is no truth of the holy Scriptures that has not been perverted by man, and this is especially true of the doctrine now before us, and these perversions of it are accepted as true in many religious denominations of this day. Modernism, as might be expected, is especially prominent in the advocacy of the perverted forms of the atonement. We believe that the chief cause of most of the erroneous theories of the atonement is man’s unwillingness to recognize and admit what God declares of his sinfulness.

The meaning of the atonement is that God could not give himself to man in such a way as to disregard moral conditions and obligations. The integrity of God’s character and of his moral government of the world must be sustained even at infinite cost to himself. He could not give himself to man, nor could he receive man into his favor without regard to moral conditions. Hence before man can be received and forgiven, he must confess and repudiate his sins. —W. T. Connor, Christian Doctrines, p. 99. Broadman Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1949.

This last sentence in this quotation lies, we believe, at the root of every false theory of the atonement, for man, being unwilling to confess and repudiate his sinfulness, is constrained to formulate a theory of the atonement which will allow him to maintain his pride and self-sufficiency, while giving the appearance of being biblical in his beliefs on this great doctrine. Nor are all of the erroneous theories completely wrong; they may, indeed, have much truth in them, for it should be evident to all that pure falsehood beguiles few souls; it requires a considerable amount of truth mixed in with falsehood to make an enticing bait for gullible souls. Generally, the error lies in what is left out of a theory of the atonement even more than what is put into it. T. T. Shields says:

In the treatment of this subject it seems to me it is desirable that I should call your attention to some inadequate, defective, views of the Atonement—and I will tell you why. There is a great deal of preaching today the defect of which consists, not in its speech, but in its silence; not in what is said, but in what is left unsaid.

I suppose it would be possible, if one were determined to destroy another’s life, to use the weapon of poison; but I read only yesterday of a woman who was being charged with murder for having starved somebody to death. Think of that; No poison was administered. It was not that she gave this person the wrong sort of food: she did not give the victim any food at all...

I am sure that is what some preachers do. People sit under their ministry. They hear Christ preached, so they say: and sometimes "Christ crucified;" yet there is not a bit of food in it, because the vital things are omitted; the vital principles of the gospel are not set before the hearer as a foundation for faith to rest upon. The Doctrines of Grace, pp. 91, 92. The Gospel Witness, Toronto, Canada, No date.

It is with these different theories of the atonement that we wish to deal in this present section, and we trust that, in the study of them, we will be warned of Satan’s devices to turn aside unwary souls from the great truth of Christ’s redemptive work. Paul spoke of this danger when he said: "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ...For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" (2 Cor. 11:3,13-15).

This theory received its name from the fact that it was held by many of the so-called "Church Fathers" of the early centuries of this dispensation. This theory is all but extinct now, but we mention it in passing because the reader of ancient Christian literature will find occasional references to it.

In essence, this theory held that the atonement was a ransom paid to the devil, to whom the whole human race was in bondage, and though the race was unjustly held by Satan, yet it was necessary to pay to him a fair equivalent for their release. The theory came to be held from several different reasons: first, in an age when wars resulted in whole populations being taken captive and held for ransom, it was natural that this idea would be associated with the idea of a spiritual ransom. Second, because men failed to see that God could be both the Party offended by man’s sin, and the One who made reconciliation for that sin, and so reunited the alienated parties. Third, because men failed to see that man’s sin was an offence against God’s justice, and that man’s sin could not be forgiven by God without a proper reparation without doing harm to God’s justice. Hence, the satisfaction that Christ rendered was a satisfaction to God’s justice, making it possible for God to be both "just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus" (Rom. 3:26).

The Patristic theory had some elements of truth in it, yet the elements of error in it were such that they gave a generally erroneous impression about the atonement. This theory was inadequate because it did not take into account all of the things involved in the atoning work of Christ, nor did it rightly apply the facts of Christ’s redemptive work.

