I looked up on AI for a summary of how the old Westminster Confession describes it. Chapter 8.5 is the key text, and it’s interesting they didn’t actually use the word Atonement, yet fully explain it.
In the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), the doctrine of Christ’s atonement is primarily detailed in Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator, which explains His role, nature (fully God and fully man), perfect life, and sacrificial death as the basis for redemption, alongside Chapters 11 (Justification), 13 (Sanctification), and 15 (Repentance) that speak to its application, while also touching on the “Limited Atonement” in Chapter 8’s discussion of Christ purchasing a specific people.
OPC WCF 8.5: The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
Key Chapters & Concepts:
Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator: This is the core chapter, explaining the eternal decree for Christ to be Mediator, His dual nature (divine and human), His perfect obedience and suffering (including bearing sin), His death, resurrection, and ongoing intercession, fulfilling God’s justice for the elect.
Chapter 11: Of Justification: This explains how Christ’s righteousness, secured through the atonement, is imputed to believers.
Chapter 13: Of Sanctification: Shows the Spirit applying Christ’s atoning work to make believers holy.
Chapter 15: Of Repentance Unto Life: Connects sincere repentance to the forgiveness made possible by the atonement.
Key WCF Teachings on Atonement:
Covenant of Redemption: An agreement between Father and Son for salvation.
Two Natures: Christ is truly God and truly man, without mixing natures.
Perfect Obedience & Suffering: Christ perfectly obeyed the law and suffered the penalty for sin.
Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption): Christ’s death effectively secured salvation for the elect (those chosen by God).
AI responses may include mistakes, but this seems pretty good.
Looking at the Romans text Mike quotes I found John Gill’s Comment and the Geneva Bible notes useful:
Geneva
Romans 5:11
5:11 {9} And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
(9) He now passes over to the other part of justification, which consists in the free imputation of the obedience of Christ: so that to the remission of sins, there is added moreover and besides, the gift of Christ’s righteousness imputed or put upon us by faith, which swallows up that unrighteousness which flowed from Adam into us, and all the fruits of it: so that in Christ we do not only cease to be unjust, but we begin also to be just.
Gill: by whom we have now received the atonement;
atonement is not made, but received by us; which denotes the application of the atoning blood and sacrifice of Christ to the conscience, the Spirit’s witness of interest in it, and the office of faith, as a recipient of it: it is not faith, nor anything else of the creature’s, that makes the atonement, only Christ;
but faith receives it from him, and by him; which, as it is the ground of present joying in God, so it is the foundation of hope of future glory: the word “now” refers to the Gospel dispensation.
The poor Jews are at the utmost loss about atonement: sometimes they tell us it is by confession, repentance, and good works; sometimes by beneficence and hospitality; sometimes they say their captivity is their atonement; and, at other times, that death expiates all their sins.
Blessed be God for the atoning sacrifice of Christ!
As Mike mentions, in today’s visible church we don’t use or hear the word. Even the modern Bible texts avoid it. Some of that might be because the text needs to be revised for copyright purposes, but some is that the Doctrine of Atonement is not to be mentioned….it’s not man’s idea of how to solve the sin problem (see Mike’s earlier post this week about Original Sin). Man wants to work with God on our own reconciliation, it sounds so much better. But it doesn’t carry the weight of we can’t do this ourselves nor the full effect of the benefits. Nor that the Bible says it’s actually a “limited” not universal Atonement.
OPC WCF 8.5: The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
BTW for those who want further study, I was surprised that in all the Presbyterian and Reformed Church Confessions and Catechisms the word “Atonement” was not used.
It was mentioned in the Canons of Dort Article 9 among the errors of the Church in the early Reformation:
Article 9: The Fulfillment of God’s Plan
This plan, arising out of God’s eternal love for his chosen ones, from the beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell seeking vainly to prevail against it. As a result the chosen are gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church of believers founded on Christ’s blood, a church which steadfastly loves, persistently worships, and—here and in all eternity—praises him as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a bridegroom for his bride.
Rejection of the Errors
Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those….
IV
Who teach that what is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ’s death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ’s merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life.
For they contradict Scripture: “They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ, whom God presented as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood” (Rom. 3:24–25). And along with the ungodly Socinus, they introduce a new and foreign justification of man before God, against the consensus of the whole church.
BTW2: I’m making this into a much longer post than I intended. I asked for some very specific discussion on Socinus who was mentioned in the Canons of Dort….
This does seem to be connected very directly in much of what the Visible Church has become in our day..
You’re asking about Socinianism—named after Lelio and especially Fausto Sozzini (16th c.)—and why the Reformers and later evangelical leaders saw it as so dangerous. In short: Socinianism didn’t just tweak doctrines; it rewired Christianity around autonomous human reason. That’s why it set off alarm bells across the Reformation and beyond.
