops
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
Are you familiar with the various theories on the atonement?
Perhaps you have heard of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. This is a very popular one, and you are likely to have inherited it. But...
Did you know that there are actually multiple positions? Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Here are some of the major theories:
1. Christus Victor Theory 2. Ransom Theory 3. Satisfaction Theory 4. Penal Substitutionary Theory 5. Moral Influence Theory 6. Governmental Theory 7. Scapegoat Theory
I am partial to the Christus Victor/Ransom/Moral Influence theories. I think a form of Substitutionary theory fits nicely with the Ransom theory, but not in a penal substitutionary form.
But what about you? What sorts of questions do you have about them? Which one do you hold to, and why? Is there a runner-up?
I want to hear what you think!
From what I am researching I think there are a few that cover aspects of atonement that I agree with presently. My thoughts on each are below.
• Moral Influence - I believe Christ's work on the cross does show God's great love, and that it is a motivator, but I do not believe that it is the main factor in convincing man to belief. The inciting work is of the Holy Spirit from which we then can perceive God's love and be morally influenced (respond in love to do actions that are pleasing to the Lord).
• Christus Victor - Jesus Christ has certainly died in order to defeat the powers of sin, death, and the devil.
• Penal Substitution - Jesus' sacrifice satisfies God's justice, without which we would not be able to be reconciled with God.
====
I do not hold to Ransom theory as God is not beholden to Satan, especially as far as justice is concerned, but allows Satan to have certain freedoms that are for God's purposes and ultimately give glory to God. (Not that that's Satan's motivation... xd)
I agree that God is not beholden to Satan. That's not how I understand the ransom theory. If you'd like, I can go into it. But only if you want me to clarify in detail. 3nodding
I would love to know your understanding of it. ^^
Elora Lore
Vice Captain
Online
Scarlet_Teardrops Captain
Sparkly Genius
Offline
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2026 12:13 pm
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
Are you familiar with the various theories on the atonement?
Perhaps you have heard of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement. This is a very popular one, and you are likely to have inherited it. But...
Did you know that there are actually multiple positions? Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Here are some of the major theories:
1. Christus Victor Theory 2. Ransom Theory 3. Satisfaction Theory 4. Penal Substitutionary Theory 5. Moral Influence Theory 6. Governmental Theory 7. Scapegoat Theory
I am partial to the Christus Victor/Ransom/Moral Influence theories. I think a form of Substitutionary theory fits nicely with the Ransom theory, but not in a penal substitutionary form.
But what about you? What sorts of questions do you have about them? Which one do you hold to, and why? Is there a runner-up?
I want to hear what you think!
From what I am researching I think there are a few that cover aspects of atonement that I agree with presently. My thoughts on each are below.
• Moral Influence - I believe Christ's work on the cross does show God's great love, and that it is a motivator, but I do not believe that it is the main factor in convincing man to belief. The inciting work is of the Holy Spirit from which we then can perceive God's love and be morally influenced (respond in love to do actions that are pleasing to the Lord).
• Christus Victor - Jesus Christ has certainly died in order to defeat the powers of sin, death, and the devil.
• Penal Substitution - Jesus' sacrifice satisfies God's justice, without which we would not be able to be reconciled with God.
====
I do not hold to Ransom theory as God is not beholden to Satan, especially as far as justice is concerned, but allows Satan to have certain freedoms that are for God's purposes and ultimately give glory to God. (Not that that's Satan's motivation... xd)
I agree that God is not beholden to Satan. That's not how I understand the ransom theory. If you'd like, I can go into it. But only if you want me to clarify in detail. 3nodding
I would love to know your understanding of it. ^^
That's very gracious of you. heart
I'm still working this out, so I'm going to be as unconfusing and brief as possible.
So, when I read Scripture, I can see ransom language. Most important for me personally is that it is stated by Jesus in both Matthew (20:28 ) and Mark (10:45). This makes me wonder - well, who is the ransom paid to, or maybe what? I don't think it's paid to the Father, but I also don't see God as owing anything to Satan.
I am willing to say that the ransom is a figure of speech used to describe liberation from slavery to sin and death, but Scripture also states that people have been taken captive by Satan (2 Tim. 2:26). So, the ransom clearly rescues people not just from slavery to sin and death, but slavery to Satan's will. This is not the same thing as paying Satan. He isn't equal to God, and he's not outside of God's sovereignty. So, the cross isn't a bargain, but an act nonetheless involving Satan as an illegitimate captor.
God's sacrifice with His own blood (Acts 20:28 ) sets those captives free - it is an act of spiritual power. I also believe it's a dowry paid by the bridegroom (Jesus) for the bride (the Church).
