Atonement

General Information
The word atonement, constructed from at and one, means "to set at one" or "to reconcile." In Christian Theology, atonement denotes the doctrine of the reconciliation of God and man accomplished by the Crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ.

There have been three major theories of atonement: the ransom theory, the Anselmian theory, and the Abelardian theory.

• The ransom theory, first propounded by Origen (c. 185 - 254), was developed from Mark 10:45 and explained the atonement as a price paid by God in Christ to the devil.
• St. Anselm (c. 1033 - 1109) explained the atonement as an act of satisfaction paid by Christ as man to God, who demanded from man perfect obedience to the law, which he could not fulfill because of his sinfulness.
• The exemplarist theory of Peter Abelard (1079 - 1142) viewed Christ's death as an inspiring appeal of love evoking in the sinner a response of love, thus removing his sin.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Reformers developed the Anselmian theory in the direction of penal substitution. Liberal theologians have reverted to an Abelardian type of explanation. Gustav Aulen and other Swedish theologians have recently advocated a return to the ransom theory conceived in terms of victory over the powers of evil. Since the doctrine of the atonement has never been defined officially, Christian theologians consider themselves free to work out their own theory along lines consonant with the witness of Scripture.

In Jewish theology, stress is placed on personal acts of atonement; vicarious atonement is given little importance.

Reginald H Fuller

Bibliography
V Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice (1937) and The Atonement in New Testament Teaching (1940).

Atonement

General Information
Atonement, in Christian theology, is the expiation of sin and the propitiation of God by the incarnation, life, sufferings, and death of Jesus Christ; the obedience and death of Christ on behalf of sinners as the ground of redemption; in the narrow sense, the sacrificial work of Christ for sinners. In the theology of many, including nearly all Universalists and Unitarians, atonement signifies the act of bringing people to God, in contradistinction to the idea of reconciling an offended God to his creation.

The three principal theories by which theologians attempt to explain the atonement are the following: (1) the Anselmian or sacrificial, that the atonement consists fundamentally in Christ's sacrifice for the sins of humanity; (2) the remedial, that God, through the incarnation, entered into humanity so as to eliminate sin by the ethical process of Christ's life and death and make the human race at one with himself; and (3) the Socinian or moral influence, that Christ's work consists in influencing people to lead better lives. The sacrificial theory takes two general forms: (a) the governmental, that Christ's work was intended to meet the demands of the law of God and make such a moral impression upon humans in favor of the divine government as to render their forgiveness safe; and (b) the satisfaction, that it was intended to satisfy divine justice and make the forgiveness of humanity possible and right. Each of these theories has been further developed many times.

Atone'ment

Advanced Information
This word does not occur in the Authorized Version of the New Testament except in Rom. 5:11, where in the Revised Version the word "reconciliation" is used. In the Old Testament it is of frequent occurrence. The meaning of the word is simply at-one-ment, i.e., the state of being at one or being reconciled, so that atonement is reconciliation. Thus it is used to denote the effect which flows from the death of Christ. But the word is also used to denote that by which this reconciliation is brought about, viz., the death of Christ itself; and when so used it means satisfaction, and in this sense to make an atonement for one is to make satisfaction for his offences (Ex. 32:30; Lev. 4:26; 5:16; Num. 6:11), and, as regards the person, to reconcile, to propitiate God in his behalf.

By the atonement of Christ we generally mean his work by which he expiated our sins. But in Scripture usage the word denotes the reconciliation itself, and not the means by which it is effected. When speaking of Christ's saving work, the word "satisfaction," the word used by the theologians of the Reformation, is to be preferred to the word "atonement." Christ's satisfaction is all he did in the room and in behalf of sinners to satisfy the demands of the law and justice of God. Christ's work consisted of suffering and obedience, and these were vicarious, i.e., were not merely for our benefit, but were in our stead, as the suffering and obedience of our vicar, or substitute. Our guilt is expiated by the punishment which our vicar bore, and thus God is rendered propitious, i.e., it is now consistent with his justice to manifest his love to transgressors.

