Atonement Part 3

Since it is quite evident that scripture teaches Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), that is, Jesus paid the price for our sins on the cross. My qualifier regarding PSA is that God’s wrath against sin is not some capricious emotion, it arises from His inherent need to execute justice and punish sin given that righteousness and justice are the foundation upon which His throne rests. Now we turn to how other views relate to PSA followed by whether the church fathers endorsed PSA.

We begin with the other views from my first post on this subject.  

•           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. COMMENTS this view doesn’t’ fit with scripture as our sin debt was owed to God not Satan. Satan brough humanity into bondage and brought about the corruption of creation through their sin.

•           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. COMMENTS this is a variation of PSA.

•           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. COMMENTS Christs sacrifice was a victory in a cosmic conflict but this view falls under PSA as a n aspect of it, it doesn’t replace it.

•           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. COMMENTS The overall theory fails to align with scripture with the exception that Jesus bore our sins as the scapegoat. Scripture says He suffered, ‘outside the gate.’

¹² Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Hebrews 13:12 (NKJV)

Just as the scapegoat carried the sins of the nation away from the nation so Jesus took sin outside of Jerusalem to Golgotha. However, this theory presents more as humanism than atonement.  

 •          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. COMMENTS certainly the Father is displeased with sin, we see this in PSA, but scripture is clear that Jesus paid the penalty for our 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. COMMENTS partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1) is a fruit of Jesus sacrifice but as a stand alone theory it fails to deal with what scripture shows us about PSA.

•           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. COMMENTS there is no atonement here and thus no dealing with the problem of sin, merely humanism disguised as theology.

•           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] COMMENTS the primary problem with this theory is that while through the cross Jesus identified with us, and the suffering sin causes, it fails to address the need for justice and the penalty for sin being paid.

As a final point, I referenced the importance of looking to the church father. In his teaching on PSA Sam Storms has pointed out some of those who have held to PSA throughout church history, showing that it is not a product of the Reformation and Protestantism, it is a product of scripture and church history.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-339), Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300-368), Athanasius (c. 300-373), Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330-390), Ambrose of Milan (339-397), John Chrysostom (c. 350-407), Augustine (354-430), Cyril of Alexandria (375-444), and Gregory the Great (c. 540-604), all of whom advocated penal substitution in one form or another. Other significant figures who understood the atonement in this way include Thomas Aquinas (cf. 1225-74), John Calvin (1509-64), Francis Turretin (1623-87), John Bunyan (1628-88), John Owen (1616-83), George Whitefield (1714-70), Charles Spurgeon (1834-92), D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981), as well as Billy Graham, John Stott, and J. I. Packer. These are only representative thinkers and represents a small fraction of those who have embraced the truth of penal substitution.

Thus, we close with the famous John 3:16.

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)

NOTE My next post will look at People, Pace and Presence. If there is a particular topic or subject you would like me to cover or address please let me know in the comments.

---

^[1] Mark Olivero, “Theories of Atonement,” in Lexham Survey of Theology, ed. Mark Ward et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).