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2026 5:52 pm
Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I think am closest to a Reformed Baptist, literally every single person I have ever learned from holds to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (as far as I know). It seems pretty plain to me that this is what Scripture is teaching. Here are some short articles with a bit of info on this and some of these other theories from GotQuestions.org, if anyone is interested in checking them out.
I agree with you about the ransom language, and I appreciate you are still working it out internally. I don't think any of us will fully understand until we go to be with Him, but I do think that we can have a foundational understanding of this topic based off scripture.
I'm glad you bring up that God is sovereign and that Satan is not outside of His Sovereignty as we can see also exampled in Job.
But then, if it is the Father who allows Satan to take captives in a spiritual sense, is that not a judgement from the Father on those who He allows to be deceived? Is Satan not in that sense an instrument of God's judgement? (Romans 9) (This is part of the conversation I had with my mom about evil ≠ not good. In that, it is good that God allows evil-- for good and for His glory...but I'm getting off point...)
If God is ultimate judge, then the only one Jesus could pay ransom to, is God. It was God who the Israelites sacrificed to for the pardon of sins (a foreshadow of Jesus' work on the cross,) it is God who made Jesus who had no sin to be sin for us, so in Him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21), and it is God the Father who has given the judging authority to Jesus to judge the world (John 5:22-23). (He could not give that authority if He didn't have it in the first place.)
The fact that Jesus (God) sacrifices Himself to pay the ransom for us to the perfect judge (God) shows His love as well as His just nature that requires payment for sin. heart
Corvis Cross
I also align closest to Reformed Baptist, although there are a few beliefs I don't agree with eschatologically at the present.
Thanks for the links! I think GotQuestions is a really helpful resource. 3nodding
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2026 12:25 pm
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
I agree with you about the ransom language, and I appreciate you are still working it out internally. I don't think any of us will fully understand until we go to be with Him, but I do think that we can have a foundational understanding of this topic based off scripture.
I'm glad you bring up that God is sovereign and that Satan is not outside of His Sovereignty as we can see also exampled in Job.
But then, if it is the Father who allows Satan to take captives in a spiritual sense, is that not a judgement from the Father on those who He allows to be deceived? Is Satan not in that sense an instrument of God's judgement? (Romans 9) (This is part of the conversation I had with my mom about evil ≠ not good. In that, it is good that God allows evil-- for good and for His glory...but I'm getting off point...)
If God is ultimate judge, then the only one Jesus could pay ransom to, is God. It was God who the Israelites sacrificed to for the pardon of sins (a foreshadow of Jesus' work on the cross,) it is God who made Jesus who had no sin to be sin for us, so in Him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21), and it is God the Father who has given the judging authority to Jesus to judge the world (John 5:22-23). (He could not give that authority if He didn't have it in the first place.)
The fact that Jesus (God) sacrifices Himself to pay the ransom for us to the perfect judge (God) shows His love as well as His just nature that requires payment for sin. heart
We can have a foundational understanding of the atonement, based on the Scriptures. I agree. 3nodding
I'm going to tread carefully, because I already know that currently I'm the odd one out. You and Corvis are both operating under a Reformed theological lens. That's a legitimate lens, but it is historically and theologically Reformation-specific. I am not operating under that lens. I'm much closer to Eastern Orthodoxy and Patristic language. With that being said...
I respect your synthesis of the ransom theory with your understanding of the atonement - namely, Penal Substitutionary Atonement. That's an excellent theological synthesis. heart
However, I don't believe that the Father was holding anyone for ransom, and I also do not believe that the ransom payment was made to the Father. The Father has given responsibility of judgment to the Son. Even if the Father is considered the ultimate judge, His being the judge does not automatically make Him the de facto recipient of a ransom payment. Historically, ransoms were paid to slave owners, captors, enemies, and prison keepers - not judges.
The language is consistently, as far as I can tell, ransom out of slavery to sin, death, and powers. Sin and death? Slave owners and captors (see Romans 6; 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Hebrews 2:14-15). I understand these as real powers, not metaphors. And Satan? As I stated earlier, Scripture says he has taken people captive in 2 Timothy 2:26, and it can also be logically deduced from Hebrews 2. That does not mean God owes Satan anything. God is not indebted to Satan in any way.
When it comes to Satan being subject to God and His sovereignty, I need to define my understanding of God's sovereignty, because I suspect we have different definitions of sovereignty as well. So let me just state mine clearly rather than putting words in your mouth: my understanding of God's sovereignty is simply that there is nothing outside of His power, should He choose to exercise it.
Satan taking people captive in the spiritual sense by allowance of God does not automatically mean that God is also passing judgment. And - could you please elaborate on your Romans 9 example? I'm not sure where you are getting Satan as an instrument of God's judgment from that passage. My reading of that passage centers more on God's freedom to show mercy beyond ethnic Israel, and the justice of His purposes in doing so.
