The Nature of the Atonement

Phil Johnson
Executive Director, Grace to You

This seminar will explore the meaning of the atonement itself, and examine some dangerous
corruptions of this vital doctrine.

I. Substitutionary Atonement Addressed

a. One of the “fundamentals” of the faith
b. At the start of the fundamentalist movement (end of the 19th century) this
doctrine was one of the main battlegrounds
c. Many modern evangelicals seem to be of the opinion that it doesn’t really matter
what view of the atonement you hold, as long as you believe that in some sense
Jesus’ death atoned for sins.
d. This erosion of commitment to a right understanding of the atonement is one of
the main reasons the whole evangelical movement today is in serious trouble.

II. Three Wrong Views of the Atonement and their Hazard to the Gospel
a. The Ransom Theory
i. Origen developed this theory
ii. View: Satan was tricked into accepting Christ’s death in exchange for
the souls of sinners, not realizing that Christ would rise from the dead.
iii. Based on a misunderstanding of Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:6; defines
“ransom” in these verses as a fee paid to Satan to purchase the release of
sinners
iv. Revival of this view in recent years by various charismatic teachers,
especially Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, and others in the word-
faith movement
1. They teach that Christ purchased ransom for sinners by literally
suffering in hell
2. They surmise that when He died He descended into hell and
suffered there in order to render a payment for sin to Satan
v. What’s wrong with this view?
1. Scripture does not imply that Satan has any legitimate claim on
sinners
2. Satan is not the one who must be satisfied before sinners may be
redeemed
3. Biblical word ransom simply means “redemption-price”; it does
not necessarily imply a price paid to Satan.
4. Scripture teaches that Christ’s atonement was a sacrifice to God
a. Ephesians 5:2
b. Isaiah 53:10 (“The Lord was pleased to crush Him,
putting Him to grief; if He would render Himself as a
guilt offering.”)
b. The Moral Influence Theory
i. Peter Abelard (12th century) developed this theory
ii. Abelard’s view:
1. Christ’s death was an example for believers to follow, a radical
expression of love that influences sinners morally and gives
 2

them a pattern to follow but does not actually pay any price on
their behalf
2. God’s justice demands no actual payment for sin
3. God’s justice is subjugated to His love
iii. What’s wrong with this view?
1. Bernard of Clairvaux, a contemporary of Abelard, noted that if
Christ’s death was merely an example, then the actual work of
salvation is still the sinner’s task to perform
2. The Council of Sens in 1141 declared Abelard a heretic
iv. This view resurfaced during the Reformation in the teaching of the
Socinians
1. They insisted that God’s predominate attribute is His love, which
virtually cancels out His wrath
2. Therefore God is inclined to pardon sinners without demanding
any payment
3. They taught that Christ’s death served as an example of
obedience and love to believers, pointing the way to life
v. There has been a revival of this view in modern times among
evangelicals who adhere to Open Theism—see John Sanders’ book The
God Who Risks
vi. Major Problem with this view?
1. This view makes the atonement nothing more than an example
and as a result there is no real propitiatory aspect to Christ’s
death
2. If sinners are “redeemed” by following an example of Christ,
then “salvation” is reduced to moral reform motivated by love—
and salvation is by works
3. Abelard’s argument for this view is that divine forgiveness is so
lavish that it renders a payment for sin unnecessary
4. But Scripture says that “without shedding of blood there is no
forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22); divine forgiveness is rooted and
grounded in a blood atonement
c. The Governmental Theory
i. This view was devised by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) during the
Arminian controversy in Holland
ii. The view:
1. It stated that God Himself requires no payment for sin, but that
public justice did require some token or display of how much
God despises sin.
2. Christ was sacrificed to display to the world what God’s wrath
against sin looks like.
3. The atonement accomplished nothing objective on the sinner’s
behalf. Redemption therefore is primarily a subjective issue
hinging completely on the sinner’s response.
iii. Modern revival of this view
1. Embraced by several New England theologians in the 17th and
18th centuries, including Charles Finney and Albert Barnes
2. Promoted through groups like Youth With A Mission (YWAM)
and popular Christian authors and speakers, such as Jed Smock
(“Brother Jed”), a well-known campus evangelist, and George
 3

Otis (see his message entitled “The Atonement” at

http://www.concentric.net/~for1/otisa.htm)
3. Man-centered revivalism is linked with this theory. See Web site
www.revivaltheology.com
4. Popular among Charismatics, especially in the Assemblies of
God
iv. Major problems with this view
1. Defines salvation in terms of what the sinner must do leading to
perfectionism, moralism, or other works-based forms of religion
2. Redefines the significance of the cross: rather than emphasizing
what Christ objectively accomplished there, people who hold to
this view must define the cross in terms of how it can
subjectively change the human heart

III. The True Doctrine of Atonement: Christ’s Death as a Penal Substitution

a. Doctrine of Atonement taught in Scripture
i. Christ’s death was a substitution for sinners
ii. God imputed the guilt of their transgressions to Christ and then punished
Him for it
iii. This was a full payment for the price of sins, to satisfy both the wrath
and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sins without
compromising His own holy standard
b. This doctrine was an essential part of Christian doctrine from the beginning
i. Anselm of Canterbury focused his efforts to understand this doctrine
1. He wrote Cur Deus Homo? (Why Did God Become Man?)
2. This offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was
not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to
God on behalf of sinners
ii. Anselm’s work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation,
specifically the understanding of justification by faith
c. Biblical texts that prove this view
i. Isaiah 53
1. vs. 5-6 speaks specifically of the imputation of the sinner’s guilt
to Christ
2. vs. 8-9 states that Christ was punished for others’ sins and He
Himself was innocent of any wrong doing
3. vs. 10 underscores the fact that it was God who exacted the
penalty for sin
4. vs. 11 highlights the principle of substitution, alongside the
notion that this is a penal substitution
ii. Other verses that underscore the substitutionary nature of the atonement
1. 2 Corinthians 5:21
2. Galatians 3:13
3. 1 Peter 2:24
4. 1 Peter 3:18
5. 1 John 2:2
d. Scripture teaches that divine justice is perfectly fulfilled in the atoning work of
Christ
i. Romans 1:17
ii. 1 John 1:9
 4

iii. He doesn’t merely set aside justice and forgive us out of the sheer
abundance of His mercy; He forgives because it is an act of justice to do
so (Romans 3:26).
IV. The Extent of the Atonement
a. Limited Atonement: everyone “limits” the atonement in some way
i. Arminians limit the efficacy of the atonement
ii. Calvinists believe the atonement is unlimited in its efficacy and limited
only in its design
1. We believe the atonement accomplishes precisely what God
sovereignly designed it to accomplish—no more, no less
2. God’s ultimate purpose in the atonement was the salvation of the
elect
b. True Calvinism does not teach the atonement is limited in its sufficiency (See the
Cannons of the synod of Dordt of 1619)
c. It is the design of the atonement—the eternal purpose of God—that is limited.
God’s saving purpose is focused on the elect in particular
d. Because the atonement is substitutionary it must apply to particular people
i. Example of Pharaoh and Judas, suffering for their own sins in hell
ii. The substitutionary aspects of Christ’s death belong to the elect alone