Atonement Theories. Part 1. The Various Theories

October 26, 2024, updated May 20, 2025

To summarize the most important models or theories of atonement, I used the following: ‘Seven Atonement Theories,’ a YouTube presentation by Steve D. Morrison, and eight models of Atonement from the book titled ‘Christian Theology,’ authored by Dr. Adam Hardwood and published by Lexham Academic.

How is Christ’s life, death, and resurrection explained? Why did Jesus need to die on the cross? There are more than eight theories or models, but these eight are the most prominent ones according to Steve and Adam. They are not mutually exclusive. Many elements in these models seem to align with biblical evidence. The life and death of Christ are more complex and comprehensive than any single theory. This explains why the church, throughout its history, has never settled on a single atonement statement. No church council, as far as I know, adopted a definitive statement like the ones we have about the deity of Christ and the triune nature of the Godhead.

1. The Moral Influence Theory emphasizes that Christ’s life serves as an example for all to follow. Augustine supported this view alongside the ransom theory. Jesus Christ’s life, teachings, deeds, and His death on the cross motivate us to live moral and godly lives. This isn’t about self-help but highlights God’s grace and truth in enabling us to do so. The Holy Spirit empowers us to maintain close communion with God. Jesus provides the perfect example. This theory shifts the focus of the atonement from just the death of Christ to His entire life. It emphasizes that loving Christ and being a Christian means walking as He walked, not just believing certain truths. Other atonement theories often overlook the ethical aspects of salvation. This view considers both profession and practice as important.

According to Dr. Hardwood, this theory was developed in response to Anselm’s “satisfaction theory” of the atonement. It states that the only barrier to fellowship between God and humanity is the sinful pride and stubborn will of the unrepentant. There is no issue to be resolved between man and God beyond repentance and faith in God. Peter Abelard (1079-1142) explained that Christ’s death on the cross reveals God’s love for us. That love motivates us to become more like Christ in righteous and godly living. This theory emphasizes what the death of Christ does in us, not in God, and is a subjective model or theory of atonement. Other theories are objective and mainly focus on the effects of the atonement on God.

Horace Bushnell (1802-1876) stated that in the atonement, Jesus was a vicarious sacrifice. Jesus represented sinful humanity by His death on the cross, but Jesus did not become sin for us and was not punished by God, as a sinner, for us, as is the case in some atonement models (such as the PSA theory). At great personal suffering and death on the cross, Jesus brings some of us out of our sins and therefore the punishment required by those sins. 1 Peter 2:24 speaks of Jesus bearing our sins on the cross so that we might start living righteously, not to satisfy God’s wrath as some atonement models stipulate. The death of Christ reveals God’s love for us, inspiring us to repent and have faith in Him.

The model sounds Biblical and reasonable. Is there anything missing?

• Ransom Theory. This is the most solid theory. Jesus died as a ransom paid to either death, Satan, or God the Father. The idea behind the ransom theory is to buy back or purchase the human race. Must God pay the devil? That is doubtful and problematic. Some modern interpreters say death and evil are paid off, whatever that means. That, too, seems unlikely and makes little sense.

Dr. Hardwood states that this theory and the Christus Victor theory are closely related and are often combined in systematic theology books. The word ‘ransom’ is used only twice in the New Testament: Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45. Jesus came to give His life as a ransom for many. In the Old Testament, this word for ransom in the LXX replaces three Hebrew words and is used 99 times. It can mean deliverance or the payment of a price. In this view, Christ’s death is seen as a ransom. Ransom is regarded as a commercial transaction where His death is the price paid to free us from the bondage of sin. To whom was it paid? Some say it was paid to Satan, to God, or death. “In colloquial terms, mothers ‘pay the price’ to deliver a child, but that price is paid to no one” (Page 447, Hardwood’s book). Ransom can also mean deliverance without any payment involved. This last interpretation seems quite biblical to me.

• Christus Victor Theory. Considered the most dominant up to the time of Anselm around 1100 AD. Christ died to defeat the powers of evil, the devil, sin, and death. No ransom (as in a price) is involved; instead, it emphasizes Christ’s success and achievement in overcoming these forces. This model is the most consistently held theory. It describes atonement as victory over sin, death, the devil, and the world. According to this theory, Adam and Eve’s fall made humanity subject to the Devil, and to redeem us, Christ must shed His sinless blood to reconcile the world to God.