This theory was first set forth by Anselm in the eleventh century, and is, for this reason, sometimes called the Anselmic theory of the atonement. This theory was subsequently modified by Abelard, Bernard, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. This theory passed for the orthodox view for many centuries, and was accepted in its various forms by many of the Reformers. It is defined by E. Y. Mullins as follows:

Sin violates God’s honor. It deserves infinite punishment since God is infinite. Man cannot pay because he is finite and morally bankrupt through sin. Christ in his atoning death paid the debt. This he could do because as divine he could pay an infinite debt, and as sinless and human he could represent men. But as sinless he was not obliged to die. Hence by death he obtained (on the Catholic theory) an excess of merit which could be placed to the credit of sinners. Anselm’s view is an improvement on the ransom-to-Satan theory because it connects the atonement with a requirement of God. —The Christian Religion In Its Doctrinal Expression, p. 306. Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1932.

Because this view represented Christ as suffering an exact equivalent of all the punishment that was deserved for all of the elect, so that they could all be pardoned and regenerated, it is sometimes called the Commercial theory. But to see only the commercial aspect of the atonement is to fail to have full view of the subject, and the fact that Catholicism was able to adapt this theory to its system of human merits shows that insofar as it was able to so adapt it, the theory was wrong.

This theory was a definite improvement and advance upon the Patristic theory, yet it still fell short because it dealt so much in abstract terms such as honor, justice, satisfaction and merit, that it never dealt specifically with the personal relations between God and man. The wrong in this theory lay not in what it specified, so much as in what it failed to specify about the atonement of Christ. This is clear from the fact that several different views of the atonement could be held, each of which claimed to be the Anselmic theory. Indeed, it is questioned whether Anselm himself ever viewed the sufferings of Christ as a vicarious punishment as many later theologians held, but he seems to have rather held only that the sufferings of Christ were only a compensation for which guilty men were released and justified.

This theory was first set forth in a systematic form by Laelius Socinus (1525-1562) and by his nephew Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) of Poland, though there are traces of this same sentiment in medieval writings. This is the view held by Unitarians and by the rationalistic theologians of today. It is called the Example theory because it holds that Christ’s suffering and death was nothing more than an example of devotion to the truth.

This theory holds that subjective sinfulness is the sole barrier between man and God. Not God, but only man, needs to be reconciled. The only method of reconciliation is to better man’s moral condition. This can be effected by man’s own will through repentance and reformation. The death of Christ is but the death of a noble martyr. He redeems us, only as his human example of faithfulness to truth and duty has a powerful influence upon our moral improvement. —A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 728-729. Fleming H. Revell. 1954.

As might be expected, this low view of the death of Christ corresponds to a low view of the person of Christ by these same persons, for almost without exception, those who hold this theory, also deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Another error which also accompanies this erroneous view of the atonement, is the exaggerated view of man’s ability to correct his own sinfulness, and to reverse the ravages of sin, This is by far the most damnable view of the atonement yet considered, and several of the following theories partake of much of the error of this one as well.

At first sight, it appears that this view is justified by 1 Peter 2:21: "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps." But this does not relate to the atonement at all, but rather to our attitude under suffering. 1 Peter 2:24, which immediately follows, shows that where atonement is concerned, Jesus’ suffering and death is substitutionary, and therefore certainly more than a mere example. This theory overlooks the fact that if an example of suffering only was needed, many better examples could have been found than that of Jesus, for many martyrs have endured suffering and death with more silent resignation and even joy than did Jesus, but the reason for this is, of course, that Jesus was suffering something while on the cross that no other person ever suffered in the degree that He did. He suffered the very essence of hell itself—separation from God—during those hours of darkness, and not just the hell of one person, but that due to every one of His people. He was not merely suffering a martyr’s death, He was suffering a vicarious death for sinners, in which He had to bear their torments.

