**1. Introduction**

Christ's atonement is at the very heart of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, among Christians there is very little unity regarding what it means and what exactly was accomplished on the cross. David Hoekema states this sad fact: "Due to the lack of a single doctrinal concept of atonement, the traditions of different ecclesiastical bodies have diverged in the interpretation of this teaching" (Xокeмa 1999, pp. 225–26). Many theologians of different streams have offered their perspectives on what atonement is all about, but none of the existing "theories of atonement" have been able to gain wide support.

*1.1. The Present Situation in Regards to the Theology of Atonement among Protestants and Orthodox Christians*

1.1.1. General Overview of Dominant Protestant and Orthodox Perspectives on Atonement

Usually, in a standard Evangelical theology textbook's overview of the main theories of atonement, we will find the following: (1) ransom (from Satan) views (RV)1, (2) moral influence theories (MIT) (3) the satisfaction theory of Anselm of Canterbury (ST), and (4) the penal substitution atonement theory (PSA) (e.g., Grudem 1994, pp. 695–711; Erickson 1990, pp. 783–800). In recent decades, the *Christus Victor* (CV) perspective has also become popular, but I agree with the criticism of Kathryn Tanner that CV cannot be considered a theory of atonement since it offers no mechanism of atonement and should rather be viewed as an important biblical motif (Tanner 2010, p. 253). There are a number of other perspectives, but they remain marginal.

Among Orthodox scholars we can find three major perspectives (Kозлов 2010, pp. 304–11; Гнeдич 2007, p. 439): (1) the legal view2, (2) the moral view3, and (3) the organic or ontological

**Citation:** Kovaliv, Petro. 2021. Rediscovering a Biblical and Early Patristic View of Atonement through Orthodox–Evangelical Dialogue. *Religions* 12: 543. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/rel12070543


Academic Editors: Bradley Nassif and Tim Grass

Received: 18 March 2021 Accepted: 12 July 2021 Published: 16 July 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

view4 (Kозлов 2010, pp. 304–11), while Gnedich uses the term "ontological understanding" (Гнeдич 2007, p. 439).. As an example of the variety of approaches on atonement among Orthodox scholars, we can look to the works of theologians of the Russian Orthodox Church. However, a similar diversity of views can be found in the theological works of other Orthodox churches. Gnedich offers an important study of the history of atonement teaching in the Orthodox theology of Eastern Europe from the late 19th through the mid-20th century (Гнeдич 2007). Gnedich shows how, at that time, Orthodox theology lacked a clear doctrinal presentation on this issue, so many theologians filled the gap by presenting a teaching on atonement within a legal framework, borrowing ideas from Catholic and Protestant theology. For example, legal language very similar to Anselm's satisfaction view can be found in the writings of St. Theophan the Recluse and in major systematic theology textbooks in Russian by Metropolitan Makary (Bulgakov) and Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky). Moreover, theologians and scholars like Pavel Svetlov, Mikhail Tareev, Victor Nesmelov, and others felt that a legal explanation of atonement was a move in the wrong direction, and they offered to look at atonement through a moral perspective. Archimandrite Sergius (Stragorodsky) also put significant emphasis on the moral aspect of salvation, often neglecting the objective aspect accomplished through Christ's death and resurrection.

In response to these tendencies, Orthodox theologians like Florovsky and Lossky called for a return to the dominant Eastern patristic perspective and offered what is called an "organic" or "ontological perspective" (OP) (or theory) of atonement5. Florovsky emphasized that "it was necessary to return to the Fathers more fully," especially to the ontological component of the doctrine of atonement (Φлоpовcкий 2009, p. 557). Unfortunately, Florovsky was not able to finish his book on atonement, in which he wanted to provide an alternative to various, in his opinion, mistaken trends in Orthodox theology6. Therefore, an ontological perspective was never fully developed and clearly presented, especially in connection with the biblical material and integration of various biblical metaphors, themes, and ideas into this concept.

Other names that are sometimes used to refer to this view are "biological," "physical," "naturalistic," "magical," and "mystical." Most of these names are used by liberal scholars, often to describe what is sometimes called the "physical theory of atonement," which teaches about the transformation of human nature due to Christ's Incarnation. The term "ontological" is used primarily in Orthodox literature in Eastern Europe and describes the view that holds that Christ through His death and resurrection delivers human nature from death and corruption and imparts to it qualities of immortality and incorruption. This view differs from the "physical theory" by its emphasis on the death and resurrection of Christ to achieve redemption.

Some Orthodox also talk about redemption from Satan's power, but this idea usually serves as an addition to other perspectives, rather than as a separate theory. At the same time it is possible to find marginal views among the Orthodox like that of Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) who taught about redemption through Christ's suffering in Gethsemane.