Expiation has been made for sin, i.e., it is covered. The means by which it is covered is vicarious satisfaction, and the result of its being covered is atonement or reconciliation. To make atonement is to do that by virtue of which alienation ceases and reconciliation is brought about. Christ's mediatorial work and sufferings are the ground or efficient cause of reconciliation with God. They rectify the disturbed relations between God and man, taking away the obstacles interposed by sin to their fellowship and concord. The reconciliation is mutual, i.e., it is not only that of sinners toward God, but also and pre-eminently that of God toward sinners, effected by the sin-offering he himself provided, so that consistently with the other attributes of his character his love might flow forth in all its fulness of blessing to men.

The primary idea presented to us in different forms throughout the Scripture is that the death of Christ is a satisfaction of infinite worth rendered to the law and justice of God (q.v.), and accepted by him in room of the very penalty man had incurred. It must also be constantly kept in mind that the atonement is not the cause but the consequence of God's love to guilty men (John 3:16; Rom. 3:24, 25; Eph. 1:7; 1 John 1:9; 4:9). The atonement may also be regarded as necessary, not in an absolute but in a relative sense, i.e., if man is to be saved, there is no other way than this which God has devised and carried out (Ex. 34:7; Josh. 24:19; Ps. 5:4; 7:11; Nahum 1:2, 6; Rom. 3:5). This is God's plan, clearly revealed; and that is enough for us to know.

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)

Atonement

Advanced Information
The expression "to make atonement" is frequent in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, but rare in the rest of the Bible. The basic idea, however, is widespread. The need for it arises from the fact that man is a sinner, a truth made plain throughout Scripture but infrequent outside the Bible.

In the OT sin is dealt with by the offering of sacrifice. Thus the burnt offering will be accepted "to make atonement" (Lev. 1:4), as also the sin offering and the guilt offering (Lev. 4:20; 7:7) and especially the sacrifices on the day of atonement (Lev. 16). Of course, sacrifice is ineffective if offered in the wrong spirit. To sin "with a high hand" (Num. 15:30), i.e., proudly and presumptuously, is to place oneself outside the sphere of God's forgiveness. The prophets have many denunciations of the offering of sacrifice as the expression of a repentant and trustful heart is to find atonement. Atonement is sometimes made by means other than the sacrifices, such as the payment of money (Exod. 30:12-16) or the offering of life (II Sam. 21:3-6). In such cases to make atonement means "to avert punishment, especially the divine anger, by the payment of a koper, a ransom,' which may be of money or which may be of life" (L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 166). Throughout the OT sin is serious; it will be punished unless atonement is sought in the way God has provided.

This truth is repeated and enlarged upon in the NT. There it is made clear that all men are sinners (Rom. 3:23) and that hell awaits them (Mark 9:43; Luke 12:5). But it is just as clear that God wills to bring salvation and that he has brought it in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of his Son. The love of God is the mainspring (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8). We are not to think of a loving Son as wringing salvation from a just but stern Father. It is the will of the Father that men be saved, and salvation is accomplished, not with a wave of the hand, so to speak, but by what God has done in Christ: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (II Cor. 5:19), a reconciliation brought about by the death of Christ (Rom. 5:10). The NT emphasizes his death, and it is no accident that the cross has come to be accepted as the symbol of the Christian faith or that words like "crux" and "crucial" have come to have the significance that they possess. The cross is absolutely central to salvation as the NT sees it. This is distinctive of Christianity. Other religions have their martyrs, but the death of Jesus was not that of a martyr. It was that of a Savior. His death saves men from their sins. Christ took their place and died their death (Mark 10:45; II Cor. 5:21), the culmination of a ministry in which he consistently made himself one with sinners.

The NT does not put forward a theory of atonement, but there are several indications of the principle on which atonement is effected. Thus sacrifice must be offered, not the sacrifice of animals, which cannot avail for men (Heb. 10:4), but the perfect sacrifice of Christ (Heb. 9:26; 10:5-10). Christ paid sin's due penalty (Rom. 3:25-26; 6:23; Gal. 3:13). He redeemed us (Eph. 1:7), paying the price that sets us free (I Cor. 6:20; Gal. 5:1). He made a new covenant (Heb. 9:15). He won the victory (I Cor. 15:55-57). He effected the propitiation that turns away the warth of God (Rom. 3:25), made the reconciliation that turns enemies into friends (Eph. 2:16). His love and his patient endurance of suffering set an example (I Pet. 2:21); we are to take up our cross (Luke 9:23). Salvation is many-sided. But however it is viewed, Christ has taken our place, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves. Our part is simply to respond in repentance, faith, and selfless living.