The Socinian theory denies that there is any need of an atonement from the Godward side, and that the sense of sin, guilt and condemnation is all in the mind of man, and that all that is needed is for something to remove this from man. Thus, this theory denies any kind of expiation to have been accomplished by the death of Christ, and thereby it antagonizes with every Scripture text that speaks of Christ’s death as a propitiation, of His death being a sacrifice for sin, of His blood being offered in heaven for sins, etc. Upon this theory, there are many Scriptures which refer to the sufferings and death of Christ, which are meaningless and cannot be explained.

Not only so, but this theory proceeds upon an erroneous concept of sin itself, making it to be something altogether within the power of man to rectify, the proper motivation being supplied by the example of Christ. Thus, it also has a false concept of salvation, making it to be little more than reformation on the part of man, and it ignores the Scripture teaching that man is a fallen and depraved creature, wholly incapable of doing any spiritual good until he has been born again, and become a new creation in Christ.

Another erroneous concept that is involved in this theory is the idea that God’s benevolence can be exercised toward man in forgiving him without anything being done to satisfy His injured justice. If, as this theory holds, God could, by a simple fiat, declare man forgiven without an expiation being made for man’s sin, then God would be contradicting His own righteous principles, and would be guilty of sin, and so, all morality in the universe would be overthrown.

In a word, this theory is not an explanation of the atonement; it is an explaining away of the atonement; it is a virtual denial that there is any such thing as an atonement. There have been several modifications of this theory, some not as radical as others, but the best that may be said of any of them is that they are inadequate and unscriptural.

This theory was propounded early in the seventeenth century by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in opposition to the Socinian theory. Grotius, in professing to defend the Anselmic theory against Socinus, actually so modified the Anselmic as to produce a third theory of the atonement. E. G. Robinson explains this theory as follows:

As stated by Grotius, this theory started with the fundamental conception of God as a Sovereign Ruler; as Sovereign, he could enforce, or, if for good and sufficient reasons he chose, he could relax the penalties of his laws; but the stability of his government, and the welfare of the governed required that his laws, if violated, should be vindicated and some kind of penalties inflicted, though not necessarily inflicted on the transgressors themselves; as Sovereign Ruler, he has the right, in view of a sufficient penal example, to acquit and forgive the guilty. Grotius regarded the sufferings of Christ, not as a real satisfaction, or as an exact equivalent for the sins of the redeemed, but as an accepted or a practical equivalent, on account of which penalty could be safely remitted. —Christian Theology, p. 279. Press of E. R. Andrews, Rochester, 1894.

This theory has been accepted in modified forms by many different persons and groups, including Jonathan Edwards, C. G. Finney, the Wesleyan theologians, Albert Barnes, and even the Baptist, Andrew Fuller. It has been generally disseminated in this country by the New England schools of theology.

It is true that sin was and is a revolt against the government of God, yet the atonement of Christ was much more than the mere rescuing of the government of God from the assault of sinful man. This theory, like the preceding one, also overlooks the fact that sin is primarily a violation of the holiness of God, and thus an atonement that is acceptable to God must take into account and be harmonious with God’s holiness. This theory overlooks the fact that God’s government is based upon His justice, and an atonement that will satisfy His government must be one that will also satisfy His justice, and so it must be in accordance with the principles of right that He has laid down.

If, as this theory holds, God the Father could relax the penalties of His laws, and could accept a lesser satisfaction than that actually required, without doing harm to His own holiness, then even the blood of bulls and goats would have had as much value before Him as Christ’s blood, if He had chosen to accept it for an atonement. But this would mean that Christ died in vain, and that Hebrews 10:4 is untrue. Such a view would then open the way for a yet lower view of the satisfaction for man’s sins; for if God could relax the penalties of His laws any at all, He could relax them completely, until any of man’s works would be sufficient for an atonement, or no works at all would be adequate. Once anyone starts whittling away the demands of absolute justice, there is no stopping place.

Grotius held that God is an infinitely benevolent Being, whose creation and government of the world is determined by the highest welfare of His creatures, and that therefore the atonement had application only to the reconciling of man to God; thus, like the Socinian theory, it ignores all of the Scriptures which speak of the need for a propitiation from the Godward side. Christ not only reconciled man to God, He also reconciled God to man, for the infinitely holy God could not be reconciled to man until a satisfaction was made for man’s sin, and the dishonor done to divine justice rectified. God cannot wink His eye at sin in any person.