Dr. Hardwood describes this theory as Christ’s life, death, and resurrection as the ultimate expression of a cosmic conflict. Christ conquers the forces of darkness, sin, and Satan himself. It does not rule out satisfaction or ransom, nor does it include it. But the Bible says Christ ransomed us, so it must be included. Ransom can mean deliverance, where no price is paid to someone.

J. C. Lamont, Biblical Scholar, has the following view. The Book of Colossians talks about a document nailed to the cross. What is that referring to? What document?

“And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” Colossians 2:13-15, emphasis added.

She says the document is Satan’s ‘ownership’ of the nations. Satan’s inheritance of the nations is what was nailed to the cross. She says that Satan forfeited that inheritance by illegally killing Jesus, an innocent man. But the verse above simply states that Jesus atoned for or cleansed our record of sins by His death. He nailed that record of sins to the cross and wiped it clean. I believe the word inheritance is a challenging word because Satan has no inheritance other than the second death and the lake of fire. Only sons and daughters of the Almighty will inherit the kingdom of God.

“When the Most-High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” Deuteronomy 32:8. Verse 9 says that the LORD’s portion is his people, and Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. This inheritance for Israel and all other nations is conditional. Lamont believes this verse establishes the idea of Satan’s inheritance. I am not convinced her interpretation is correct.

I wonder if there is an early church nuance to this view that she overlooked. She was slightly wrong about the Christus Victor view of the atonement, I think. She likened this to Satan owning a house and his deed to that ownership being nailed to the cross by the death and resurrection of Jesus. I believe the early church understood it differently— not as Satan’s ownership of the deed, but as his “ownership” of the nations being what is forfeited. People groups worship Satan under various names, and he is the god of the world. Through their sinful gratification of the flesh and worship of idols, the peoples of the nations made Satan the god of the world and their nations. That was nailed to the cross— Satan’s record of our sins, which proved that he is their god. Was it the deed of ownership or the record of sin that bound all nations to Satan and was nailed to the cross? The record of sins is the proof of ownership, according to Lamont. That certificate is now blank and empty, since the inheritance of Satan is nailed to the cross. On the Day of Atonement, the blood cleansed everything, including the material furnishings of the tent of meeting and the people. Satan killed Jesus, an innocent man, illegally, and therefore Jesus conquered Satan, death, and sin. Jesus cleansed our record of sin, which Satan used to prove his “ownership” of the nations. That record was nailed to the cross. We are now free to serve God.

Ownership can be a complex concept to accept. God, not Satan, owns everything on the earth and throughout the universe. Satan owns nothing. People make Satan their god by listening to and obeying him and sinning against their creator. Only in that limited sense does Satan ‘own’ us. God owns everything, including Satan and all humanity.

In the PSA view, the document nailed to the cross is different. It is the full payment for the dismissal of sin.

• The Satisfaction Theory, proposed in the 12th century by Anselm, was a challenge to the Christus Victor Theory. It views satisfaction as making restitution for a debt owed by us. The justice of God must be satisfied because sin is an injustice that must be addressed and rectified. The Ransom theory was flawed in suggesting a payment to the devil. According to this theory, humanity owes a debt to God, not Satan or death. Jesus satisfies God’s justice through His death. God must be the object of the atonement. Jesus satisfies something within God’s being, which then makes God disposed to help us. The death of Christ propitiates God. But who says God needed to be propitiated before He would help us? Many of us do not believe that God required any inducement to assist the human race.

Dr. Hardwood’s comments on this theory are that it is an objective model of atonement. Therefore, the most significant effect is on God rather than man. Jesus’s death satisfies God’s wounded honor and majesty because of our sins. His majesty, glory, and honor required satisfaction, hence atonement. The nature of God necessitated this, they say. This is reflected in the writings of Augustine and Gregory the Great. No explicit Biblical support is evident. This theory is sometimes confused with PSA.

