Different views of atonement... they exist...

One should actually consider themselves blessed if they simply assume the Bible teaches Jesus taking the wrath of the Father on himself on our behalf. It has come to my attention that there is an increasing (re)interest in the view that this view of atonement, that is, penal substitution, is not a Biblical view.

It’s true that before the Reformation the fledgling church primarily viewed the events at Calvary as some sort of ransom paid to the devil to buy us back (versus the more contemporary Evangelical emphasis on Christ paying the debt owed to God incurred by our moral disobedience). This “ransom view” of atonement has been formulated by Gustaf Aulen for the modern context titled “Christus Victor,” or Christ the Victor, typically emphasized by more liberal or charismatic groups. The view underscores the power of Christ over the devil, the destructive effects of sin, and overall redemption within the fallen world - things I’m all gungho about.

However, it becomes worrisome when one denies the reconciliation that took place on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:18-19, Romans 3:24-25, Hebrews 2:17-18, Galatians 3:13, Matthew 26:28, John 10:11-15). For every proof text I supply, there’ll be some argument in opposition, so I simply urge readers to investigate these views and come to a conclusion themselves. I have a bias for J.I. Packer’s argument for penal substitution, so I recommend that reading.