By his act of disobedience in Eden man invaded God’s right of sovereignty, spurning as he did His authority, throwing off the yoke of submission, determining to be his own lord. The outcome of such revolt we are not left to guess at...Sin made a breach between its committer and the Holy One. Not only did sin conduct man to a guilty distance from God, but sin necessarily placed God at a holy distance from man. God will not suffer those who are hostile to Him and offensive to His absolute purity to dwell in His presence. —A. W. Pink, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, p. 18. Associated Publishers And Authors, Grand Rapids, 1971.

This reconciliation of God to man is a necessary part of the atonement, yet this aspect is completely lacking in the governmental theory of the atonement, which makes it to be inadequate in its view of this great subject. Like the other theories, this one contains some important elements of truth, yet it omits some important elements as well, and therefore it falls short of the truth.

This theory was elaborated by Edward Irving (1792-1834) of London, and hence is sometimes called the Irvingian Theory, and it has been held since by some German theologians. Irving was preceded in holding this theory by the Spanish theologian, Felix of Urgella. This theory is explained by A. H. Strong as follows:

This holds that, in his incarnation, Christ took human nature as it was in Adam, not before the Fall, but after the Fall, —human nature, therefore, with its inborn corruption and predisposition to moral evil; that notwithstanding the possession of this tainted and depraved nature, Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, or of his divine nature, not only kept his human nature from manifesting itself in any actual or personal sin, but gradually purified it through struggle and suffering, until in his death he completely extirpated its original depravity, and reunited it to God. This subjective purification of human nature in the person of Jesus Christ constitutes his atonement, and men are saved, not by any objective propitiation, but only by becoming through faith partakers of Christ’s new humanity. —Systematic Theology, p. 744. Fleming H. Revell. 1954.

This theory has never gained the popularity enjoyed by some of the other theories, and so it is not heard of too often. His holding of this theory resulted in Irving being deposed from the ministry of the National Church of Scotland on the charge of heresy, and he subsequently started the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Church"

Irving’s later followers softened or entirely purged the most objectionable features from this theory, but his writings reveal that he himself held that Christ in His incarnation took upon himself a human nature that was actually sinful, and that this sinful human nature was not finally purged of its sinfulness until death. He frequently quoted Hebrews 2:10: "...make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering," in proof of this.

It is hard to understand how Irving could have consistently held that Christ was at once "That Holy Thing" (Luke 1:35), yet possessed of human nature that was as fallen and corrupt as any other, yet this was precisely what he did hold. He said:

I shall maintain until death that the flesh of Christ was as rebellious as ours, as fallen as ours...Human nature was corrupt to the core and black as hell, and this is the human nature the Son of God took upon himself and was clothed with. (Quoted by A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 746. Fleming H. Revell, 1954.)

This theory errs in its view of the incarnation of Christ, for it made Him to be possessed with a sinful nature, something the Scriptures deny; it was in error in its view of sin, since it held that sin could be either guiltless or guilty, and this erroneous view of sin naturally affected the view it had of the atoning work of Christ. This theory views the atonement more as a process than as a saving act accomplished for men; and it held that the saving results of Christ’s death became man’s by association with Christ, rather than by imputation, as the Scriptures show.

This theory is sometimes called the Bushnellian theory because it was advocated by Horace Bushnell (1802-1876) in America. This theory is considered by many to be but a form of the Socinian theory, and this is true to a certain extent, yet it has several elements which are peculiar to itself alone. E. Y. Mullins describes this theory as follows:

It has come to be one of the most popular of modern theories and has been held by many leading preachers and theologians. Its chief characteristic is its claim that in the atoning work of Christ no necessity of the divine nature was met. The aim of the atonement was rather to influence men to repent. God was already reconciled. The atonement was the expression of God’s love and sympathy for sinful men. The incarnation united Christ to the sinful race, and his death was the outcome of his sympathetic efforts for their salvation. There was no obstacle to forgiveness in God. The only obstacle was man’s own unbelief and stubborn will. Its effect is to move men to repentance and loving obedience. —The Christian Religion In Its Doctrinal Expression, p. 308. Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1932.