Archpriest Maxim Kozlov summarizes the current state of affairs in this field of theology in the following way: "There is no single doctrine of atonement, at least in Russian Orthodox theology, in contrast to most other sections of dogma. For example, the doctrine of the Incarnation, the doctrine of the Trinity in almost all dogmatic systems, in all textbooks of dogmatic theology are presented identically—there may be different shades, but, as a rule, there are no significant differences. There is no such consensus about the doctrine of atonement. Different authors ... understand and teach about the atonement in very different ways, there are several different 'theories', none of which can claim to be completely official, as the only one claiming to be the final expression of church truth" (Гнeдич 2007, p. 13). I believe it is important to finish the project that Florovsky started and to present OP not just as an Orthodox or Eastern patristic theory but also as a biblical view, which avoids many problems that are present in other popular perspectives. However,

before we can firmly lay the foundation of this view, it is important to clear the ground first and remove the obstacles that may hinder formulation of this position on atonement.

The goal of this article is to highlight the main issues that have been preventing formulation of the holistic concept of atonement built on OP, to offer ways of dealing with the obstacles, to present an ontological perspective on atonement, and to provide general guidelines regarding how it can integrate various biblical atonement metaphors. Since this article was written in the context of Orthodox–Evangelical dialogue, I interact primarily with theological views of these two streams of Christianity. However, I believe that the conclusions made will also be significant for Catholic theology, which, according to the words of Catholic theologian François Brune, today is at a "dead end" regarding their contemporary atonement theology (Бpюн 2019, p. 32).

1.1.2. The Present Situation Regarding Dialogue between Orthodox Christians and Evangelicals on the Issue of Atonement

Unfortunately, we see very little real dialogue between Orthodox and Protestants on the issue of atonement. There are several reasons for this. First of all, there has been little familiarity in the West with Orthodox theology in general. Only in recent decades do we see a growing interest in Orthodox theology and Eastern patristics among Protestants, which is reflected in a number of new books, articles, and dissertations in this area. Yet, if we talk specifically about the issue of atonement, unfortunately, it seems that Protestants have not yet been able to see that Orthodox theology can offer something substantial on this topic. As we have shown already, most Evangelical theology textbooks do not offer an ontological perspective on the atonement as a valid option since, most likely, the authors are not even familiar with it. There have been various attempts among Protestants to rediscover the patristic view of atonement, but very often such endeavors are either too general to provide a clear picture of the patristic perspective or they try to show the historicity of a certain view, but they fail to take their research far enough.

At the same time, many Evangelicals, holding Scripture as the highest authority, did not feel that they could consider as a valid option any position that ignores or rejects the legal language of Scripture, which is also quite prevalent in writings of the Church Fathers. Many Orthodox theologians, even in the best presentations, have a tendency to reject or to ignore legal metaphors in the Bible. For example, Florovsky in his presentation of the atonement is quite cautious toward legal metaphors and even calls them "colorless anthropomorphism" (Florovsky 1976b, p. 101, see also pp. 102–3).

Moroever, those who hold to OP have not been able to offer much to show the biblical foundations of their position. For example, Florovsky had difficulty in integrating the biblical concepts of "sacrifice," "ransom," and "justice" into his view of atonement (Florovsky 1976b, p. 101). The problem was that he viewed these concepts through an interpretation, which he himself criticized as "legal" and "transactional." At the same time, in many contemporary Protestant works we see an attempt to reinterpret many legal theological concepts (justice, justification, judgement, punishment, etc.) in order to avoid unbalanced views. We can also find much excellent research of the biblical concepts of "sacrifice," "ransom," etc., which could be harmoniously integrated into an ontological perspective of atonement. Despite similar critiques of incorrect interpretations and passion to represent faithful biblical teaching among many Protestant and Orthodox theologians, there is very little theological dialogue between them on these issues.

Certain Protestants' distrust of the Orthodox teaching on atonement is caused by what Fr. Andrew Louth calls "a tendency among Orthodox theologians to play down the crucifixion and lay all the emphasis on the resurrection" (Louth 2019, p. 32). At the same time, the Orthodox view on atonement is integrated into the theology of deification, which many Protestants are not very familiar with and also look at with suspicion.

Probably, other than the works of Georges Florovsky, one of the best presentations of the ontological perspective has been offered not by Orthodox but by Protestant scholar Benjamin Myers, though he calls it a "patristic atonement model" (Myers 2015). Yet, in Myers' article, we do not see any references to Orthodox theology on atonement. I

believe that as we have more dialogue about this perspective, OP can become not only a sound alternative to many existing views, but it also has the powerful potential to become a unifying perspective on atonement that can be embraced by Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants.

#### **2. Key Obstacles to the Formation of a Comprehensive Concept of the Atonement**

Despite much research in the area of the atonement and soteriology in general, several theological issues have been hindering the process of formation of a comprehensive concept of atonement. I want to point these issues out and offer some solutions to each one of them.
