52. The Need for Redemption and Atonement

The doctrine of “The Need for Redemption and Atonement” addresses humanity’s inherent separation from God due to sin, and the need for intervention in the form of redemption to restore fellowship with God. Atonement refers to the reconciliation of God and humanity through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. This doctrine is fundamental in Christian theology, asserting that through Christ’s death and resurrection, humanity can be redeemed from sin’s penalty, thus restoring their relationship with God.

Scriptures Supporting the Doctrine

Romans 3:23
“(KJV) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
Interpretation: This verse establishes the universal condition of all humanity—being fallen and separated from God’s glory due to sin. It supports the need for redemption, as no one can reach God’s standard on their own.
Theological View: This scripture underscores the doctrine of original sin and the inherent need for atonement.
Romans 6:23
“(KJV) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Interpretation: Sin brings about spiritual death, but God’s gift of eternal life is made available through Jesus Christ, offering redemption and atonement.
Theological View: This verse emphasizes the necessity of Christ’s atonement to overcome the penalty of death due to sin.
1 John 2:2
“(KJV) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Interpretation: Jesus’ sacrificial death is the atonement (propitiation) for the sins of humanity. His death satisfies God’s justice and offers redemption universally.
Theological View: This aligns with the belief that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all of humanity, providing a universal opportunity for redemption.
John 14:6
“(KJV) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
Interpretation: Jesus is the exclusive mediator for reconciliation with God, asserting that redemption can only be attained through Him.
Theological View: This affirms the necessity of Christ’s atonement for access to the Father and redemption from sin.
Hebrews 9:22
“(KJV) And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”
Interpretation: Atonement requires a blood sacrifice, a foreshadowing of Christ’s ultimate sacrifice, which provides redemption and forgiveness of sins.
Theological View: This verse underscores the necessity of Christ’s sacrificial death for the remission of sin, reflecting the Old Testament practice of sacrifices pointing to the need for a perfect sacrifice.
Isaiah 53:5
“(KJV) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”
Interpretation: This prophetic passage points to the suffering servant who would bear the punishment for humanity’s sins, leading to healing and redemption.
Theological View: This prophecy is often interpreted as pointing directly to Christ’s sacrificial death for the sins of humanity, offering redemption through His suffering.
2 Corinthians 5:21
“(KJV) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
Interpretation: Christ, though sinless, became sin on behalf of humanity, so that through His atonement, humanity might be reconciled and made righteous before God.
Theological View: This emphasizes Christ’s role in redemption, providing the means for humans to stand justified before God through His sacrificial act.
Titus 2:14
“(KJV) Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”
Interpretation: Christ’s death serves as the redemption for humanity, purifying and transforming those who accept Him, setting them apart for a holy life.
Theological View: This supports the idea that redemption not only addresses the penalty of sin but also results in a transformation of life and character.

Scriptures Against the Doctrine

Galatians 2:21
“(KJV) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
Interpretation: If righteousness could be achieved through following the law, Christ’s sacrificial death would be unnecessary. This challenges the idea that redemption can be attained apart from Christ’s atonement.
Theological View: This verse emphasizes that human efforts to attain righteousness through the law are insufficient and that redemption can only come through Christ.
Matthew 19:17
“(KJV) And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Interpretation: This verse suggests that obedience to the commandments is a key to eternal life, which some interpret as undermining the necessity of atonement.
Theological View: Some may view this as a point suggesting that human works, specifically obedience to God’s commands, could offer redemption, without the need for a sacrifice.
Romans 10:5
“(KJV) For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.”
Interpretation: This statement could be understood as suggesting that those who keep the law are righteous, potentially downplaying the need for redemption via Christ’s sacrifice.
Theological View: Some may argue that adherence to the law is sufficient for redemption, minimizing the role of Christ’s atonement.
James 2:10
“(KJV) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”
Interpretation: This could be seen as supporting the idea that righteousness could come from perfect law-keeping, which contrasts with the need for redemption through Christ’s atonement.
Theological View: Those who advocate for salvation through works might interpret this verse as indicating the sufficiency of the law for atonement.
Romans 4:4-5
“(KJV) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Interpretation: This emphasizes that righteousness comes not through works but through faith, which contrasts with legalistic views that focus on works for salvation.
Theological View: This suggests that attempts to achieve redemption through human efforts (works) are futile and that only faith in Christ can bring righteousness.
Romans 11:6
“(KJV) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”
Interpretation: This shows that redemption cannot be both by grace and works simultaneously. If salvation is by grace, human works cannot contribute to it.
Theological View: This verse emphasizes that redemption through grace negates the need for human works, pointing to the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice.
Luke 18:9-14
“(KJV) And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others…”
Interpretation: This parable critiques those who trust in their own righteousness, suggesting that personal works cannot justify one before God.
Theological View: The lesson here teaches that redemption cannot be achieved by self-righteousness, underscoring the necessity of God’s grace through Christ.
Philippians 3:9
“(KJV) And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.”
Interpretation: This contrasts self-righteousness with righteousness that comes through faith in Christ, again emphasizing the need for Christ’s atoning work.
Theological View: This supports the belief that redemption is found only through faith in Christ, not through personal adherence to the law.

