The Received Doctrine of the Atonement
Sean Killackey
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures. - 1 Corinthians 15:3
“Substitutionary Atonement is an interesting theory. But it is relatively new in Christian thought, not universally agreed to, and is subject to serious objections. It is hardly indispensable to the Gospel.” This is something theology students are bound to hear in classes, read in books, and perhaps come to believe. But despite all the scholarly man-hours that have gone into this thesis it is false.
While there is something to the claim that Substitutionary Atonement was first articulated at the time of the Reformation, it is grossly misleading. Consequently it provides no refuge to those who wish to relative or undermine the doctrine. Rather, a fair study of historical theology reveals that those who profess Substitutionary Atonement find themselves firmly rooted in the Scriptures, proclaiming the same doctrine handed down by the Apostles, which has been taught to every nation under heaven.
In 1617, when Hugo Grotius published his masterful refutation of Faustus Socinus’ attack on the Reformer’s doctrine of the Atonement, he entitled it A Defense of the Catholic Faith Concerning the Satisfaction of Christ. He clearly did not think that he was defending a novel doctrine. So where do contemporary critics get the notion that Substitutionary Atonement finds its origin in the Reformation?
There are some important differences between what the Reformers, such as Calvin and Luther, articulated (let us call that Penal Substitutionary Atonement) and what pre-Reformation theologians, such as Anslem taught. Anselm, for instance, does not view Christ’s suffering as punishment (i.e., suffering inflicted on account of retributive justice) but as the substitute for our punishment that God, in his justice, must receive if he is not to punish sinners according to their deserving. Calvin, however, argues that Christ, in virtue of his union with mankind, voluntarily takes upon himself the liability to punishment we have on account of our sins. He is punished for our sins; we are punished by proxy in him as our substitute.
Likewise, there are important differences between what Calvin, Luther, and Wesley taught and what others, such as Johnathan Edwards Jr., John Miley, and H. Orton Wiley taught. The latter affirmed what is often called the Moral Governmental Theory of the Atonement. The main idea to this theory, which in some formulations is consistent with the views of Calvin et al., is that God as Ruler of the universe cannot simply forgive sins without Atonement. Doing so would be morally and spiritually ruinous for his creatures. Just think what would happen if the President and every Governor simply pardoned all criminals en masse. Laws would be held in contempt, personal reformation and community wellbeing would suffer. Therefore, it was necessary that Christ should become incarnate, and, sharing our nature, suffer chastisement voluntarily as a substitute for us receiving the punishment we deserve. This renders pardon consistent with God’s justice, for there is a two-fold display of God’s goodness. His hatred of sin is clearly shown, as is his love for us; the former meet the same “governmental ends” as our actually being punished would and the latter draws us to God.
While a systematic articulation of a particular view of Substitutionary Atonement emerged at the time of the Reformation, just as has been the case since then, this hardly warrants the claim that Substitutionary Atonement per se originated in the Reformation. Rather the view of the Reformers and that of Wesley, like those of Edwards and Miley, should be seen as part of a common tradition that predates the Reformation.
They all belong to the same biblically rooted doctrine of “Vicarious Satisfaction”. Depending on how terms are employed, we can say that Penal Substitutionary Atonement was first articulated (at least systematically) at the time of the Reformation without undermining the catholicity of the Reformer’s doctrine. It is a particular (and depending on who you ask, more biblically accurate) expression of Vicarious Satisfaction. Vicarious Satisfaction - the claim that Christ, by his voluntary suffering and death in our stead, satisfied the Justice of God so that God can be both ‘Just and the Justifier of those who believe’ - is something that Christians have always taught. Disputes on particular theories about how exactly this Atonement works are both interesting and important. But it in no way detracts from the fact that we, as much as the aforementioned theologians, affirm a doctrine common to Christians in every age and land.
The Scriptures plainly teach Vicarious Satisfaction as an integral part of salvation. “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities.” (Isaiah 53:5) So it comes as no surprise that this claim continued to be central to the proclamation and theology of the Church from the earliest, post-biblical era onward. It should prove edifying to see some instances of this.
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 260-340): “The Lamb of God . . . was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of forgiveness of our sins.” (Demonstration of the Gospel 10.1)
Athanasius of Alexandria (AD 296-373): “For he did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, Himself before our weakness.” (Letter to Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms)
John Chrysostom (AD 347 - 407): “He Himself, through suffering punishment, did away with both the sin and the punishment, and He was punished on the Cross.” (Homilies on Colossians, Homily 6) (347)
Augustine (354 - 430): “Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment.” (Against Faustus 14.4)
Given the wealth of such fine teaching, I feel like the Apostle who says, “And what more shall I say? For time would fail me!” But, I wish to conclude by comparing a brief summary given by the late Methodist theologian Thomas Oden with a brief summary of a key idea that Athanasius of Alexandria articulates in On the Incarnation of the Word (7.1-9.5). Oden writes: “The heart of atonement teaching is: Christ suffered in our place to satisfy the requirements of the holiness of God, so as to remove the obstacle to the pardon and reconciliation of the guilty. What the holiness of God required, the love of God provided in the cross.” (Classic Christianity, p. 403)
Athanasius argues that in virtue of the sentence of death imposed for sin by God death has acquired, as it were, a legal hold upon the human race. It would be monstrous for the just and true God to fail to uphold his sentence. Yet, it also would be unthinkable for the good and merciful God to simply let the human race suffer universal destruction. Therefore, to uphold the divine consistency it was necessary for the Word of the Father to fulfill in himself the very sentence of death pronounced upon sin to free us from it. So that is what Christ did.
Whoever can affirm these teachings, whether he be a fourth century bishop or a twenty-first century layman, has gotten ahold of something of “first importance” indeed! It was passed down to us by those of former times. It therefore behooves us to guard this sound doctrine, to deliver it to others in turn, so that the apostolic preaching of the Cross shall not cease as long as the world endures.
