Catholic Views On Atonement

died. His death was also a “substitution” in that he was a substitute for us when he died. This has been the orthodox understanding of the atonement held by evangelical theologians, in contrast to other views that attempt to explain the atonement apart from the idea of the wrath of God or payment of the penalty for sin. This view of the atonement is sometimes called the theory of vicarious atonement. A “vicar” is someone who stands in the place of another or who represents another. Christ’s death was therefore “vicarious” because he stood in our place and represented us. As our representative, he took the penalty that we deserve. The Gospels elaborate on the atoning nature of Christ’s death a number of ways. Matthew explains
The Moral Influence Theory
First advocated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142), a French theologian, the moral influence theory of the atonement holds that God holds that God did not require a payment of a penalty for sin, but that Christ’s death was simply a way in which God showed how much he loved human beings by identifying with their sufferings even to the point of death. Christ’s death therefore becomes a great teaching example that shows God’s love to us and draws from us a grateful response, so that in loving him we are forgiven.
The great difficulty with this viewpoint it is contrary to so many passages of scripture that speak of Christ dying for sin, bearing our sin, or dying as propitiation. Moreover, it robs the atonement of its objective character, because it holds that the atonement had no effect on God himself. Finally, it has no way of dealing with our guilt- if Christ did not die to pay for our sins; we have no right to trust in him for forgiveness of
This theory holds that God did not actually have to require payment for sin, but since he was omnipotent God, he could have set aside that requirement and simply forgiven sins without the payment of a penalty. Then what was the purpose of Christ’s death? It was God’s demonstration of the fact that his laws had been broken, that he is the moral lawgiver and governor of the universe, and some kind of the penalty would be required whenever his laws were broken. Thus Christ did not exactly pay the penalty of the actual sins of any people, but simply suffered to show that when God’s laws are broken there must be some penalty