What are the various theories on the atonement?

The expression given to it in the Westminster Confession, or the Shorter Catechism, may, as theological expressions, neither of them quite reach to adequacy — "The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the Eternal Spirit once offered up unto God hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father, and purchased reconciliation, etc.," or, "Christ executeth the office of a Priest in His once offering up of Himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God" — but they are surely preferable by far to the hazy, colourless, presentation of it given by the expositor of the Creed. This negation of all theories of the atonement, with professed adherence to the large and general truth of Christ's death as the means, in an unspecified way, of our salvation is not reassuring in itself. When, joined to it there is ridicule, as well as repudiation, of the very expression used in the Presbyterian Confession! what can one say? No wonder it is so far back, or as far down as to the Apostles' Creed such desire to go as the norm of faith necessary to Christianity. "Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried," is quite comprehensive enough for them.

It may certainly be the case, that all attempts in the past to interpret the doctrine, or to construe it theologically, have failed in adequacy, or erred essentially, and being found incapable of responding to broadening and deepening thought on the subject, have had to be left behind. Otherwise put, theological definitions have consistently failed to fill out the complete doctrine as Scripture gives it, however true it be that a certain side of truth was emphasised in each case. There were, for instance, the so-called Ransom Theory, which has long since been superseded, at least, in the form in which it was originally held; the Socinian view of atonement in keeping with their system, which to believers now is just as erroneous as it ever was; the Governmental Theory prevalent in pre-Reformation times, with no more permanency. And again from the Reformation onwards what is called the Substitutionary Theory has held the field, until recently, when, as we are having instanced now, it also is being repudiated.

Theories of the atonement come and go. Logical and exhaustive no doubt they have each appeared to their originators. But one and all they have foundered in the past, and none have succeeded in filling out the complete scripture doctrine on the subject. Where all have failed, that remains for us clear and consistent, higher and fuller than theory or creed can reach or express. Explained to us also there, solely yet sufficiently, as never in theological statement or creed, by the revealed character of God Himself, who in His great love would have us, delivered and cleansed from sin, brought to Himself in righteousness, to be holy and without blame before Him in love.

1910 188 Precisely here again we enter the interesting territory where new and old in Presbyterian theology contrast so deeply. It is just at such points, where the strong tide of high Calvinism meets the freshening flood of New Theology ideas, that one cannot but be arrested. The surge and swell of contending thought are there so marked. One whom we have before quoted from, Prof. Orr, has some discernment of the true bearing of much that is now put forth; and on such reasoning regarding the atonement as has been instanced he has remarked, "Distinction is often made between fact and theory in the doctrine of atonement; but it is evident that an element of what is called theory, i.e. of doctrinal significance, attaches to even the simplest statements of scripture on this subject. It is not every conception of the cross that suits the full and varied representations given of it in scripture. The New Testament will not allow us to believe that everything remains vague and undetermined in the meaning we are to attach to Christ's doing and dying for our salvation." And another, not a Presbyterian, has spoken out thus: "It is sometimes said, There are several theories of the atonement, but we have to do with the fact, and not with our understanding of it! This frame of mind is the root of all that is most feeble and ominous in the teaching in our churches today." Then against the derision of such discarded ideas as the Calvinistic one of "Christ having rendered by His blood satisfaction to divine justice in the sense of quantative payment of a ransom," compare a remark of the same, "We cannot in any theology which is duly ethicised dispense with the word satisfaction. It was no satisfaction of a 'jus talionis' yet the sinner could only be saved by something that thus damned the sin." And still another, "There is room today for a truly forensic doctrine of the atonement. Christ has redeemed us not by a facile amnesty; but by making our sin His own in vicarious love, and hearing it in the face of the universe."