L Morris
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Bibliography
R. S. Franks, The Work of Christ; L. W. Grensted, A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement; G. Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement According to Christ and The Doctrine of the Atonement According to the Apostles; V. Taylor, The Atonement in NT Teaching and Forgiveness and Reconciliation; J. Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ; J. Denney, The Death of Christ; A. A. Hodge, The Atonement; J. M. Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement; R. Wallace, The Atoning Death of Christ; J. K. Mozley, The Doctrine of the Atonement; C. R. Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Salvation; L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross; P. T. Forsyth, The Cruciality of the Cross.

Extent of the Atonement, Limited Atonement

Advanced Information
Although there are variations as to the basic ways in which this subject can be addressed, the choices boil down to two: either the death of Jesus was intended to secure salvation for a limited number or the death of Jesus was intended to provide salvation for everyone. The first view is sometimes called "limited atonement" because God limited the effect of Christ's death to a specific number of elect persons, or "particular redemption" because redemption was for a particular group of people. The second view is sometimes referred to as "unlimited atonement" or "general redemption" because God did not limit Christ's redemptive death to the elect, but allowed it to be for mankind in general.

Particular Redemption
The doctrine that Jesus died for the elect in particular, securing their redemption, but not for the world, arose as the implications of the doctrine of election and the satisfaction theory of the atonement were developed immediately following the Reformation. A controversy arose that resulted in the Synod of Dort (1618-19) pronouncing that Christ's death was "sufficient for all but efficient for the elect." This did not satisfy many theologians, even some Calvinists, so the controversy has continued to this day.

There are numerous arguments used to defend the doctrine of limited atonement, but the following represent some of the more frequently found.