Hebrew, Greek, English, and Christian Translations Debates

The doctrine of “The Need for Redemption and Atonement” is central to Christian theology. While the concept itself is relatively straightforward, the translation of relevant scriptures into various languages, especially Hebrew, Greek, and English, has led to significant theological debates. These debates often center around the meanings of key words like “atonement,” “redemption,” “sin,” and “propitiation,” among others. Understanding these debates requires a close examination of the terms in their original languages (Hebrew and Greek), their English renderings, and the implications these translations have on Christian theological views.

Hebrew, Greek, and English Translations of Key Terms

Atonement (Kippur – Hebrew, Katallasso – Greek, Atonement – English)
- Hebrew (Kippur): The word “kippur” (כִּפּוּר) is found in the Old Testament, most notably in Leviticus 16, where it refers to the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). The root meaning is “to cover” or “to cleanse,” particularly in the context of removing sin’s stain. Theologically, “kippur” suggests a covering over of sin through the sacrificial system (Leviticus 17:11).
  - Problem in Translation: The word “covering” in Hebrew does not entirely convey the full concept of propitiation and reconciliation as understood in Christian theology. It can imply the temporary nature of Old Testament sacrifices, which were ultimately fulfilled in the atoning work of Christ.
  - Theological View: Some theologians argue that the Hebrew “kippur” implies a more temporary covering, not the full removal of sin, which the New Testament emphasizes as having been achieved in Christ (Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2).
- Greek (Katallasso): In the Greek New Testament, the word “katallasso” (καταλλάσσω) is used to convey the idea of reconciliation or bringing together two estranged parties. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, it describes how God reconciled us to Himself through Christ.
  - Problem in Translation: While “katallasso” emphasizes reconciliation, it does not directly indicate the “covering” of sin but rather the full restoration of the relationship, making the concept of redemption and propitiation more prominent in the New Testament than the Hebrew equivalent.
  - Theological View: The Greek “katallasso” emphasizes the full and permanent reconciliation between God and humanity through Christ’s sacrifice, rather than the temporary covering of sin.
- English (Atonement): The English word “atonement,” derived from the older Middle English “at-one-ment,” meaning reconciliation or making at one, is used in various translations, including the KJV. The translation of “atonement” in Leviticus 16:30 and Romans 5:11 reflects the theological idea of reconciliation and the restoring of a relationship.
  - Problem in Translation: The English word “atonement” carries a somewhat imprecise meaning, especially when used in contexts where a more specific term like “propitiation” (satisfaction of God’s wrath) or “reconciliation” might be more appropriate. For example, in Romans 5:11, the KJV uses “atonement,” but many modern translations prefer “reconciliation” (NIV, ESV), which conveys the idea of restored relationship more clearly.
  - Theological View: The use of “atonement” in English translations can lead to some confusion, as it might conflate the specific acts of covering (Old Testament) and reconciliation (New Testament) into a single, less precise concept.
Redemption (Ga’al – Hebrew, Lutrosis – Greek, Redemption – English)
- Hebrew (Ga’al): In the Old Testament, the term “ga’al” (גָּאַל) means “to redeem,” “to buy back,” or “to deliver,” and is often used in the context of God redeeming Israel or a kinsman redeemer buying back a relative’s property (Leviticus 25:25, Isaiah 44:22).
  - Problem in Translation: While “ga’al” primarily suggests a deliverance from bondage or captivity, it does not always carry the theological depth that the New Testament applies to Christ’s redeeming work.
  - Theological View: Theologically, some scholars argue that the Hebrew term implies a more temporal, physical redemption (e.g., from slavery) rather than the eternal spiritual redemption achieved by Christ.
