Introduction
All of humanity’s sins were paid for by God through Jesus Christ, according to the many atonement doctrines. The atonement is typically portrayed as when God pardons humanity’s sins and restores them to his favor. Atonement, as defined by Johnson (2021), is how God heals humanity’s relationship with Himself after the fall of Adam and Eve and the introduction of sin into the world.
Religions differ on the specifics, but they all agree that people are doomed to hell because God is and cannot tolerate their sins. The notion of atonement has been the subject of heated dispute for centuries with many Christians viewing it as crucial to their salvation (Craig, 2019). This research paper aims to discuss major objective, subjective, and dynamic models of atonement, arguing that despite their differences, all three offer valuable insights into the nature of God’s relationship with humanity and how God reconciles people to himself.
Objective Models of Atonement
The objective model of atonement is the most popular and most widely accepted model of atonement. According to it, reconciliation between God and humankind is achieved not through human experiences of repentance or faith but through an actual act of God that objectively meets the criteria of divine justice (Crisp, 2021). These models stress the necessity for a propitiatory sacrifice to atone for sin, guilt, and punishment (Williams & Gantt, 2020).
Anselm of Canterbury, a Christian priest from the 11th century, is credited with developing the satisfaction theory of atonement (Johnson, 2021). This view suggests that God’s holiness and dignity have been insulted by sin, and God deserves to be made whole again. Wright (2019) argues that Jesus Christ was born to give a perfect sacrifice of obedience and humility. Jesus’ death on the cross was a love and obedience offering to God. Jesus’ cross allowed everyone to be reconciled to God and participate in his righteousness.
The substitutionary element of Christ’s death is emphasized further in the penal substitution theory of atonement, a subset of the satisfaction theory. This view holds that human sin results in an obligation for atonement before God’s justice may be appeased (Pogin et al., 2020). Since people cannot pay this punishment, God the Father sent his Son as a substitute. Therefore, Jesus’ crucifixion is viewed as a substitutionary atonement for sinners who are granted forgiveness because of his sacrifice.
Christ’s substitutionary atonement for sinners satisfies God’s wrath. One primary complaint against objective atonement theories is that they oversimplify the biblical witness by focusing on Christ’s function as a divine mediator while ignoring his ethical teachings and prophetic witness (Sellers, 2021). The core theme of the gospel is love and forgiveness, but critics say these figures portray a violent and vindictive God (Moder, 2019). Furthermore, they often promote a hierarchical and authoritarian perspective of redemption that puts God’s might above people’s worth.
This model contends that God is perfect, so he cannot allow himself to be sinful or others to sin. Therefore, when humans sin, they reject the perfection of God and bring upon themselves a punishment proportional to the offense committed (Witt & Scandrett, 2022). As proof of God’s final victory over sin and death, they also stress the significance of Christ’s incarnation and the efficacy of his resurrection (Moder, 2019). They also note that these forms have a rich history in Christian theology and have inspired numerous works of art, literature, and music.
Many segments of modern Christianity, especially in conservative and evangelical communities, hold fast to objective views of atonement. However, there is also a growing recognition of the shortcomings of these models and a desire to investigate more holistic and contextual approaches to the salvation dilemma. This includes a revitalized awareness of the wide variety of Christian and non-Christian religious experiences and traditions and a revived emphasis on social justice.
Subjective Models of Atonement
These models center on the inward shift or alteration each believer undergoes due to Christ’s death and resurrection. Rather than focusing on objective conceptions of salvation, these frameworks explore the individual’s subjective experiences (Masters, 2020). The impact of Christ’s sacrifice on the believer’s fellowship with God, integrity of character, and adoption as a child of God is a central theme throughout the models.
According to the moral influence view of the atonement, Christ’s death was not a penalty for sin but rather a model of selflessness and love that compels us to act morally (Uitzinger, 2019). This view holds that the example of Christ’s sacrifice might motivate followers to become better, more compassionate persons. Peter Abelard, writing in the 12th century, is credited with developing this theory.
Christ’s triumph over sin and death is central to the Christus Victor idea of atonement. By sharing in Christ’s triumph over evil through his death and resurrection, people, too, may gain victory over its grip on our lives, according to this concept (Hill & Sartor, 2022). This belief holds that Christ’s death and resurrection liberated humanity from sin and death and created the basis for a fundamental social revolution.