Scarlet_Teardrops Captain
Sparkly Genius
Offline
Elora Lore
Vice Captain
Online
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2026 8:43 am
Scarlet_Teardrops
Elora Lore
Scarlet_Teardrops
I agree with you about the ransom language, and I appreciate you are still working it out internally. I don't think any of us will fully understand until we go to be with Him, but I do think that we can have a foundational understanding of this topic based off scripture.
I'm glad you bring up that God is sovereign and that Satan is not outside of His Sovereignty as we can see also exampled in Job.
But then, if it is the Father who allows Satan to take captives in a spiritual sense, is that not a judgement from the Father on those who He allows to be deceived? Is Satan not in that sense an instrument of God's judgement? (Romans 9) (This is part of the conversation I had with my mom about evil ≠ not good. In that, it is good that God allows evil-- for good and for His glory...but I'm getting off point...)
If God is ultimate judge, then the only one Jesus could pay ransom to, is God. It was God who the Israelites sacrificed to for the pardon of sins (a foreshadow of Jesus' work on the cross,) it is God who made Jesus who had no sin to be sin for us, so in Him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21), and it is God the Father who has given the judging authority to Jesus to judge the world (John 5:22-23). (He could not give that authority if He didn't have it in the first place.)
The fact that Jesus (God) sacrifices Himself to pay the ransom for us to the perfect judge (God) shows His love as well as His just nature that requires payment for sin. heart
We can have a foundational understanding of the atonement, based on the Scriptures. I agree. 3nodding
I'm going to tread carefully, because I already know that currently I'm the odd one out. You and Corvis are both operating under a Reformed theological lens. That's a legitimate lens, but it is historically and theologically Reformation-specific. I am not operating under that lens. I'm much closer to Eastern Orthodoxy and Patristic language. With that being said...
I respect your synthesis of the ransom theory with your understanding of the atonement - namely, Penal Substitutionary Atonement. That's an excellent theological synthesis. heart
However, I don't believe that the Father was holding anyone for ransom, and I also do not believe that the ransom payment was made to the Father. The Father has given responsibility of judgment to the Son. Even if the Father is considered the ultimate judge, His being the judge does not automatically make Him the de facto recipient of a ransom payment. Historically, ransoms were paid to slave owners, captors, enemies, and prison keepers - not judges.
The language is consistently, as far as I can tell, ransom out of slavery to sin, death, and powers. Sin and death? Slave owners and captors (see Romans 6; 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Hebrews 2:14-15). I understand these as real powers, not metaphors. And Satan? As I stated earlier, Scripture says he has taken people captive in 2 Timothy 2:26, and it can also be logically deduced from Hebrews 2. That does not mean God owes Satan anything. God is not indebted to Satan in any way.
When it comes to Satan being subject to God and His sovereignty, I need to define my understanding of God's sovereignty, because I suspect we have different definitions of sovereignty as well. So let me just state mine clearly rather than putting words in your mouth: my understanding of God's sovereignty is simply that there is nothing outside of His power, should He choose to exercise it.
Satan taking people captive in the spiritual sense by allowance of God does not automatically mean that God is also passing judgment. And - could you please elaborate on your Romans 9 example? I'm not sure where you are getting Satan as an instrument of God's judgment from that passage. My reading of that passage centers more on God's freedom to show mercy beyond ethnic Israel, and the justice of His purposes in doing so.
Ah ok, I think I have a better idea of where you're coming from, but let me know if I misrepresent what you are saying by accident. Also, I apologize that my last response was a bit all over the place, I was trying to type it out before we were expecting company so I was not as clear as I should have been. sweatdrop
First off, let me preface by saying I don't really see myself as operating under a Reformed theological lens. From my own personal reading of scripture, and from what I've read of Reformed theology, I find on many topics in Reformed theology that I have wrestled with do seem to be the most accurate reasoning of scripture thus far. I make the distinction because I am not bound to all of Reformed thinking, a good portion of it just presently matches what I have read and understand about scripture from personal study.
That being said I'd love to learn more about Eastern Orthodoxy and Patristic views in detail at another time. 3nodding
Let me see if I have a decent understanding of what you are saying. It seems like you see the relationship between humanity/sin/Christ's atonement as solely being shown through ransom language. Is that correct?
My impression from your response is that sin/death are powers to which Jesus is paying the ransom to, not the Father, is that also correct?
My last question is if you think that God does choose to exercise his power, and to what degree.
I have a response to your questions and will definitely clarify my earlier post, I just want to make sure I have the best understanding of your view as I can before I respond ro everything. 3nodding
Reply
