Governmental theory of atonement

In the modern era, it is more often taught in non-Calvinist Protestant circles, though Arminius, John Wesley, and other Arminians never spoke clearly of it.

On this basis, God is able to extend forgiveness while maintaining divine order, having demonstrated the seriousness of sin and thus allowing his wrath to "pass over.

[1] Variations of governmental theory of the atonement have been espoused in the New Divinity school of thought (a stage of the New England theology) by the followers of the Calvinist Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758).

[14][15] This view has been notably detailed by Methodist theologian John Miley (1813–1895) in his Atonement in Christ and his Systematic Theology.

[17] The governmental theory of the atonement is also espoused by some Church of the Nazarene theologians, such as J. Kenneth Grider,[18] Henry Orton Wiley, R. Larry Shelton, and H. Ray Dunning.

It incorporates the emphasis on God's love, which is the main point in the Abelardian moral influence theory of atonement.

However, the governmental view disagrees with the other two in that it does not affirm that Christ endured the precise punishment that sin deserves or paid its sacrificial equivalent.

[2] In contrast, penal substitution holds that Christ endured the exact punishment, or the exact "worth" of punishment, that sin deserved; the satisfaction theory states that Christ made the satisfaction owed by humans to God due to sin through the merit of His propitiatory sacrifice.

More specifically, it may be argued that the penal substitutionary theory would lead of necessity, either to universalism on the one hand, or unconditional election.

[33] In particular, Roger Olson states that penal substitution is compatible with unlimited atonement, because through non-arbitrary basis of the faith, a person can simply refuse or accept Christ vicarious payment.