• First, in the Bible there is a qualification as to who will benefit by the death of Christ, thus limiting its effect. John 10:11, 15 says Christ died for "his sheep"; Acts 20:28 "his church"; Rom. 8:32-35 "the elect"; and Matt. 1:21 "his people."
• Second, God's designs are always efficacious and can never be frustrated by man. Had God intended all men to be saved by the death of Christ, then all would be saved. It is clear that not everyone is saved because the Bible clearly teaches that those who reject Christ are lost. Therefore it stands to reason that Christ could not have died for everyone, because not everyone is saved. To argue that Christ died for everyone is in effect to argue that God's saving will is not being done or that everyone will be saved, both of which propositions are clearly false.
• Third, if Christ died for everyone, God would be unfair in sending people to hell for their own sins. No law court allows payment to be exacted twice for the same crime, and God will not do that either. So God could not have allowed Christ to die for everyone unless he planned for everyone to be saved, which clearly he did not, because some are lost. Christ paid for the sins of the elect; the lost pay for their own sins.
• Fourth, to say that Christ died for everyone logically leads to universalism. It is true that not all of those who believe in general redemption believe in universalism; but there is no valid reason that they do not. If they were consistent they would, because they are arguing that Christ paid for everyone's sins, thus saving them.
• Fifth, Christ died not just to make salvation possible, but actually to save. To argue that Christ died only to provide the possibility of salvation is to leave open the question of whether anyone is saved. If God's designs are only of possibilities and not actualities, then no one is secure and everything is open to doubt. But the Bible clearly teaches that the death of Jesus actually secures salvation for his people, thus making it a certainty and limiting the atonement (Matt. 18:11; Rom. 5:10; II Cor. 5:21; Gal. 1:4; 3:13; Eph. 1:7).
• Sixth, because there are no conditions to be met in order to be saved (i.e., salvation is by grace and not by works, even an act of faith), both repentance and faith are secured for those for whom Christ died. If the design of the atonement were for everyone, then all would receive repentance and faith, but this is clearly false. Therefore, Christ's death could have been intended only for those who will repent and believe, namely, the elect.
• Seventh, the passages that speak of Christ's death for "the world" have been misunderstood. The word "world" really means the world of the elect, the world of believers, the church, or all nations.
• Finally, the passages that say Christ died for all men have also been misunderstood. The word "all" means "all classes" of men, not everyone.
• General Redemption
  The doctrine of general redemption argues that the death of Christ was designed to include all mankind, whether or not all believe. To those who savingly believe it is redemptively applied, and to those who do not believe it provides the benefits of common grace and the removal of any excuse for being lost. God loved them and Christ died for them; they are lost because they refused to accept the salvation that is sincerely offered to them in Christ.
• Those who defend general redemption begin by pointing out that it is the historic view of the church, being held by the vast majority of theologians, reformers, evangelists, and fathers from the beginning of the church until the present day, including virtually all the writers before the Reformation, with the possible exception of Augustine.
• Among the Reformers the doctrine is found in Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Latimer, Cranmer, Coverdale, and even Calvin in some of his commentaries. For example Calvin says regarding Col. 1:14, "This redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death, all the sins of the world have been expiated"; and on Mark 14:24, "which is shed for many. By the word 'many' he means not a part of the world only, but the world human race." Even among the Calvinists there is a generalism, called hypothetical universalism, to be found with Moise Amyraut, Richard Baxter, John Bunyan, John Newton, and John Brown, among many others. Is it likely that the overwhelming majority of Christians could have so misread the leading of the Holy Spirit on such an important point?
• The second point of the general redemption argument is that when the Bible says Christ died for all it means just that. The word ought to be taken in its normal sense unless some compelling reason exists to take it otherwise, and no such reason exists. Such passages as Isa. 53:6; I John 2:2; I Tim. 2:1-6; 4:10; and Heb. 2:4 make no sense if not taken in the normal way.
• Third, the Bible says Christ takes away the sin of the world and is the Savior of the world. A study of the word "would", especially in John, where it is used seventy-eight times, shows that the world is God-hating, Christ-rejecting, and Satan-dominated. Yet that is the world for which Christ died. There is not one place in the entire NT where "world" means "church" or "the elect."
• Fourth, the several arguments that reduce to a charge of universalism are special pleading. Just because one believes that Christ died for all does not mean all are saved. One must believe in Christ to be saved, so the fact that Christ died for the world apparently does not secure the salvation of all. Those who assert this are simply wrong. Paul had no trouble saying that God could be the Savior of all, in one sense, and of those who believe, in another sense (I Tim. 4:10).
• Fifth, God is not unfair in condemning those who reject the offer of salvation. He is not exacting judgment twice. Because the nonbeliever refuses to accept the death of Christ as his own, the benefits of Christ's death are not applied to him. He is lost, not because Christ did not die for him, but because he refuses God's offer of forgiveness.
• Sixth, it is true that the benefits of Christ's death are referred to as belonging to the elect, his sheep, his people, but it would have to be shown that Christ died only for them. No one denies that Christ died for them. It is only denied that Christ died exclusively for them.
• Seventh, the Bible teaches that Christ died for "sinners" (I Tim. 1:15; Rom. 5:6-8). The word "sinner" nowhere means "church" or "the elect," but simply all of lost mankind.
• Finally, God sincerely offers the gospel to everyone to believe, not just the elect. How could this be true if Christ did not actually die for everyone? God would know very well that some people could never be saved because he did not allow Christ to pay for their sins. Even Berkhof, a staunch defender of limited atonement, admits, "It need not be denied that there is a real difficulty at this point" (Systematic Theology, p.462).

Summary
Both points of view are trying to preserve something of theological importance. The defenders of limited atonement are stressing the certainty of God's salvation and the initiative he took in offering it to man. If salvation depended on our work, all would be lost. The defenders of general redemption are attempting to preserve the fairness of God and what to them is the clear teaching of Scripture. Salvation is no less certain because Christ died for all. It is the decision to reject it that brings about condemnation, and faith that puts one in a saving relationship with Christ who died that we might live. E. A. Litton attempts to mediate the two views in this fashion: "And thus the combatants may not be in reality so much at variance as they had supposed. The most extreme Calvinist may grant that there is room for all if they will come in; the most extreme Arminian must grant that redemption, in its full Scriptural meaning, is not the privilege of all men" (Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, p. 236).

