The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views

Spectrum Multiview

by James K. Beilby (Editor), Thomas R. Schreiner, Gregory A. Boyd

A long history of biblical exegesis and theological reflection has shaped our understanding of the atonement today. The more prominent highlights of this history have acquired familiar names for the household of faith: Christus Victor, penal substitutionary, subjective, and governmental.

Recently the penal substitutionary view, and particularly its misappropriations, has been critiqued, and a lively debate has taken hold within evangelicalism. This book offers a "panel" discussion of four views of atonement maintained by four evangelical scholars.

The proponents and their views are:

Gregory A. Boyd: Christus Victor view
Joel B. Green: Kaleidescopic view
Bruce R. Reichenbach: Healing view
Thomas R. Schreiner: Penal Substitutionary view

Following an introduction written by the editors, each participant first puts forth the case for their view. Each view is followed by responses from the other three participants, noting points of agreement as well as disagreement.

This is a book that will help Christians understand the issues, grasp the differences and proceed toward a clearer articulation of their understanding of the atonement.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Biblical Studies, Nonfiction, Old Testament, New Testament

202 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 9, 2006

About the author

James K. Beilby (PhD, Marquette University) is professor of systematic and philosophical theology at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Reviews

[Pig Rieke · Rating 2 out of 5]

Having read this book, it seems a shame to me that a tree was wasted for its production rather than for toilet paper. But if one finds themselves in need of toilet paper, many of the pages of this work commend themselves to their readers as desiring to be flushed down the nearest available toilet.

The work has been composed to feature and show interaction between various views of the atonement: Christus Victor, Penal Substitution, Healing, and Kaleidoscope View. While Tom Schreiner’s chapter on penal substitution is excellent and compelling. The others are lacking. While all of them say some true things, some of the portions are difficult to stomach. At times it is evident that the authors so differ on the basics of who is God and what is sin that the debate on Christ’s death seems pointless.

A few of the toilet worthy amusements contained in the book include one of the authors admitting that he doesn’t understand how the atonement works…on a book on the atonement, multiple authors defending their positions based on the Chronicles of Narnia, and one of the authors forgetting that he has to make arguments for his position.

The most concerning aspect of the book was to see outright attacks on the idea that God’s reaction to sin is anger. At times at least one author can be described as presenting “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross [at least a cross with meaning].”

[Spencer · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a much needed volume. However I think there were deficiencies in what was presented.

Boyd and Schreiner's essays were the clearest. However, both demonstrated an impasse. Neither explained the other's imagery. Boyd did not explain sacrifice langauge well, nor Schreiner military language.

Schreiner's own explanation of sacrifice was problematic because he forces all sacrifice language into the mold of penal substitution. That is simply not the case. Milgrom's commentary on Leviticus points out that there are many means and goals of the sacrifices of the OT, many of which have nothing to do with punishment.

Schreiner has to squeeze passages into the PSA mold. Take for example Jesus describing his death as a "ransom for many." The context is an act of humiliation and service (the "first becoming last") that frees those enslaved to the demonic powers in the Gospel of Mark. Schreiner takes it to mean a ransom as payment for sin against God. There is some PSA language in Mark, but Schreiner's obsession causes him to gloss all nuance with a big PSA brush.

I often find PSA views tend to do two very big errors: First is trying to ground it on the need to satisfy God's wrath, as if God cannot love unless he kills. That is simply not the case. Jesus forgives in Mark 2 by sheer pronouncement. If the cross is taking on God's wrath, it is an action that Christ does, fully one with the Father, displaying that God himself resolves that he does not require our death for sin, and has gone to that length of substituting himself to communicate this love.

Second, PSA is often way too boiled down. If PSA is taken to a logical extreme, that Jesus died to take our place, there is no reason why Jesus had to die on a cross. He could have just died comfortably in his bed. The cross is a political reality. Jesus was executed by an imperial power, which wielded the power of death to maintain order, with the Temple in bed with it, who accused Jesus of blashemy. In that regard, popular PSA tends to undermine all these other layers that are deeply important. Schreiner mentions that PSA is the "most" important strand. However, I find it odd how a conservative evangelical would say some scripture are more important than others, as if some are non-essential.

The essay on the healing view was thoroughly unconvincing, and I don't know why the editors chose that view over, for instance, the governmental view or a moral view.