This paradigm was popular in the early church and still influences some current Christians. The resurrection narrative illustrates the Christus Victor theory (Raslau, 2022). For proponents of this view, Christ’s resurrection proves that individuals who trust Christ will be victorious over death and sin. This shift is viewed as an intimate and personalized process that might have far-reaching consequences.
The subjective conceptions are too narrowly focused on the sinner and too little on the social and structural factors contributing to the need for forgiveness. Research has argued that the emphasis on individual responsibility and forgiveness leaves out the social and communal aspects of sin and salvation that are as important (Hagen-Zanker & Hennessey, 2021). Subjective models underemphasize the necessity of divine involvement in the fight against evil in favor of focusing too much on human agency.
Detractors argue that the models focus too narrowly on the individual’s mental health at the expense of the gospel’s broader social, ethical, and political implications (Rennalls, 2019). On the other hand, supporters of subjective atonement models say there is a more complete and complex picture of it because it considers human psychology and spirituality. Using these models makes the gospel message more approachable and exciting to modern audiences, especially those with guilt, shame, and anxiety.
The increasing emphasis on individualism and personal fulfillment in Western countries makes subjective atonement theories particularly pertinent to modern Christianity. Many evangelical and Pentecostal traditions place a premium on personal purity and Christian discipleship, which may be seen in the widespread popularity of devotional rituals like the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary (Witt & Scandrett, 2022). Some modern Christians, especially those who emphasize spiritual battle and deliverance ministries, subscribe to the Christus Victor concept of atonement. In a society that can feel hopeless and scary, these models provide a vehicle to communicate the gospel message that speaks to people’s sentiments of guilt, shame, and uncertainty.
Recognizing the significance of psychological health and inner peace for human flourishing, these models also provide a means of tackling the rising mental health crises in contemporary society. They also connect with one’s spirituality, a vital component of health and happiness in a broader sense (Moffitt, 2019). Overall, the subjective models of atonement provide a helpful addition to the ongoing conversation about effectively sharing the gospel in today’s dynamic culture. They provide a means of meeting people’s psychological and spiritual needs without compromising the central message of the bible.
Dynamic Models of Atonement
There are several competing views on how Jesus’ death and resurrection saved humanity, and these are collectively referred to as “dynamic models of atonement.” Static theories of atonement, in contrast, view Christ’s death and resurrection as merely alleviating God’s anger or his justice (Crisp, 2021). To reconcile and restore humanity to God, the dynamic models highlight the transformative power of Christ’s sacrifice. They see the atonement as a mutually beneficial cycle of restoration and renewal between God and humanity.
The notion of unity or participation in the life of God is central to the participatory theology of atonement. According to this view, the atonement is more of a metamorphosis through which God and humankind are brought closer together (Stott, 2021). It explains how humans might attain holiness by trusting Christ and partaking in God’s divine being and existence. This perspective holds that God created humanity in his image, but sin separated them from God. The cross and resurrection of Christ reconciled God and humanity.
The recapitulation doctrine of atonement stresses Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the devil. According to this view, Christ’s death and resurrection represented a decisive victory over Satan and his demonic armies (Raslau, 2022). According to this idea, sin and the devil have humanity in their grip. Christ triumphed over these forces through his death and resurrection and opened the way for humanity to be saved from sin and death.
When Christ “disarmed the powers and authorities” and “made a public spectacle of them,” triumphing over them through the cross, this passage from the Epistle to the Colossians (2:15) illustrates the recapitulation theory at work (Rennalls, 2019). This perspective believes Christ defeated sin and evil to save his people. It believes Christ’s death and resurrection defeat sin and death and reconcile God and humanity.
The dynamic atonement paradigm highlights the transformational power of Christ’s death and God’s active engagement in the redemption process. Those who disagree with dynamic models typically claim that they create a violent picture of God by placing too much emphasis on God’s anger and justice (Wright, 2019). Furthermore, skeptics of dynamic models say they ignore the significance of human moral responsibility and repentance. On the other hand, dynamic models consider Christ’s death and the Holy Spirit’s ongoing work in Christians’ lives to explain atonement better. They emphasize social justice and repairing relationships with God, others, and oneself.