W A Elwell
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Bibliography
W. Rushton, A Defense of Particular Redemption; J. Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ; A. A. Hodge, The Atonement; H. Martin, The Atonement; G. Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement According to the Apostles and The Doctrine of the Atonement According to Christ; J. Davenant, The Death of Christ; N. F. Douty, The Death of Christ; A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology; J. Denney, The Death of Christ; J. M. Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement; L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology.

Theories of the Atonement

Advanced Information
Throughout the Bible the central question is, "How can sinful man ever be accepted by a holy God?" The Bible takes sin seriously, much more seriously than do the other literatures that have come down to us from antiquity. It sees sin as a barrier separating man from God (Isa. 59:2), a barrier that man was able to erect but is quite unable to demolish. But the truth on which the Bible insists is that God has dealt with the problem. He has made the way whereby sinners may find pardon, God's enemies may find peace. Salvation is never seen as a human achievement. In the OT sacrifice has a large place, but it avails not because of any merit it has of itself (cf. Heb. 10:4), but because God has given it as the way (Lev. 17:11). In the NT the cross plainly occupies the central place, and it is insisted upon in season and out of season that this is God's way of bringing salvation. There are many ways of bringing this out. The NT writers do not repeat a stereotyped story. Each writes from his own perspective. But each shows that it is the death of Christ and not any human achievement that brings salvation.

But none of them sets out a theory of atonement. There are many references to the effectiveness of Christ's atoning work, and we are not lacking in information about its many - sidedness. Thus Paul gives a good deal of emphasis to the atonement as a process of justification, and he uses such concepts as redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation. Sometimes we read of the cross as a victory or as an example. It is the sacrifice that makes a new covenant, or simply a sacrifice. There are many ways of viewing it. We are left in no doubt about its efficacy and its complexity. View the human spiritual problem as you will, and the cross meets the need. But the NT does not say how it does so.

Through the centuries there have been continuing efforts to work out how this was accomplished. Theories of the atonement are legion as men in different countries and in different ages have tried to bring together the varied strands of scriptural teaching and to work them into a theory that will help others to understand how God has worked to bring us salvation. The way has been open for this kind of venture, in part at least, because the church has never laid down an official, orthodox view. In the early centuries there were great controversies about the person of Christ and about the nature of the Trinity. Heresies appeared, were thoroughly discussed, and were disowned. In the end the church accepted the formula of Chalcedon as the standard expression of the orthodox faith. But there was no equivalent with the atonement. People simply held to the satisfying truth that Christ saved them by way of the cross and did not argue about how this salvation was effected.

Thus there was no standard formula like the Chalcedonian statement, and this left men to pursue their quest for a satisfying theory in their own way. To this day no one theory of the atonement has ever won universal acceptance. This should not lead us to abandon the task. Every theory helps us understand a little more of what the cross means and, in any case, we are bidden to give a reason of the hope that is in us (1 Pet. 3:15). Theories of the atonement attempt to do just that.

It would be impossible to deal with all the theories of the atonement that have been formulated, but we might well notice that most can be brought under one or the other of three heads: those which see the essence of the matter as the effect of the cross on the believer; those which see it as a victory of some sort; and those which emphasize the Godward aspect. Some prefer a twofold classification, seeing subjective theories as those which emphasize the effect on the believer, in distinction from objective theories which put the stress on what the atonement achieves quite outside the individual.

The Subjective View or Moral Influence Theory
Some form of the subjective or moral view is held widely today, especially among scholars of the liberal school. In all its variations this theory emphasizes the importance of the effect of Christ's cross on the sinner. The view is generally attributed to Abelard, who emphasized the love of God, and is sometimes called the moral influence theory, or exemplarism. When we look at the cross we see the greatness of the divine love. this delivers us from fear and kindles in us an answering love. We respond to love with love and no longer live in selfishness and sin. Other ways of putting it include the view that the sight of the selfless Christ dying for sinners moves us to repentance and faith. If God will do all that for us, we say, then we ought not to continue in sin. So we repent and turn from it and are saved by becoming better people.