Finally the Kaleidoscope view is, in my opinion, probably the best way of understanding the strands of atonement language, but I did not find Joel Green's essay very good. Green just did not develop what the strands were and why it is better to use all the strands of imagery in unison. To be honest, the essay felt cut and paste.

Interested readers could take a look at Colin Gunton's Actuality of Atonement, Paul Fiddes' Past Event, Present Salvation, James McClendon's Systematic Theology, or Gabriel Fackre's Christian Story if they want to see other explanations of a multi-faceted view of atonement.

So, like I said, good topic, weird delivery.

[Michael Matala · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, it’s a helpful overview regarding the discussion of atonement. The problem with this topic in a 4-views book is that discussion of the atonement is often very nuanced. Therefore, the book read as if the authors representing each view presented a generalized understanding of their specific view of atonement while the responses to that presentation focused on the nuances that were glossed over or missing in the initial representation.

With that being said, I was most interested in the chapters on Christus Victor and Penal substitution and the subsequent interaction between the two authors. My appreciation for both views grew as a result of this book.

[Michael Heidle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Deep Theology

Again, this book on the Atonement of Chris in which scholars debate four views of meaning of the atonement ... there are some great points; yet overall I felt I was twenty pages behind and hanging on barely the whole time! In the end I don't really get I and kinda feel I could have just as well read a book on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!! Sorry!! May you get more out of it than I did!!

[Chris McMillan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent entries by Tom Schreiner and Greg Boyd on penal substitutionary atonement and Christy’s Victor, respectively. Joel Green also had some fascinating insights more generally although his conclusion was unconvincing.

[Blake · Rating 2 out of 5]

I take it as a rule of charity that, if an argumentative dialogue among different and competing viewpoints is to occur, each viewpoint represented should have a strong representative in its defense. While the Christus Victor view had Gregory Boyd, the Healing view had Bruce Reichenbach, and the Kaleidoscopic view had Joel Green, the Penal Substitution view had Thomas Schreiner. Unfortunately for this book, Schreiner's defense of penal substitution offered hardly anything of substance. His overly simplistic appeals to divine wrath, Pauline allusions to Jewish sacrifice, and select passages reveal more assumptions than arguments. For a more substantive defense of penal substitutionary theory, I recommend Oliver Crisp's "Original Sin and Atonement" in *Oxford Hanbook in Philosophical Theology*.

Boyd's defense of Christus Victor has some theoretical appeal, since (as he puts it) the Christus Victor model accounts for other atonement motifs. I have criticized the Christus Victor model on the grounds that it is theoretically unhelpful, since in general it asserts merely that Christ 'overcame sin and darkness.' Theories and models of the atonement ought, I think, to explain how this is accomplished, and it is already a Christian 'given' that Christ's atonement was effective in redeeming the world. Boyd avoids this generality problem by appealing to the self-sacrificial, pacifistic life of Christ, who loved his enemies to the end. (Schreiner, of course, highlights his disagreement with Boyd's pacifism, and devotes an entire, brief footnote to the issue.) This is an admirable improvement, but it is at the cost of some inclusivity. If the means by which Christ overcame sin and darkness was by living a pacifistic life, then it is odd to add that Christ was the punitive scapegoat for human sin: the object of God punishing his enemies through Christ, or Christ instead of them. So it might be that Boyd's Christus Victor must reject certain forms of satisfaction theory; but then, of course, it does not theoretically encompass them. This might be no great disadvantage, since Boyd seems to reject penal substitutionary theories, and surely the atonement isn't at odds with itself. But it does posit a less inclusive model, given Boyd's pacifistic take on Christus Victor.

I have relatively little to say regarding the other essays, save that I commend Reichenbach and Green for their interesting proposals. Their greatest contributions to the book consisted in their responses to Schreiner's essay, where they pointed out many of Schreiner's unargued assumptions.

I was saddened to discover that Philip Quinn's contribution in defense of Moral Exemplar/Influence theory was excluded, since he died shortly before the book's completion. No doubt his contribution would have been both interesting and important, and the exclusion of a moral exemplar/influence view is rather unfortunate. It has occupied an important place in Christian theology and, in recent days, has seen something of a comeback. While I understand the importance of publishing deadlines, this tome ought to have included a representative of the exemplar/influence view.

