Objective and Subjective Atonement Reconsidered^☆

Abstract This article argues that the distinction between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ elements of atonement fails to cohere with a vital historical and systematic point. In many modern analyses, ‘objective’ elements of atonement pertain to Christ's work on humans' behalf to meet the requirements of God's justice, whereas ‘subjective’ elements pertain to changes within individuals, such as a response of love. For historic theologies of atonement such as Abelard's and Augustine's, however, the distinction between what God does for humans to satisfy the requirements of justice and how humans change or respond to God breaks down, such that certain elements of atonement meet the prevailing criteria for ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ simultaneously. Because the typical paradigm can obscure such important points about atonement, including the extent of what God's justice requires and how God works within the human response, theologians should jettison the terms in favor of more precise language.