Introduction to Atonement Theories

There are various types of justice conceptualized in atonement theories and some of these theories build on top of each other. In this post, I will go over some of the reasons why I started this lesson series and how it's relevant to us today.

Some of the terms that we will be discussing on God’s justice are these:

Retributive Justice: I will use this term to describe the justice and punishment directly handed out by God. Key words and phrases that go along with this are: retribution, revenge, vengeance, and directly paying back each person according to their deeds.

Public Justice: I will use this term to describe humanity’s offense against God’s law, moral order, and moral governance to preserve the common good, to demonstrate the seriousness of sin so that we avoid it, and to preserve the dignity of His name among all creatures and the hosts of heaven. The key idea with public justice is that God isn’t directly punishing us—the law is. Public justice can also be referred to as Governmental justice or Communal justice which includes commutative justice, distributive justice, and legal/general justice. I generally prefer the term Governmental justice because it makes the most sense.

Consequential Justice: I will use this term to describe how God deals out His justice and punishment indirectly. While public justice is once removed from God’s direct interaction, consequential justice is even further removed from God’s direct intervention. This could also be called the wrath of God’s abandonment. God withdraws His sustaining grace so that creatures are left to themselves and their own devices in accordance with the path that they have freely chosen in the opposite direction of God who is the source of all life, light, love, and peace. That is, the path they have chosen is death both physically and spiritually and to die, suffer, and disintegrate they shall.

God may also use a king or a nation as His instrument to punish other nations like He did when He used Babylon to punish Israel and the other nations which we read about in the book of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Lamentations, etc. Without God’s hand of protection, these nations were subject to death and suffering. However, God did not deterministically control Babylon, for they overextended what was rightfully just in destroying nations by committing war crimes and they went too far. For this reason, God later used another kingdom to defeat Babylon as a form of punishment for this. In consequential justice, there is also this idea that whatever you sow, that you will also reap.

Remedial/Restorative Justice: These two terms I will use interchangeably. It goes along with Public justice and Consequential justice but the primary emphasis is to communicate God’s loving nature toward us creatures. In this view, His wrath is viewed for our benefit to teach us, purge us from evil, and lead us into the way of life so that we may live. This is the type of justice I will mostly speak about for Moral Influence theory but it is also a heavy emphasis on Moral Government as well and slightly the emphasis in Satisfaction theory whereas Penal Substitution theory almost seems to completely ignore this type of justice, emphasizing retribution almost exclusively.

In referring to God’s wrath, there are three categories that I came up with. However, sometimes these categories overlap and multiple types of wrath can be displayed at the same time. These categories of wrath are: Direct, indirect, and absent. Retributive wrath is direct. Governmental wrath is indirect. Consequential wrath is God’s absence which is the natural consequence apart from God’s life. Here they are in list format:

Direct – Retributive (e.g. Sodom being destroyed)
Indirect – Governmental (e.g. Babylon punishing nations)
Absent – Consequential (e.g. Romans 1 & natural death)

There are many other terms that theologians have used in the past for different types of justice but it suffices for me to simply categorize them into these main ones which we also see are demonstrated in the Scriptures. In terms of the atonement theories, consequential justice is seen in substitutionary atonement in St. Athanasius’ written work, On the Incarnation. He doesn’t mention this specific term but his thoughts are there. He also did not believe in Eternal Conscious Torment, so this type of justice seemed to be fitting for his framework of thought. Consequential justice is also generally the belief system you will find in the Orthodox Church, though they don’t specifically label it that.

Public justice is the doctrine you will find taught in the Moral Government atonement theory. I have also found it to be the main emphasis for them while retributive justice isn’t spoken about much if at all. The premise of Moral Government theory is that all of God’s laws are for our good and God must uphold His laws for the good of all. If we disobey those laws, it is not so much that God is angry at us to punish us. Rather, the law must be enforced. The Methodists hold to Moral Government theory along with some Arminians. However, most Arminians, Baptists, non-Calvinists hold to Penal Substitutionary Atonement today. Hugo Grotius is mainly credited with developing Moral Government theory but other theologians such as John Miley, H. Orton Wiley, and Charles Finney also espouse this view.