[Lynn Joshua · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good presentation of several models of the atonement. Each model presents an answer to the question, "Why did Jesus have to die and what effect does the resurrection have?"
I recommend this book because, as one contributor to this book points out, the Penal Substitutionary model "is so pervasive in American Christianity that many Christians may wonder whether the saving significance of Jesus' death can be understood in any other way." The Christus Victor model, with its emphasis on Christ's victory over the powers of evil, provides an antidote to the tendency to neglect the cosmic perspective of God’s victorious reign.
The way in which we view the atonement shapes our image and idea of God and why he did/does what He does. The overview in this collection of essays has given me the desire to dig deeper, and I plan to read the classic defense, Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulen next.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 4 out of 5]

As with any book that is a compilation of essays, the reader will need to brace for a mix of writing styles. I personally found two of the writers (Boyd and Green) extremely readable, while the others less so. However, the content of this little book is extremely helpful to anyone with an interest in various understandings of the atonement. In particular, Boyd's response to the penal substitution essay, as well as Green's "kaleidoscopic" essay, were the standout sections of the book. Similar to others in the multi-view series, each writer offers a response to the submissions of the others. This all adds up to a reading experience that will help the reader develop a much more nuanced understanding of a deeply complex theological issue. Recommended for theology nerds!

[Jarod Grubbs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great resource to learn about different interpretations of Christ’s atonement.

[Bill Forgeard · Rating 3 out of 5]

My first multiple views theology book. I had been skeptical about these, thinking that they were "canned theology", but I think I've been won over. It turns out they are an efficient way to get your head around a controversial issue by engaging directly with theologians arguing for their own position. There are weaknesses to the format of course, and in this case it's a shame the Christus Victor and Penal Substitution views appeared to be in conflict. If you're interested in reading the 1000 words I wrote for my M.Div review, see below. (In summary, I naturally settle with Penal Substitution, but I think it needs to be balanced by Christus Victor.)

-----------------------

'The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views' presents four different perspectives on the nature of the Atonement. The book aims to “help Christians understand the issues, grasp the differences and proceed toward a clearer articulation of their understanding of the atonement” (back cover), and it succeeds in this goal. In the introduction Eddy and Beilby outline the historical context of the debate. The body of the book comprises four essays, each followed by responses from the other contributors.

The format has two significant strengths. It is an efficient way to gain an introductory overview of a controversial topic and it allows the reader to engage directly with a variety of theologians, each arguing for their own position. However, the format also has significant weaknesses. The content is necessarily brief and thus introductory at best. The book lacked a consistent approach shared by all contributors, making some chapters less helpful than others. The adversarial structure (whereby the contributors respond to each other) is not ideally suited to the topic because of the amount of agreement between the different authors, whose disagreements concern the relative importance of the positions rather than their validity. This structure also lends itself to repetition, since in their responses the contributors often repeated the arguments from their own chapters. The book was unfortunately weakened by the exclusion of the Christus Exemplar view due to the untimely death of the intended contributor of that chapter.

In section one, Greg Boyd represents the Christus Victor view. Boyd argues that the fundamental achievement of the atonement was that “God defeated the devil”(24), and all other atonement motifs are “best understood within this context”(24). He begins by outlining the warfare motif throughout Scripture before discussing the many New Testament passages that concern Christ’s victory over Satan, convincingly suggesting that only the Christus Victor motif captures the cosmic nature of Christ’s achievement. Boyd argues effectively that Christ’s entire ministry was concerned with “manifesting the reign of God and vanquishing the reign of the destructive powers”(40). The weakness of Boyd’s argument is his inability to explain exactly how Christ defeated the devil. He lists various acts of love from Christ’s ministry, concluding rather vaguely that Christ was “conquering evil with love” (39) . Boyd then argues that other atonement theories can be incorporated within the Christus Victor model. At this point he affirms substitutionary atonement but rejects penal substitution, suggesting that Jesus experienced God’s wrath only indirectly at the hand of evil powers. Schreiner’s response rightly points out that Boyd does not do justice to the Biblical emphasis on forgiveness of sin, and thus “he lacks clarity in explaining how Christ’s death led to triumph over demonic powers”(52). Reichenbach makes an interesting point in his response by juxtaposing Boyd’s well-known Open Theism with his Christus Victor position, asking whether according to this view God’s final victory is necessarily uncertain?