The "limited atonement" doctrine is built upon a premise that lacks understanding of the two views of the cross of Christ as regards His work, that is, propitiation and substitution. The types used on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16 are set aside in deference to a theory, a doctrine of men (be they good men or bad is not the point). On that memorable day, which occurred once a year in Israel's history, there were, among other similitudes two goats - one called the Lord's lot, and the other the people's. The goat of the Lord's lot was killed and its blood taken inside of the veil by the high priest, where he sprinkled the blood once upon the mercy seat and seven times on the desert sand before it. It was there above the mercy seat that God dwelt among the people, and as they were sinners He must needs have the evidence of death presented before Him - the blood was sprinkled there. This was propitiation - a satisfaction rendered to God whereby He could act in grace toward a sinful people. On the head of the other goat, the sins of the people were confessed by the high priest, and it was led into a land not inhabited, so that their sins were removed. This was substitution.

God has been pleased to present this to us from different standpoints: — 1 The propitiatory character of the death of Christ provides the ground where God can meet the sinner in righteousness (1 John 2, Rom. 3). 2 The expiatory character of the death of Christ meets our guilty condition. We were sinful, and sin must be put away (Heb. 9). 3 The substitutionary character of the death of Christ meets our responsibility. We were condemned, and Another must take our place and bear our judgment (1 Peter 2). 4 The redeeming character of the death of Christ meets our state. As slaves of sin and Satan, only a mighty ransom could deliver us. We are now no longer slaves, but sons, with the spirit of sons, and waiting for the redemption of the body (Rom. 8; Rev. 5).

Christ has made atonement: God is satisfied and glorified by His work (propitiation), and ‘our’ sins have been born by Him (substitution).

Does atonement imply divine judgement?

A similar scripture is: "The Son of Man came … to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Here again the actual result of His death amongst men is in question. But we also read: "The Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:5-6). Here, taking up the standpoint of propitiation, the value of His death before God is in question, and hence the scope and bearing of His death towards all men comes into view.

The former has in view a substitutionary work. He died as a substitute for all who believe, hence they must go free; righteousness demands it. He did not die as a substitute for all, else all must go free.

The latter has in view a propitiatory work, i.e. the meeting of the divine claims apart from the question of its application to individual cases. The death of Christ being of infinite value meets God's claims in regard to the question of sin regarded as one whole. It stands good therefore for all, as far as its intention is concerned.

These two aspects of the death of Jesus must be carefully distinguished in the atoning sacrifice He has accomplished. He has glorified God, and God acts according to the value of that blood towards all. He has borne the sins of His people; and the salvation of His people is complete. And, in a certain sense, the first part is the most important. Sin having come in, the justice of God might, it is true, have got rid of the sinner; but where would then have been His love and His counsels of grace, pardon, and even the maintenance of His glory according to His true nature as love, while righteous and holy too?

We may now examine a little more closely the object of the faith by which we are justified. At the end of chapter 3 it is the believer in Jesus who is justified. (v. 26.) In chapter 4 it is, "If we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead," etc. (Rom. 4:24.) The difference is both important and instructive, and may be more easily explained if we refer for a moment to what took place on the great day of atonement. (Lev. 16.) The reader will there see that Aaron was commanded to take two goats in connection with making atonement for the people; the one of which he was to kill as a sin-offering, and then to take its blood and sprinkle it upon and before the mercy-seat, while the other - the scape-goat - was to be presented alive before the Lord; and after Aaron had confessed over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, it was to be sent away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness. The former of these goats answers (as a shadow to its substance) to Romans 3:26, where God sets forth Christ a propitiation through faith in His blood; the latter corresponds with Romans 4:24, where we see Jesus our Lord delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification - bearing our sins, and carrying them away, so to speak, into a land where they can never more be found. The first is propitiation; that is, the blood of Christ sprinkled on the mercy-seat, meeting all the claims of God's glory in respect of our sins. The second is substitution; that is, Christ taking our place, and bearing our sins in His own body on the tree. These two aspects show us in a word Christ meeting God's claims and the sinner's needs.