What do you think?
Rate this book
A Narnian Vision of the Atonement: A Defense of the Ransom Theory
How can we have redemption or atonement (at-one-ment) with God? Ancient Christians proposed a ransom theory, according to which God pays the ransom for us through heroic self-sacrifice so we can be liberated from the power of the demonic, sin, and death. This theory is widely rejected by philosophers and theologians, yet C. S. Lewis boldly portrays atonement in precisely such terms in his seven-volume The Chronicles of Narnia . In this book, philosopher Charles Taliaferro defends the integrity and beauty of redemption in these stories and offers a Narnia-inspired Christian theory of atonement. He writes for those intrigued by Lewis’s imaginary world of Narnia and for those interested in thinking about temptation, how wrongdoing may be overcome, confession, repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation, restitution, death, resurrection, and personal transformation. Taliaferro argues that Lewis’s work is no mere entertaining fairytale for children but an important lens through which to view deep themes of redemption and atonement, and all the vital stages involved in overcoming evil with the superabundant good of God’s loving self-sacrifice.
150 pages, Paperback
Published August 24, 2022
5 people are currently reading
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 9, 2026
I’ve been thinking about what theory of the atonement makes the most sense to me. Moving away from a strong PSA, I was dissatisfied with how that theory too often made God the enemy of the story (in a sense) and didn’t have many compelling answers (to me) against that charge.
Before going into this book the ransom theory had some major draws for me. It placed the blame for most if not all of the world’s evils on Satan. It also explained the Bible’s many references to Satan in regard to the atonement. Before reading this, though, I tried to write out a coherent picture of the ransom theory of the atonement. Doing this made me realize two weaknesses, in my view, of the ransom theory: 1) it might require quite a bit of speculation surrounding what went on between God and Satan before the genesis account and during the crucifixion and 2) it doesn’t deal with the biblical passages that DO leave Satan out of the picture or explain the passages showing that God does have wrath for sinners.
Coming to the book itself, it’s definitely an interesting one with its mix of atonement theory, philosophy, and literary discussions on the chronicles of Narnia. It made me want to read the Narnia books again, and several of its philosophical discussions, such as those on forgiveness and restitution, were insightful.
Since I came to it mostly to hear out a defense of the ransom theory though, I was disappointed for several reasons. To me, it seems like a good ransom theory will necessarily try to define the terms that were set between God and Satan, or at least give plausible ways it could have happened. In other words, I think the ransom theories that makes the most sense are the ones that are willing to speculate that God did in fact make some kind of deal with the devil in which the devil gained rightful ownership over humans beings, or at least those who sinned. Here, however, the author leans heavily on a free will defense—the idea that we have essentially made our own prisons and are our own jailers that we need to be ransomed from. While I think this is a valuable idea that could fit well with some theories of the atonement, it seems to make the ransom theory less valuable in terms of explanatory power. For one, it once again makes the actual being called Satan superfluous to your atonement theory. Secondly, if we are only held hostage to ourselves and not Satan, why exactly did Jesus need to die? To me, one benefit to the ransom theory is that it explains why God could not merely accept our repentance but had to go on to die for us—because a real being called Satan had a legal right to all traitors.
Some points the author made didn’t seem very convincing to me. One of his major reasons why he thinks we shouldn’t believe that Aslan really gave himself to the witch as a true exchange and why we shouldn’t take completely literally the witch’s words that all traitors are her lawful prey (and presumably this is why we also shouldn’t think Satan has a real rightful claim over us) is that the witch herself is a traitor to Aslan, and so if she had such a claim she would have to kill herself. However, this reasoning can be easily answered, I think, with some simple imagination. Is it that hard to imagine that Aslan (or God) would agree to make the first and chief traitor in all creation the lord of the other traitors, who would suffer under her or his cruelty until the time they would all be dealt with as traitors? One could imagine, by analogy, a death row in which one of the most feared and evil inmates is allowed control over the death row inmates of the prison by the warden. The fact that the lead inmate is also scheduled for death doesn’t seem to have any bearing on whether or not he could inflict pain on the others, or even press the button on their electric chairs himself. This point made me concerned that not only is the author not giving the strongest version of the ransom theory, but he may not even be giving Lewis’s version, which is the point of the book.
After discussing historical ransom theories, the author goes beyond historical ransom theories, which more often have the qualities of payment actually being made to Satan, and chooses to defend what he calls a “Christus Victor Ransom Theory.” The problem here is that the book promises a defense of the ransom theory, but I think it loses sight of this at times by adding the Christus victor element. The place where I noticed this most was when the author reviews other atonement theories in a friendly manner and offers ways in which the “ransom theory” could be compatible with or even complement other theories. In this section, however, much of the conversation surrounding how the ransom theory could complement other theories had to do with the ability of God to restore damages caused by sin. Restoring damages caused by sin, however, doesn’t seem at all to be an aspect of the atonement that is unique to the ransom theory. In my view, the author failed to pick out what is unique to the ransom theory—that payment was made to Satan in some way for our atonement—and defend it.
Finally, I went into the book having a strong hunch that the author was more politically and socially progressive. I still had to laugh though when during an unrelated philosophical exploration of how we might be held accountable for sins of our ancestors, the author set up a thought experiment in which he proposed that it would be immoral to take an inheritance from a relative who gained their money from denying climate change, questioning the validity of the 2020 election, and promoting hesitancy around the COVID vaccine. Almost as an afterthought, the author does throw in that the relative may have been involved in sex trafficking. Well why didn’t you start with that?? I was ready to cash in! While I don’t claim to have sure knowledge or a strong opinion on these issues, setting them up as worthy of condemnation on the level of sex trafficking and overt racism (which he also mentions) seems like a few steps too far.