In section two, Tom Schreiner presents the Penal Substitution view. The key to his definition is that “the punishment and penalty we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us”(67). He argues that Penal Substitution is the “anchor and foundation”(67) of the other atonement motifs. He briefly demonstrates that this satisfaction of God’s justice is at the root of all other atonement views, including Christus Victor, the healing view and others. Schreiner outlines the Biblical basis for atonement under the categories of the sinfulness of man, the holiness of God and the sacrifice of Christ. Finally, he highlights the Biblical connection between Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf and our own ethical response of following Christ’s example, anticipating the argument that a legal understanding of atonement removes motivation for Christian obedience. Green provides a helpful response to Schreiner’s chapter, noting that Schreiner relies heavily on concepts from broader reformed theology in his defence of Penal Substitution, which limits the effectiveness of his argument, especially to those from other traditions.

In section three, Bruce Reichenbach presents the healing view of the atonement. He argues that in the atonement, Jesus “takes on our sin and suffering … to restore us to shalom”(142). Reichenbach begins by examining the biblical human condition characterised by sin and suffering and traces God’s Old Testament role as a healer, especially by examining the sacrificial system and the suffering servant in Isaiah. He then examines Jesus’ role as a physical and spiritual healer, culminating with him bearing our afflictions on the cross. As each of the other contributors point out in their responses, Reichenbach provides a good summary of the healing view, but fails to argue that it ought to be considered the primary motif. Since Reichenbach leaves this unresolved, Boyd argues that healing in fact results from Christ’s victory over evil, and Schreiner argues that healing in fact results from Christ’s taking the penalty for our sin.

In section four, Joel Green argues for what he calls the Kaleidoscopic view of the atonement. Green argues that in light of the multiple atonement motifs evident in scripture, we ought not attempt to isolate any one in particular as primary. He begins by helpfully noting that the historical and salvation-history contexts are crucial in clarifying our understanding of Christ’s death. Green then outlines briefly the various atonement motifs found in scripture, and notes that all are needed to fully understand the atonement. As Boyd and Schreiner observe in their responses, while this is undoubtedly true, it does not rule out the possibility that one or two of these motifs ought to be considered central or foundational. Further, both Boyd and Reichenbach warn that without a central unifying understanding of the atonement, its message risks becoming relativised according to the interpreter’s cultural context.

It is unfortunate that the Christus Victor view and the Penal Substitution view are presented as being in conflict in The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. This may be because Boyd himself strongly rejects penal substitution and Schreiner strongly affirms it, and perhaps also because Boyd, an Open Theist, and Schreiner, a reformed theologian, occupy such different positions within the evangelical spectrum. This is unfortunate because these two views seem to complement each other well, and together may provide the foundational, primary atonement motif for which the book seeks. The major weakness of the Christus Victor view is that it is unable to explain exactly how the atonement occurs, which is remedied by Penal Substitution. The major weakness of the Penal Substitution view is that risks neglecting the cosmic perspective of God’s victorious reign, which Christus Victor remedies. Together, Christus Victor and Penal Substitution offer a foundational, satisfying motif for understanding and proclaiming the nature of the atonement.

[Neil Short · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am glad this book was produced. I have doubted for years the correctness of the "Penal Substitution" model of the Atonement. Penal Substitution is the view that God demands satisfaction for sin and God extracts satisfaction from an innocent substitute (a sacrificial animal add Jesus himself). I read with interest the section on Penal Substitution by Thomas Shreiner and I found its arguments to be lacking. Your mileage may vary. Indeed, Penal Substitution is the dominant Christian view today but it does directly contradict other scriptures that say, essentially, that God does not have satisfaction when an innocent is punished for the crime of someone else.

After reading through the various arguments for the other perspectives, I believe I will most easily embrace Joel Green's "Kaleidoscope" model. That view, is short, sees the meaning of the Lord's death in multifaceted ways and each facet is emphasized in scripture depending on the context and goal of the narrative.

In my experience with reading this collection, I struggled to understand Greg Boyd's "Christus Victor" and Bruce Reichenbach's "Healing" views. Again, your mileage may vary.

