Contents:

Definition of Terms:

  • Atonement:  Atonement is the act of making amends for a wrongdoing or a sin, often involving the process of reconciliation, repentance, and seeking forgiveness. Christ’s atonement refers to His sacrificial death and resurrection, which provides the means for the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation between God and humanity.
  • imputation: the act of attributing or crediting something to someone. According to this belief, our sins were imputed onto Christ, whom God then punished for those sins.  When a person accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior, his righteousness is imputed to them, and their sins are forgiven, making them righteous in the sight of God.
  • Penal substitution: the concept that God’s justice demands punishment for sin, and Jesus’ death serves as a substitutionary atonement, taking on the penalty and beings punished by God on our behalf, thus satisfying divine justice and reconciling humanity with God.

Early Church Understanding of Christ’s Atonement

The early Church viewed Christ’s atonement as a multifaceted act that fulfilled and transcended Old Testament sacrificial systems, particularly those of the Mosaic Law, such as the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). It was understood as a self-sacrificial act of love, rooted in Christ’s obedience to the Father, which reconciled humanity to God, earned divine grace, and led to Christ’s exaltation. Key aspects include:

  • Fulfillment of Old Testament Sacrifice: The early Church saw Christ’s death as the ultimate sacrifice, replacing the temporary and repetitive offerings of the Old Covenant (e.g., Leviticus 16). Christ was both priest and victim, offering himself to atone for humanity’s sins, fulfilling the Passover lamb and Yom Kippur rituals.
  • Self-Sacrificial Act of Love: The atonement was an expression of Christ’s love for humanity, freely offered in obedience to the Father’s will. This act of love satisfied divine justice and opened the way for humanity to receive grace.
  • God’s Exaltation of Christ: Christ’s obedient sacrifice led to his resurrection and exaltation (Philippians 2:9), demonstrating God’s approval and establishing Christ as the mediator of salvation.
  • Grace for Salvation: Through the atonement, Christ merited the grace that enables humanity to be reconciled with God, participate in divine life, and attain salvation, particularly through the sacraments.

This understanding was holistic, integrating Christ’s life, death, and resurrection as a unified redemptive act, deeply rooted in love and obedience.

Old Testament Sacrifice and Christ’s Atonement

The early Church interpreted Christ’s atonement through the lens of Old Testament sacrificial traditions, seeing them as types or prefigurements fulfilled in Christ. The primary connections included:

  • Passover Lamb: The Passover sacrifice (Exodus 12) protected Israel from death and secured liberation from Egypt. Early Christians saw Christ as the true Passover Lamb, whose blood delivers humanity from the slavery of sin and death (1 Corinthians 5:7).
  • Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur): The annual ritual of Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16) involved sacrifices to atone for Israel’s sins, with the high priest entering the Holy of Holies. Christ’s atonement was seen as the definitive fulfillment, with Christ as the eternal high priest offering himself once for all (Hebrews 9:11-12).
  • Sin Offerings: Old Testament sin offerings (Leviticus 4-5) expiated sins through animal sacrifices. Christ’s death was understood as the ultimate sin offering, bearing humanity’s sins to restore communion with God (Isaiah 53:4-6, fulfilled in Christ per 1 Peter 2:24).

The early Church emphasized that Christ’s sacrifice surpassed these Old Testament rituals because it was offered by a sinless, divine-human mediator, was universal in scope, and was effective for all time, eliminating the need for further sacrifices.

The New Testament on Christ’s Atonement

The New Testament presents Christ’s atonement as a self-sacrificial act of love, fulfilling Old Testament sacrifices, earning grace for salvation, and resulting in God’s exaltation of Christ. Key passages include:

  • John 10:17-18: Jesus states, “I lay down my life… No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.” This emphasizes the voluntary, loving nature of his sacrifice, rooted in obedience to the Father.
  • Romans 5:8-10: Paul writes, “God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” The atonement is an act of divine love, reconciling humanity to God and securing salvation through Christ’s blood.
  • Hebrews 9:11-14: Christ is described as the high priest who, through his own blood, “obtained eternal redemption,” surpassing the temporary purification of Old Testament sacrifices. His offering is perfect and eternal, fulfilling the Day of Atonement.
  • Philippians 2:6-11: Paul’s hymn of Christ’s kenosis describes his self-emptying, obedience unto death, and subsequent exaltation by God, who “highly exalted him” and gave him “the name that is above every name.” The atonement leads to Christ’s glorification.
  • 1 John 4:10: “In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” This underscores the atonement as an expression of divine love.

The New Testament portrays Christ’s atonement as a voluntary act of love, fulfilling Old Testament sacrifices, reconciling humanity to God, and meriting grace, with the cross as the culmination of Christ’s obedient life, followed by his exaltation.