The thrust in all this is on personal experience. The atonement, seen in this way, has no effect outside the believer. It is real in the person's experience and nowhere else. This view has been defended in recent times by Hastings Rashdall in The Idea of Atonement (1919).

It should be said in the first instance that there is truth in this theory. Taken by itself it is inadequate, but it is not untrue. It is important that we respond to the love of Christ seen on the cross, that we recognize the compelling force of his example.

Probably the best known and best loved hymn on the passion in modern times is "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross," a hymn that sets forth nothing but the moral view. Every line of it emphasizes the effect on the observer of surveying the wondrous cross. It strikes home with force. What it says is both true and important. It is when it is claimed that this is all that the atonement means that we must reject it. Taken in this way it is open to serious criticism. If Christ was not actually doing something by his death, then we are confronted with a piece of showmanship, nothing more. Someone once said that if he were in a rushing river and someone jumped in to save him, and in the process lost his life, he could recognize the love and sacrifice involved. But if he was sitting safely on the land and someone jumped into the torrent to show his love, he could see no point in it and only lament the senseless act. Unless the death of Christ really does something, it is not in fact a demonstration of love.

The Atonement as Victory
In the early church there seems to have been little attention given to the way atonement works, but when the question was faced, as often as not the answer came in terms of the NT references to redemption. Because of their sin people rightly belong to Satan, the fathers reasoned. But God offered his son as a ransom, a bargain the evil one eagerly accepted. When, however, Satan got Christ down into hell he found that he could not hold him. On the third day Christ rose triumphant and left Satan without either his original prisoners or the ransom he had accepted in their stead. It did not need a profound intellect to see that God must have foreseen this, but the thought that God deceived the devil did not worry the fathers. than Satan as well as stronger. They even worked out illustrations like a fishing trip: The flesh of Jesus was the bait, the deity the fishhook. Satan swallowed the hook along with the bait and was transfixed. This view has been variously called the devil ransom theory, the classical theory, or the fishhook theory of the atonement.

This kind of metaphor delighted some of the fathers, but after Anselm subjected it to criticism it faded from view. It was not until quite recent times that Gustaf Aulen with his Christus Victor showed that behind the grotesque metaphors there is an important truth. In the end Christ's atoning work means victory. The devil and all the hosts of evil are defeated. Sin is conquered. Though this has not always been worked into set theories, it has always been there in our Easter hymns. It forms an important element in Christian devotion and it points to a reality which Christians must not lose.

This view must be treated with some care else we will finish up by saying that God saves simply because he is strong, in other words, in the end might is right. This is an impossible conclusion for anyone who takes the Bible seriously. We are warned that this view, of itself, is not adequate. But combined with other views it must find a place in any finally satisfying theory. It is important that Christ has conquered.

Anselm's Satisfaction Theory
In the eleventh century Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, produced a little book called Cur Deus Homo? ("Why did God become Man?"). In it he subjected the patristic view of a ransom paid to Satan to severe criticism. He saw sin as dishonoring the majesty of God. Now a sovereign may well be ready in his private capacity to forgive an insult or an injury, but because he is a sovereign he cannot. The state has been dishonored in its head. Appropriate satisfaction must be offered. God is the sovereign Ruler of all, and it is not proper for God to remit any irregularity in his kingdom. Anselm argued that the insult sin has given to God is so great that only one who is God can provide satisfaction. But it was done by one who is man, so only man should do so. Thus he concluded that one who is both God and man is needed.

Anselm's treatment of the theme raised the discussion to a much higher plane than it had occupied in previous discussions. Most agree, however, that the demonstration is not conclusive. In the end Anselm makes God too much like a king whose dignity has been affronted. He overlooked the fact that a sovereign may be clement and forgiving without doing harm to his kingdom. A further defect in his view is that Anselm found no necessary connection between Christ's death and the salvation of sinners. Christ merited a great reward because he died when he had no need to (for he had no sin). But he could not receive a reward, for he had everything. To whom then could he more fittingly assign his reward then to those for whom he had died? This makes it more or less a matter of chance that sinners be saved. Not very many these days are prepared to go along with Anselm. But at least he took a very serious view of sin, and it is agreed that without this there will be no satisfactory view.