Especially in the ongoing debates about the nature of salvation and the role of Christ’s death in the redemption process, dynamic atonement models remain relevant to modern Christianity (Wright, 2019). This is because they remind believers of the transformative power of Christ’s sacrifice and the importance of ongoing repentance and transformation. Restoring proper connections with God and one another is central to dynamic forms of atonement, which can shape Christian approaches to social justice and reconciliation challenges.
Comparison of Objective, Subjective, and Dynamic Models
There are substantial theological distinctions between the three dominant conceptions of atonement, which are the objective model, the subjective model, and the dynamic model. The objective model, also known as the classical approach, holds that the death of Christ appeased God’s justice and anger since it was an actual event (Moffitt, 2019). This scheme assumes that sinful people cannot approach God alone; thus, Jesus dies in their stead. This view stresses God’s omnipotence and holds that Christ’s sacrifice reconciled and saved humanity.
Conversely, the subjective model examines how Christ’s death affects individuals personally. According to this theory, Christians can learn from Christ’s sacrifice and become better people by following in his footsteps (Hagen-Zanker & Hennessey, 2021). To be saved, one must make the free decision to follow Christ’s example, which the subjective model emphasizes. Furthermore, the dynamic model suggests that Christ’s death is better understood to demonstrate his love for humanity. According to this concept, a person’s salvation depends on their response to Christ’s love and message.
The role of Christ in atonement is another contentious issue among the three versions. Christ is a substitute who punishes humankind’s crimes onto himself on the cross in the objective model. On the other hand, the subjective model views Christ more as a moral teacher who calls on people to undergo a personal transformation in light of his selfless love and sacrifice (Hagen-Zanker & Hennessey, 2021). The dynamic model says Jesus Christ is an ethical role model because he represents a loving, forgiving God. Christ’s sacrifice is meant to show God’s kindness and draw people to him, not to atone for sin.
The emphasis on human agency in the atonement process varies significantly among the objective, subjective, and dynamic models. In the objective paradigm, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is seen as the exclusive means of redemption, with little room for human effort. Christ’s death, in this view, entirely and irrevocably reconciled humanity to God and satisfied God’s justice (Raslau, 2022). On the other hand, the subjective model heavily depends on human input.
According to this theory, salvation depends on the sincerity and humility of each believer. In this way, the atonement can only be truly successful with the help of human beings. According to the subjective paradigm, Christians should be motivated to live more righteously because of Christ’s death on the cross (Hill & Sartor, 2022).
Humanity’s role in the atonement is also highlighted in the dynamic model. In contrast to the subjective paradigm, the dynamic model emphasizes the Holy Spirit’s instrumental role in the redemptive process. The dynamic model states that Christ’s crucifixion makes the Holy Spirit available to Christians, allowing them to participate in their sanctification.
The subjective and dynamic models view salvation as a human-driven process, whereas the objective model views it as a legal transaction between God and humankind. According to this theory, salvation occurs when the price of sin is paid and God’s holiness is restored (Pogin et al., 2020). The Reformed tradition is generally connected with this view of salvation. As previously established, the subjective model attributes a significant responsibility for one’s salvation to that person.
Salvation, in this view, is an individual responsibility requiring one’s sincere belief and contrite heart. This understanding of salvation is commonly associated with the evangelical tradition. Like the static model, the dynamic model considers salvation an interactive process between the believer and the Holy Spirit. According to this view, salvation entails a personal metamorphosis into a more Christlike image (Craig, 2019). The Charismatic and Pentecostal religions are frequently associated with this view of redemption.
The ramifications of the various atonement theories for modern Christianity are substantial. With its stress on Christ’s death as a legal transaction, the objective model might cause a person to become too concerned with doctrinal accuracy and undervalue the significance of their spiritual path (Johnson, 2021). With its stress on individual belief and repentance, the subjective paradigm might cause Christians to lose sight of their faith’s collective good and communal nature. The dynamic model’s focus on the Holy Spirit’s continual action can encourage a more accepting attitude toward supernatural and charismatic behaviors (Pogin et al., 2020). However, it also increases the risk of viewing Christian spirituality solely in terms of emotional experiences rather than a holistic life transformation, and ignoring the necessity of sound doctrine.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the objective model stresses God’s righteousness and the necessity of salvation through the death of Jesus Christ, which appeases God’s anger. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are crucial to the subjective model because they demonstrate how the individual’s heart and intellect can be transformed through faith in Christ. Lastly, the dynamic model considers atonement an ever-evolving means by which God and humanity can be reconciled, with Jesus Christ as the mediator. Overall, it is evident that there are numerous Christian perspectives on atonement, each with its advantages and disadvantages. Depending on one’s convictions and life experiences, a Christian may find one paradigm more convincing. Furthermore, the gospel’s message may be better communicated through various models to reach multiple demographics, such as those dealing with guilt and shame and those interested in a more logical understanding of God’s justice and mercy.
