Theories of atonement A number of metaphors and Old Testament terms and references have been used in the New Testament writings to understand the person and death of Jesus. Starting in the second century CE, various theories of atonement have been posited to explain the death of Jesus, and the metaphors applied by the New Testament to understand his death. Over the centuries, Christians have held different ideas about how Jesus saved people, and different views still exist within different
Christian denominations. According to C. Marvin Pate, "there are three aspects to Christ's atonement according to the early Church:
vicarious atonement [substitutionary atonement], the escatological defeat of Satan [Christ the Victor], and the imitation of Christ [participation in Jesus' death and resurrection]." Pate further notes that these three aspects were intertwined in the earliest Christian writings, but that this intertwining was lost since the Patristic times. Due to the influence of
Gustaf Aulèn's (1879-1978)
Christus Victor, the various theories or paradigms of atonement which developed after the New Testamentical writings are often grouped as "classic paradigm," "objective paradigm," and the "subjective paradigm": Substitutionary atonement has been explicated in the "classic paradigm" of the Early
Church Fathers, namely the
ransom theory, as well as in
Gustaf Aulen's
demystified reformulation, the
Christus Victor theory; and in the "objective paradigm," which includes
Anselm of Canterbury's
satisfaction theory, the Reformed period's
penal substitution theory, and the
Governmental theory of atonement.
Classic paradigm According to Yeo, the Pate differentiates the "Christ the Victor"-theme from the "vicarious atonement"-theme, both of which can be found in
early Christianity. The ransom theory presents Jesus as dying to overcome (supernatural) powers of sin and evil. In this model, the Devil has ownership over humanity (because they have sinned) so Jesus dies in their place to free them. The doctrine is that Jesus gave himself as a ransom sacrifice on behalf of the people. This is known as the oldest of the theories of the atonement, and is, in some form, still, along with the doctrine of
theosis, the
Eastern Orthodox Church's main theory of the atonement. Many of the
Church Fathers, including
Justin Martyr,
Athanasius and
Augustine incorporate the ransom theory of atonement into their writings. The specific interpretation as to what this suffering for sinners meant differed to some extent. It is widely held that the early Church Fathers, including Athanasius and Augustine, taught that through Christ's vicarious suffering in humanity's place, he overcame and liberated humanity from sin,
death, and the
Devil.
Gustaf Aulén reinterpreted the ransom theory in his study
Christus Victor (1931), calling it the
Christus Victor doctrine, arguing that Christ's death was not a payment to the Devil (
Satan), but defeated the powers of evil, particularly Satan, which had held humankind in their dominion. According to Ben Pugh, "Ever since [Aulén's] time, we call these patristic ideas the
Christus Victor way of seeing the cross."
Objective paradigm While the idea of substitutionary atonement is present in nearly all atonement theories, some argue that the specific ideas of
satisfaction and
penal substitution are later developments in the Catholic church and in
Calvinism, respectively. Both Anselm's satisfaction theory and the penal satisfaction theory hold that human beings cannot rightfully repay the debt (to God's honour [Anselm], or to God's justice [penal substitution]) which was incurred through their willful disobedience to God. Since only God can make the satisfaction necessary to repay it, rather than merely forgiving humanity, God sent the God-man, Jesus Christ, to fulfill both these conditions. Christ is a sacrifice by God on behalf of humanity, taking humanity's debt for sin upon himself, and propitiating God's wrath. The penal substitution theory has been rejected by liberal Christians as un-Biblical, and an offense to the love of God. According to
Richard Rohr, "[t]hese theories are based on
retributive justice rather than the
restorative justice that the prophets and Jesus taught." The
Governmental theory, introduced by
Hugo Grotius (17th century), states that Christ suffered for humanity so that God could forgive humans without punishing them while still maintaining divine justice. Jesus' death demonstrated God's hatred of sin, and thus God's law (his rule, his government) is upheld (people see that sin is serious and will lead to death), and God forgives people who recognise this and respond through repentance. The governmental theory rejects the notion of penal substitution,
Other substitutionary models There are a number of other substitutionary theories of the atonement besides the four described above. A few are listed below: •
John McLeod Campbell (
The nature of the Atonement [1856]): 'Campbell rejects the idea of vicarious punishment [...And] Taking a hint from Jonathan Edwards, ... develops the idea that Christ, as representative and complete man, was able to offer a vicarious repentance to God for men.' •
Horace Bushnell (
The Vicarious Sacrifice [1866]): Bushnell rejected penal substitution and, instead, speaks of Christ as 'my sacrifice, who opens all to me'. 'Beholding Him with all my sin upon Him', he says, 'I count Him my offering....' •
Vincent Taylor (
The Cross of Christ [1956]): '...in St. Paul's teaching Christ's death is substitutionary in the sense that He did for us that which we can never do for ourselves, but not in the sense that He transfers our punishment to Himself...' (p. 31). While rejecting as
pagan the notion that Jesus' death propitiates the Father (p. 91), he talks of Jesus' sacrifice as vicarious, representative and sacrificial (p. 90), and says that for Jesus 'sacrifice is a representative offering in which men can share, making it the vehicle or organ of their approach to God' (p. 21). Taylor called this theory the 'Sacrificial Theory' (p. 104). • F. W. Camfield (‘The Idea of Substitution in the Doctrine of the Atonement’ in
SJT I [1948] 282-293): in his 1948 paper, Camfield spells out 'a non-penal view of substitution'. == Belief in substitutionary atonement ==