Christology

===Salvation===
{{Main|Salvation in Christianity|Atonement in Christianity}}

In [[Christian theology]], [[atonement]] is the method by which human beings can be reconciled to [[God in Christianity|God]] through [[Christ]]'s sacrificial suffering and [[Crucifixion of Jesus|death]].<ref>"Atonement." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005</ref> Atonement is the [[Forgiveness#Christianity|forgiving]] or pardoning of [[Christian views of sin|sin]] in general and [[original sin]] in particular through the suffering, death and [[resurrection of Jesus]],<ref group=web name="CED">Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 11th Edition, [http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atonement ''atonement''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230326021550/https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atonement |date=26 March 2023 }}, retrieved 3 October 2012: "2. (often capital) ''Christian theol''

a. the reconciliation of man with God through the life, sufferings, and sacrificial death of Christ

b. the sufferings and death of Christ"</ref> enabling the [[Reconciliation (theology)|reconciliation]] between God and [[Genesis creation narrative|his creation]]. Due to the influence of [[Gustaf Aulen|Gustaf Aulèn]]'s (1879–1978) {{lang|la|Christus Victor}} (1931), the various theories or paradigmata of atonement are often grouped as "classical paradigm", "objective paradigm", and the "subjective paradigm":{{sfn|Weaver|2001|p=2}}{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|pp=11–20}}<ref name=Aulen>[[Gustaf Aulen]], Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, E.T. London: SPCK; New York: Macmillan, 1931</ref><ref>[[Vincent Taylor (theologian)|Vincent Taylor]], ''The Cross of Christ'' (London: Macmillan & Co, 1956), pp. 71–77

2</ref>
* Classical paradigm:{{refn|group=note|The "ransom theory" and the "Christ Victor" theory are different, but are generally considered together as Patristic or "classical" theories, to use [[Gustaf Aulén]]'s nomenclature. These were the traditional understandings of the early [[Church Fathers]].}}
** [[Ransom theory of atonement]], which teaches that the [[Crucifixion of Jesus|death]] of [[Christ]] was a [[ransom]] [[Sacrifice#Christianity|sacrifice]], usually said to have been paid to [[Satan]] or to death itself, in some views paid to [[God the Father]], in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of [[Original sin|inherited sin]]. Gustaf Aulén reinterpreted the ransom theory,{{sfn|Pugh|2015|p=8}} calling it the {{lang|la|[[Christus Victor]]}} doctrine, arguing that Christ's death was not a payment to the Devil, but defeated the powers of [[evil]], which had held humankind in their dominion.;<ref>Leon Morris, 'Theories of the Atonement' in ''Elwell Evangelical Dictionary''.</ref>{{refn|group=note|According to Pugh, "Ever since [Aulén's] time, we call these patristic ideas the {{lang|la|Christus Victor}} way of seeing the cross."{{sfn|Pugh|2015|p=1}}}}
** [[Recapitulation theory of atonement|Recapitulation theory]],{{sfn|Pugh|2015|pp=1, 26}} which says that Christ succeeded where [[Adam]] [[fall of man|failed]]. [[Divinization (Christian)|Theosis]] ('divinization') is a "corollary" of the recapitulation.{{sfn|Pugh|2015|p=31}}
* Objective paradigm:
** [[Satisfaction theory of atonement]],{{refn|group=note|Called by Aulén the "scholastic" view}} developed by [[Anselm of Canterbury]] (1033/4–1109), which teaches that [[Jesus Christ]] suffered [[Crucifixion of Jesus|crucifixion]] as a [[Substitutionary atonement|substitute]] for human [[sin]], satisfying God's just wrath against humankind's transgression due to Christ's infinite merit.<ref>{{citation|last=Tuomala|first=Jeffrey|year=1993|title=Christ's Atonement as the Model for Civil Justice|journal=American Journal of Jurisprudence|volume=38|pages=221–255|doi=10.1093/ajj/38.1.221|url=https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lusol_fac_pubs/19|access-date=11 December 2019|archive-date=17 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200617080410/https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lusol_fac_pubs/19/|url-status=live}}</ref>
** [[Penal substitution]], also called "forensic theory" and "vicarious punishment", which was a development by the Reformers of Anselm's satisfaction theory.{{sfn|Taylor|1956|pp=71–72}}{{sfn|Packer|1973}}{{refn|group=note|name="Penal substitution"|Penal substitution:

* Vincent Taylor (1956): "the ''four main types'', which have persisted throughout the centuries. The oldest theory is the ''Ransom Theory''{{nbsp}}[...] It held sway for a thousand years{{nbsp}}[...] The ''Forensic Theory'' is that of the Reformers and their successors."{{sfn|Taylor|1956|pp=71–72}}
* Packer (1973): "Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon and their reforming contemporaries were the pioneers in stating it [i.e. the penal substitutionary theory]{{nbsp}}[...] What the Reformers did was to redefine {{lang|la|satisfactio}} (satisfaction), the main mediaeval category for thought about the cross. Anselm's {{lang|la|Cur Deus Homo?}}, which largely determined the mediaeval development, saw Christ's {{lang|la|satisfactio}} for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God's holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice)."{{sfn|Packer|1973}}}}{{refn|group=note|name="Baker.2006"|Mark D. Baker, objecting against the pebal substitution theory, states that "substitution is a broad term that one can use with reference to a variety of metaphors."{{sfn|Baker|2006|p=25}}}} Instead of considering sin as an affront to God's honour, it sees sin as the breaking of God's moral law. Penal substitution sees sinful man as being subject to God's wrath, with the essence of Jesus' saving work being his substitution in the sinner's place, bearing the curse in the place of man.
** [[Governmental theory of atonement]], "which views God as both the loving creator and moral Governor of the universe."{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=17}} 
* Subjective paradigm:
**[[Moral influence theory of atonement]],{{refn|group=note|Which Aulén called the "subjective" or "humanistic" view. Propagated, as a critique of the satisfaction view, by [[Peter Abelard]]}} developed, or most notably propagated, by [[Abelard]] (1079–1142),{{sfn|Weaver|2001|p=18}}{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=18}} who argued that "Jesus died as the demonstration of God's love", a demonstration which can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God.{{sfn|Weaver|2001|p=18}}{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=19}}
** [[Moral example theory]], developed by [[Faustus Socinus]] (1539–1604) in his work {{lang|la|De Jesu Christo servatore}} (1578), who rejected the idea of "vicarious satisfaction".{{refn|group=note|Christ suffering for, or punished for, the sinners.}} According to Socinus, Jesus' death offers humanity a perfect example of self-sacrificial dedication to God.{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=19}}

Other theories are the "embracement theory" and the "shared atonement" theory.<ref>Jeremiah, David. 2009. ''Living With Confidence in a Chaotic World,'' pp. 96 & 124. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.</ref><ref>Massengale, Jamey. 2013.''Renegade Gospel, The Jesus Manifold''</ref>