3 Different Atonement Theories In Christianity

A common benefit that comes with being a Christian is the assumption that you gain access to the truth that other religions may be lacking, but what people don't realize is that their truth claims are but human theories. Theories? Yes, I'll explain what I mean by that.

Christianity has a simple frontier message. It says that you're a sinner in need of a Savior, and because you cannot save yourself, someone else volunteered to do it. That someone was Jesus Christ. One may ask, what is he saving us from and for? Here comes the Atonement.

Atonement is an essential element of the Christian faith. It speaks to the fallen state and God's interest in reuniting with mankind in Jesus Christ. But as I noted in our previous discussion, What About Moral Influence Theory?, how that happens is open to diverse opinions and interpretations. That's why we have different atonement theories. But what are these? Let's talk about it!

In this discussion, we will consider what atonement theories are and channel our focus to three different atonement theories in Christianity. I may as well highlight others for further consideration. So, take a seat as usual; let's dive in.

What Are Atonement Theories?

The word “atonement” is associated with the following words: reconciliation, propitiation, restoration, and reunion. This association signifies bringing together that which was separated from each other. So, what is Atonement?

Atonement is a construct of “at” with “onement” to make at one. It refers to the act of restoring, reuniting, or reconciling one with another. In the case of the scriptures and in Christianity, it refers to the unity that Jesus Christ achieved for mankind with God through his life, death, and resurrection.

What are theories? There are two ways the word “theories” (plural of theory) is understood, scientifically and philosophically. For the first, it refers to the descriptive, testable methods for explaining the natural world and predicting natural phenomena, while the latter refers to prescriptive methods for exploring values and ideas through the employment of reasoning. However, both are aimed at making sense of life, our experiences, and the reality we find ourselves in, empirically and reasonably. In the case of Atonement, we are employing the latter to make sense of an event deemed worthwhile by many people.

So, what are atonement theories? They are the different approaches people employ to explain and make sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus' willingness to come, suffer, die, and be raised up afterward, according to the scriptures, attracts attention. The reasons for it inspire people to draw even closer. Those reasons are identified as atonement theories. Why?

The reason is that people thought about the story and, in trying to make sense of it, drew different conclusions, sometimes in objection to other conclusions. We will see that in the next section, where we discuss three different atonement theories.

3 Different Atonement Theories in Christianity

There are several theories of atonement, including recapitulation theory, scapegoat theory, governmental theory, and liberation theory, but I find three other theories to encapsulate the essential message of the traditional Christian faith. But what are the 3 theories of atonement?

The three atonement theories are as follows: ransom theory, satisfaction theory, and penal substitution theory. Many people are akin to these while also incorporating the ideas proposed by the others in their theological viewpoints. So, let's talk about them.

1. Ransom Theory

The word “ransom” refers to the payment demanded by a captor to release a captive. Often, it is used in the situation where one is kidnapped and held by a criminal, who contacts the family of the victim demanding money in exchange for their relative's release. Consider this image in light of the Christian faith, the story of the fall, and a supposed implication.

In Christianity, it is believed that the first Adam sinned, and in sinning, humanity fell into the bondage and control of Satan. Therefore, the coming of the last Adam, Jesus, to suffer and die was to pay Satan for the sin that resulted in humanity's enslavement, thereby setting man free from the bondage of sin.

Romans 6:23 NASB says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The context of that verse suggests that the freedom that comes with Christ only applies to freedom from sin, but then, a switch to slavery to God in righteousness. You can draw a parallel for that with God saving the Israelites from Egypt to be his own slaves.

However, while the prospect of God saving humanity from the domain of sin and Satan is reasonable from a viewpoint of the scriptural narrative, with a trace back to the writings of a 4th-century Church father called Origen, people push back on the amount of power it gives to Satan, while others insist on God's war against evil.

However, the necessity for God to offer his son as a sacrifice to satisfy the demand of sin and Satan (death, or say, the shedding of blood) is deemed unacceptable, with the assumption that God is the most powerful and should be the one to receive the sacrifice. That leads us to the second theory of atonement: the satisfaction theory.

