Thoughts on the Atonement: A Dialogue With a Budding Theologian

(Note: the following is a dialogue that occurred between a budding theologian and me. I hope you enjoy the unique format here in this post. This dialogue will continue in at least two future posts. Enjoy!)

Budding Theologian:  I read the article on the atonement you posted [on FB] yesterday. I found it intensely interesting because I’ve been reading up on different views of it all summer.

I judge atonement theories on how well they incorporate the problem of sin, the teachings/life/example of Christ, the incarnation, Christ’s death, and resurrection. If any one of those factors is absent in the theory, then it is inadequate. Funny enough, almost no theory alone incorporates them all by itself. For example, moral influence theories generally do not say anything about the resurrection or incarnation. Even after reading Jack Cottrell’s book Set Free! I get the feeling that the penal substitution theory isn’t good enough by itself either. It accounts for the incarnation, death, and half the problem of sin (hence, Cottrell’s double cure for sin). But to include the resurrection and finish the second part of the problem of sin, Cottrell has to bring in ideas from the Christus Victor (CV) model and the better moral influence (MI) models (some of the MI models are really terrible). Since I approach it this way, it seems to me there is no overarching theory of the atonement. We have to look at each one to see what is worthy of Christ and which ones are lacking.

I hope reading this wasn’t a waste of your time. I’ve never been so consumed by a topic in theology before. It is literally on my mind 24/7, so I thought I would share some ideas to organize my thoughts. I’d love to hear how you approach the atonement. If you have any readings you’d suggest and/or critiques of my approach please share as well.

My Response:  I am quite pleased and impressed that you are even reading heavily in such an area of theology! Most people are not very reflective of the theology of the atonement (or just theology in general).

What I think you might be missing in this discussion is what the theories are specifically about: they are concerned about the meaning of the atonement (the death of Christ). I.e., what exactly did the cross of Christ accomplish? So, for example, when you say that the penal substitution theory is only “half” the story, I think you are off a bit. All atonement theories are attempting to explain what Christ’s death accomplished. The resurrection, although very significant, is typically not the focus of any theory of the atonement. That is usually dealt with somewhat separately.

Now on to the theories. I think you are correct that every theory has an element of truth to it. For example, it is true that Christ gained victory over Satan via his atonement (as in the Christus Victor theory). However, the thrust of the CV theory, at least traditionally, is that Christ’s death was a ransom, or payment, to Satan. The idea is that Satan has a right to sinful man; he “owns” him because of his sin. But Satan made a “deal” with God: God gives Jesus over to Satan, and God gets everyone else. Thus Jesus is the “ransom” paid to Satan for the release of sinners. The problem with the deal, however, is that Satan did not know Jesus was God’s Son—he was tricked by God. And so when Jesus died on the cross (and eventually raised), it was like God saying, “Ah, ha! Gotcha Satan!” That is the part of the CV model which is consistently problematic. The theory appears to entirely ignore the idea that God is the one whom payment is due, not Satan. It also appears to be devoid of any reference to the guilt that is incurred when mankind sins.

The moral influence (MI) theory is the most problematic. This theory in essence says that God sent his Son to the cross merely to persuade mankind to turn to God, as if God were saying, “Look at how much I love you; I sent my Son to the cross to die. Since I obviously love you so much, why don’t you repent and love me in return?” Certainly the cross of Christ is a display of God’s love (see, e.g., Rom. 5:8). So, in this regard, there is an element of truth to the MI theory.

The problem, however, is that this model states that Jesus was sent to the cross merely to demonstrate God’s love toward sinners. The meaning of the atonement is one of mere moral persuasion. If only sinners just knew how broken-hearted God was, they would repent. The theory entirely leaves out the fact that sin and sinners must be dealt with. Sinners must be punished; there is retributive justice to be dealt out here (see, e.g., Rom. 5 & 2 Cor. 5:21). This theory fits well within classical liberalism, which typically affirms that God is love only and denies the reality of sin and retributive justice (i.e., punishment, and thus hell).

Finally, the penal substitution theory (PS), as you know, says that Christ was our substitute. He suffered the penalty for our sins (again, see 2 Cor. 5:21 and even Isa. 53). He stood in our place. In my view, PS is the essence of what Scripture teaches about the meaning of the atonement, or Christ’s death. Does the atonement show God’s love? Does it show Christ’s victory over Satan? Yes, but note that these theories never state that Christ died in the place of sinners. In fact, taken as a whole, neither the CV nor MI theory get to the heart of the atonement, i.e., Christ taking the punishment for sin in the place of sinners. They leave it out.

There is another theory about the atonement—the governmental theory—which states that the cross was an example of what God does to sinners when they disobey: he brings wrath upon them. Now, it is true that this will occur, but the theory gives the impression that God is essentially saying to sinners, “Look what is awaiting you if you do not repent and believe. I will smite you with my wrath just like I did to my Son!” as if God is taking pleasure or cannot wait to bring justice upon the sinner. The element left out of this theory is the love of God. You did not mention this theory in your original message, but I think you would probably agree that such a theory does not represent correctly (and even distorts) the biblical teaching of the atonement.

If you wish to read more on this topic, I strongly recommend the following two books: The Cross of Christ by John R.W. Stott and The Atonement by Leon Morris. Thanks for the wonderful discussion!

Grace,
Peter Jay Rasor II

(Check back in the near future for part 2 of this dialogue.)