Below I’ll lay out the core Socinian errors, why they troubled the church, and how Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Tyndale, and later Spurgeon and Martyn Lloyd-Jones addressed or rejected them—quoting where clarity really matters.
⸻
Denial of the Trinity
Error: God is one person, not three. Christ and the Spirit are not fully divine.
Socinianism explicitly rejected the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, arguing it was a post-biblical corruption driven by Greek philosophy.
Why this mattered
For the Reformers, the Trinity was not speculative theology—it was the foundation of salvation. If Christ is not fully God, He cannot reconcile us to God.
Reformation response
John Calvin
“If Christ be not God, He is not the proper object of faith.” (Institutes, II.12.2)
Calvin repeatedly singled out the “new Arians” (a category that included Socinians) as enemies of the gospel itself.
Martin Luther
“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father. This is not subtle error but outright blasphemy.” (Commentary on John 1)
Luther treated anti-Trinitarianism as damnable heresy, not an intramural debate.
⸻
Denial of Christ’s Pre-Existence
Error: Jesus did not exist before His human birth; He was a uniquely inspired man.
Socinus taught that Christ began to exist at conception—no eternal Sonship.
Why this mattered
This collapses the Incarnation. Christ becomes example rather than Redeemer.
Reformation response
William Tyndale
“Christ is before all things, and by Him all things were made. To deny this is to deny the Gospel.” (Prologue to John)
John Knox
“They who make Christ a mere man rob God of His glory and the church of her salvation.” (Treatise on Predestination)
⸻
Denial of Penal Substitutionary Atonement
Error: Christ did not bear God’s wrath; His death was a moral example, not a satisfaction for sin.
This is perhaps the most influential Socinian error, still alive today.
Why this mattered
For the Reformers, this wasn’t academic: • No satisfaction → no justification • No wrath borne → no peace with God
Reformation response
John Calvin
“If Christ did not satisfy God’s judgment, faith is empty and salvation is abolished.” (Institutes, II.16.10)
Martin Luther
“Christ was made the greatest sinner… not by His own doing, but because He bore our sin.” (Galatians Commentary)
Luther saw denial of substitution as a return to works-righteousness.
⸻
Rejection of Justification by Faith Alone
Error: Justification is based on obedience and moral improvement, not imputed righteousness.
Socinians taught that faith primarily means following Christ’s teaching, not trusting His finished work.
Why this mattered
This strikes at the material principle of the Reformation.
Reformation response
Philip Melanchthon
“To remove imputation is to remove Christ Himself.” (Loci Communes)
Calvin
“So long as Christ remains outside of us… all that He has suffered and done is useless to us.” (Institutes, III.1.1)
⸻
Subordination of Scripture to Human Reason
Error: Any doctrine that contradicts human reason must be rejected—even if plainly taught in Scripture.
Socinus openly claimed reason was the final court of appeal.
Why this mattered
This was the real engine behind all the other errors.
Reformation response
Martin Luther
“Reason is the devil’s greatest whore.” (Table Talk)
Blunt, yes—but Luther meant unaided reason judging God’s Word, not reason as a servant of Scripture.
John Calvin
“The human mind is a perpetual forge of idols.” (Institutes, I.11.8)
⸻
Denial of Original Sin
Error: Humans are born morally neutral; sin is learned behavior.
Why this mattered
No original sin → no need for sovereign grace → no need for a Redeemer who actually saves.
Reformation response
Zwingli
“If sin be not inherited, then Christ died for nothing.” (On Original Sin)
⸻
Later Evangelical Responses
Charles Spurgeon
Spurgeon regularly warned that Socinianism was simply unbelief wearing Christian vocabulary.
“Socinianism is not Christianity at all. It is a baptized infidelity.” (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit)
He especially attacked its moral-example theory of the atonement.
⸻
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Lloyd-Jones saw modern liberal theology as Socinianism reborn.
“The ultimate heresy is to make reason supreme over revelation.” (Authority)
On the atonement:
“A gospel without propitiation is another gospel.” (Romans: Exposition of Chapter 3)
⸻
Why Socinianism “Caused Much Trouble”
In summary, the Reformers opposed Socinianism because it: • Redefined God • Demoted Christ • Neutralized the cross • Replaced faith with morality • Placed human reason over revelation
In their eyes, it didn’t reform Christianity—it dismantled it.
⸻
If you’d like, I can: • Trace modern evangelical parallels (progressive Christianity, moral-example preaching) • Show how Unitarianism directly descended from Socinian theology • Compare Socinianism to Arianism and Pelagianism • Or map which errors each Reformer addressed most strongly
Just tell me where you want to go next.