Penal Substitution
The Reformers agreed with Anselm that sin is a very serious matter, but they saw it as a breaking of God's law rather than as an insult to God's honor. The moral law, they held, is not to be taken lightly. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), and it is this that is the problem for sinful man. They took seriously the scriptural teachings about the wrath of God and those that referred to the curse under which sinners lay. It seemed clear to them that the essence of Christ's saving work consisted in his taking the sinner's place. In our stead Christ endured the death that is the wages of sin. He bore the curse that we sinners should have borne (Gal. 3:13). The Reformers did not hesitate to speak of Christ as having borne our punishment or as having appeased the wrath of God in our place.

Such views have been widely criticized. In particular it is pointed out that sin is not an external matter to be transferred easily from one person to another and that, while some forms of penalty are transferable (the payment of a fine), others are not (imprisonment, capital punishment). It is urged that this theory sets Christ in opposition to the Father so that it maximizes the love of Christ and minimizes that of the Father. Such criticisms may be valid against some of the ways in which the theory is stated, but they do not shake its essential basis. They overlook the fact that there is a double identification: Christ is one with sinners (the saved are "in" Christ, Rom. 8:1) and he is one with the Father (he and the Father are one, John 10:30; "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," 2 Cor. 5:19). They also overlook the fact that there is much in the NT that supports the theory. It is special pleading to deny that Paul, for example, puts forward this view. It may need to be carefully stated, but this view still says something important about the way Christ won our salvation.

Sacrifice
There is much about sacrifice in the OT and not a little in the NT. Some insist that it is this that gives us the key to understanding the atonement. It is certainly true that the Bible regards Christ's saving act as a sacrifice, and this must enter into any satisfying theory. But unless it is supplemented, it is an explanation that does not explain. The moral view or penal substitution may be right or wrong, but at least they are intelligible. But how does sacrifice save? The answer is not obvious.

Governmental Theory
Hugo Grotius argued that Christ did not bear our punishment but suffered as a penal example whereby the law was honored while sinners were pardoned. His view is called "governmental" because Grotius envisions God as a ruler or a head of government who passed a law, in this instance, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Because God did not want sinners to die, he relaxed that rule and accepted the death of Christ instead. He could have simply forgiven mankind had he wanted to, but that would not have had any value for society. The death of Christ was a public example of the depth of sin and the lengths to which God would go to uphold the moral order of the universe. This view is expounded in great detail in Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfactione Christi adversus F. Socinum (1636).

Summary
All the above views, in their own way, recognize that the atonement is vast and deep. There is nothing quite like it, and it must be understood in its own light. The plight of sinful man is disastrous, for the NT sees the sinner as lost, as suffering hell, as perishing, as cast into outer darkness, and more. An atonement that rectifies all this must necessarily be complex. So we need all the vivid concepts: redemption, propitiation, justification, and all the rest. And we need all the theories. Each draws attention to an important aspect of our salvation and we dare not surrender any. But we are small minded sinners and the atonement is great and vast. We should not expect that our theories will ever explain it fully. Even when we put them all together, we will no more than begin to comprehend a little of the vastness of God's saving deed.

L Morris

(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Bibliography
D M Baillie, God Was in Christ; K Barth, The Doctrine of Reconciliation; E Brunner, The Mediator; H Bushnell, The Vicarious Sacrifice; J M Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement; S Cave, The Doctrine of the Work of Christ; R W Dale, The Atonement; F W Dillistone, The Significance of the Cross; J Denney, The Death of Christ and The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation; R S Franks, The Work of Christ; P T Forsyth, The Cruciality of the Cross and The work of Christ; L Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Atonement; T H Hughes, The Atonement; J Knox, The Death of Christ; R C Moberly, Atonement and Personality; J Moltmann, The Crucified God; L Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross and The Cross in the NT; R S Paul, The Atonement and the Sacraments; V Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice and The Atonement in NT Teaching; L W Grensted, A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement; R Wallace, The Atoning Death of Christ.

sourced with kind permission:Believe