• Penal Substitutionary Theory (PSA). Anselm’s theory in the 12^th Century was expanded upon and modified by the Reformers in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Jesus died to satisfy God’s wrath against our sin. Jesus is punished in our place for our sin and satisfies the justice and holiness of God. God must punish sin, and Christ is our substitute. God the Father pours out all of His wrath against sin on Christ. Thus, this explanation of the atonement appeases His wrath. Atonement is much like a courtroom drama. Imputed righteousness and imputed obedience are part of this model. This theory satisfies the retributive justice of God. The problem is that it appears a wrathful Father must punish a merciful and innocent son, Jesus. Far too violent in the eyes of some. This is the most common theory today. God is made to look like a cosmic child abuser, which is one of the complaints. Since when does the God of the Bible punish the innocent and set free the guilty? And if Jesus paid for all sins, does that include future sins as well? If all sins are paid for, why do sinners need to repent?

Dr. Hardwood states that John Calvin is an exemplar of this theory.Jesus died on the cross as the substitute for our sins and to satisfy the wrath of God. Christ becomes sin and is cursed by God. By His death, the estrangement from God is erased, and Christ becomes our righteousness and our obedience. Some objections to this theory are that it implies injustice in God, abuse by God (cosmic child abuse), and that it reeks of pagan rituals of violent sacrifices to placate a wrathful deity. Agreed on all the objections. Let me add one other key objection. The idea that Christ is our obedience is a primary reason why the church is full of unsaved hypocrites and backslidden Christians who have been deceived into believing they are on the way to paradise when they are on the fast track to hell.

And what do they do with this verse, “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” 1 Corinthians 12:3. This verse states that no man who has the Spirit will call Jesus cursed. But that is precisely what Calvin and many other Reformers have always explicitly claimed when affirming the PSA doctrine. This verse shows that they are not speaking the truth and are not speaking by the Holy Ghost. So where must their false doctrine come from? Does it become any clearer?

• The Governmental Theory. God shows His displeasure with sin through the death of Christ. Similar to PSA, but instead of Christ suffering the full penalty for our sin, He suffers only for sin, not the complete amount. God makes His displeasure known toward sin, but in the church, we can be saved from God’s wrath, much like Noah’s ark. Being saved means being in the church, which is God’s ark. I believe Finney based his teaching on this theory, which is about satisfying public justice rather than retributive justice as in PSA.

Dr. Hardwood credits Grotius (1583-1645) for this theory. It explains that God is the sovereign over the world. Our sins must be dealt with in a way that discourages others from sin. Christ paid the penalty for our sins, which is the obstacle that separates us from God. God was already inclined to forgive us our sins, but sin must be punished according to the principles of public justice. Christ willingly gave His life with much suffering and torture to save us from the wages of sin and eternal death. This demonstrated God’s justice. Some limited aspects of penal substitution are apparent in this system.

What message would it send to the universe of moral agents if God did not uphold the spirit of the law? What message would it send to moral beings if the punishment for sin were not clearly shown to discourage others from choosing this path? The sacrifice of Christ on the cross is God’s way of deterring ongoing sin. Christ suffered for us. And if we do not take sin seriously and repent, someday we will suffer for our sins. Public justice refers to the justice that maintains order in the moral universe.   

• The Scapegoat Theory. This is a modern understanding of atonement, which is a non-violent theory unlike the PSA theory. God acts for our good and not to punish us or satisfy God’s wrath or retributive justice. Humanity is the violent agent, and Jesus is seen as the scapegoat to satisfy human violence. The violent crowd kills Jesus; the crowd believes Jesus is guilty, but he is ultimately proven innocent. In the end, the crowd is found guilty and condemned. God is the victim, not the perpetrator of violence. But is that always true? Does God ever use violence?

There is no doubt that God is a victim of our sins and is grieved and angered by our rebellion. Anyone knowledgeable of the Old Testament knows that God, when faced with no other viable choice because of the stubborn impenitence of sinners, used violence to correct and punish Israel and the surrounding wicked nations.

• Hardwood’s book includes the Substitution Theory. This theory states that Jesus died in our place as our substitute. 1 Corinthians 15:3b states that Christ died for our sins according to scripture. Some theologians agree that Christ died as our substitute but deny that Christ died to satisfy God’s wrath or that God punished Jesus. C. H. Dodd sees substitution as expiation (removing sin and its guilt, and a way to atone for wrongdoing) and not propitiation (appeasing God’s wrath). James D. G. Dunn objects to the idea of appeasing God’s wrath since God Himself provided the substitute, the sacrifice. He says that Israel, in its sacrifices, never propitiated or appeased God. He believes that atonement was not made for God but for sin and sinners. W. T. Conner argues that Christ saves us for God, not from God. Others say that Christ willingly gave His life for us, but that doesn’t mean God punished His son Jesus. That Christ died as our substitute is stated in many passages. The substitution model affirms that Jesus died as our substitute, but it denies that it was to satisfy God’s wrath or that God punished Jesus for us.

