As believers in Christ, we understand the cross is central to our salvation. However, the manner in which the Lord's death obtained this does not easily fit into a simple description. While it is not necessary to understand the theology behind the cross to apply it, there are some views that are more sound than others.

The site below lists various theories about what the Atonement meant. Some of them overlap, and are refinements of previous basic views; therefore it's okay to favor more than one.

I hope this is interesting to discuss; please don't let it be contentious!

How do you see it? Which views do you think are the best or the worst? (I've heard some of the worst, even in church!)

Fair Use For Education and Discussion Purposes

http://www.theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ

Atonement of Christ

The Atonement of Christ is the sacrificial work of Jesus for sinners. In his death on the cross, Christ atoned for the sins of humanity such that God is satisfied and reconciliation is accomplished for all who will be redeemed. The obedience and death of Christ on behalf of sinners is the ground of redemption.
Multimedia

Necessity of the atonement

As stated above, Jesus' death satisfied and reconciled sinners to God. Yet, in order to fully appreciate the doctrine of the atonement it must be made clear why the atonement was necessary.

Tom, I really like that! It explains the use of the word "ransom" in a way that does not make the devil into a player in some sort of contest.

How often do we see that depicted in literature, music, or movies, etc? In fact, he has already been condemned.

The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve,
And to give his life as a ransom for many. – Matthew 10:45

Fascinating reading all of the theories.

I have an inkling that all of this could go to an even deeper level - that the human race's DNA was corrupted in the fall on a cellular level.

When you talk atonement, there's always the blood that is needed to cover the difference. Why the need for blood? Life is in the blood, the word says.

I believe God had one choice: to go back to the source, His own perfect DNA, in order to cover & restore us to Himself.

The difference with Cain and Able's sacrifice was not so much blood or no blood (Israel still has grain and oil offerings), but of heart attitude. Able offered his very best parts of his first born to the Lord because He is worthy of it. Cain offered some of his produce, but apparently not the very best. Not the first fruits. The Lord loves a cheerful giver.

How would you enjoy being taken out on a date and your date tells you, I guess I have to feed you something and then gives you bread from the bakery outlet store. You won't feel loved and cherised. But if he takes you to a restaurant reknowned in the area for the tastiest ribs - well, I'd be happy.

I here you W&W and in the Mosaic times I would agree with you, but the offering of Cain and Able wasn't described as a sin atonement at all, but as a gift offering, a tribute to God. See http://biblelexicon.org/genesis/4-3.htm.

Was it even conceivable to make an atonement for sin prior to the law being given to establish what sin was?

If you were a wheat farmer and had no meat animals, does that mean that your first fruit offerings to the Lord would have no value because there was no blood in them? But I do agree with you and the Lord that there is power in the blood. A couple of verses later it says "The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

This actually reminds me of Abraham, wandering from one area to another area rather than staying in one place working the land and producing crops. Except Abraham was following God's instructions as best he understood so that for him it was a blessing and not a curse.