What are the various theories on the atonement?
Question: "What are the various theories on the atonement?"
Answer: Throughout church history several different views or theories of the atonement, some true and some false, have been put forth at different times by different individuals or denominations. One of the reasons for this is that both the Old and New Testaments reveal many truths about Christís atonement, so it is hard, if not impossible, to find any single ďtheoryĒ that fully encapsulates or explains the richness of this doctrine.
Instead, what we discover as we study the Scriptures is a rich and multifaceted picture of the atonement as the Bible puts forth many interrelated truths concerning the redemption that Christ has accomplished. Another contributing factor to the many different theories of the atonement is that much of what we can learn about the atonement needs to be understood from the experience and perspective of Godís people under the Old Covenant sacrificial
system. Since having a correct view of the atonement of Christ is a key to understanding much of the Bible, even a appraise of the differing theories of atonement can be beneficial.
The atonement of Christ, its purpose and what it accomplished is so rich that volumes have been written about it, and this article will simply provide a brief overview of many of the theories that have been put forth at one time or another. In looking at the different views of the atonement, we must never lose sight of the fact that any view that does not recognize the sinfulness of man and substitutionary aspect of the atonement is
deficient at best and heretical at worst.
Ransom to Satan Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as a ransom that was paid to Satan to purchase manís freedom from being enslaved to Satan. It is based on a belief that manís spiritual condition is in bondage to Satan and that the meaning of Christís death was to secure Godís victory over Satan. This theory has little, if any, scriptural support and has had few supporters throughout church history. It is
heretical in that it thinks of Satan, rather than God, as the one who required a payment be made for sin and thus completely ignores the demands of Godís justice as seen throughout Scripture. It also has a higher view of Satan than it should and views him as having more power than he really does. There is no scriptural support for the idea that sinners owe anything to Satan, but throughout Scripture we see that God is the One who
requires a payment for sin.
Recapitulation Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as reversing the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. It believes that Christís life recapitulated all the stages of human life and in doing so reversed the course of disobedience initiated by Adam. This cannot be supported scripturally.
Dramatic Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as securing the victory in a divine conflict between good and evil and winning manís release from bondage to Satan. The meaning of Christís death was to ensure Godís victory over Satan and provides a way to redeem the world out of its bondage to evil.
Mystical Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as a triumph over His own sinful nature through the power of the Holy Spirit. Those who hold this view believe that knowledge of this will mystically influence man and awake his ďGod-consciousness.Ē They also believe that manís spiritual condition is not the result of sin but simply a lack of ďGod-consciousness.Ē Clearly, this is one of the most heretical of all these
theories, because to believe this, one must believe that Christ had a sin nature, while Scripture is clear that Jesus was the perfect God-man, sinless in every aspect of His nature (Hebrews 4:15).
Moral Influence Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating Godís love which causes manís heart to soften and repent. Those that hold this view believe that man is spiritually sick and in need of help and that man is moved to accept Godís forgiveness by seeing Godís love for man. They believe that the purpose and meaning of Christís death was to demonstrate Godís love toward man. While it is true that
Christís atonement is the ultimate example of the love of God, this view is also heretical because it denies the true spiritual condition of man and denies that God actually requires a payment for sin. This view of Christís atonement leaves mankind without a true sacrifice or payment for sin.
Example Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as simply providing an example of faith and obedience to inspire man to be obedient to God. Those that hold this view believe that man is spiritually alive and that Christís life and atonement were simply an example of true faith and obedience and should serve as inspiration to men to live a similar life of faith and obedience. This and the moral influence theory are
similar in that they both deny that Godís justice actually requires payment for sin and that Christís death on the cross was that payment. The main difference between the moral influence theory and the example theory is that the moral influence theory says that Christís death teaches us how much God loves us and the example theory says that Christís death teaches how to live. Of course, it is certainly true that Christ is an example
for us to follow, even in His death, but the example theory fails to recognize manís true spiritual conditionódead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1)óand that Godís justice requires payment for sin which man is in no way capable of providing.
Commercial Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as bringing infinite honor to God. This resulted in God giving Christ a reward which He did not need, and Christ passed that reward on to man. Those that hold this view believe that manís spiritual condition is that of dishonoring God and so Christís death, which brought infinite honor to God, can be applied to sinners for salvation. This theory, like many of the
others, denies the true spiritual state of unregenerate sinners and their need of a completely new nature, available only in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).
Governmental Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating Godís high regard for His law and His attitude towards sin. It is through Christís death that God has a reason to forgive the sins of those who repent and accept Christís substitutionary death. Those that hold this view believe that manís spiritual condition is as one who has violated Godís moral law and that the meaning of Christís death was to
be a substitute for the penalty of sin. Because Christ paid the penalty for sin, it is possible for God to legally forgive those who accept Christ as their substitute. This view falls short in that it does not teach that Christ actually paid the penalty of the actual sins of any people, but instead His suffering simply showed mankind that Godís laws were broken and that some penalty was paid.
Penal Substitution Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as being a vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied the demands of Godís justice upon sin. In His death Christ paid the penalty of manís sin bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness and reconciling man to God. Those that hold this view believe that every aspect of man, his mind, will and emotions have been corrupted by sin and that man is totally
depraved and spiritually dead. This view holds that Christís death paid the penalty of sin for those whom God elects to save and that through repentance man can accept Christís substitution as payment for sin. This view of the atonement aligns most accurately with Scripture in its view of sin, the nature of man, and the results of the death of Christ on the cross.
This page is also available in:
What is systematic theology?
What is the substitutionary atonement?
What is Christian reconciliation? Why do we need to be reconciled with God?
What is propitiation?
What is New Testament theology?
Questions about Theology
What are the various theories on the atonement?