 Add to the above eight theories or models of atonement the following.

• Paul Vendreti believes in the Restored Icon Theory or model of the atonement discussed below in the PSA analysis. It is a theory that does not require restitution. Christ died to restore the image of God’s likeness in us.
• Penal Cancellation Theory (PCA, not PSA). J. C. Lamont’s material is included in the last section. This theory says that the atonement of Christ cancels (wipes away) the repentant person’s sins; it doesn’t satisfy the wrath of God or the justice of God, as is the case in the PSA model.
• Return to Eden atonement model. This is my atonement theory. It explains why Jesus came to Earth and died a horrible death on the cross. Jesus Christ came so that we might again place our confidence, trust, and faith in God. It is a return to faith in God. My understanding of why Jesus came and died is similar to the Christus Victor view and the Restored Icon theory, and shares some aspects with other views, all of which contain some truth. I arrive at that based on the following three reasons.

• In the Garden of Eden, the serpent convinced Adam and Eve to doubt the trustworthiness of God. They lost confidence and trust in the goodness of God and then lost their faith in God. They sinned.  Jesus’ birth, life, death, and resurrection are meant to restore our confidence, trust, and faith in God once again. It was lost in the Garden of Eden by the first Adam. The second Adam came to restore humanity to God.

Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. God did not need restitution for sin, although our sins against His laws violate His moral code and harm others. The death of Christ is not to restore His honor or pay God back for what we have robbed Him of, but to let the universe know that sin is evil and must be dealt with. How could God exercise mercy and simply forgive sinners without requiring atonement in the sense of satisfying public justice? The law must be honored because of its necessity for humanity’s well-being. Could God forgive sin without Christ dying on the cross and still be just and the justifier of all who believe in Him? Without Christ’s death on the cross, humanity might think sin is not a big deal. In addition to Christ’s atonement, humanity must repent and believe to be reconciled to God. To repent and believe the gospel is a return to confidence, trust, and faith in God. It is a return to Eden.

• In Matthew 1:21, the angel announced the coming birth of Jesus. “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.” It is most clearly written and announced from heaven that the purpose for which Jesus Christ came into this world is to save His people from their sins, and not in their sins. Most of Christianity today, as in the past, is the gospel of salvation in the ongoing practice of sin and not from sin. The angel announced this as the purpose for which Jesus Christ came into the world. He came to heal us from sin, for the wages of sin are death. Based on our repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, God not only forgives our sins and the guilt associated with them, but He also breaks the power and bondage to sin in our lives. Jesus cleanses us from sin and the guilt and pollution that come with it. Forgiveness and restoration, from walking in darkness to walking in light, from living in sin to living in righteousness; that is the purpose of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This would bring us back to what it was like in the Garden of Eden before the fall. All sin begins with a loss of confidence, trust, and faith in God. Temptation has its power in our loss of confidence, trust, and faith in God.
• God, the governor and sovereign of the physical and moral universe, has always been inclined to seek and then save the lost, if it can be done wisely. Christ’s death did not make God the Father inclined toward mercy, nor was it needed to propitiate Him. God’s love for even His enemies brought about the atonement. Christ’s death on the cross was meant to satisfy public justice (not retributive justice). God, the ruler of the moral universe, did not want to send the wrong message to the universe; that sin is a trifle and can be dismissed easily. Love compelled Him to demonstrate the honor and necessity of the moral law for the well-being of His moral creation. Retributive justice treats everyone according to their character and must be imposed when all other avenues of redemption have been exhausted. Public justice consists in the promotion, protection, and advancement of the highest and best interests of the general public in enacting laws and the enforcement of those laws. Not enforcing retributive justice can only be done properly when the highest good of public interests is secured. But when these public interests can be secured, then it is in the highest interests of public justice to extend pardon and mercy on condition that it not be repeated. Mercy triumphs over judgment. For if pardon/mercy became repetitious, that would diminish the force and influence of the law. That, in turn, would not promote the highest well-being of the public. People would naturally get a false hope that they could be careless when it comes to sin in their lives. In our churches today, the candy of false hope is handed out by the boatload. Imputed obedience and eternal security are two such false doctrines that peddle a false and ruinous hope of being saved in sin and not from sin.