I am not done studying this question. Considering the difficulty that is evident in understanding the atonement, I am comfortable concluding that atonement in any form is not necessary to understand in order to become a Christian. Many of the benefits Christians believe to be connected to the Lord's death were available to believers before the crucifixion. So what was accomplished by the Lord's martyrdom? Whatever we conclude on the matter, how clearly must new converts understand the meaning of "death on a cross?"

I am thinking about Paul's sermon in Athens. His audience was NOT a synagogue. Paul did not mention a single Old Testament prophecy. Paul did not mention Jesus by name or that there was a martyr's death. Paul said that God expects people to change their ways in preparation for judgment which we can anticipate with certainty because God raised a man from the dead.

Acts 17:30-34 (NRSV) While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed; but others said, “We will hear you again about this.” At that point Paul left them. But some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

[Susan Soesbe · Rating 4 out of 5]

I checked this book out of the library because I was hearing some negative opinions about something called penal substitutionary atonement. I have received teaching in (mostly) Evangelical American churches, and simply took PSA for granted. When I heard about Christus Victor, I realized there were other ways to view the atonement.

Others have adequately described the premise and content of The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, so I won't cover that ground again. What was important to me about this book was that it helped me understand there are and have been many different ways to see a doctrine, and it's important to find out the histories of these views and the reasons people have held them. If a belief is crucial to one's faith, then one should know why one holds it.

I found The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views to be a bit heavy on scholarly language for me. I wish I could get these four men in a room and ask them directly, "In plain language, what do you think about what he just said?" I'd order out for pizza, and we'd all be polite. It would be great.

That was one thing I really liked about this book: the contributors all expressed respect for one another's views and bent over backwards to point out ways in which they agreed. In fact, the editor starts by observing how very the contributors have in common.

My world wasn't shaken by this book, but it was expanded a bit.

[George · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm a bif fan of this series by Intervarsity. I have read one other on Evolution and Creationism. I think this volume serves as a really good introduction to different views of the atonement. The four authors they got all agreed generally that the various models all have good points to them but each argues their model is the most consistent. The models were: Christus victor, penal substitution, healing, and the kaleidoscope model. You may think of other ones, but the argument is that these are the four big models, and all others fall into one of them. For example: ransom theory falls under Christus victor. To me, that's sort of true, but also not.

In any case each author gets chapter to make their case and get responses from all other authors. I remember the evolution one allowed the author to respond to their critics as well, but here that isn't the case. But that isn't really needed. Honestly, that was probably just done to make sure that Ken Ham would stop complaining.

Good intro to the atonement for those interested.

[Jon Cheek · Rating 2 out of 5]

Like many of the "four views" books, this one is disappointing.

Boyd's Christus Victor argument certainly has biblical support, but Boyd didn't show how the Bible emphasizes this view over other views. Also, I thought it was odd that the majority of Boyd's critique of Schreiner was based on how Lewis presented the atonement in Narnia.

The "healing" view seemed like it didn't belong in this book. While Reichenbach pointed out that healing is a metaphor used a number of times in Isaiah and the Gospels. He did not seem to even try to make the point that this is the driving force of the atonement.

Green's kaleidoscopic view has merit because the Bible does speak of numerous concepts in relation to the nature of the atonement. However, he seems to assume that because the Bible gives multiple purposes that they are all equally important.

Schreiner provided the most biblically sound argument (for penal substitution), and this is probably the highlight of the book.

Though Schreiner made a strong case, I don't think any of the authors really got to the root cause of the purpose of the atonement in relation to God's eternal plan. In eternity, before creation, why did God decide that the atonement was something that should happen, and what did he intend to demonstrate?

Also, it seemed that other views, such as the governmental view should have been included instead of the "healing" view.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good read about four competing theories of the atonement. There was a surprising amount of agreement between the authors of the four essays; much of the argument was over which model should be seen as the *primary* lens through which the atonement should be viewed.
I approached this book most sympathetic to the kaleidoscopic view (i.e. all models are equally important), and left feeling the same, although Dr. Green, who wrote the kaleidoscopic essay, strayed a little too close to a postmodern feel for my liking.
Recommended for anyone looking to understand the major theories of the atonement or looking to weigh the pros and cons of each of them.

