There seems to be a overlap of bits between some of the views.
Where stand ye?
1) Ransom View
This view of the atonement was one of the earliest and teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom sacrifice usually said to have been paid to Satan or to death itself, in some views paid to God the Father. This ransom/sacrifice was paid in satisfaction for the bondage and debt of the souls of humanity as a result of their inborn sin that they inherited because of their descent from Adam. In regards to the ransom being paid to Satan, it is based on the belief that man's spiritual condition is in bondage to Satan and the ransom was paid to purchase and secure man's freedom and enslavement from Satan.
Origen
Justin Martyr
Basil of Caeserea
Gregory of Nyssa
Gustaf Aulen
2) Recapitulation View
This is an early theory of the atonement, first comprehensively developed by Irenaeus. In this view, Christ succeeds where Adam failed and sinned by undoing the wrong Adam did and, because of his union with humanity, Christ leads humanity to eternal life, including moral perfection.
3) Moral Influence View
In this view, the purpose and results of Christ's death was to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any kind of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, thus softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading and influencing him to right action.
The moral influence view of the atonement teaches that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement He founded, and the inspiring effect of His martyrdom and resurrection. Is one of the oldest views of the atonement in Christian theology and prevalent for most of Christian history. (Doc: The info I saw states it but I have doubts as to if it was the prevalent view for most of Christian history)
Pierre Abelard
Hastings Rashdall
Liberal Christianity
4) Satisfaction View
This view maintains that Jesus Christ suffered crucifixion as a substitute for human sin, satisfying God's just wrath against man's transgression because of Christ's merit. Theologically speaking, the word "satisfaction" does not mean gratification as in common historical usage, but rather "to make restitution:" mending what was broken, or paying back what was taken and owed. Justice is one of the main characteristics of God and that justice must be atoned for. This concept is connected with the legal concept of balancing out an injustice. This view was largely developed from the works of Anselm of Cantebury who saw it as a needed improvement over the earlier ransom theory of the atonement. It is the theory of the atonement the Roman Catholic church teaches.
Anselm of Cantebury
Roman Catholic
Lutheran
Reformed traditions of western Christianity
See Roman Catholic soteriology
5) Moral Government View
This view teaches that Christ suffered and was crucified on behalf of humanity so that God could forgive humans without punishing them while still maintaining divine justice. Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve, but it did not consist of Christ receiving the exact punishment due to sinful people. Instead, God publically demonstrated His displeasure with sin through the suffering of His son as a propitiation for sin. Because of this propiation God can still maintain His moral government without punishing each individual sinner who was punished in Christ. The scope of Christ's death applies not to individuals directly but to the Church as a corporate entity. Individuals partake
of the atonement by becoming members of the Church through faith.
Arminianism
6) Penal Substitution View
The penal substitution view of the atonement advocates that Christ, by His own sacrifical choice, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution), thereby
satisfying the demands of God's justice so God can justly forgive sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement in which the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment. In older writings this view is sometimes referred to as the "forensic theory."
Penal substitution derives from the view that divine forgiveness must be accompanied by the satisfaction of divine justice. God is not willing or able to simply
forgive sin without first requiring satisfaction for it. This view states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.
Thomas Aquinas
John Calvin
John Wesley
7) Christus Victor View
According to the Christus Victor view of the atonement, Christ's death defeated the powers of evil which held mankind in their dominion. In His death and resurrection,
Christ overcame the hostile powers, those powers variously understood as the devil, law, sin and death. The main human problem is that we were trapped and needed to be rescued. Christ came and partook in flesh and blood and through death defeated and disarmed the powers hostile to us and as the Supreme Victor rescued us. His atonement reconciled all things to Himself and in its entire scope includes all of the created order, the entire cosmos.
Gustaf Aulen - 1931
N. T. Wright