- Greek (Lutrosis): The Greek word “lutrosis” (λύτρωσις) appears in the New Testament, especially in passages like Ephesians 1:7 and Titus 2:14, and refers to deliverance from sin and its consequences through a ransom paid by Christ. This is a key term in the New Testament to describe the work of Christ.
  - Problem in Translation: The concept of a ransom being paid for liberation is often difficult for modern readers to grasp, as the idea of slavery and redemption from it was more familiar in the ancient world. The theological implications of Christ’s sacrificial death as a ransom are sometimes downplayed in some translations.
  - Theological View: Theologically, “lutrosis” is considered to be the primary term for redemption in the New Testament, reflecting both the price paid for sin and the liberation from its power.
- English (Redemption): The English term “redemption” used in the KJV refers to the act of buying back or liberating from sin. It is the primary term used to express the salvific work of Christ.
  - Problem in Translation: The word “redemption” can be vague and may not fully capture the depth of Christ’s work, especially when compared to the more precise theological concepts of “propitiation” or “reconciliation.”
  - Theological View: “Redemption” in English captures the essence of salvation from sin’s penalty but may not fully convey the transactional nature of Christ’s work, which is often emphasized in terms like “ransom” or “propitiation.”
Propitiation (Kappar – Hebrew, Hilasterion – Greek, Propitiation – English)
- Hebrew (Kappar): The term “kappar” (כַּפַּר) in the Old Testament refers to the idea of covering sin, most notably in the context of the Day of Atonement where the High Priest sprinkles blood on the mercy seat to cover Israel’s sin (Leviticus 16:15).
  - Problem in Translation: “Kappar” does not fully convey the idea of satisfaction of God’s wrath, which is central to the New Testament concept of propitiation. The idea of appeasing God’s wrath is a New Testament development not easily captured in Hebrew.
  - Theological View: Some theologians argue that the Hebrew term implies more of a “covering” or “hiding” of sin, which is a preparatory concept leading to the full revelation of propitiation in Christ.
- Greek (Hilasterion): In the Greek New Testament, “hilasterion” (ἱλαστήριον) is used in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5 to describe the mercy seat or the place of atonement. It refers to the means by which God’s wrath is appeased and His justice satisfied.
  - Problem in Translation: The term “hilasterion” can be difficult to understand in a modern context, as the idea of propitiating God’s wrath through sacrifice might seem foreign to contemporary sensibilities.
  - Theological View: “Hilasterion” is vital for understanding Christ’s sacrificial role in satisfying God’s justice, and its correct interpretation is essential for grasping the depth of the gospel message of atonement.
- English (Propitiation): The term “propitiation” in the KJV is used to describe the means by which God’s wrath is appeased through Christ’s sacrifice (Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2).
  - Problem in Translation: The term “propitiation” is less commonly used in modern English translations, where words like “atoning sacrifice” or “sacrifice of atonement” are preferred to make the concept clearer.
  - Theological View: Theologically, propitiation reflects the critical understanding that Christ’s death not only covered sin but also satisfied the righteous anger of God against sin.

Issues with Greek Translations

Greek Textual Variants: There are some variations in the Greek manuscripts that affect the understanding of key theological concepts. These variations can sometimes lead to differences in how terms like “atonement” or “propitiation” are rendered.
Accuracy of Greek Translations: Greek translations, especially of key theological terms, can be debated in terms of their precision. For example, the word “hilasterion” (used for “propitiation”) is sometimes translated in a way that does not fully communicate the satisfaction of God’s wrath, thus downplaying the necessity of Christ’s substitutionary atonement.

