Atonement in Christianity
Atonement in Christianity, often referred to as "at-one-ment," is a central doctrine that describes how humanity can restore its relationship with God following the original sin of Adam and Eve. Mainstream Christian belief holds that Jesus Christ atoned for human sin through his crucifixion, providing a means of salvation that would otherwise be unattainable due to humanity's sinful nature. This concept differs from Jewish practices of atonement, where individuals are expected to make reparations for their sins, as in the observance of Yom Kippur. In Christianity, the atonement is seen as a divine act where God, as Christ, offers himself as both the sacrifice and the recipient of that sacrifice.
Interpretations of atonement vary widely across Christian denominations. The satisfaction theory, articulated by Saint Anselm in the 11th century, posits that only God can satisfy the infinite consequences of sin, while the penal substitution theory, developed during the Reformation, suggests Christ suffered the penalties of sin on behalf of humanity. This has led to debates about the scope of atonement, with some theologians advocating for limited atonement, applicable only to the predestined elect, while others support unlimited atonement for all people. The ongoing discussions around atonement also reflect contemporary theological concerns, with some perspectives critiquing traditional narratives for potentially endorsing social injustices. Overall, the doctrine of atonement remains a complex and often contentious topic within Christian theology.
On this Page
Atonement in Christianity
The doctrine of atonement, literally "at-one-ment," is central to Christian theology. Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus Christ atoned for the sinfulness of humanity by dying on the cross. The satisfaction offered to God by Christ is what makes the salvation of sinful human beings possible. Without Christ’s atonement, Christians believe that humans, tainted by sin since the Fall of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, would have no way of satisfying God and gaining salvation. However, interpretations of the doctrine of atonement have greatly varied over time and between Christian sects and denominations.
Brief History
Like many Christian doctrines, atonement has roots in Judaism, a religion that places great emphasis on atonement. The Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement, when Jews are expected to make restitution through fasting and prayer for their violations of the Law over the preceding year. Christianity differs from Judaism in that rather than individuals atoning for their individual sins, God Himself, as Christ, is the one offering as well as receiving, atonement. The Christian Bible’s New Testament mentions Christ as a sacrifice on many occasions, including the words of Christ. In the Gospel of Mark, Christ describes himself as "a ransom for many." The Gospel of John refers to the Lamb of God, explicitly comparing Christ to the Pascal Lamb sacrificed by Jews on the holiday of Passover. The idea was further developed in the New Testament in the letters of Paul and the anonymous letter to the Hebrews. The author of the letter to the Hebrews points out to his Jewish audience that Christ’s atonement has eliminated the need for making sacrifices to atone to God.
A popular interpretation of the atonement in early Christianity, possibly stemming from the third-century Greek Church father Origen, was that it was a kind of trick played on Satan. From the Fall of Adam and Eve, Satan had acquired rights over sinful humankind. By attempting to exercise those rights over the sinless Christ, Satan exceeded his permitted bounds, and thus forfeited his rights over humanity. This is sometimes called the ransom theory, as in it, Christ is a ransom paid to Satan in return for his releasing humankind, whom he holds as prisoner. However, because Satan was powerless compared with God, this raised the question of why the atonement was even necessary, or what legitimate claim a rebel and outlaw such as Satan could even make. Another idea traceable to early Christianity is that by suffering as humanity’s representative, Christ raised the dignity of human nature to a divine level. This interpretation has been particularly influential in the Eastern Orthodox churches.
The most influential work on atonement in the Western tradition was written in the eleventh century. Cur Deus Homo, or Why God Became Man, by Saint Anselm of Canterbury, took Satan out of the picture. Since God is infinite, Anselm reasoned, any sin committed against him is also infinite. Therefore, recompense can be made not by finite humans, but only by an infinite being, God himself. The Crucifixion was God’s atonement to God made for the sake of sinful humanity. Anselm’s doctrine was accepted by the mainstream of medieval Scholasticism coming from the philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas and remains the doctrine of the Catholic Church. However, some radical thinkers known as Nominalists thought it too much of a limitation on God’s power to say that there is only one way for atonement to work. The atonement of Christ was God's free choice, but as an omnipotent being, God could have chosen any other way of atonement.
