Salvation in Christianity ( Part 2)

Paradigms of salvation

Different theories of atonement have been proposed for how Christian salvation can be understood. Over the centuries, Christians have held different ideas about how Jesus saved people, and different views still exist within different Christian denominations. The main paradigms of salvation that have been proposed are:^[14]

Moral transformation

The moral transformation view was the predominant understanding of salvation among Christians during the first three centuries AD,^{[15][16][17][18][19]} and continues to be held by some denominations such as the Eastern Orthodox today. In this view, Jesus saved people from sinfulness through his life and teachings (see the moral influence theory of atonement), thus transforming their character to become righteous. This salvation is seen as undeserved, since God graciously sent Jesus to save people when they were unrighteous and did not in any way deserve such a favour. In the moral transformation paradigm, a person is saved from sinfulness by faithfully following the teachings of Jesus, and the example he set of how to live. Consequently, a person becomes righteous in God's sight, and can expect a positive final judgment by God. Perfection is not required, and mistakes are forgiven after repentance. In this view, Jesus' crucifixion is understood primarily as a martyrdom.^[20]
The moral transformation view has been criticised and rejected by many Protestant Christians, for a variety of reasons. Critics believe that the moral transformation view conflicts with various biblical passages (particularly ones by Paul regarding 'faith' and 'works'), underestimates the seriousness of sin and denies the atoning value of Jesus' death.

Christus Victor

In the Christus Victor view, people needed salvation from the powers of evil. Jesus achieved salvation for people by defeating the powers of evil, particularly Satan. This view has been dated in writings of the Church Fathers to the 4th centuries AD, although it remained popular for several centuries. Several perspectives on this idea existed, which can be roughly divided into conquest of Satan and rescue from Satan's power. In the conquest of Satan version, writers such as Eusebius of Caesarea depicted Jesus defeating Satan in a great spiritual battle that occurred between his death and resurrection.^[21] By winning this battle, Jesus overthrew Satan and saved people from his dominion. The Christus Victor view is not widely held in the West.

Ransom from Satan

The ransom from Satan view entails the idea that Satan had power over people's souls in the afterlife, but that Christ rescued people from his power. Often, the death of Christ plays an important role in this rescue. The view appears to have arisen during the 3rd century,^[22] in the writings of Origen and other theologians. In one version of the idea, Satan attempted to take Jesus' soul after he had died, but in doing so over-extended his authority, since Jesus had not sinned. As a consequence, Satan lost his authority completely, and all humanity gained freedom. In another version, God entered into a deal with Satan, offering to trade Jesus' soul in exchange for the souls of all people, but after the trade, God raised Jesus from the dead and left Satan with nothing. Other versions held that Jesus' divinity was masked by his human form, so Satan tried to take Jesus’ soul without realizing that his divinity would destroy Satan's power. Another idea is that Jesus came to teach how not to sin and Satan, in anger with this tried to take his soul. The Ransom from Satan view is also not widely held in the West

Satisfaction

In the 11th century, Anselm of Canterbury rejected the ransom view, and proposed instead the satisfaction view. He depicted God as a feudal lord, whose honour had been offended by the sins of humankind. In this view, people needed salvation from the divine punishment that these offences would bring, since nothing they could do could repay the honour debt. Anselm held that Christ had infinitely honoured God through his life and death that Christ could repay what humanity owed God, thus resolving the offence to God's honour (satisfying it) and doing away with the need for punishment. When Anselm proposed the satisfaction view, it was immediately criticised by Peter Abelard.

Penal substitution and faith

In the 16th century, the Protestant Reformers reinterpreted Anselm's satisfaction theory of salvation within a legal paradigm. In the legal system, offences required punishment, and no satisfaction could be given to avert this need. They proposed a theory known as penal substitution, in which Christ takes the penalty of people's sin as their substitute, thus saving people from God's wrath against sin. Penal substitution thus presents Jesus saving people from the divine punishment of their past wrongdoings. However, this salvation is not presented as automatic. Rather, a person must have faith in order to receive this free gift of salvation. In the penal substitution view, salvation is not dependent upon human effort or deeds.
The penal substitution paradigm of salvation is widely held among Protestant Christians, who often consider it central to Christianity. However, it has also be widely critiqued.^{[23][24][25][26]} Advocates of the New Perspective on Paul also argue that many New Testament books by Paul the Apostle used to support the theory of penal substitution should be interpreted differently.