Lesson 7

Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

Theo 530: Systematic Theology II
Lesson 7
Dr. Daniel R Mitchell, Professor

Theories of the Atonement

I. The Place of the Question in our System of Theology

Here we move from the Objective to the Subjective in theology

Here we are situated on the “pivot” of our theological system

Here we move from reality in theoretical detail, to reality in practical detail

How this “pivot” is understood is all determinative for our theology

II. Two Dominant Questions Confront Us at the Outset

What is the Meaning of the Death of Christ?

What is the Purpose of the Death of Christ?

These two questions, as will be seen, are not unconnected.

Key Terms Related to the First Question (meaning of death)

Atonement: “to cover” – OT, NT means to reconcile

Expiation: “bearing the penalty” – He bore the penalty of the LAW

Forgiveness: “canceling of a debt” – died for our sins

Guilt: “obligation to the law” – must obey and receive consequence of the Law

Imputation: “to reckon” – Adams sin=all mans sin=my sin=Jesus who pad a debt he did

not owe

Justice: “what is due” – God is just (supports truth) and is justifier

Justification: “Declare Righteous” =

Passover: “Substitution” – JC was our Passover (blood) that saves us

 Lesson 7

Penalty: “natural and judicial consequences – regardless of relationship w/Jesus

Propitiation: “wrath turned away” –J caused wrath fo God to be turned away

Ransom: “purchase price” - grace

Reconciliation: “turning enmity to amity” -

Redemption: “release and deliverance” – being saved

Remission: “cancellation of punishment due”

Righteousness: “conformity to God’s standard” - obedience

Sanctification: “set apart for holy use”

Substitution: “Christ instead of the sinner”

IV. Second Question: What is the Purpose of Christ’s Death?

How One Unpacks the Previous Biblical Concepts Largely Determines how this Question
is Answered
There have been numerous “Theories of the Atonement” attempting to Give Answer
The Following are Some of the Major Ones

A. The Accident Theory

The death of Christ did not have any purpose. It was something unforeseen in the life of
Christ. It occurred as the result of contingencies which emerged in the contemporary
political context over which Christ had no control.
But See: Matt 16:21; Mark 9:30-32; John 10:17, 18

B. The Recapitulation Theory

This was the theory of Irenaeus. Stated briefly, he held to the idea that the entire life of
Christ and his death constituted the atonement. “What Christ did not assume he did
not save.” Hence, Christ is all that Adam was not.
This Theory bases the Atonement on the Life of Christ, more than his Death.
As such, it fails to give appropriate significance to the sacrificial, redemptive and
propitiatory aspects of Christ’s death.

Ransom-to-Satan Theory
1.
This was the Theory of Origen, Augustine, and many others of the early Church
Known as the “Classical theory”
Taken up in recent years by G Aulen, CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, and Seventh-Day
Adventists
Christ’s Death is viewed as a Grand Deception of Satan by God
Lesson 7

Christ (Aslan), the “prize” is “traded” for the “sons of man”—Lewis

The “trade” brings about the release of those in bondage
Satan is “baited” by Jesus’ humanity, but caught on the “hook” of his deity.
Satan thought he could “keep his prey” but didn’t realize the full power of the
resurrection

2. Problems with the Ransom Theory

Nowhere does Scripture ascribe the sin-debt to Satan
Satan’s authority is overstated in the view
There is a “dualism” implied in the view that is contradicted by Scripture

D. The Commercial (Satisfaction) Theory of Anselm

1.
When Mankind Sinned God was Dishonored
Motivated by love God chose to accept a suitable sacrifice
Since Christ kept the Law (which was required) He is a suitable sacrifice
Since He Died (which was not required) his “merit” has value for others
This “supererogation” is available for sinners

2. Evaluation of Anselm’s View

The view is an advance on some of the more primitive attempts to understand the
atonement.
It correctly roots the purpose of Christ’s death in God
However there is an arbitrariness associated with rooting the necessity in God’s Will
rather than his holiness.
The view fails to account for penalty, wrath, propitiation, etc.

E. Moral Influence Theory of Abelard

1.
The Death of Christ was not a substitutionary satisfaction.
It was a demonstration of God’s love for errant humanity
This great act of love awakens a response in the heart of the sinner toward God
The sinner no longer fears God, but rather experiences great sorrow for what his sin has
brought upon God

2. The Moral Influence Theory Was Adopted by Modernists

Horace Bushnell and Hastings Randall are exemplary
The view eliminates the “objective” aspect of the Atonement and Emphasizes the
“subjective” element.
Emphasizes God’s Love and minimizes God’s holiness, righteousness, and & justice
Ignores the “penal” aspect of the atonement

F. The Socinian Theory (Example)

1.
Rejected the theories of vicarious satisfaction
Supported the view from passages like I Peter 2: 21
 Lesson 7

Builds on the Pelagian View of the human condition

Emphasized the Humanity of Christ
Understood the Atonement as our supreme example to follow

2. Evaluation of the Socinian View

Best Represented by Unitarians today
Selective use of Scripture (cf. I Pt 2:24)
Ignores significant terms related to holiness, justice, and other forensic concerns of the
biblical doctrine

G. The Governmental Theory of Grotius

1.
The Necessity of the Atonement lies in the interests of God’s Moral
Government
God’s Love wishes to Forgive
But His Law requires a proper demonstration of His hatred of sin
The death of Christ satisfies the Law, and, thus, God is able to relax His
demands upon the sinner.

2. Problems with the Governmental Theory

Fails to account for God’s holiness
Fails to consider the “payment”
God’s justice appears arbitrary
Rejects the concept of “propitiation”

V. Summary Evaluation of these Theories

Most are correct so far as they go
2. Often they are reflective of surrounding cultural influences and
worldviews
3. A more biblical approach would consider how to embrace all of the
appropriate insights contained in each
4. The “Satisfaction” theory is closest to the biblical view, but needs the
additional nuance of “substitution” added.

LOTS OF “MATCHING” HERE!