Summary:
The debate around translations of key terms related to the doctrine of redemption and atonement highlights the complexity of conveying theological truths across languages and cultures. While Hebrew and Greek terms provide rich theological depth, their English renderings often fall short of fully capturing the concepts of covering, satisfaction, and reconciliation. Theological positions vary on the precise meaning of terms like “atonement,” “propitiation,” and “redemption,” with some traditions emphasizing aspects like the temporary covering of sin (Hebrew “kippur”) while others focus on the permanent reconciliation achieved by Christ (Greek “katallasso”). Modern translations often favor clarity over theological precision, sometimes obscuring key nuances. The accuracy of Greek translations remains a topic of scholarly debate, particularly regarding the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work in fully satisfying God’s justice and providing eternal redemption.

Denominational Views

1. Roman Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic Church believes in the necessity of redemption and atonement through Jesus Christ, but it emphasizes both Christ’s sacrifice and the ongoing role of the Church and the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, in the process of salvation. Catholics argue that redemption is a continuous process, initiated by Christ’s death but maintained through participation in the sacramental life of the Church. In terms of translation, the Catholic Church tends to focus on both the personal and communal aspects of atonement, seeing Christ’s death as both a once-for-all act and a repeated sacramental act.

Theological View for: Roman Catholics emphasize the necessity of Christ’s atoning death for salvation, citing scriptures like Romans 5:9: “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” (KJV)
Theological View Against: Some Catholic theologians argue that the English translation of “atonement” (Romans 5:11) can be misleading, as it might downplay the sacramental understanding of ongoing salvation.
Greek Words Used: “Atonement” (Romans 5:11, KJV) is translated as “katallasso” (καταλλάσσω) in Greek, which means “reconciliation.” The Catholic position highlights reconciliation rather than a complete and final covering of sin.
Hebrew/Greek Explanation: The term “katallasso” emphasizes the restoration of a relationship between God and humanity, rather than merely covering or removing sin. This reflects the Catholic view that Christ’s sacrifice opens the way for salvation, but its fullness is experienced through the sacraments.

2. Eastern Orthodox Church
The Eastern Orthodox Church holds to a view of atonement that stresses the transformative power of Christ’s death, focusing on the idea of deification (theosis) where believers become partakers of the divine nature. Redemption is not seen as a legal transaction but as a healing process where the effects of sin are undone by Christ’s work. In translation, the Orthodox Church prefers a holistic view of atonement, emphasizing that Christ’s death heals rather than merely satisfies divine justice.

Theological View for: Orthodox theologians argue that Christ’s atonement is both healing and restorative, as seen in 1 Peter 2:24: “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” (KJV)
Theological View Against: Some Orthodox theologians critique Western (especially Protestant) interpretations of atonement that emphasize legal satisfaction over healing, with the argument that the Greek word “hilasterion” (propitiation) in Romans 3:25 is better understood as healing and restoration rather than merely appeasing God’s wrath.
Greek Words Used: “Hilasterion” (Romans 3:25) is key in Orthodox theology, seen as an instrument of healing rather than wrath-satisfaction.
Hebrew/Greek Explanation: The term “hilasterion” (ἱλαστήριον) in Greek signifies the mercy seat, which was the place where the presence of God dwelt and where sins were symbolically forgiven. In the Orthodox view, it emphasizes the healing nature of God’s presence rather than simply His wrath being appeased.

3. Evangelical
Evangelical Christians hold to the belief that redemption and atonement are through faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. They emphasize the penal substitutionary atonement view, where Christ took the penalty for sin on behalf of humanity. Evangelicals generally reject the notion of sacramental salvation and hold that salvation is an individual, personal experience of faith in Christ’s atoning work.

Theological View for: Evangelicals strongly affirm that Christ’s death was a substitutionary atonement, citing passages such as Isaiah 53:5: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” (KJV)
Theological View Against: Some Evangelicals argue that translations like “atonement” in Romans 5:11 may obscure the complete work of Christ’s substitutionary atonement.
Greek Words Used: “Atonement” (Romans 5:11) is rendered as “katallasso,” meaning “reconciliation.” Evangelicals emphasize the need for the individual to be reconciled with God through Christ’s work.
Hebrew/Greek Explanation: “Katallasso” emphasizes the reconciliation between God and man, which Evangelicals see as central to salvation. It highlights the personal aspect of atonement and redemption, in contrast to other interpretations that might emphasize collective salvation.