That said, I think despite my initial rose colored glasses I’ll be moving away from the ransom theory, at least as the foundational aspect of the atonement. Though I think that the ransom theory is very valuable to think through in exploring different aspects of the atonement, I can’t say this would be the book I would recommend to help one do that. There must be a better defense of the ransom theory out there. Heck, the Chronicles of Narnia itself might be a better defense.
Before going into this book the ransom theory had some major draws for me. It placed the blame for most if not all of the world’s evils on Satan. It also explained the Bible’s many references to Satan in regard to the atonement. Before reading this, though, I tried to write out a coherent picture of the ransom theory of the atonement. Doing this made me realize two weaknesses, in my view, of the ransom theory: 1) it might require quite a bit of speculation surrounding what went on between God and Satan before the genesis account and during the crucifixion and 2) it doesn’t deal with the biblical passages that DO leave Satan out of the picture or explain the passages showing that God does have wrath for sinners.
Coming to the book itself, it’s definitely an interesting one with its mix of atonement theory, philosophy, and literary discussions on the chronicles of Narnia. It made me want to read the Narnia books again, and several of its philosophical discussions, such as those on forgiveness and restitution, were insightful.
Since I came to it mostly to hear out a defense of the ransom theory though, I was disappointed for several reasons. To me, it seems like a good ransom theory will necessarily try to define the terms that were set between God and Satan, or at least give plausible ways it could have happened. In other words, I think the ransom theories that makes the most sense are the ones that are willing to speculate that God did in fact make some kind of deal with the devil in which the devil gained rightful ownership over humans beings, or at least those who sinned. Here, however, the author leans heavily on a free will defense—the idea that we have essentially made our own prisons and are our own jailers that we need to be ransomed from. While I think this is a valuable idea that could fit well with some theories of the atonement, it seems to make the ransom theory less valuable in terms of explanatory power. For one, it once again makes the actual being called Satan superfluous to your atonement theory. Secondly, if we are only held hostage to ourselves and not Satan, why exactly did Jesus need to die? To me, one benefit to the ransom theory is that it explains why God could not merely accept our repentance but had to go on to die for us—because a real being called Satan had a legal right to all traitors.
Some points the author made didn’t seem very convincing to me. One of his major reasons why he thinks we shouldn’t believe that Aslan really gave himself to the witch as a true exchange and why we shouldn’t take completely literally the witch’s words that all traitors are her lawful prey (and presumably this is why we also shouldn’t think Satan has a real rightful claim over us) is that the witch herself is a traitor to Aslan, and so if she had such a claim she would have to kill herself. However, this reasoning can be easily answered, I think, with some simple imagination. Is it that hard to imagine that Aslan (or God) would agree to make the first and chief traitor in all creation the lord of the other traitors, who would suffer under her or his cruelty until the time they would all be dealt with as traitors? One could imagine, by analogy, a death row in which one of the most feared and evil inmates is allowed control over the death row inmates of the prison by the warden. The fact that the lead inmate is also scheduled for death doesn’t seem to have any bearing on whether or not he could inflict pain on the others, or even press the button on their electric chairs himself. This point made me concerned that not only is the author not giving the strongest version of the ransom theory, but he may not even be giving Lewis’s version, which is the point of the book.
After discussing historical ransom theories, the author goes beyond historical ransom theories, which more often have the qualities of payment actually being made to Satan, and chooses to defend what he calls a “Christus Victor Ransom Theory.” The problem here is that the book promises a defense of the ransom theory, but I think it loses sight of this at times by adding the Christus victor element. The place where I noticed this most was when the author reviews other atonement theories in a friendly manner and offers ways in which the “ransom theory” could be compatible with or even complement other theories. In this section, however, much of the conversation surrounding how the ransom theory could complement other theories had to do with the ability of God to restore damages caused by sin. Restoring damages caused by sin, however, doesn’t seem at all to be an aspect of the atonement that is unique to the ransom theory. In my view, the author failed to pick out what is unique to the ransom theory—that payment was made to Satan in some way for our atonement—and defend it.
Finally, I went into the book having a strong hunch that the author was more politically and socially progressive. I still had to laugh though when during an unrelated philosophical exploration of how we might be held accountable for sins of our ancestors, the author set up a thought experiment in which he proposed that it would be immoral to take an inheritance from a relative who gained their money from denying climate change, questioning the validity of the 2020 election, and promoting hesitancy around the COVID vaccine. Almost as an afterthought, the author does throw in that the relative may have been involved in sex trafficking. Well why didn’t you start with that?? I was ready to cash in! While I don’t claim to have sure knowledge or a strong opinion on these issues, setting them up as worthy of condemnation on the level of sex trafficking and overt racism (which he also mentions) seems like a few steps too far.
That said, I think despite my initial rose colored glasses I’ll be moving away from the ransom theory, at least as the foundational aspect of the atonement. Though I think that the ransom theory is very valuable to think through in exploring different aspects of the atonement, I can’t say this would be the book I would recommend to help one do that. There must be a better defense of the ransom theory out there. Heck, the Chronicles of Narnia itself might be a better defense.
Displaying 1 of 1 review