From what I’ve read on Vicarious Satisfaction theory, St. Thomas Aquinas hardly if ever used the term “retributive justice.” At least, when speaking about the atonement. That is because, in this view, retributive justice didn’t happen at the cross. God did not punish Jesus for our crimes. Jesus’ death was more of a pleasant fragrance offering to the Father to render Him propitious toward us. Unlike the General Substitution theory or Moral Government theory, Satisfaction theory acknowledges sin as a direct offense against God and this offense against God’s honor is a problem that needs to be solved through Jesus. It therefore at least assumes that God’s retributive justice is a problem for us that needs to be solved. Satisfaction theory is the view held by the Roman Catholic Church.

Next is Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory which is the belief that Jesus died in our place to satisfy God’s wrath and retributive justice and paying the penalty of the law so that God is rendered propitious toward us. In this view, Jesus is our substitute. He was forsaken by His Father on the cross and bore our sins and God’s wrath so that we wouldn’t have to bear God’s wrath or be forsaken. In addition to this, there is also the idea that our sins were imputed to Jesus when He died and His righteousness was imputed to us so that we have a legal covering of this alien righteousness over us so that when the Father looks at us, He sees Jesus. This atonement theory is the most popular theory today among Protestants and especially among Calvinists. This theory is often held and taught within these circles to the exclusion of all other atonement models since it is viewed by some people as the very heart of the gospel or even the gospel itself. The emphasis of Penal Substitution is almost exclusively in regard to dealing with the problem and satisfying God’s retributive justice. Therefore, the main picture we see on the cross is God’s wrath. God’s love gets Jesus onto the cross but the direct mechanism by which we are saved is through the Father pouring His wrath out on Jesus. The law isn’t viewed as separate from God in any way but a violation of God’s law is seen as a direct offense against God Himself, deserving of God’s retribution.

In my view, I see some of these atonement theories building on top of each other. I don’t mean historically, but conceptually, this is the way I see it. General Substitution is the basic foundation and from there Moral Government is the next step and then on top of that is Satisfaction and then on top of that is Penal Substitution. With each additional step there are more and more truth claims. Substitution deals with death being the penalty or consequence from original sin and solves man’s account with death. Moral Government deals with the law’s penalty being dealt with. Satisfaction deals with our offense to God being dealt with. Then Penal Substitution deals with God’s wrath directly being dealt with. If you can visualize this in your mind, it’s like an ascending ladder dealing with justice beginning from the consequential aspect as far removed from God as possible and then stepping up to remedial/restorative justice, then public justice, and then retributive justice which is as up close and direct about God’s wrath as possible. In terms of Christian denominations, I would consider the Easter Orthodox Church at the bottom of the ladder and then the Protestant Church to be at the very top of the ladder in regard to their views of God’s wrath and justice.

Now, there is a sense in which you might think that the Orthodox church has it right because they didn’t add all this extra stuff and in some sense, there is merit to that argument. However, on the flip side, someone might view the Orthodox church as an infant that continues to stick to the basic milk in their theology but doesn’t move on to maturity to develop all the fullness of knowledge contained in the Word of God. After all, one might speculate: how much time did the early church fathers really spend searching out the length and breadth of the Word of God to develop their theology versus spending time proclaiming the gospel or being martyred or imprisoned because of their faith? If they were doing the latter one, they may not have had much time for the other. But then again, there were all the oral teachings handed down from the Apostles to their disciples and this is invaluable knowledge and does carry a heavy weight of authority. However, no mortal man has perfect knowledge. Even within the pages of the New Testament, we see there were already divisions and factions within the church from the very start. We may wonder how many years would need to pass by until the foundational teachings of the Apostles diverged from that foundation through each person’s individual beliefs or through a sort of Chinese telephone thing going on where information and understanding gets lost. For this reason, while the early church fathers are an extremely valuable resource and to some degree authoritative, I do not see them as the ultimate authority or say on matters of theology. Though, if our theology contradicts theirs, we would do well to exercise caution to carefully consider our position.

So why am I starting a lesson series on atonement theories? What’s my motive? I would consider myself a pragmatic theologian. That is, I’m interested in how theology and philosophical logic is applicable to us. If I don’t see its relevance for us, then to me, it’s just a waste of breath. Mere speculation, theory, abstract ideas, and philosophy are of no use to me or you unless they are relevant in helping us in some way. For this reason, the things I teach will have relevance even if it is not directly apparent yet to my readers or listeners.

