You've peeled back the bark now, my friend! This is indeed the key.
All Christians pay attention to the role played by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in their salvation. Some favor the “ransom” theory (Matthew 20:28/Mark 10:45) that by sinning, mankind became Satan’s captives, and Christ’s death redeemed mankind from Satan’s dominion (resulting in what Romans 6:16 characterizes as a change of masters), while others favor the “restitutional” or “penal substitution” theory that Christ paid the penalty for mankind’s sin―a death penalty imposed by God since the Fall of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17)―and thereby satisfied the legitimate demands of God’s justice. While the payees under each theory are different, there is widespread agreement on the fact of payment on Calvary.
But few Christians dwell on the related question of the necessary qualifications for playing that salvific role. We might ask the question this way: what must be the victim’s nature in order to induce the payee – be it Satan or God – to accept the deal? Would a sinless man fill the bill here? Or must the victim have been something more – and if so, how much more?
The early church fathers wrestled with this. They ultimately concluded that the ransom price was high indeed. They ultimately concluded that the victim must be divine. It was less a conclusion about what Satan’s psyche must have been in order to draw an admonition like “Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God.” It was more a conclusion about reversing the curse and repairing the rift between God and man.
And some of the patristic writers took it further. Athanasius’ fourth century work On the Incarnation famously states “God became man that man might become God.” He wasn’t blaspheming that we would all become equal to God. He was commenting on restoration of mankind’s union with God. Clement of Alexandria, in the first chapter of his Exhortation to the Heathen, writes “I say, the Word of God became man, that you may learn from man how man may become God.” Origen, in the third chapter of his Contra Celsus, writes “from Him there began the union of the divine with the human nature, in order that the human, by communion with the divine, might rise to be divine.”
What helped me understand this was an exegesis of Paul’s use of pleroma – translated as “fullness” – twice in Colossians and twice in Ephesians. In Colossians, Paul attributes to Christ the fullness of God, Colossians 1:19 (“For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”); Colossians 2:9 (“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”). And in Ephesians, he hints at that same fullness present in Christ being transferable to humanity, Ephesians 3:19 (“and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God”); Ephesians 4:13 (“until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”). For Paul, there was at least some sense in which mankind could, through Christ, attain to the divine.
One issue is that I don't consider the Early Church Fathers as my ultimate authority, nor do I adhere to the man-made doctrine of theosis.
Explanation of Theosis:
Theosis, primarily discussed within certain Christian traditions, refers to the process by which believers are transformed into the likeness of God through God's grace. Rooted in 2 Peter 1:4, which speaks of becoming "partakers of the divine nature," theosis suggests that while humans remain distinct from God in essence, they can participate in His holiness and life.
However, theosis should not be understood as humans becoming divine in substance or nature, but rather being united with God in a way that reflects His character and attributes. This process is made possible through the work of Jesus Christ, as believers are sanctified and conformed to His image (Romans 8:29, 2 Corinthians 3:18).
Some view theosis as the ultimate goal of salvation, wherein the believer progressively becomes more Christlike through the Holy Spirit, participating in the divine life. But it is important to clarify that theosis does not imply a belief that humans can become gods, but that they are made holy and perfected through their relationship with God.
Some may consider theosis to be a manmade term, as it became more formally developed and codified in the theological writings of the Church Fathers and later in Orthodox Christian theology. It's viewed by some as a theological concept that goes beyond what is explicitly taught in Scripture, while others see it as a legitimate way to describe the biblical process of sanctification and union with God.
So, while theosis as a formal doctrine can be seen as a later theological development, the concept of being made more like Christ through God's grace is deeply rooted in biblical teaching.
--see the highlighted blue and goes BEYOND what stands written in Scripture and there are 7 atonement theories, last time I have checked--
Ransom Theory
Origin: Early Church (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa)
Description: This theory suggests that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to Satan (or the forces of evil) to free humanity from bondage. The idea is that humanity was enslaved to sin, and Christ’s sacrifice was a payment to release them.
Criticism: Some argue that it portrays Satan as having too much power or authority.
2. Christus Victor
Origin: Early Church (Athanasius, Irenaeus)
Description: This theory emphasizes Christ’s victory over the powers of sin, death, and Satan. It sees the cross as a triumph in which Jesus defeated these powers, leading to the liberation of humanity.
Criticism: Some argue that it neglects the need for a legal satisfaction of God’s justice.
3. Satisfaction Theory
Origin: Anselm of Canterbury (11th century)
Description: Anselm’s satisfaction theory states that Christ’s death was a necessary payment to satisfy God’s justice. Human sin had offended God's honor, and only a sinless being (Jesus) could restore it.
Criticism: Some argue it presents a view of God that is overly legalistic or punitive.
4. Penal Substitution
Origin: Developed in Protestant Reformation (particularly by John Calvin)
Description: This theory holds that Jesus took the punishment that humanity deserved for sin upon Himself, satisfying the wrath of God. It emphasizes Jesus taking the penalty for sin in place of sinners.
Criticism: Some believe it portrays God as wrathful and punitive, which may seem inconsistent with God's love.
5. Moral Influence Theory
Origin: Peter Abelard (12th century)
Description: This theory focuses on the idea that Christ’s death serves as a moral example of self-sacrifice and love, intended to inspire humanity to repentance and moral transformation. The death of Jesus shows God’s love, which motivates humanity to turn to God.
Criticism: It is often critiqued for downplaying the need for a legal or ontological change in the sinner's status before God.
6. Governmental Theory
Origin: Hugo Grotius (17th century)
Description: This theory holds that Christ’s death was a demonstration of God's justice in upholding moral order. The death of Jesus shows that sin incurs consequences and that God governs the moral universe through a system of divine law. Jesus' sacrifice satisfies the demands of God's law, without the necessity of a literal penalty being paid.
Criticism: Some argue that it does not adequately address the need for personal reconciliation between God and humanity.
7. Recapitulation Theory
Origin: Irenaeus (2nd century)
Description: This theory suggests that Christ, as the "second Adam," recapitulates (or "reverses") the fall of humanity by living the life that Adam failed to live. Jesus, by living a perfect life and dying as a sacrifice, redeems and restores humanity to its original purpose.
Criticism: It is often criticized for not fully addressing the legal or sacrificial aspects of atonement.
Conclusion
While these seven theories are among the most well-known, there are other variations and combinations of atonement theories that have been developed over time. Each theory emphasizes different aspects of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, seeking to explain how His work brings about salvation.
So which one do you hold?
J.
