Objectivity and Subjectivity in Atonement

It’s common to distinguish two different types of atonement theory – objective and subjective. 

Objective theories stress that the death of Jesus achieves something in itself; often objective theories stress the Godward dimension of the atonement, that Jesus has made satisfaction for sin or propitiated wrath by His death. They are objective because the cross aims to achieve something with God, rather than targeting human beings.

Subjective theories claim that the aim of Jesus’ death is to transform human beings. The cross aims at humanity, eliciting love from sinners and driving away fear.

Though it captures some important features of different atonement theories, its usefulness is extremely limited. Many theories of atonement (Thomas, for instance; even Abelard) combine “objective” and “subjective” elements.

Pressed, the distinction becomes nonsensical. What could it mean for Jesus to achieve atonement objectively, whether or not any human beings received Him, whether or not anyone was actually saved? What kind of atonement is it if God’s wrath is objectively propitiated, but, because no one subjectively appropriates, He still sends the race to hell?

And what need is there for the dreadful cross if God is wooing humanity to Himself? Aren’t there more straightforward, less confusing ways, for the divine Lover to declare His love?

Stipulate this, then: No theory of atonement can be right if the cross “works” regardless of whether anyone is saved. No theory of atonement can be right of people are saved even though the cross has done no work.