The Church Fathers on Christ’s Atonement

The Church Fathers developed a rich theology of the atonement, emphasizing its connection to Old Testament sacrifices, its character as a self-sacrificial act of love, and its role in securing grace and Christ’s exaltation. Key perspectives include:

  • Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies, c. 180 AD): Irenaeus viewed the atonement through the lens of recapitulation, where Christ, as the New Adam, reversed Adam’s disobedience through his obedient life and death. He saw Christ’s sacrifice as fulfilling the Passover and sin offerings, offering himself “for us all” to restore communion with God (Against Heresies 5.16.3).1
  • Athanasius of Alexandria (On the Incarnation, c. 318 AD): Athanasius emphasized that Christ’s death was a voluntary act of love, satisfying the debt of sin owed to divine justice. He wrote, “He surrendered his body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father” (On the Incarnation 8). Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled Old Testament types and earned humanity’s salvation through grace, culminating in his resurrection and exaltation.2
  • Gregory of Nazianzus (Orations, c. 380 AD): Gregory described Christ’s atonement as an act of love, where he “offered himself for us, victim and sacrifice, and priest as well” (Oration 45.22). He saw the cross as fulfilling the Day of Atonement, with Christ’s blood cleansing humanity eternally. His obedience led to his exaltation, enabling humanity’s participation in divine life.3
  • Augustine of Hippo (City of God, c. 413-426 AD): Augustine portrayed Christ’s atonement as the ultimate act of love and obedience, fulfilling Old Testament sacrifices. He wrote, “Christ offered himself… as a sacrifice for our sins, and by his resurrection he showed the power of his victory” (City of God 10.20). The atonement secured grace for salvation, and Christ’s exaltation demonstrated God’s approval of his sacrifice.4

The Fathers consistently viewed the atonement as a loving, voluntary act that fulfilled Old Testament sacrifices, reconciled humanity to God, and merited grace, with Christ’s resurrection and exaltation as divine affirmation of his redemptive work.

Comparison with Modern Theories:
Penal Substitution and Imputation

Modern Protestant theologies, particularly penal substitution and imputation, offer interpretations of the atonement that differ significantly from the early Church’s understanding. These theories, rooted in Reformation theology, present distinct views that often fall short of the biblical and patristic framework.

Penal Substitution

Origin: Penal substitution, formalized during the Protestant Reformation by figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin, became prominent in Reformed theology. It was articulated systematically in works like Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536). It posits that Christ, as a substitute, bore the punishment for humanity’s sins, satisfying God’s wrath and justice.

Core Idea: God’s justice demands punishment for sin, and Christ, being sinless, takes this punishment on the cross, enduring divine wrath in place of sinners. This satisfies God’s justice, allowing forgiveness.

Shortcomings and Contradictions:

  • Overemphasis on Wrath: Penal substitution focuses heavily on God’s wrath, portraying the atonement as primarily a transaction to appease divine anger. This contrasts with the early Church’s emphasis on love as the driving force of the atonement (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). The New Testament and Fathers present God’s love, not wrath, as initiating the atonement.
  • Separation of Father and Son: The theory risks implying a division within the Trinity, where the Father punishes the Son. This contradicts the early Church’s view of the Trinity’s unity, where Christ’s sacrifice is a cooperative act of love between Father and Son (John 10:17-18; Athanasius, On the Incarnation 9).5
  • Neglect of Christ’s Life: Penal substitution often reduces the atonement to the cross, sidelining Christ’s obedient life and resurrection, which the early Church saw as integral to redemption (Romans 5:10; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.16.3).6
  • Biblical Inconsistency: The New Testament does not explicitly describe Christ enduring God’s wrath. Instead, it emphasizes reconciliation and love (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:19). The Day of Atonement imagery in Hebrews focuses on purification, not punishment (Hebrews 9:14).

In other words, God the Father, in His perfect foreknowledge, knew that the sending of His Son into the world would result in His rejection, suffering, and crucifixion at the hands of humanity. Yet, out of divine love, the Father sent the Son to reveal the path of love and obedience. Likewise, the Son, fully aware of the suffering that awaited Him, willingly entered the world in loving obedience to the Father and out of compassion for humankind, in order to manifest the truth and reconcile humanity to God. The Father and the Son acted in perfect unity, each participating in the redemptive mission as a willing act of self-giving love. It was not the Father who inflicted suffering upon the Son, but sinful humanity that rejected and crucified Him. In laying down His life freely and accepting this suffering, Christ demonstrated the fullest expression of love—even toward His enemies.

Imputation

Origin: The doctrine of imputation, also developed during the Reformation, particularly by Luther and Calvin, holds that Christ’s righteousness is imputed (or credited) to believers, while their sins are imputed to Christ. It became a cornerstone of Protestant soteriology, especially in Reformed and Lutheran traditions.

