I have, as long as I can remember in my Christian journey, held to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). Prior to even hearing the term, it was what I had been taught and understood from scripture. However, PSA is one theological position among many, though, as noted, it is the one I have always held. Seeing it regularly attacked on social media in recent times has led me to examine it and other views as I have long been convinced that we need to both know what we believe and why. Thus, while I hold to PSA I will present and examine a number of views, as while they are different, they are not all mutually exclusive.
PSA is the position generally under the most attack since it deals with God’s justice and His wrath, topics that many seem uncomfortable coming to terms with. When it comes to PSA some have derisively said that in His crucifixion and resurrection Jesus merely, ‘lost a weekend.’ Others have portrayed Jesus’ crucifixion as ‘cosmic child abuse.’ One of the most recent attacks has come from the popular author John Mark Comer. He came out against PSA while promoting Andrew Remington Rillera’s book Lamb of the Free, which Comer described as a ‘knockout blow’ to PSA. I confess, I haven’t read the book. I have read some reviews and rebuttals but I don’t have time to read every book on every subject nor do I need to – what I need to do is hold any view up to the light of scripture, which I do know. I have long held to what Isaiah wrote.
20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20 (NKJV)
Scripture is the standard not the shifting sands of theological opinion.
So, here I will share a spectrum of historical views of the atonement, what I believe and why, and draw some conclusions. I think it is also important to know if a view we hold was held by the church fathers as they were instrumental in sorting out the theology of the church after the completion of the New Testament. They didn’t always agree but they did wrestle through difficult questions and draw conclusions. Many have alleged that PSA is a view that arose in the Protestant church world, which is not trues since it was held by some of the early church fathers. The most important thing for me however, as noted above, is that scripture is the final arbiter.
As part of this introduction, below is an overview of theories I have pulled from my online theological library. As I go further, I will present my thoughts, as I always have, in plain language. However, as you look at them remember, two things, first, as noted above, these theories are not all mutually exclusive, secondly the most important thing is what Jesus said.
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16 (NKJV)
Atonement Theories
The various theories of Christ’s atonement describe God’s purposes in Christ’s death and lead to further inquiry about the efficacy of the cross, especially the extent of its benefits and recipients.
Theories of the atonement are rich and complex, because they necessarily involve views of original sin, grace, law, the wrath of God, hell, holiness, righteousness, covenant, the deity of Christ, even the nature of the Trinity. Often a theory is developed as a reaction against other theories. Below is a brief explanation of major theories and a few primary contributors.
• The Ransom Theory. In this view, the atonement was payment made by God to Satan, because Satan held mankind in bondage to sin and death. Origen in particular argued that the cross was a ransom payment equal in value to man’s sin debt, a debt accrued since Adam’s original sin. At the cross, the death payment of Christ, the devil was obliged to release man from bondage.
• The Satisfaction Theory. This view of the atonement, sometimes called the “Latin view,” was primarily developed by Saint Anselm in Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man). This view sets God’s justice or honor against man’s immense sin debt. The satisfaction view is a reaction against the ransom view. Anselm argued that it was not to Satan but to God that man’s sin debt was owed. Now that man’s sin debt has been exacted from the Son, man can be reconciled to God’s divine justice.
• Christus Victor. This view of the atonement argues—in the words of its best-known promoter, Gustav Aulén—that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil” (Christus Victor, p. 20). This view is a reaction to both the ransom and the satisfaction theories. Instead of payment to Satan or to God, the death of Christ is seen as a conquest in a cosmic conflict.
• Penal Substitution. This view is often associated with the magisterial reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. Some studies have demonstrated, however, that key elements of the penal substitution theory are evident in the early years of church history. The word “penal” refers to the divine penalty enacted at the cross. This penalty is more than payment for sin to God (though it is that); it is also the site at which God expended his wrath against human sin. God can be just and the justifier of the ungodly because Christ was our substitute on the cross: he paid sin’s penalty. By his sacrificial death he “cancel[ed] the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” (Col 2:14). Our sin, in this view, is imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us.
• The Scapegoat Theory. René Girard, a Roman Catholic philosopher, is the figure most often associated with the scapegoat theory. He appeals to the motif of the scapegoat, the azazel, from the atonement rituals in Leviticus 16. In this theory, communal tension that would otherwise erupt in violence is dissipated by redirecting that violence toward a scapegoat. When in Christ God makes himself the scapegoat, directing human violence toward an innocent party, he reveals the error in scapegoating and breaks the cycle of violence. This theory has wide acceptance in those (typically mainline) Protestant circles that tend to shy away from or reject substitution theories.
• The Governmental Theory. Hugo Grotius, Charles Finney, and Wesleyan Methodism have championed this view. In the governmental view, Jesus did not pay a penalty for human sin; instead, at the cross he made a display of God’s displeasure with sin.
• Theosis. This view is closely associated with Eastern Orthodoxy. It posits that the joining of man to divinity is the telos, the completion, of humanity. The cross makes theosis possible by its great act of transfiguration from death to life.
• The Moral Influence Theory. In this view, man’s greatest need is not to be reconciled to God; rather, man needs an ultimate moral example, and Christ provides this via his self-giving life and death.
• The Solidarity Theory. This view argues that Christ at the cross identified with humanity’s suffering and overcame it. In doing so, he brought humanity into a new way of living according to divine justice. While considered newer, this view has roots within other, older views. This view most resembles Christus Victor, and N. T. Wright and the others who adopt the New Perspective on Paul have been this view’s most influential proponents. Jürgen Moltmann and his “suffering of God” theology, too, provide a variation on the solidarity theory.[1]
[1] Mark Olivero, “Theories of Atonement,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).