When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that He may be punished in our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the offended something that he love equally or even more than he hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of human kind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general therms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He is God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why did it needed for Christ sacrifice be in the sense of given His life to suffer and die on the cross, and not just an offering of Himself in this less bloodsheded way? I know that God could save us in any other way for Her is omnipotent, and that He choosed the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I reach another face of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Getsemani He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. Implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how then the Father pleases in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I thought of getting rid of these. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.

In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul says: >"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (ESV) As someone who affirms the full divinity and sinlessness of Jesus, I’m trying to understand how He could be said to "become sin" without that implying any corruption in His nature or character.

I am looking for a good overview/introduction to atonement theory that covers multiple points of view so that I can better understand the difference between the various different theories. I am not looking for someone to outline them here, as I would like a more thorough answer than what would be reasonable in a SE answer. I am also looking for something beyond what Wikipedia provides, as frankly it is not very helpful. Perhaps a book that devotes a chapter or two to an academic presentation of several different views, but doesn't (strongly) argue for or against any of them, would be best.

Considering the language of 1 John 1, this passage is clearly not addressed to believers, yet is widely mistaught in Christendom. 1 John 1:9 KJV >If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

All throughout the Bible, in too many instances to list, there is a meta narrative wherein the sentence of a righteous judgment is avoided by the sacrifice of an innocent: The innocent bearing the sentence of the guilty. Examples of this include the Passover lamb in the Exodus story, and the scapegoat of the great day of atonement. Up until the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world put an end to sacrifice, by becoming the once for all sacrifice, those sacrifices were of lesser beings for greater beings; lambs for people, etc. Jesus turned that around and made it the sacrifice of a greater for the lesser, but it doesn't seem as though the underlying idea of punishment for sin, retribution if you will, being transferred from one being to the other as disappeared On the other hand, I know that there are theologies which reject the notion of penal substitutionary atonement as being unbiblical. What do those theologians do with Passover and the scapegoat, for example??

The mainline Protestant idea of Atonement is, as Luther himself put it, this: > Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again > for our justification (Romans 3:24–25). He alone is the Lamb of God > who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29) Eastern Orthodox speak about theosis, and about sin as a "disease." But what does the atonement, the death on the cross, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ mean for Eastern Orthodox? What does Eastern Orthodoxy understand about Christ being "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1:29)? Did Christ die for my sins? Was he raised again for my justification?

Hebrews 10:4 states that 'it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins'. However, the book of Leviticus introduced sin offerings for the purpose of atoning for sins (be they unintentional). How can these two statements be reconciled? I've read another thread on the same subject , but the answer provided simply seems to say that this problem is cleared up by the fact that the nature of the sin offering was a temporary removal of sin, while Jesus' sacrifice resulting in atonement was a *permanent* sacrifice. While this is of course true, Hebrews 10:4, in all translations I have seen, declares that the blood of animals cannot take away sin***s***, plural; this implies no sin whatsoever can be atoned by the sacrifice of animals.

Obviously, we can't say for sure; all these theories float around and from what I can tell, the Church has no concrete position on the matter. I find Girard's scapegoat theory of atonement highly compelling, and I'd like to discuss it more with others. But first, I'd like to have some confidence that it's not in any way heretical or malformed. So, is the scapegoat theory of atonement compatible with Catholic teaching and rule?

It's been said that there is no biblical basis for the assumption that Jesus ever took on the sins of mankind, before, during or after his death. What is the biblical proof that Jesus did take on the sins of mankind? There's been some really great answers here but I'm looking for some more firsthand proof, such as Matthew 5:17–18 > Christ Came to Fulfill the Law > > 17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Here Matthew quotes Jesus. Jesus fulfills the mosaic laws which also includes the sacrificial laws. The one perfect sacrifice that would forgive the sins of mankind past, present and future.