This holds, like the Socinian, that there is no principle of the divine nature which is propitiated by Christ’s death; but that this death is a manifestation of the love of God, suffering in and with the sins of his creatures. Christ’s atonement, therefore, is the merely natural consequences of his taking human nature upon him; and is a suffering, not of penalty in man’s stead, but of the combined woes and griefs which the living of a human life involves. This atonement has effect, not to satisfy divine justice, but so to reveal divine love as to soften human hearts and to lead them to repentance; in other words, Christ’s sufferings were necessary, not in order to remove an obstacle to the pardon of sinners which exists in the mind of God, but in order to convince sinners that there exists no such obstacle. —A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 733. Fleming H. Revell, 1954.

Because of its rejection of the substitutionary and propitiatory character of the death of Christ, this theory has found particular welcome among the Unitarians and the Modernists of the present day. Not only so, but sometimes one will find even Trinitarians, who, swayed more by sentiment than by Scripture, also hold to this theory. Nor is it to be denied that the death of Christ does have a moral influence upon men, but this is not the total, nor even the main part, of the redemptive work that was accomplished by Christ upon the cross. This illustrates what we said in the beginning of this section, namely, that all of these erroneous views of the atonement have some truth in them.

This theory proceeds upon an erroneous view of the character of God, for it assumes that He takes no offence at sin, and that He holds no sin against the sinner, but has already forgiven all sins. But this is to deny that God is a just and holy God, for if He can overlook sin without an adequate sacrifice being made for it, then He has no real concern about right or holiness, and so is stripped of His holy character. His justice, as well as His love, made necessary the atonement.

Again, this theory is in error in that it holds that Christ suffers with man instead of suffering in his stead. Thus, although some advocates of this theory claim to believe in a "vicarious" (substitutionary) death of Christ, yet their view is a denial of the vicarious nature of Christ’s death. Christ took our place and endured our curse that we might not have to suffer what we so justly deserved. We read in many places of Christ suffering and dying "for" us, and the Greek word so translated, like our English word "for" speaks of substitution, as well as of benefit. He became a criminal that we might be forgiven and become children of God; He suffered that we might be blessed; He died that we might live.

This theory errs in that it makes the death of Christ little more than a mere subjective drama with little objective end in view. Holding, as it does, that its work is primarily one of moral influence upon the sinner, it denies, or at least ignores, the propitiatory and reconciliatory aspect as regards God the Father. This theory deals with most aspects of the atonement in an abstract manner which all but invalidates the reality of the atonement.

Like some of the other theories, this theory has been varied by the different proponents of it, and this is why it is sometimes confused with the Socinian theory—the variations of the two often overlap. This theory has been held by F. W. Robertson, F. D. Maurice, McLeod Campbell, John Young, Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and others.

A. H. Strong, one of the foremost advocates of this theory, says of it:

In propounding what we conceive to be the true theory of the atonement, it seems desirable to divide our treatment into two parts. No theory can be satisfactory which does not furnish a solution of the two problems. 1. What did the atonement accomplish? or, in other words, what was the object of Christ’s death? The answer to this question must be a description of the atonement in its relation to holiness in God. 2. What were the means used? or, in other words, how could Christ justly die? The answer to this question must be a description of the atonement as rising from Christ’s relation to humanity. We take up these two parts of the subject in order:…

First, —the Atonement as related to Holiness in God.

The Ethical theory holds that the necessity of the atonement is grounded in the holiness of God, of which conscience in man is a finite reflection. There is an ethical principle in the divine nature, which demands that sin shall be punished. Aside from its results, sin is essentially ill-deserving…

Secondly, —the Atonement as related to Humanity in Christ.

