****Nota Bene: The term atonement may not be the most accurate term, but I use it here because it is the term used by most people. Also, the footnotes are due to understandings of various views of the atonement that I took largely from seminary class notes. Further, if there is a word you don't know the meaning of, please look it up. It is likely important. :) Lastly, this is a long comment to an ongoing discussion which means it will read more like a comment than a refined paper.****
I figure a longer post is appropriate considering that we are in the week where we remember the death and resurrection of the Christ.
The repentance movement is huge in "evangelical" churches today. That movement is evidenced every time one talks about the “gospel” without placing emphasis on the importance of the atonement. I'm not sure if it is left over from the heresies of the past or if there is a resurgence today. In either case, the view is closely related to the condition of man and the meaning of the atonement. A number of destructive theories have popped up through the years. I’ve listed a number of them below and I think you’ll see some similarities to the thinking in today’s American Christianity.
Jonathan Edwards Jr’s View:
Jonathan Edwards Jr’s formulation of atonement took a step
The Governmental View:
The Governmental View holds that the atonement was not
The Romish View:
The Romish view of the atonement strips the atonement of complete satisfaction of God. Instead, the atonement simply allows one to progressively get better over time.  Justification, then, is not God declaring an individual to be righteous on the basis of the atonement, but rather one is able to purge sin out of his life because of the atonement
The Classical Arminian View:
The classic Arminian view is similar in wording to that of the Reformers, but it redefines key ideas which, in turn, changes the very nature of the atonement. The main difference is that the Reformers stated that the atonement was the substitute for a penalty while Arminianism views the atonement as a penalty. In other words, Arminianism makes the atonement a substitute for God’s wrath, but not the payment for individual sin.
Schleiermacher’s interpretation of the atonement is similar to that of the moral influence theory that proceeded him. That is, the atonement of Christ is simply a picture that should drive the individual to a greater god-consciousness. The atonement does not supply vicarious satisfaction and certainly is not a penal sacrifice for the sin of mankind. Christ simply influenced mankind to think more positively and be delivered over time from a lack of god-consciousness.
Karl Barth’s View:
Barth’s view of the atonement is focused on its result rather than its essence. The result being reconciliation—man brought back into a relationship with God. The atonement is simply a demonstration that reconciliation is given to all mankind. Barth’s view of that atonement connects directly to his view of election which holds to the view that all people are elect. The purpose of the death of Christ, therefore, is simply to demonstrate to all that they are elect in hopes that they will recognize that fact.
The Bible’s View:
 John D. Hannah, “History of Doctrine,” class notes for HT200OL: The Work of Christ, Part 4: (Lesson 16, Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring Semester, 2013), 17.
 Ibid., 15.
 Ibid., 19.
 John D. Hannah, “History of Doctrine,” class notes for HT200OL: The Work of Christ, Part 5: (Lesson 17, Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring Semester, 2013), 3.
 Ibid., 7.
 Ibid., 16.