What Did the Atonement of Christ Actually Accomplish?

This is a discussion that has been going on throughout the history of the church. There have essentially been five primary views. These views include: The ransom theory, the moral influence theory, the example theory, the governmental theory, and finally, the view which I believe is the most biblical, The Penal Substitutionary Theory. These views are not mutually exclusive, there are aspects of some of them that spill over into the others. As we work through each view, I will attempt to point these various aspects out.

To begin with we will discuss the ransom theory. According to this view, the ransom Christ paid to redeem us was paid to Satan, in whose kingdom all people were because of sin. A theologian from Alexandria named Origen (c. A.D. 185- c.254), held this view. One major problem with this view is that it finds no direct confirmation in scripture. This view also has very few supporters throughout the history of the Church. It falsely thinks of Satan and not God as the one who require that a payment be made for sin and thus completely neglects the demands of God’s justice with respect to sin. It views Satan as having much more power than he actually does. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that we as sinners owe anything to Satan, but it repeatedly states that God requires of us a payment for our sins. This view also fails to deal with the references in the bible that speak of Christ’s death as a propitiation offered to God the Father for our sins.

The next view that will be looked at is the moral influence view. This view was first held by the theologian named Peter Abelard (1079-1142) and it states that God did not actually require the payment of a penalty for sin, but that Christ’s death was simply a way in which God showed how much he loved human beings by identifying with their sufferings, even to the point of death. Christ’s death therefore becomes a great teaching example that shows God’s love to us and draws from us a grateful response, so that in loving him, we are forgiven. The major problem with this view is that it is contrary to so many passages of Scripture that speak of Christ dying for sin, bearing our sin, or dying as a propitiation. This view has no way of dealing with our guilt, if Christ did not die to pay for our sins, we have no right to trust in him for forgiveness of sins. 

The third view that has been held throughout history is that of the example theory. This view was taught by the Socinians, the followers of Faustus Socinus (1539-1604). Faustus was an Italian theologian who settled in Poland in 1578 and attracted a wide following. The example theory, like the moral influence theory, also denies that God’s justice requires payment for sin; it says that Christ’s death simply provides us with an example of how we should trust and obey God perfectly, even if that trust and obedience leads to a horrible death. While it is true that Christ is an example for us even in his death, the question is whether this fact is the complete explanation of the atonement. This theory fails to account for the many Scriptures that focus on Christ’s death as a payment for sin, the fact that Christ bore our sins, and the fact that he was the propitiation for our sins. These considerations alone mean that this view must be rejected, it fails to show how the guilt of our sin can be removed because it does not hold that Christ actually paid the penalty for our sins or made provision for our guilt when he died.

The fourth view to be looked at is the governmental theory. This view was first held by the Dutch theologian Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). This theory holds that God did not actually have to require payment for sin, but, since he was an omnipotent God, he could have set aside the requirement and simply forgiven sin without the payment of penalty. In this view, Christ’s death was God’s demonstration of the fact that his laws had been broken, that he is the moral law giver and governor of the universe, and that some kind of penalty would be required whenever his laws were broken. Thus, Christ did not exactly pay the penalty for the actual sins of the people, but simply suffered to show that when God’s laws are broken there must be some penalty paid. Once again the major problem with this view is that it fails miserably to account for all the Scriptures that speak of Christ bearing our sins on the cross, of God laying on Christ the iniquity of us all, of Christ dying specifically for our sins on the cross, and of Christ being the propitiation for our sins. Because of this, we must also reject this view.

The final view, and the view that I hold to as the biblical view, is that of the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. This view holds that Christ’s death was “penal” in that he bore a penalty when he died. His death was also a “substitution” in that he was a substitution for us when he died. This has been the orthodox understanding of the atonement held by evangelical theologians, in contrast to the other views mentioned above which attempt to explain the atonement apart from the idea of the wrath of God or payment for the penalty of sin. This view of the atonement is sometimes called the “vicarious atonement” view. A vicar is someone who stands in the place of another or who represents another. Christ’s death was therefore “vicarious” because he stood in our place and represented us. As our representative, he took the penalty that we deserve. This view is by far the most biblical and should be embraced as the truth. All the other views that have been looked at fall short in some way. Although some of the aspects of the other views may be present in the penal substitutionary view, the main thrust of what the atonement of Christ is and what it accomplished, based on Scriptural support, is only seen in this view.

As we approach the coming Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday events, let's remember this great penalty that Christ bore for those who love him.