Core Idea: Christ’s perfect righteousness is legally transferred to believers, justifying them before God, while Christ bears the guilt of their sins on the cross. This is often linked to penal substitution, as Christ’s imputed sins require him to suffer punishment.

Shortcomings and Contradictions:
  • Forensic Reductionism: Imputation reduces the atonement to a legal exchange, emphasizing justification over transformation. The early Church, however, saw the atonement as transforming humanity through grace, enabling participation in divine life (2 Peter 1:4; Athanasius, On the Incarnation 54).7
  • Lack of Patristic Support: The Fathers did not use imputation language but spoke of Christ’s atonement as a real participation in his sacrifice through the sacraments (e.g., Augustine, Tractates on John 26.12). Imputation’s forensic focus lacks roots in early Church theology.8
  • Neglect of Ontological Change: The New Testament emphasizes real transformation through Christ’s atonement (Romans 6:4; Colossians 3:10), not merely a legal status change. Imputation’s external transfer of righteousness contradicts this transformative view.
  • Misalignment with Old Testament Fulfillment: The early Church saw Christ’s atonement as fulfilling Old Testament sacrifices through a real offering of himself, not a legal imputation of sin or righteousness (Hebrews 10:10; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 40).9

Both penal substitution and imputation fall short by reducing the atonement to a legal transaction, neglecting its holistic, transformative, and love-centered nature as understood by the early Church. They also risk distorting the biblical portrayal of God’s love and the Trinity’s unity, focusing excessively on wrath and forensic justification.  God is no longer just: acquitting the guilty while condemning the innocent.  The early church, by comparison, understood Christ’s atoning sacrifice as self-sacrificial and, as such, pleased the Father so much that He greatly exalted His Son, giving Him a name above every other name and meriting for humanity the grace needed for transformation.

Conclusion

The early Church understood Christ’s atonement as a self-sacrificial act of love that fulfilled Old Testament sacrifices, such as the Passover and Day of Atonement, reconciled humanity to God, and earned the grace necessary for salvation. The New Testament and Church Fathers, including Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory, and Augustine, emphasized Christ’s obedience and love, culminating in his death and exaltation, as central to this redemptive work. The atonement was seen as a transformative act, not merely a legal transaction, enabling humanity to share in divine life. In contrast, modern theories like penal substitution and imputation, developed during the Reformation, reduce the atonement to a forensic exchange, overemphasizing divine wrath and neglecting the transformative and universal aspects of Christ’s work. These theories contradict the biblical emphasis on love and transformation and lack the holistic perspective of the early Church, which remains foundational to Roman Catholic theology.

Footnotes

  1. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, trans. Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885), 5.16.3. ↩

  2. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. John Behr (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 8. ↩

  3. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 45.22, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994). ↩

  4. Augustine, City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin Classics, 2003), 10.20. ↩

  5. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 9. ↩

  6. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.16.3. ↩

  7. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 54. ↩

  8. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 7, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 26.12. ↩

  9. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, trans. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 40. ↩

return to top ⇑

Bible Verses:

2 Corinthians 8:9

“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.”

Philippians 2: 5-11

“Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,  but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,  that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

I John 2:1-2; 

“My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”  

John 3:16:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.”  

I Tim. 2:3-6: 

This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.”  

II Peter 3:9: 

“The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”

Colossians  1: 19, 20

“Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in heaven.”

return to top ⇑

Church Father Quotes:

Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 A.D.)

“The mighty Word and true Man reasonably redeeming us by His blood, gave Himself a ransom for those who had been brought into bondage. And since the Apostasy unjustly ruled over us, and, whereas we belonged by nature to God Almighty, alienated us against nature and made us his own disciples, the Word of God, being mighty in all things, and failing not in His justice, dealt justly even with the Apostasy itself, buying back from it the things which were His own” – Adversus Haereses, 5:1

Athanasius of Alexandria

“He was made man that we might be made gods”  -De Incarnation Verbi, 54

”His flesh was saved, and made free the first of all, being made the body of the Word, then we, being concorporeal therewith, are saved by the same”  -Orat., II, Contra Arianos, 56

“For the presence of the Savior in the flesh was the price of death, and the saving of the whole creation”  -Ep. ad Adelphium, 6

Augustine of Hippo

“[P]redestination, which cannot exist without foreknowledge, although foreknowledge may exist without predestination; because God foreknew by predestination those things which he was about to do, whence it was said, “He made those things that shall be.” Moreover, he is able to foreknow even those things which he does not himself do—as all sins whatever. . . . Therefore God’s predestination of good is, as I have said, the preparation of grace; which grace is the effect of that predestination” (On the Predestination of the Saints (book I)—In What Respects Predestination and Grace Differ, chap. 19 [10]).