Atonement Today
The sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers developed Anselm’s theory in a direction known as penal, or substitutionary, atonement. This theory holds that Christ suffered on the cross the penalties due to human sin, thus freeing humans of the burden. While Anselm viewed the atonement as satisfying the honor of God, supporters of penal atonement view it as satisfying the justice of God. Some versions of this theory hold that Christ even experienced the extreme alienation from God that is the lot of the sinner, while others criticized penal atonement for making God the Father a sadistic hater of his own Son.
Reformation theologians also dealt with the question of who benefited from the atonement, given that most people would not be saved anyway. Strict followers of the French Protestant theologian John Calvin argued for limited atonement, one of the Five Principles of Calvinism set forth in the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), although some theologians and Calvin scholars argue that the doctrine is a vulgarization of Calvin’s thinking. The doctrine of limited atonement asserts that Christ died not for all humanity, but for the elect, that small minority in Calvinist theology predestined to salvation from the beginning of the world. Calvinism’s opponents, the Arminians, argue for unlimited atonement, the doctrine that holds that Christ died for the salvation of all, although not all people will respond to his call and thus be saved. The Arminians are named after the seventeenth-century Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius. Later Arminians included John Wesley, the founder of Methodism.
The atonement remains one of the most controversial areas of Christian theology, particularly in Protestantism. Although many modern Christians see the doctrine of atonement as central to their faith, they continue to disagree on what atonement actually means and who is actually being atoned for. Most commonly, conditions under which an individual can fully enjoy the benefits of the atonement include repentance for sin and faith in Christ. A minority of Christians are "universalists," who claim that Christ’s atonement suffices for all, regardless of their beliefs or actions on earth, and therefore all will be saved. Others, particularly those associated with feminist, Black, or liberation theologies, argue that the emphasis on Christ’s submission to unjust violence in Anselm’s atonement narrative serves to legitimate violent and unjust authorities on earth.
Bibliography
Ensor, Peter. “Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Later Ante-Nicene Period.” Evangelical Quarterly, no. 4, p. 346, doi.org/10.1163/27725472-08704003. Accessed 1 Dec. 2024.
Gathercole, Simon. Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul. Baker Academic, 2015.
Gunton, Colin E. The Actuality of Atonement: A Study of Metaphor, Rationality and the Christian Tradition. A&C Black, 2003.
Jacquette, Dale. “Collingwood on Religious Atonement.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, vol. 76, no. 2, 2014, pp. 151–70, doi.org/10.1007/s11153-014-9456-3. Accessed 1 Dec. 2024.
Pugh, Ben. Atonement Theories: A Way through the Maze. Wipf, 2014.
"Salvation – Atonement." BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zdwj382/revision/2. Accessed 1 Dec. 2024.
Suarez, Antoine. "Can We Give Up the Origin of Humanity from a Primal Couple without Giving Up the Teaching of Original Sin and Atonement?" Science & Christian Belief, vol. 27, no. 1, 2015, pp. 59–83.
Szablowinski, Zenon. "Getting Even: Revenge as a Form of Justice Ancient Forgiveness: Classical, Judaic, and Christian Making Amends: Atonement in Morality, Law, and Politics." Heythrop Journal, vol. 56, no. 5, 2015, pp. 863–65, doi.org/10.1111/heyj.14‗12251. Accessed 1 Dec. 2024.
van Hulst, Fulco. "Abelard on Atonement: Through Love or through Penal Substitution? Reading Abelard from a Peace Church Perspective." Baptistic Theologies, vol. 6, no. 2, 2014, pp. 14–23.
Weaver, J. Denny. The Nonviolent Atonement. Eerdmans, 2011.
Woodall, Chris. Atonement. Wipf, 2015.