The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (Spectrum Multiview Book Series)

In Bible College and Seminary I was taught the various views of the atonement. I remember hearing about the ransom theory, the satisfaction theory, the moral government theory, and the penal substitution substitution theory, and the example theory, but for some reason, I don't ever remember learning about the Christus Victor view. I went back and looked at my notes, and sure enough, not a word was said about it.I am trying to figure out why. Was it because my professors didn't know about it? Or possibly they did know about it, but didn't think it was worth mentioning. Either way, it kind of ticks me off, because after reading this book, I believe that the Christus Victor view is correct. Why did nobody ever at least mention it or bring it up in class?Oh well, I've learned about it now, thanks to this excellent book edited by Jamed Beilby and Paul Eddy. This book presents four views on the atonement (which are not all the possible views).The introduction points out that there are three main paradigms that guide atonement perspectives. The first paradigm is the Christus Victor paradigm, which is Satanward in its approach so that Jesus is seen to be fighting against and triumphing over the devil and his works. The second paradigm is Godward in its focus so that the work of Christ on the cross is said to satisfy or appease something within the nature and character of God. The third paradigm is manward in focus so that the work of Christ is thought to accomplish something for humanity. All of the various theories about the atonement fall into one of these paradigms, and this book chose four theories to consider.This, of course, is the main weakness of this book (and all "Four View" books), for the reader may not recognize that there are more than four views on the atonement. Regardless, the four views chosen were as follows.The Christus Victor view, explained and defended by Gregory Boyd, essentially sees that Jesus came to destroy the devil's work.The Penal Substitution view, explained and defended by Thomas Schreiner, argues that sin has a penalty, and on the cross, Jesus bore that penalty for all mankind.The Healing view, explained and defended by Bruce Reichenbach, says that the cross of Christ was intended to restore all creation and relationships to their rightful role within God's designFinally, the Kaleidoscopic view, explained and defended by Joel Green, argues that on the cross, Jesus did something significant within each of the three paradigms listed above.The reason I ended up siding with the Christus Victor view is because of how it presents God in light of Jesus Christ. Jesus reveals the Father to us, and in Jesus we do not see a God who is out to get us, who is just waiting to pounce on every sin, and who must exact bloody revenge for every slight against His holy character. And while it is certainly true that there are negative consequences for sin, and far-reaching implications for restoration and liberation within the cross of Christ for all mankind, the central reason Jesus went to the cross, it seems, is because Satan demanded it, and in so doing, Jesus defeated and triumphed over the devil. It is not God who is bloodthirsty and legalistic, but Satan. It is not the wrath of God that must be appeased, but the wrath of the law by which Satan screams for justice! So Jesus gave Satan "justice" and in so doing, destroyed the devil's works.I am certain I am explaining this poorly, but then, I just now learned of this view!

This is one of the biggies in Christian thinking. The Atonement...the theology and historicity on how God made God and Man one again after the Fall of man into sin.After reading this book I remembered a line from one of the foremost thinkers on the Atonement I know, the well-known Biblical scholar Dr. Robert Traina: "I'm glad that the Atonement for me personally doesn't depend upon a theory but a man on a cross". Amen to that.Don't get me wrong, I love theology and its lingo. I think it is of absolutely crucial importance in our day, but I have to admit that this book left me a little confounded. Why did they write this book, anyway?Yes, if you think that Jesus dying on a cross primarily, or solely, to pay a price for your sins and take your sins on himself...you gotta at least wonder what in the world that means. How does your sins get transferred to Jesus? If a price was paid, to whom did Jesus pay it?Thus, it very important to realize that the Atonement is greater than the Penal Substitutionary theory.However, is it necessary to limit ourselves to one theory? The authors acknowledge this and Gregory Boyd especially points out that all theories have truth in them...his theory just has more truth or overarching truth.The question I hate to ask in the end is this: does it matter which theory is the megatheory, the one that "binds them all?"Actually, I think it makes a huge difference but this book is not the book to answer that question. Therefore only four stars. This is much like a menu when all you want to do is to eat. Read it but go on to deeper and more meaningful books that allow you to get a better view of God...which is the whole idea anyway. A hint is in place, however, on what difference I think it makes what theory you hold to. Your view of the Atonement is definitive for your view of God. We better get that right or we will be very surprised one day...

This book isn't exhaustive in the subject matter, but it isn't meant to be. The point is to present several popular views of the atonement and the different ways they critiqued and defended.Some contributers do a better job than others. However, this only adds to the advantage of the book. Of great value in this series, unlike some of the others, is the rejoinder. Each writer presents their view, the others critique it, and then the original contributer responds to those critiques. Done so, it allows each view to be better represented.

great analysis of four of the most predominant atonement views with valuable critiques.

This is an excellent overview of the principal atonement theologies. The editors do a good job of introducing the subject and giving an historical summary of the different views. The four essays are well presented,well argued and serious without being overly academic. The interaction between the contributors adds further illumination. For anyone wanting to get to grips with the different approaches and make an informed decision on which one (or ones) they favour, this is very helpful.

very interesting. worth reading to see different ideas if you are interested in the subject. I can't say how well the four authors views represent the four "traditions" but it seems like its a good place to start.

Very thought provoking and challenging