The Ethical theory of the atonement holds that Christ stands in such relation to humanity, that what God’s holiness demands Christ is under obligation to pay, longs to pay, inevitably does pay, and pays so fully, in virtue of his two-fold nature, that every claim of justice is satisfied, and the sinner who accepts what Christ has done in his behalf is saved. —Systematic Theology, pp. 750-751, 754. Fleming H. Revell, 1954.

This theory is based upon the fact of Christ’s union with humanity which obligated Him to suffer for men, but this is not to say that Christ was personally a sinner; this the ethical theory does not teach. It does hold that He is legally and morally (hence the name "Ethical") bound to suffer for men because of His oneness with them, yet this was also a willing oneness with man upon Christ’s part, and He delighted to come into the human race in this character and for this purpose; He delighted to suffer and to die, because of love for man as well as love to God.

But this obligatory aspect of Christ’s suffering is easily misunderstood to involve personal guilt on the part of Christ, which is not meant at all, and cannot be consistently held. Mullins well says:

Ordinarily the words penal and penalty refer to personal guilt. Christ did not personally sin. Hence he could not have borne a penalty in the ordinary sense. But he did bear the penal consequences of the sin of the race because of his complete identification with it. Death is the penalty of sin. Christ died. He died at the hands of sinful men, while giving himself freely to deliver them from the power of the sin-death principle operative in them...In his atoning death, therefore, we are not to conceive of God’s wrath as poured out upon Christ’s head and directed against him as a personal sinner. Christ endured the wrath of God only in the sense that he permitted the sin-death principle to operate in him. Wrath was already acting against sinful men. Christ endured it because he entered the estate of sinful man and endured death which is the expression of God’s wrath and the penalty for their sin. —The Christian Religion In Its Doctrinal Expression, p. 323. Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1932.

We do not see any positive error in this theory of the atonement, and it contains some important truth that is lacking in some of the foregoing theories. If there is a fault in this theory, it lies in not emphasizing the commercial aspect of the atonement to the extent that the Scriptures do. The importance of the commercial aspect of the atonement is to be seen in the frequent appearance of the words "redeem," "redemption," "ransom," etc., all of which are suggestive of the commercial aspect.

The Ethical theory is certainly an important aspect of the atonement, for it reveals the necessity of the atonement; but the commercial aspect is equally important, inasmuch as it gives the means of accomplishing the atonement, so that neither of these can be eliminated without losing the full truth of the doctrine.

Therefore it is clear that all of the foregoing theories—even those which depart most from the truth—have some elements of truth in them, and a correct and comprehensive view of the atonement must take in all of the truth. We must recognize with the old Patristic theory that the atonement involves a ransom paid, by which men are freed. However, the ransom was not paid to Satan. We must agree with the Anselmic theory that by the atonement a satisfaction was rendered to God for the dishonor that sin had done to Him. We must agree with the Socinian theory that Jesus’ death is a mighty example of devotion to God’s truth, but we must see in the truth much more than this. With the Grotian theory, we must agree that the atonement was a manifestation of God’s sovereign government in the substitution of Christ for the guilty sinner, but again, this is neither the only, nor the main point in the atonement. With the Irvingian theory we agree that Christ, by taking upon Himself humanity, purified that portion of humanity for which the atonement was made, and shall ultimately present them before God in spotless purity. With the Bushnellian theory’, we must agree that the atonement of Christ does in truth present a great moral influence upon men, but we recognize that this is rather a secondary consequence, rather than the main purpose of it. With the Ethical theory, we must agree that the atonement is grounded in God’s holiness and in Christ’s unity with the human race.

Thus, there are elements of truth in all of the theories, but there are also errors, or at least omissions in most of them as well, so that a composite view is necessary, to get the whole truth. Truth has always been perverted, beginning in the garden of Eden, and in nothing is this more true than concerning the atonement; hence, it behooves us to consider diligently this great doctrine, lest we be turned aside from the truth by the cunning craftiness of men who hold low views of Christ and His redemptive work.