4. Protestant (General)
Protestants (generally) maintain that salvation is by grace through faith alone, and that atonement is fully accomplished by Christ’s sacrifice. While various Protestant denominations might differ on the specifics of atonement (e.g., penal substitution, moral influence), they all affirm that redemption is essential to the gospel message. The use of the KJV is widespread, with many accepting the traditional reading of “atonement” while recognizing the need for more precise translations in modern languages.

Theological View for: Protestants affirm the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice for the atonement of sin, drawing from Hebrews 9:12: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (KJV)
Theological View Against: Some Protestant groups critique the use of the term “atonement” in translations, preferring “reconciliation” (Romans 5:11). They argue that “atonement” might diminish the relational aspect of redemption.
Greek Words Used: “Atonement” and “katallasso” are key in understanding the relationship between Christ’s sacrifice and reconciliation. Protestants view this as a definitive, once-for-all act that brings believers into a right relationship with God.
Hebrew/Greek Explanation: “Katallasso” stresses that Christ’s atonement is a complete reconciliation. It is not merely a temporary covering but a definitive act that restores the relationship between humanity and God.

5. Baptist (Southern Baptist, Independent Baptist, etc.)
Baptists affirm that redemption and atonement are secured by Christ’s death, rejecting any notion of salvation through works or sacraments. The Baptist view typically emphasizes penal substitutionary atonement, where Christ took the penalty for sin on behalf of humanity. The use of the KJV is standard in many Baptist churches, and they typically advocate for a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Theological View for: Baptists strongly advocate for Christ’s substitutionary role in atonement, citing 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (KJV)
Theological View Against: Some Baptists critique the ambiguity of the word “atonement” in Romans 5:11, preferring “reconciliation” to highlight the complete and final restoration between God and humanity.
Greek Words Used: “Atonement” and “katallasso” are central, with “katallasso” being understood as a complete reconciliation that Jesus achieved through His atoning death.
Hebrew/Greek Explanation: “Katallasso” stresses reconciliation, and Baptists assert that Christ’s death fully reconciled believers to God.

6. Methodist (United Methodist, AME, etc.)
Methodists believe in salvation through grace, focusing on both the prevenient and justifying grace that leads to sanctification. The need for redemption is seen as central, but the Methodist view leans toward a combination of personal faith and the communal life of the Church. They also emphasize the universality of Christ’s atonement and God’s desire to redeem all of humanity.

Theological View for: Methodists affirm that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, citing John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (KJV)
Theological View Against: Some Methodists argue that focusing too much on legal terms like “atonement” can obscure the relational and transformative nature of redemption.
Greek Words Used: “Atonement” (katallasso) and “hilasterion” are seen as connected, with “katallasso” emphasizing reconciliation between God and humanity.
Hebrew/Greek Explanation: The term “hilasterion” emphasizes that Christ’s death is not merely a transaction but a restoration of fellowship with God.

7. Lutheran (Missouri Synod, ELCA, etc.)
Lutherans hold to the doctrine of justification by faith alone, with a strong emphasis on the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice for atonement. They affirm that Christ’s atonement is both for the forgiveness of sins and for the restoration of the relationship between God and humanity.

Theological View for: Lutherans emphasize the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, quoting Hebrews 10:14: “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” (KJV)
Theological View Against: Some Lutheran theologians argue that the English translation “atonement” does not fully capture the depth of Christ’s sacrifice and prefer “reconciliation” or “justification.”
Greek Words Used: “Atonement” (katallasso) and “hilasterion” are significant in the Lutheran tradition, emphasizing Christ’s work as both an act of reconciliation and a means of appeasing God’s wrath.
Hebrew/Greek Explanation: “Hilasterion” and “katallasso” reinforce the idea that Christ’s death is a full reconciliation, not merely a temporary covering of sin.

8. Pentecostal (Assemblies of God, UPCI, etc.)
Pentecostals emphasize the power of the Holy Spirit in redemption and atonement. They believe that Christ’s death made salvation and spiritual empowerment possible, and that the work of the Spirit brings believers into a deeper experience of the atonement.