[Anthony Locke · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid overview and interaction between four positions on the atonement. I particularly appreciated the chapters by Boyd and Schreiner. It is interesting to think about how Christus Victor and Penal Substitutionary Atonement can work together, as opposed to one being primary over all others. I think there are strong cases for both. The healing chapter was a bit underwhelming – as Schreiner points out, he doesn’t try to make a compelling case for why healing should be the primary view of the atonement. Instead, we’re treated moreso to a biblical survey of the motif – helpful, but not quite on key.

[Joelle Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Compelling Read

Written in the form of a panel discussion, this book was exactly what I was searching for in my quest for answers. I appreciated the organization, because it didn't bounce around from topic to topic. Each viewpoint was given distinct workspace. It was solidly scriptural, and not simply based upon opinion or the hearsay of others. They were also not afraid to announce their disagreements, which I also appreciated. While they maintained professional courtesy at all times, they kept to their beliefs, and they were able to back them up with appropriate references. (I.e. "Here's why I do not agree and why...")

[James Boyce · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was quite a helpful book for understanding an overview of 4 different atonement views. I would have loved if a scholar had taken Abelard's view and defended the moral exemplar view at least to show the important contribution that comes from understanding Jesus' life as a way to live, but believe that both Boyd and Green include that perspective within their essay. Each author wrote well and I am again marveling at the riches within the Biblical story and the ways that certain doctrines can be understood.

[Jonathan Roberts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Teaching on the Atonement in class so I got this to none up on other views that I am not familiar with. Some entries were better than others, but a clear understanding can be had by reading this. I wish the kaleidoscope view would have been more clear, I feel having read all four views that there is not one view that is perfect but all four are needed. Good solid biblical teaching! Enjoyed this book. Recommended

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

A deep theological dive into the theories of atonement. Heavy going at times but well worth it. Each author gets the opportunity to critique the others – an excellent feature of the book. My own personal view is closest to that of Greg Boyd (n.b. – my own personal view matches Greg Boyd's out of the 4 options given. It's not an exact match. Outside the book, my own personal view most closely matches that of progressive Christian Sharon Baker).

[Austin Maddox · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's a good book, but PSA is the only view that holds water. Every other view is just an argument (or lack thereof...see Healing View), of why PSA is wrong. However, the other views give valuable insight into other aspects of the atonement, but they don't answer key questions about the problem of our sin and God's holiness. I did find it helpful to see the different aspects of the atonement described in each view and opened my eyes to other things that I had not thought much about previously.

[Dave Betts · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone exclusively educated with penal substitutionary leanings, this was a very helpful exploration of different views (Christus Victor, Healing, and Kaleidoscopic) as well as a thorough discussion of the position with which I am most familiar. Each contribution is critiqued charitably and robustly by the other authors, which is hugely helpful. I long for more discussion like this in our society - we’d be much better for it. A worthwhile read, for sure.

[Evan Hoekzema · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remember this book being super helpful in regards to understanding different perspectives for what Christ’s sacrifice on the cross actually accomplished. I think we all have different faith backgrounds and we grew up only hearing ONE possible explanation for what it accomplished. It was helpful for me to hear a more well-rounded explanation.

[Kyle Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This edition of Four Views is both a helpful introduction into atonement theology and a healthy model of Christian dialogue. The 4 writers provide modern renderings of Christus Victor, Penal Substitution Atonement, Healing, and Kaleidoscope.

[Wyatt Jordan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good overview of at-one-ment theories with not enough pages for more in-depth analysis and explanation. Great for getting your feet wet and lots of citations which can point readers in the right direction for future reads on this topic.

[Hunter Leavine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyed the structure and thought it was very well done. Presents major views and various ways to emphasize the work of the cross. The book also allows authors to respond to one another’s stances.

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Christus Victor, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Kaleidoscope, Healing. Never ended up reading Healing. Most helpful for the first two views.

[Jordan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good, concise overview of a few Atonement theories with counter responses. As is often the case with books like this, both the laying out of ideas and responses are too summarized.

[Jared Mindel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fun book to read for sure. Learned a solid amount on each view for sure, though I wish there was a greater attempt to reconcile PSA and CV. Overall I'd recommend it, but it's not anything profound.

[Wayne's · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting and balanced presentation on 4 atonement theories.