I’m looking for answers from Protestant Trinitarians as this seems to be a fairly recent explanation, currently in vogue in some groups (mainly evangelical, I would suppose). The basis for my query is the following scripture texts (all A.V.): > “And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus > Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” Romans 5:11 > > “And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year > with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year > shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations : it is > most holy unto the Lord. …when they give an offering unto the Lord, to > make an atonement for your souls, and thou shalt take the atonement > money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint if for the service > of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto > the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your > souls.” Exodus 30:10 & 15-16 > > “For the life of the flesh is in the blood : and I have given it to > you upon the altar to make an atonement for your soul : for it is the > blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” Leviticus 17:11 I note that modern translations use the word ‘atonement’ more frequently. However, I am not looking for simple agreement with what those texts say, or any subjective opinion as to what atonement means to individual Christians, but of ***what this one word, ‘atonement’ actually means, in context, and whether it could be misleading to say it means ‘at-one-ment’ (not least because that phrase of cobbled-together words explains nothing, in and of itself.)***

It is my understanding that in Catholic Theology the immaculate conception relates to the fact that Mary was born without the blemish of original sin. It is also my understanding that Mary was, through the grace of God, kept from ever committing any personal sin as well. As a Protestant, I have a hard time understanding how these dogmas do not completely negate the need for a savior for not only Mary but every human. If God can save one person from original sin and personal sin without the death of Jesus Christ why not everyone? How does the Catholic atonement theology address this?

In referring to opponents of Penal Substitution theory , I'm referring specifically to those who view it as a ***false*** view of the Atonement, not merely that it is incomplete (*eg* those who hold to alternative theories of Atonement may assert their theories are more holistic, but will not necessarily deny that penal substitution is a contributing element within them). Consider: > ... the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished. - Nahum 1:3b NIV > Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the Lord detests them both. - <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3Dprov%252017%253A15%26version%3DNIV" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Proverbs 17:15 NIV <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> > Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty. - Exodus 23:7 NIV If Christ doesn't bear the penalty or punishment for our sins by taking our guilt upon himself, where does the condemnation and punishment go? What is the specific mechanism by which, a sinner can be saved from their sins without making nonsense or lies of the preceding declarations?

Jesus prayed (Jn 17:21) that “they may be one in us as you are in me and I am in you.” (Easier to comprehend if *in* means *in union with*.) This is the original sense of at-one-ment. “We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” (Ro 5:11; KJV uses atonement) Here’s what happened: Adam and Eve’s sins (and mine) separated me from God and put me on a different path. So God put Adam and Eve (and all their descendants) out of Paradise to learn how to choose between good and evil. At first, we were at-one with God. And then not. Our sins have put us on a path different from God’s. “Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you,” (Isa 55:3a,b). "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Jer 31:33) It's a given that atonement cannot be accomplished by my efforts alone; otherwise, Jesus would not have had to undergo His passion and death. But if atonement brings God and me together, isn’t it I, not God, who must change? What must be done to bring about atonement? A beautiful metaphor in Hebrews identifies Jesus as High Priest of His own death, recalling the holy Temple offerings to God. But the death of Jesus was not a suicide, and was *not demanded* by God. Our God is not like the pagan gods which delighted in human sacrifice; this is proved by the binding of Isaac. The death of Jesus was caused by *corrupt human powers of the time*. This is what God did: Jeremiah prophesied (31:31) that Yahweh would write a new covenant on His people’s hearts and forgive their iniquity and never call their sin to mind. God said to Isaiah,“Give ear and come to me; listen, that you may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you.” (55:3) This new covenant would be our atonement - if only we listened to our hearts and let it happen. But we have free will; perhaps more exactly, we have *free choice*. God always lets us choose to *desire* this or that. Atonement is not done *to me* or *for me* without my involvement, but rather, is the result of the covenant relationship that I am offered. But distractions always pop up. But something can begin within us, which then allows us to make a choice: the death of Jesus could elicit compassion from even the hardest heart. It’s part of being human. If I don’t resist it, I would be drawn to feel compassion, not only for Jesus, but also for God the Father, who is suffering the torture and murder of His beloved Son. This compassion that suffers with Jesus could be a response to the covenant God offers. Paul went further: if we are … *baptized into his death* (Ro 6:3 NIV), *united with Him in a death like His … [then we will be] certainly also united with Him in a resurrection like His* (v5). This surely implies more than just sprinkling with water and words; it must mean being immersed into His agony, by a natural compassion that leads to a mystical union with Him. *Immersed into His death.* My compassion, love, turns toward my Father in Heaven as well as toward His Son Who died to get my attention… *to forgive me*. As I become immersed into the passion of Jesus, I realize that I am not the innocent, compassionate bystander, but at the heart of the matter, *I’m* guilty of the death of Jesus. His death tears me apart while His Holy Spirit wants to cry out in my heart, “Abba, Father.” After being brought before the throne of God, I hope to hear again, “Father, forgive him - he’s a friend of mine.” ***What other verses (or wisdom) from the Bible might support the idea of a continuing covenant, with my active involvement, rather than a one-time event, without my active participation, with regard to the atoning death of Jesus?***