“Men were held captive under the devil, and served the demons, but they were redeemed from captivity. For they could sell themselves, but they could not redeem themselves. The Redeemer came, and gave the price; He poured forth His blood and bought the whole world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price. How much is it worth? What but the whole world? What but all nations?” (Enartatio in Psalm xcv, n. 5).

“The New Redeemer came and the deceiver was overcome. What did our Redeemer do to our Captor? In payment for us He set the trap, His Cross, with His blood for bait. He [Satan] could indeed shed that blood; but he deserved not to drink it. By shedding the blood of One who was not his debtor, he was forced to release his debtors” (Serm. cxxx, § 2).

Thomas Aquinas 

“It is fitting that God should predestine men. For all things are subject to His providence, as was shown above (Question 22, Article 2). Now it belongs to providence to direct things towards their end, as was also said (Q. 22, a.1, ad 2). The end towards which created things are directed by God is twofold; one which exceeds all proportion and faculty of every created nature; and this end is life eternal, that consists in seeing God which is above the nature of every creature, as shown above (Question 12, Article 4). The other end, however, is proportionate to created nature, to which end created being can attain according to the power of its nature. Now if a thing cannot attain to something by the power of its nature, it must be directed thereto by another; thus, an arrow is directed by the archer towards a mark. Hence, properly speaking, a rational creature, capable of eternal life, is led towards it, directed, as it were, by God. The reason of that direction pre-exists in God; as in Him is the type of the order of all things towards an end, which we proved above to be providence. Now the type in the mind of the doer of something to be done, is a kind of pre-existence in him of the thing to be done. Hence the type of the aforesaid direction of a rational creature towards the end of life eternal is called predestination. For to destine, is to direct or send. Thus it is clear that predestination, as regards its objects, is a part of providence.” –Summa Theologica I, a.23, a.1

”[S]ince one cannot be directed to the ultimate end except by means of divine grace, without which no one can possess the things needed to work toward the ultimate end, such as faith, hope, love, and perseverance, it might seem to some person that man should not be held responsible for the lack of such aids. Especially so, since he cannot merit the help of divine grace, nor turn toward God unless God convert him, for no one is held responsible for what depends on another. Now, if this is granted, many inappropriate conclusions appear.” -Summa Contra Gentiles III.159.1

“To settle this difficulty, we ought to consider that, although one may neither merit in advance nor call forth divine grace by a movement of his free choice, he is able to prevent himself from receiving this grace: Indeed, it is said in Job(21:34): “Who have said to God: Depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of Your ways”; and in Job (24:13): “They have been rebellious to the light.” And since this ability to impede or not to impede the reception of divine grace is within the scope of free choice, not undeservedly is responsibility for the fault imputed to him who offers an impediment to the reception of grace. In fact, as far as He is concerned, God is ready to give grace to all; “indeed He wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” as is said in 1 Timothy (2:4).But those alone are deprived of grace who offer an obstacle within themselves to grace; just as, while the sun is shining on the world, the man who keeps his eyes closed is held responsible for his fault, if as a result some evil follows, even though he could not see unless he were provided in advance with light from the sun.” –Summa Contra Gentiles III.159.2

Francis de Sales 

“First He willed, with a genuine will, that even after the sin of Adam all men should be saved, but in a way and with means suited to the condition of our nature, which is endowed with free-will; that is to say He willed the salvation of all those who would contribute their consent to the graces and favours which He would prepare, offer and distribute for this purpose. Now, among these favours, He willed that the call be first, and that it should be so accommodated to our freedom that we might at our good pleasure accept or reject it. And to those whom He foresaw would receive it, He willed to give the sacred movements of repentance; and to those who would follow those movements He determined to give holy charity, those again who were in charity, He purposed to supply with the helps necessary to persevere, and to such as should make use of these divine helps He resolved to impart final perseverance, and the glorious felicity of his eternal love. … Without doubt, God prepared heaven only for those whom He foresaw would be His. … But it is in our power to be His: for although the gift of being God’s belongs to God, yet this is a gift which God denies no one, but offers to all, and gives to those who freely consent to receive it.” –Treatise on the Love of God, 3.5

return to top ⇑

Non-Catholic Quotes:

David Nelson, Southern Baptist 

“In John 1 and 2 kosmos is used in the sense of both the earth and all the inhabitants of the earth, indicating that in the incarnation Jesus came to earth for the sake of saving all who would believe in him . . . to say that world refers to ‘all the elect’ or ‘all without distinction’ (i.e. all kinds, classes, or ethnicities) strains the plain meaning of the text.” –Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue 


Richard Carrier, Biblical Scholar, atheist 
Paul “is telling people to pray for peace, on behalf of everyone alive, but in [verse four] he is describing what God wants . . . there is simply no other way to interpret what Paul is saying except that what God actually wants is all people, not some of all kinds of people, to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” –Two Examples of Faulty Bible Scholarship

return to top ⇑