Basic HTML Version
368
V. Divergent Theories of the Atonement
Since the atonement is clearly something objective, something that has a Godward direction,
strictly speaking only those theories can come into consideration here that represent the work
of Christ as intended primarily to ward off the wrath of God and divine punishment from
sinners rather than to change the sinner’s attitude to God from one of hostility to one of
friendship. Theories that are entirely subjective and conceive of the work of Christ exclusively
as bearing on the sinner’s moral condition might, in strict logic, be left out of consideration
altogether. They might conceivably be considered as theories of reconciliation, but can hardly
be regarded as theories of atonement. Miley argues that there really can be no more than two
theories of atonement. He points out that the atonement, as an objective ground for the
forgiveness of sins, must answer to a necessity which will naturally determine its nature. This
necessity must lie, either in the requirement of an absolute justice which must punish sin, or in
the rectoral office of justice as an obligation to conserve the interests of moral government. In
the first case one arrives at the satisfaction theory; in the second, at the governmental theory,
which is preferred by Miley and finds great favor with the Methodists in general. Alfred Cave
ascribes an objective character also to the theory of the early Arminians, in which the death of
Christ is regarded as a substitute for the penalty imposed on sinners; and to the theory of
McLeod Campbell, which finds the real significance of the work of Christ in His vicarious
repentance. And it is undoubtedly true that both of these do contain an objective element. But
in addition to these there are several purely subjective theories. Though these are not, strictly
speaking, theories of atonement, yet they call for consideration, since they are considered as
such in many circles. The following are the most important theories:
A. THEORIES OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
There were two theories in the early Church that call for brief mention.
1. THE RANSOM-TO-SATAN THEORY.
This is based on the singular notion that the death of
Christ constituted a ransom paid to Satan, in order to cancel the just claims which the latter had
on man. Origen, one of the chief advocates of this theory, held that Satan was deceived in the
bargain, since the outcome proved that he could not stand in the presence of the holy Christ,
and was not able to retain his hold on Him. This theory found favor with several of the early
Church Fathers, though they did not always state it in exactly the same form. It proved to be
rather tenacious, for the echo of it was still heard in the days of Anselm. Yet it was found to be
so incongruous that it gradually disappeared for lack of intelligent support. Mackintosh speaks
of this theory as the exoteric theory of the early Church.