Theological View for: Pentecostals affirm Christ’s sacrifice as the means of salvation, quoting Colossians 1:14: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” (KJV)
Theological View Against: Some Pentecostal groups might argue that the legalistic implications of “atonement” (Romans 5:11) overlook the experiential nature of salvation in the Spirit.
Greek Words Used: “Atonement” (katallasso) is central in understanding salvation as both a legal and spiritual reality.
Hebrew/Greek Explanation: “Katallasso” points to both legal reconciliation and the spiritual renewal that Pentecostals emphasize through the work of the Holy Spirit.

9. Jehovah’s Witnesses
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ’s atonement was necessary to restore God’s sovereignty and eliminate sin. However, they reject the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity and interpret atonement within a broader framework of restoring God’s Kingdom.

Theological View for: Jehovah’s Witnesses emphasize Christ’s sacrificial death, citing Matthew 20:28: “Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (KJV)
Theological View Against: They reject the traditional view of “atonement” as being a payment for sin, seeing it as part of a larger plan of restoration.
Greek Words Used: “Ransom” (lutron) is preferred, emphasizing Christ’s death as a ransom rather than atonement.
Hebrew/Greek Explanation: The Greek word “lutron” (λύτρον) refers to the price of redemption, which Jehovah’s Witnesses see as necessary for restoring God’s Kingdom.

10. Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – LDS)
Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ’s atonement is necessary for salvation but is viewed as both universal and conditional, depending on individual choices. They also hold to a belief in eternal progression, where one’s actions on earth impact their standing in the afterlife.

Theological View for: Mormons believe in the necessity of Christ’s atonement for salvation, citing 2 Nephi 9:21: “And he suffereth the pains of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him.” (Book of Mormon)
Theological View Against: Critics argue that Mormon theology waters down the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement by placing additional requirements on human effort.
Greek Words Used: Mormons use “atonement” but stress its necessity as part of eternal progression.
Hebrew/Greek Explanation: The Greek “hilasterion” and “katallasso” are seen as essential for understanding that Christ’s atonement allows for eternal progression but is not the end of salvation in Mormon thought.

11. Seventh-day Adventist
Seventh-day Adventists believe that Jesus Christ’s atonement, while central, also connects to their emphasis on the Second Coming and the investigative judgment, where Christ’s work continues in heaven.

Theological View for: Adventists affirm the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice, citing Hebrews 9:12: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (KJV)
Theological View Against: Some Adventist views expand the idea of atonement, placing emphasis on judgment rather than just Christ’s work on the cross.
Greek Words Used: “Atonement” (katallasso) and “hilasterion” are used to explain the central role of Christ’s sacrifice, but also the need for continued judgment.
Hebrew/Greek Explanation: “Hilasterion” emphasizes the sacrificial nature of Christ’s work, with Adventists incorporating judgment into their understanding of atonement.

Summary
Throughout these denominations, the doctrine of redemption and atonement varies significantly, ranging from the Catholic and Orthodox views, which emphasize the transformative and healing aspects of atonement, to Evangelicals and Baptists, who uphold a more legal and substitutionary understanding. Words like “katallasso” (reconciliation) and “hilasterion” (mercy seat) in Greek provide a foundation for understanding these theological differences. While each tradition acknowledges the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice for salvation, their views diverge on its application and the role of ongoing acts like sacraments or judgment. Each denomination brings a unique emphasis on the sufficiency, nature, and scope of Christ’s atoning work, all rooted in the rich linguistic and theological traditions within the biblical texts.

Conclusion

The doctrine of redemption and atonement is central to Christian theology, but different denominations interpret it in various ways. While all traditions recognize Christ’s atoning sacrifice as essential for salvation, the application and understanding of this sacrifice vary widely. Some denominations, like Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, emphasize the transformative and sacramental aspects of atonement, while Evangelicals, Baptists, and others tend to focus on substitutionary atonement. Additionally, some traditions introduce nuances such as the need for ongoing judgment (e.g., Seventh-day Adventists) or eternal progression (e.g., Mormons). These differences in interpretation are shaped by theological frameworks, historical contexts, and particular readings of scripture.