The consequences for Christians of the various atonement concepts explored in this work are substantial. For instance, while the objective model stresses the gravity of sin and the necessity of redemption, the subjective model emphasizes one’s connection with God and inner change. The dynamic model serves as a timely reminder that achieving peace between God and people is a continuing effort and that people must always strive toward it.
The various atonement theories can also guide the approach to sharing the gospel. People may need to emphasize one model over another to successfully convey the gospel’s message to a specific audience. For instance, the subjective model may be more helpful in communicating the gospel’s transforming power to persons dealing with guilt and shame.
Atonement theories can be explored; Christians may consider how different atonement theories impact church doctrine. It is also possible to look at whether or not certain atonement models work better in specific settings and how various groups and cultures receive them. In addition, further research may be done into how diverse ideas of atonement have evolved through time and been influenced by multiple cultural and intellectual currents.
Interfaith communication could also investigate the concept of atonement and the various models. There is much more to learn about the varied and intricate atonement ideas. Christians can improve their ability to share the gospel with others and develop their understanding of the message by continuing to study and think about these various approaches.
References
Craig, W. L. (2019). Eleonore Stump’s Critique of Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theories. Faith and Philosophy, 36(4), 522-544. Web.
Crisp, O. D. (2021). TF Torrance on theosis and universal salvation. Scottish Journal of Theology, 74(1), 12-25. Web.
Hagen-Zanker, J., & Hennessey, G. (2021). What do we know about the subjective and intangible factors that shape migration decision-making?A Review of the Literature from Low and Middle-Income Countries. Web.
Hill, P., & Sartor, D. (2022). Attachment theory and the cry of dereliction: Toward a science-engaged model of atonement for posttraumatic stains on the soul. TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology, 6(1), 150-177. Web.
Johnson, A. J. (2021). Theories and theoria of the atonement: A proposal. Web.
Masters, S. (2020). Atonement in early Quakerism: The work of Christ in the writings of James Nayler. Quaker Studies, 25(1). Web.
Moder, A. (2019). Women, personhood, and the male God: A feminist critique of patriarchal concepts of God in view of domestic abuse. Feminist Theology, 28(1), 85-103. Web.
Moffitt, D. M. (2019). It is not finished: Jesus’ perpetual atoning work as the heavenly high priest in Hebrews.”. So Great a Salvation: A Dialogue on the Atonement in Hebrews, 157-75. Web.
Pogin, K., Panchuk, M., & Rea, M. (2020). Conceptualizing the atonement. Voices from the Edge: Centring Marginalized Perspectives in Analytic Theology. Edited by Michelle Panchuk and Michael Rea. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 166-82. Web.
Raslau, F. D. (2022). Updated Christus Victor: A neurotheological perspective. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 40(4), 329-343. Web.
Rennalls, D. E. (2019). How penal substitution addresses our shame: The bible’s shame dynamics and their relationships to evangelical doctrine. The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 23(3), 77-98. Web.
Sellers, R. P. (2021). Toward a multifaith view of atonement. Review & Expositor, 118(1), 71-85. Web.
Stott, J. (2021). The cross of Christ. InterVarsity Press. Web.
Uitzinger, K. D. (2019). Atonement and violence: Rethinking the atonement from a nonviolent feminist perspective. University of Johannesburg (South Africa). Web.
Williams, R. N., & Gantt, E. E. (2020). Agency, atonement, and psychological theories of change: A latter-day saint Christian perspective. Issues in Religion and Psychotherapy, 40(1), 6. Web.
Witt, W. G., & Scandrett, J. (2022). Mapping atonement: The doctrine of reconciliation in Christian history and theology. Baker Books.
Wright, A. (2019). Whose voice counts? Gender, power, and epistemologies in the seminary classroom. Teaching Theology & Religion, 22(3), 176-190. Web.