What are the various theories on the atonement?

Answer

Throughout church history, various perspectives on the atonement have been presented by different individuals or denominations, some accurate and some erroneous. One reason for the diversity of views is that both the Old and New Testaments contain multiple truths about Christ’s atonement, making it challenging, if not impossible, to find a single comprehensive “theory” that fully captures or explains the depth of the atonement. Upon studying the Scriptures, we encounter a complex and diverse portrayal of the atonement, as the Bible presents numerous interconnected truths regarding the redemption accomplished by Christ. Another factor contributing to the array of atonement theories is that much of our understanding of the atonement must be interpreted within the context and perspective of God’s people under the Old Covenant sacrificial system.

The atonement of Christ, its purpose, and its achievements are such profound topics that extensive literature has been dedicated to them. This article will offer a concise overview of various theories that have been proposed over time. When examining the different perspectives on the atonement, it is crucial to recognize that any viewpoint failing to acknowledge the sinful nature of humanity or the substitutionary aspect of the atonement is, at best, inadequate and, at worst, heretical.

Ransom to Satan: This perspective interprets Christ’s atonement as a ransom paid to Satan to secure humanity’s liberation from Satan’s enslavement. It is rooted in the belief that humanity is spiritually enslaved to Satan and that Christ’s death was intended to establish God’s triumph over Satan. This theory lacks substantial scriptural support and has garnered minimal support throughout church history. It is unscriptural in that it attributes the requirement for a sin payment to Satan rather than God. Consequently, it disregards the demands of God’s justice, as depicted in the Scriptures.Throughout Scripture, it presents a higher perspective of Satan than warranted, portraying him as more powerful than he truly is. There is no biblical basis for the notion that sinners are indebted to Satan. Instead, Scripture consistently shows that it is God who demands recompense for sin.

Recapitulation Theory: This theory posits that Christ’s atonement has reversed humanity’s trajectory from disobedience to obedience. It suggests that Christ’s life encompassed all phases of human existence, undoing the disobedience introduced by Adam. However, this theory lacks scriptural support.

Dramatic Theory: This perspective interprets Christ’s atonement as securing victory in a divine struggle between good and evil, liberating humanity from bondage to Satan. The significance of Christ’s death was to ensure God’s triumph over Satan and offer a means to free the world from its enslavement to evil.

Mystical Theory: The mystical theory views Christ’s atonement as a conquest over His own sinful nature through the Holy Spirit’s power. Advocates of this view believe that understanding this will mystically impact individuals, awakening their “god-consciousness.” They also assert that man’s spiritual state is not a consequence of sin but merely a lack of “god-consciousness.” This perspective is clearly contrary to biblical teachings. Embracing this notion requires believing that Christ possessed a sinful nature, whereas Scripture affirms that Jesus was the flawless God-man, devoid of sin in every aspect of His being “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”, (Hebrews 4:15).

Moral Influence Theory: This theory asserts that Christ’s atonement serves as a manifestation of God’s love, prompting a softening of the human heart and leading to repentance. Proponents of this view argue that man is spiritually ailing and in need of assistance, emphasizing that the m

An individual is moved to accept God’s forgiveness by witnessing God’s love for humanity. They believe that the purpose and significance of Christ’s death was to showcase God’s love towards humanity. While it is accurate that Christ’s atonement is the supreme illustration of God’s love, this perspective is not supported by the Bible as it disregards the genuine spiritual state of humanity—dead in transgressions and sins «And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; », (Ephesians 2:1)—and rejects the idea that God indeed demands a payment for sin. This interpretation of Christ’s atonement leaves humanity without a genuine sacrifice or payment for sin.

Example Theory: This perspective regards the atonement of Christ as merely offering an example of faith and obedience to motivate humanity to obey God. Advocates of this view believe that humanity is spiritually alive and that Christ’s life and atonement were merely an example of genuine faith and obedience, meant to inspire individuals to lead a similar life of faith and obedience. This theory, along with the moral influence theory, both deny that God’s justice necessitates payment for sin and that Christ’s crucifixion served as that payment. The primary distinction between the moral influence theory and the example theory is that the moral influence theory asserts that Christ’s death demonstrates how much God loves us, while the example theory suggests that Christ’s death teaches us how to live. Undoubtedly, Christ serves as an example for us to emulate, even in His death, but the example theory fails to acknowledge humanity’s true spiritual state and the fact that God’s justice demands payment for sin, which humanity is incapable of providing.

Commercial Theory: The commercial theory perceives Christ’s atonement as bringing infinite honor to God. This led to God granting Christ a reward that He did not require, and Christ passed on that reward to humanity. Proponents of this theory believe that humanity’s spiritual state is one of dishoIgnoring God and Christ’s death, which brought infinite honor to God, can be applied to sinners for salvation. This theory, like many others, denies the true spiritual state of unregenerate sinners and their need for a completely new nature, available only in Christ “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”, (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Governmental Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s high regard for His law and His attitude toward sin. It is through Christ’s death that God has a reason to forgive the sins of those who repent and accept Christ’s substitutionary death. Those who hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is as one who has violated God’s moral law and that the meaning of Christ’s 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 for the actual sins of any people, but instead His suffering simply showed mankind that God’s laws were broken and that some penalty was paid.

Penal Substitution Theory: This theory sees the atonement of Christ as a vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied the demands of God’s justice upon sin. With His sacrifice, Christ paid the penalty of man’s sin, bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness, and reconciling man to God. Those who hold this view believe that every aspect of man—his mind, will, and emotions—has been corrupted by sin and that man is totally depraved and spiritually dead. This view holds that Christ’s death paid the penalty for sin and that through faith man can accept Christ’s substitution as payment for sin. This view of the atonement aligns most accurately with Scripture in its view of sin.

the nature of humanity, and the impact of Christ’s death on the cross.