First, we must understand that Atonement theories attempt to reveal the mechanism behind how Christ’s death works and what it accomplishes. There is a degree to which this is very important for the Christian to know. For example, if you put diesel into a gasoline engine in your truck, you’ll destroy the engine. There are other ways you can damage your truck as well so it’s important to know some basic principles about how the vehicle operates and how to take care of it. However, for the most part, it is unnecessary to understand and memorize all the manufacture’s specifications for your vehicle including the blueprint drawings and every detail of how the vehicle operates. What is essentially important is that you know how to drive your truck and you can do it well. Atonement theories are like vehicles in this way. We don’t need to know the mechanics of Christ’s death to have faith in it and to be effectual Christians. However, we need to know enough to not do damage in our relationship with God.

Atonement theories are relevant because there are many people in the church who probably leave the faith every single day. Oftentimes, they leave Christianity because they held to beliefs that no longer made sense to them, were no longer logical to them, and seemed absolutely ridiculous. They entered into a path of deconstructing their faith and instead of landing into another denomination, they abandoned the faith altogether. Without anyone to aid them in their deconstruction, this is a very real and probable reality. However, most Christians that I’ve seen are more concerned with enforcing their particular religious/theological beliefs on someone rather than leading them to Jesus. Our concern should be to snatch people from the fire because we love them rather than force them into some mental framework which if given as the only viable solution and they reject it, they will perish forever. It is unloving to force someone into our particular version of Christianity at the expense of their own soul. For this reason, I want to give people options and I want to try and present Jesus to them in the best way possible through these atonement theories even if I am not fully on board with them. I will not be dogmatic except in the case where I view certain theological beliefs as reprehensible and ultimately damaging for people to be reconciled to God. If I see something as a stumbling block to entering into the transformed life of Christ, then I will point it out. I might do it on the spot or I may wait until after I’ve discussed all the atonement theories to do it. It is my desire to help those who are struggling with their faith and to call the prodigals home through giving them the truth and a place to stand in their belief and a place to rest in their love and trust in God.

The second reason I’m teaching this series on the atonement is because I see the value thinking about and meditating on these things has for the church. Often, in Protestant, Reformed, and Calvinistic circles, Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) is taught exclusively and I find this damaging to the church. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has said, “We have somehow got hold of the idea that error is only that which is outrageously wrong; and we do not seem to understand that the most dangerous person of all is the one who does not emphasize the right things.” Protestants must realize that there is a wealth of good news that can offer healing to people that isn’t found in PSA. It was through my own research in Atonement theories that I found healing myself and finally put my sin to death. Once this happened, I felt like I was lied to my whole life, I was deceived, and not told the whole truth. Jesus said that you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free (Jn 8:32). Well, I was a Christian my whole life, fought against sin, and pursued God with all my heart but the truth was held back from me because of the religious institution. Now, I’m finally free because I found the truth; and if you are not free, then you might want to check your theology.

The third reason I’m teaching on the atonement is because in many churches today, they hardly hear anything about the gospel. They are not provided the foundation and pillar of their faith. They go to church week after week hearing sermons of how to live to be a better Christian. The fullness of the gospel and Christ’s death is never taught to them. Or if it is taught to them, it’s only in bits and pieces. It’s for this reason that many unsaved people are in the church and Christians who are in the church greatly struggle with sin and are in all kinds of bondage and addiction. It is also for this reason that many people leave the faith or are complacent in their Christianity. It is also for this reason that the Christians who have started out strong in their love for Jesus have become cold. The religious institution of dead religion and gummy bear Christianity has done this to them. I believe it is only in the church recovering and teaching the fullness of the gospel that Christianity can be made whole again to truly live and love the way it was designed to be.

The fourth reason I’m teaching about the atonement is because I seek the truth. I want to know why Christ died. I want to explain why Christ died. I want to see how a gospel presentation looks like apart from PSA. I want to see if it’s possible to explain all that needs to be explained apart from PSA. Does the classical view of the atonement offer sufficient information to address all of the problems of mankind? Let’s find out.