2. Satisfaction Theory

Satisfaction is a familiar word that connotes a feeling of fulfillment from a need, desire, or demand that has been met. With regard to the atonement, it refers to meeting a need.

Anselm of Canterbury, an influential philosopher and theologian of the 12th century, is known for his theological writings and the formulation of arguments for the Christian faith, including the satisfaction theory of atonement. In his work, Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man), he developed the view of the necessity of God's justice over humanity's sins and its satisfaction in the suffering and death of Jesus Christ.

The satisfaction theory posits that humanity sinned against God, and within God's just system, justice necessitated death as the consequence. But humanity could not satisfy this demand on its own; therefore, God became man to satisfy God's demand by dying for humanity. This theory is generally accepted as the foundation for the next theory we'll be exploring briefly.

However, objections have been raised against the satisfaction theory; objections that rejected the idea that God needed death or the shedding of human blood to satisfy his justice for sin. This contributed to Peter Abelard's Moral Influence Theory, which we discussed previously. Notwithstanding, the insistence on God's wrath and judgment on sin and the need for justice remains, reaffirming that Christ's death met the need; furthermore, as a substitutionary sacrifice.

3. Penal Substitution Theory

Penal is a relative word to penalty and was derived from the Latin word “poena,” which means pain. It is used interchangeably with offense to reference a wrongdoing that needs to be punished or paid for.

The word “substitution” is a replacement term used to describe when one takes another's place. Take, for instance, the game of football. When a player is tired or unable to play well, the coach recalls him from the field and sends someone else to take his position. That act is known as substitution.

As regards the Atonement, penal substitution theory is the idea that Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection were God taking upon himself the punishment that was due to humanity. He did so because humanity was unable to bear the punishment for their wrongdoing by themselves.

“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;” 1 Peter 3:18 NASB.

Two figures often cited as having the theological perspectives that contributed to the development of this view are the 16th-century figures Martin Luther and John Calvin. They were some of the prominent figures of the Reformation and subsequent Protestant movements, which include the Reformed, Lutherans, and Pentecostal traditions, among others. However, the full form of the theory is credited to the Reformation, particularly the 19th-century Reformed theologian Charles Hodge.

While the penal substitutionary view is believed to have developed under the influence of Anselm's satisfaction theory, its position of the sacrificial offering of a Godman's blood to satisfy the just demand of God and earn forgiveness for believers in the Godman earned it some criticism.

Some find it heretical that Jesus, being God, would have to sacrifice himself to God to earn God's forgiveness for mankind. Moreover, it appears that God became an enemy of himself for humanity's sake, which is a misconstruing of the Trinity and therefore anti-Trinitarian.

Others find it absurd that an all-powerful and all-knowing God could do nothing else but accept human sacrifice of a person of himself to forgive humanity for a supposed act of disobedience. It makes one wonder if God was actually needing the sacrifice, or was it for the devil or some other being?

However, those who subscribe to the view, mostly Protestants, insist on God's judgment on sin, the need for justice, and the death of Jesus meeting that need once and for all. They invite people to believe and be saved, “for he took our place of unrighteousness, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.”

Nevertheless, there are billions of people who believe in God, but not in a God who sent his son to die for those who believe in him to have eternal life. Therefore, as I pointed out in the opening, these views are fundamental within Christianity and not universally accepted. While some prioritize one over the others, many accept the combination of all, and others reject the three discussed here. Some of those subscribe to a theory presented in “Why Most Christians Are Going to Hell.”

Let me note that all these theories are aimed at explaining how God reunited with humanity in Jesus Christ after a supposed separation from humanity. This separation was necessitated by the first man's eating of the tree that God planted in the garden of Eden and commanded them not to eat.

Eventually, they transgressed and fell, taking upon themselves a nature that originated from whom? God or the devil? If the devil, one wonders how the devil came into being without God.

However, Proverbs 16:33 NASB says, The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.” There you have it. Feel free to share your thoughts.