Christ willingly went to the cross; no one forced Him. During the annual atonement, no sheep, lamb, or goat ever volunteered to die as a sin offering or Passover sacrifice. Christ suffered for us as our substitute to uphold the highest principles of justice and the common good. Sinless Christ owed no suffering to God’s law because He never broke it. He suffered in our place, as our substitute. Christ was never our substitute for obeying God’s will, which is emphasized in the PSA theory of the atonement. No one can do more than what God’s law requires, which is to love God above all. Christ obeyed the law for Himself, not for us. Suffering for us is the only part of Christ’s death that goes beyond what is required. Christ is not our obedience to God’s law. Imputed obedience is fundamentally false. Christ could neither obey the law for us nor did He do so. The idea of Christ’s supererogatory obedience is false and is the basis for the false doctrine of imputed obedience for sinners.

“It is a fact well established by the experiences of all ages and nations, that the exercise of mercy, in setting aside the execution of penalties, is a matter of extreme delicacy and danger. The influence of the law, as might be expected, is found very much to depend upon the certainty felt by the subjects that it will be duly executed. It is found in experience, to be true, that the exercise of mercy in every government where no atonement is made, weakens government, by begetting and fostering a hope of impunity in the minds of those who are tempted to violate the law.” Page 196 Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology, published by Bethany House.

Finney further explains this idea. If the governor or sovereign of the land finds violations of the law, he must punish according to the letter of the law to ensure public justice. If there is an opportunity to set aside penalties of the law based on mercy and the repentance of the criminal, then he must prioritize the public good. To do this, he has two options: 1) he must find a substitute, or 2) ensure that something is done to preserve the effectiveness of the law’s influence, as punishment would achieve. This is where the death of Jesus Christ becomes relevant. God cannot make exceptions to the spirit of the law, but can make exceptions to the letter of the law. The soul that sins shall die, according to the letter of the law, or a substitute must be provided to satisfy the spirit of the law. The governor, when exercising mercy, must seek to secure public justice, not merely retributive justice. In this sense, Jesus is our substitute, and our repentance and faith are conditions for pardon.

Summary of these eleven theories or models explaining the atonement.

• Some require payment to satisfy God’s wrath or justice against sin, but not all do
• Some theories or models are about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and have no payment for sin involved at all
• Some view the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as equally important, while some view only the death of Christ on the cross with such great importance
• Some state that Christ came to encourage and empower us to follow His example in victory over the world, the flesh, sin, and the devil

What is the Definition of the word “atonement”?

Some theologians argue that the definition of atonement involves providing restitution for the crime or offense committed and purifying. That is the Hebrew word, kippur. Atonement can also be seen as the removal of obstacles to reconciliation with God. Additionally, in scripture, atonement refers to suffering the penalty for sins, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing them to be reconciled to God. Atonement offers the covering of sins, similar to the mercy seat on the Ark of the Covenant, which housed the law of God.

According to Charles G. Finney, atonement is equivalent to the Hebrew word cofer. This is a noun derived from the verb, caufar, meaning “to cover.” It is the name of the lid on the Ark of the Covenant, known as the mercy-seat. The Greek word signifies reconciliation to favor, or more precisely, the means or conditions for reconciliation and favor, involving change or exchange. It signifies substitution or the governmental substitution of Christ’s sufferings for the punishment of sinners. It represents a covering of their sins through His sufferings.

The critical question is:

Why did the second person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ, become a man, walk among us, die on the cross, a horrible and cruel death, and rise from the dead? Why did Jesus Christ need to die such a violent death? What was the meaning and purpose of all this?

As mentioned, the atonement models aim to explain the reasons behind Christ’s incarnation, life and teachings, death, and resurrection. I agree with some of the ideas presented in these various models. I offered my interpretation, which simply builds upon those proposed by individuals much more qualified than I.

The theory or model of the Atonement that receives the most attention is the PSA, which we will now examine more closely.