Definition
Atonement covers in the corpus two closely related but distinct concepts: the reconciling act of Christ that removes guilt and punishment (atonement proper), and the restored relationship between God and humanity that results from it (reconciliation). Contested in the corpus are its scope (for believers only vs. for all people) and its nature (forensic-substitutional vs. cosmic-restorative). The Greek term is ἱλασμός (hilasmos, 1 John 2:2).
Usage in the Corpus
E.W. Bullinger
Bullinger connects atonement to the ἅπαξ structure: Christ’s atoning offering is once-for-all, definitive, and unrepeatable. It is the foundation of monergistic redemption. [Bullinger, Number in Scripture]
George Warnock
Warnock defends the necessity of blood atonement without any concession to modernist critique: “there is positively no acceptance for any man before God except by the shedding of the precious blood of Christ.” He also emphasizes its scope: “That full and complete Atonement was made for the whole human race by Jesus Christ on the Cross, there is no doubt whatsoever” — but this requires personal appropriation through faith. Atonement is objectively universal but subjectively conditional. [Warnock, The Feast of Tabernacles, Ch. 2]
Stephen Jones
Jones extends the scope of atonement to its maximum: Col. 1:20 (“reconcile all things to himself”) includes not only humans but the entire creation and spiritual powers. He adds that even Satan’s ultimate reconciliation is implied by Scripture — a distinctive element of his teaching that goes beyond the classic restorationist spectrum. Atonement for Jones is not only soteriological but cosmological. [Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Ch. 5]
Watchman Nee & Witness Lee
Nee/Lee emphasize the atoning death as the “killing power” of the Spirit: Christ’s death acts not only juridically but actually works the death of the old nature in the believer through the Spirit. Atonement has a pneumatological-transformative dimension. [Nee/Lee, The Economy of God]