I've been looking at [penal substitutionary atonement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution) and am finding that although Calvinists and Arminians seem to affirm it, it appears to be Calvinists who affirm it most strongly. Is this accurate?

Is Anselm of Canterbury venerated by the Eastern Orthodox Church, or is he accepted as a saint only by the Western churches? Similarly, is his Satisfaction Theory of atonement accepted at large within the EOC (if at all)? If not, which theory of atonement tends to bear prominence in her teaching/liturgy (such as the Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, or the *Christus Victor* Theory)?

We see Jesus being referred to as the Lamb of God, on many occasions. John the Baptist calls him the Lamb of God who takes away of the sins of the world (Jn 1:29). St. Paul refers to him as the lamb whose blood saved Israel from Egypt: >Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch - as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. (I Cor 5:7) In Ex 12: 6-13 we see how Israel is asked to slaughter the Passover lamb and sprinkle its blood on the door-frames as as sign of their presence inside. Besides the Passover Lamb, we see references to two lambs in the Old Testament which would get Israel reprieve for their sins, in Leviticus 16: > He (Aaron) shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering..........He shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the curtain, and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it upon the mercy seat and before the mercy seat...... When he has finished atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness. The phraseology used by John the Baptist points to the second lamb that was left to the wilderness loaded with the sins of Israel. In the prayer *Agnus Dei*, we call Jesus the Lamb of God "who takes away " the sins of the world. In brief, the three lambs in the Old Testament bore three different missions. My question therefore, is: **According to Catholic scholars, which lamb in the Old Testament is Jesus equated to?**

I have spent time on the website [Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life, by Lee & Annette Woofenden](https://leewoof.org) , which has articles about some of this information but I cannot find what seems to be a sufficient answer to my questions on the nature of Christ's sacrifice according to Swedenborg's interpretation of scripture. Some of the questions I have in regard to the Swedenborgian perspective: Why did Christ die? Did Christ die for our sins as an offering as we find in the Old Testament? What about the book of Hebrews? How can Christ be the new covenant if his blood does not cover sin? I am just needing more clarity. I cannot seem to piece it together.

>If you cannot afford two doves or two pigeons, you shall bring **two pounds of flour** as a sin offering. You shall not put any olive oil or any incense on it, because it is a sin offering, not a grain offering. You shall bring it to the priest, who will take a handful of it as a token that it has all been offered to the Lord, and he will burn it on the altar as a food offering. **It is an offering to take away sin.** In this way the priest shall offer the sacrifice for your sin, ***and you will be forgiven***. The rest of the flour belongs to the priest, just as in the case of a grain offering. — Leviticus 5:11‭–‬13 GNT If flour can be accepted, why did Jesus have to die for the wicked?

I was just reading the [*Wikipedia* article about it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_theory_of_atonement) and one of its characteristics is: > **Unlimited scope of the substitution**: According to governmental theory, Christ's death applies not to individuals directly, but to the Church as a corporate entity. In other words, Christ did not make a one-to-one substitution, but a general substitution. In this view, Christ's substitution can also be considered to be infinite, so that God could apply the substitution to an arbitrary, not pre-determined number of individuals and to their sins. It seems to say that Jesus died only for the Church as a general group. **What does death applies to the Church mean here**?

How can Christianity make sense without a literal Adam and Eve? I have heard many Christians (particularly Catholics) try and be conciliatory with modern science by claiming that Adam and Eve were not real people and that Genesis was something along the lines of an allegory. But how does this make sense from a theological perspective? Wasn’t the entire point of Christ’s atonement to redeem humanity from their fall from grace, which is indeed the fault of humanity precisely because of Adam and Eve? How can the theologically “progressive” Christian explain the origin of sin, humanity’s state of sin, and the purpose of Christ’s atonement without resorting to Adam and Eve?