Below are tables summarizing the views, interpretations, and scripture basis for and against the doctrine of atonement within various denominations.

Table 1: Views, Interpretations, and Scripture Basis (For Atonement)

Denomination	View	Interpretation	Scripture Basis Reference and Quote
Roman Catholic	Atonement is both substitutionary and sacramental.	Christ’s atonement makes salvation available, which is applied through the sacraments.	John 6:54: “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (KJV)
Eastern Orthodox	Atonement is transformative and restorative.	Christ’s death and resurrection restore humanity’s original state with God.	1 John 4:10: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (KJV)
Evangelical	Atonement is substitutionary and penal.	Christ died in place of sinners to satisfy God’s justice.	1 Peter 2:24: “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” (KJV)
Baptist	Atonement is substitutionary and penal.	Christ’s death as a substitute for the sinner is central to salvation.	Romans 5:8: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (KJV)
Methodist	Atonement is both substitutionary and universal.	Christ’s atonement is available to all but requires personal faith for salvation.	Hebrews 9:12: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (KJV)
Lutheran	Atonement is substitutionary and for all people.	Christ died for the sins of all, and salvation is through faith in His work.	John 1:29: “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (KJV)
Pentecostal	Atonement is substitutionary and provides victory over sin.	Christ’s atonement brings both forgiveness and victory over sin.	Colossians 2:14: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” (KJV)
Jehovah’s Witnesses	Atonement is necessary for salvation but is not sufficient alone.	Christ’s sacrifice makes salvation possible but does not guarantee it.	Matthew 20:28: “Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (KJV)
Mormonism (LDS)	Atonement is necessary for eternal progression.	Christ’s atonement is part of an ongoing process of salvation and progression.	2 Nephi 9:21: “And he suffereth the pains of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him.” (Book of Mormon)
Seventh-day Adventist	Atonement includes Christ’s sacrificial work and judgment.	Christ’s work continues in heaven through the investigative judgment.	Hebrews 9:12: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (KJV)

Table 2: Arguments Against Interpretation, Scripture Basis, and Quotes (Against Atonement)

Denomination	Argument Against Interpretation	Scripture Basis Reference and Quote
Roman Catholic	Critics argue that sacramental mediation adds human effort to salvation.	Galatians 2:21: “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” (KJV)
Eastern Orthodox	Critics assert that transformation is not enough and excludes the necessity of faith alone for salvation.	Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (KJV)
Evangelical	Some argue the focus on penal substitution diminishes the importance of resurrection and reconciliation.	1 Corinthians 15:17: “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” (KJV)
Baptist	Some argue that the substitutionary view is overly legalistic and neglects the relational aspect of atonement.	John 15:13: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (KJV)
Methodist	Critics claim that universalism undermines the personal responsibility of accepting salvation.	John 14:6: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (KJV)
Lutheran	Some assert that the general atonement view doesn’t emphasize personal faith sufficiently.	Romans 10:9: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (KJV)
Pentecostal	Critics argue that too much emphasis on victory over sin neglects the ongoing need for sanctification.	Philippians 2:12: “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (KJV)
Jehovah’s Witnesses	Critics assert that salvation requires more than just faith in Christ’s sacrifice—it involves additional works and obedience.	John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (KJV)
Mormonism (LDS)	Critics argue that Mormon views on atonement add works-based salvation to the grace of Christ.	Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (KJV)
Seventh-day Adventist	Some argue that the doctrine of the investigative judgment undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.	Hebrews 10:14: “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” (KJV)

Summary

The doctrine of atonement remains a fundamental theological concept, but different Christian denominations interpret its meaning and application in diverse ways. From Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views emphasizing sacramental and transformative aspects to Evangelical and Baptist doctrines focusing on substitutionary atonement, each tradition brings a unique perspective. Critics often challenge specific elements such as the sacramental aspect, the role of judgment, or the perceived dilution of grace by works. Ultimately, the atonement is universally recognized as the cornerstone of Christian salvation, yet the paths to understanding and applying this doctrine differ significantly across traditions. The scriptures cited in both tables provide key insight into these varying interpretations and debates surrounding the sufficiency and nature of Christ’s sacrifice.