There 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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
By Davis W. Huckabee, Pastor,