The Coherence of Atonement

The cross of Jesus Christ is a central focal point of Christian faith. Christians believe that Jesus’s death on the cross and subsequent resurrection was a fundamentally important event that somehow or other has provided a way for the salvation for humankind. In Christian theology, this is known as the doctrine of the Atonement. Different Christian traditions and theologians have articulated various “theories” of the Atonement. AntiChristian skeptics argue that none of these theories of the Atonement are coherent, and that the idea of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is merely a superstitious and barbaric idea that should be discarded by modern, enlightened people.

In this previous theology post, I have articulated what I believe to be a coherent account of the Atonement. I have done so by combining the insights of the Moral Influence Theory, the Christus Victor Theory, and the Penal Substitution Theory, and responding to some of the common objections to each of these theories. In this apologetics post, I will respond to some more objections to some major Christian theories of the Atonement and explain in more detail why the doctrine of the Atonement is coherent.

The Christus Victor Theory

According to the Christus Victor Theory of the Atonement, through Jesus’s death and resurrection God won a victory over the powers of evil, and Christians can share in that victory through faith in Jesus.  One common objection to this theory is, if God really won a victory over Satan through Jesus, why does the world still contain so much evil? The answer is that, though Jesus has won a decisive victory over the powers of evil through His cross and resurrection, that victory will not be fully consummated until Jesus’s Second Coming. Until then, the community of Jesus’s followers, the body of Christ, lives out the reality of that victory (imperfectly) in the midst of a world that has not yet acknowledged the reality of Jesus’s victory over the powers of evil. 

Another objection to the Christus Victor Theory of the Atonement is, if Satan has been objectively defeated, and humanity objectively saved, why is salvation dependent on whether we believe in Jesus or not? The answer is that God’s victory over the powers of evil is centered in Jesus Christ, and it is only through union with Christ that individual human beings are able to share in that victory. Such union with Christ occurs only through putting faith in Christ and being baptized into His body, the Church. In between Jesus’s First and Second Comings, human beings have the freedom to share in Jesus’s victory over evil through faith in Him and be saved, or to side with the defeated and doomed powers of evil and perish with them. 

The Penal Substitution Theory

According to the Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement, on the cross, Jesus took upon Himself the penalty for the sins of humanity, so that we could be forgiven. Many proponents of this theory have argued that a sin against an infinite God merits an infinite punishment. So, the infinite God Incarnate Himself had to suffer and die in order to pay the infinite penalty for our sin. 

Numerous objections to this understanding of Atonement have been raised. Skeptics have argued that human sin cannot really be all that bad, and that no one deserves to be crucified to death, much less to experience eternal death. How could a good God, a loving Heavenly Father, justly inflict infinite punishment for our finite sins? In response, as sinners, we are simply not in a position to know that our sins are really not that bad. The argument that a sin against an infinite God is an infinite offense is perfectly sound. Skeptics have countered that “if one sin can cause an infinite insult to God then one good deed can bring about an infinite amount of good.”^[1]John W. Loftus. Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, Revised and Expanded Edition (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2012), 401. However, this does not logically follow, since we owe God perfect obedience, and do not in any way make Him in our debt by doing the good that we simply ought to do. 

It is not the case that God arbitrarily assigns punishment to us for our sins; rather, eternal death is the natural and inevitable consequence of our sin. But God has graciously and lovingly taken those consequences of our sin upon Himself on the cross. Skeptics have countered that Jesus suffering and dying on the cross was merely a finite punishment, not an infinite one. But Jesus suffering and dying on the cross was an infinite punishment due to the fact that the infinite God Himself experienced this suffering and death. 

Some more common objections to the Penal Substitution Theory are: How can a just God punish an innocent person? How can sin and guilt be transferred from one person to another? And, how can we rightly say that God forgives us if He actually requires punishment, just transferred to a different person? Doesn’t real forgiveness mean not punishing the guilty?

In response, the point of Atonement is not that God punished an innocent person, but that in Jesus God has taken the consequences of humanity’s sin upon Himself. God was able to take humanity’s guilt upon Himself because He became one of us, entering into solidarity with us “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). 

Forgiveness does not mean that the consequences of a person’s sin magically disappear. Consider an analogy: your son borrows your car, drives recklessly, and crashes it. Just saying, “I forgive you” will not erase the negative consequences of his sin. You can either make him pay for the damage he has done, or you can forgive him, and absorb the cost of his wrongdoing upon yourself. On the cross, God absorbed the negative consequences of humanity’s wrongdoing upon Himself, and it is precisely in and through this act that God offers us forgiveness.