Minority Views on Substitutionary Atonement

Although most Christians would probably adhere to one of the above theories of substitutionary atonement, since the Protestant Reformation, several notable theologians have developed other theories.

One of the most influential minority views on the atonement is the governmental theory of Hugo Grotius. As in the penal substitution theory, the governmental theory sees Christ as a substitute for the punishment of sinful humans. However, Christ is not seen to suffer precisely the exact punishment a sinner would expect; rather His suffering merely demonstrates the seriousness of sin. Jonathan Edwards generally accepted this model, possibly through the influence of Joseph Bellamy, with added emphasis on God’s law in Christian life (see Rudisill, Doctrine).

The doctrine of substitutionary atonement has been highly debated since the 20th century, with many influential theologians offering new interpretations and nuanced views on older theories, such as Dorothee Sӧlle (Christ as temporary representative), John Macquarrie (existentialist understanding of substitution), and Karl Barth (representative substitution; see Jeannine Michele Graham, Representation and Substitution). Debates about the nature of substitutionary atonement have taken place primarily among Protestant theologians, although some notable Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians have entered the debate as well, usually arguing for patristic interpretations against the doctrine of penal substitution (see, e.g., John S. Romanides, The Ancestral Sin).