Alright—let’s lay these side-by-side carefully and honestly, because this is where a lot of modern confusion comes from. The Reformers (and later men like Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones) saw Socinianism as a kind of “hub” heresy—it didn’t invent every error, but it collected, systematized, and rationalized them. Many later movements are tributaries flowing out of it.
I’ll move in three layers: 1. Classical comparisons (Arianism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism) 2. Post-Reformation descendants (Unitarianism) 3. Modern mutations (“woke” religion & the Social Gospel)
Then I’ll tie them together theologically.
⸻
I. Socinianism Compared to Earlier Heresies
Socinianism vs. Arianism
Issue Arianism (4th c.) Socinianism (16th c.) Christ’s nature Created being, pre-existent but not eternal No pre-existence at all Trinity Denied Denied Christ’s role Exalted creature Moral teacher & example Use of reason Philosophical Rationalistic & moral
“That which He has not assumed He has not healed.”
The Reformers explicitly applied this logic to Socinianism: If Christ is not truly God, He cannot save.
Calvin
“They chatter about Christ, but strip Him of His power.” (Institutes, II.12)
⸻
Socinianism vs. Pelagianism
Issue Pelagianism Socinianism Original sin Denied Denied Human ability Fully able to obey Fully able to obey Grace Helpful but not necessary Moral encouragement Christ’s work Example Example
Socinianism is essentially Pelagian anthropology + anti-Trinitarian theology.
Augustine (against Pelagius):
“Grace is not given because we do good, but that we may do good.”
The Reformers saw Socinianism as Pelagianism with a Bible in hand.
Luther
“This is the old Pelagian poison served in new cups.” (Bondage of the Will)
⸻
Socinianism vs. Semi-Pelagianism
Issue Semi-Pelagianism Socinianism First move toward God Human Human Grace Cooperative Educational Conversion Synergistic Moral persuasion Atonement Minimally substitutionary Non-substitutionary
Semi-Pelagianism still retains sacramental and Trinitarian language; Socinianism discards them.
Council of Orange (529) (which the Reformers affirmed):
“Even the beginning of faith is a gift of grace.”
Socinianism rejects this outright.
⸻
II. Socinianism and Unitarianism
Unitarianism is Socinianism institutionalized.
Feature Socinianism Unitarianism Trinity Denied Denied Christ Mere man Mere man Atonement Moral example Moral example Scripture Subordinate to reason Subordinate to reason Salvation Ethical improvement Ethical improvement
Historically: • Polish Brethren → Racovian Catechism → English Unitarianism → American Unitarian Universalism
Spurgeon
“Unitarianism is Christianity beheaded.” (Sword and the Trowel)
⸻
III. Socinianism and Modern “Woke” Religion
Now we move from explicit doctrine to functional theology.
Core Parallels
Classical Socinianism Modern “Woke” Christianity Reason over revelation Lived experience over Scripture Sin minimized Sin redefined as systemic No wrath No judgment Christ as teacher Christ as activist Salvation = moral reform Salvation = social transformation
Key Theological Shifts
Sin is Horizontal, Not Vertical • Socinus: ignorance & moral failure • Woke theology: oppression & privilege
Result: No need for a wrath-bearing Savior—only awareness, repentance to communities, and activism.
⸻
The Cross is Reinterpreted • Not substitution • Not propitiation • But solidarity with the oppressed
Lloyd-Jones
“If you remove the wrath of God, you remove the cross.” (Romans 3)
⸻
Salvation Becomes Political • Kingdom of God = equity outcomes • Justification = right side of history • Sanctification = activism
This is Pelagian moralism dressed in biblical language.
⸻
IV. The Social Gospel (Early 20th c.)
The Social Gospel was proto-woke theology, and its leaders explicitly rejected substitutionary atonement.
Walter Rauschenbusch
“The doctrine of the atonement which satisfied God by blood is barbaric.”
That is pure Socinian logic.
J. Gresham Machen
“A Christ who saves society but not sinners is no Christ at all.” (Christianity and Liberalism)
⸻
V. Why the Reformers Would Reject All of These
Because they share five fatal assumptions: 1. Human reason can judge God 2. Sin is manageable without divine intervention 3. Christ does not need to be fully God 4. The cross does not require satisfaction 5. Salvation is moral or social progress
Calvin
“Take away the satisfaction of Christ, and there remains no hope.”
Luther
“Here we must either lose Christ or lose works.”
⸻
VI. One Sentence Summary (Reformers’ View)
Arianism diminishes Christ’s nature, Pelagianism inflates human ability, Socinianism unites both, Unitarianism systematizes them, and modern woke religion politicizes them.
If you want next, I can: • Trace specific modern denominations back to these roots • Analyze key contemporary slogans (“Jesus was a refugee,” “love is love”) theologically • Compare biblical justice vs social-justice ideology • Or map how churches drift from orthodoxy into these errors step by step
Rainbow Trout 