Chapter 18
Post-Reformation to the Modern Era:
Developments, Criticisms, and Alternatives

Introduction

In Chapter 17, we traced how the Reformers — especially Martin Luther and John Calvin — gave powerful expression to substitutionary and penal themes in their understanding of the cross. Luther proclaimed Christ's dramatic victory over sin, death, and the devil, while Calvin offered a more systematic account of how Christ bore the legal penalty that sinners deserved. The Reformation gave substitutionary atonement its clearest and most forceful theological voice up to that point in history.

But the story does not end there. What happened after the Reformation is every bit as important for understanding the atonement debates of our own day. From the seventeenth century through the twenty-first, substitutionary atonement has been challenged, criticized, defended, reformulated, rejected, and revived — sometimes all at the same time. The theological landscape after the Reformation is a complicated one, full of sharp disagreements, surprising twists, and important new voices. To engage the contemporary debate about what happened at the cross, we need to understand how we got here.

The thesis of this chapter is straightforward: from the Enlightenment through the present day, substitutionary atonement has faced intense criticism from multiple directions — philosophical, moral, theological, and feminist — while also receiving powerful new defenses, and understanding these modern developments is essential for engaging the contemporary atonement debate. I want to walk through this history carefully and fairly, giving each voice a real hearing, before stepping back to see the big picture.

We will begin with what happened right after the Reformers — how their successors systematized (and in some ways narrowed) their teaching. Then we will trace the first major theological attack on penal substitution from the Socinians, the creative response of Hugo Grotius, the sweeping changes of the Enlightenment, the rise of liberal Protestant theology in the nineteenth century, the towering figure of Karl Barth in the twentieth century, Gustaf Aulén's influential Christus Victor thesis, and finally the wave of late twentieth- and twenty-first-century criticisms — along with the vigorous defenses that have answered them. It is a long and winding road, but one well worth traveling.

I. Protestant Orthodoxy: Systematizing the Reformation

Before we get to the critics, we need to understand what they were criticizing. The first generation after the Reformers — the period known as "Protestant Orthodoxy" or "Protestant Scholasticism" (roughly the late sixteenth through seventeenth centuries) — took the insights of Luther and Calvin and organized them into highly systematic theological structures. The great Reformed scholastic Francis Turretin (1623–1687) and the Puritan theologian John Owen (1616–1683) produced careful, detailed defenses of penal substitutionary atonement that became the standard expression of the doctrine for generations.¹

Gustaf Aulén, whose work we will examine in more detail below, argued that something important was lost in this process. In his view, Luther's successors — beginning with his own colleague Philip Melanchthon — went "right back to the Latin doctrine" of Anselm, completely missing the dramatic, Christus Victor dimension of Luther's own theology.² Aulén saw this as a tragedy. Luther had recovered the early church's vision of Christ as the triumphant conqueror of evil, but his followers turned the atonement back into a purely legal transaction — a matter of debts paid and penalties satisfied within a rigid courtroom framework.

There is something to Aulén's complaint, even if (as I will argue) he overstates it. The Protestant Orthodox theologians did tend to emphasize the legal and penal dimensions of the atonement at the expense of other biblical themes. Their system was impressively logical, built on the idea that God's retributive justice absolutely required satisfaction, and that Christ's death provided exactly that satisfaction — both through His active obedience (keeping the whole law perfectly on our behalf) and His passive obedience (suffering the penalty of death that we deserved).³

As Aulén described it, in Protestant Orthodoxy "the whole conception is dominated by the idea of Satisfaction; the satisfaction is treated as a rational necessity, the only possible method by which Atonement can be effected."⁴ The legal framework became so dominant that the richer, more multi-dimensional vision of the atonement found in the New Testament and in Luther himself was pushed to the margins. The cross became, in effect, a courtroom drama and little else.

I want to be fair here. The Protestant scholastics were brilliant theologians who preserved vital truths. The idea that Christ bore the legal penalty for our sins is genuinely biblical, as we have argued in earlier chapters (see especially Chapters 8–9 on Paul's teaching and Chapter 11 on 1 Peter 2:24 and 3:18). The problem was not that they affirmed penal substitution. The problem was that they sometimes made penal substitution the only lens through which the cross was understood, and they framed it within a rigid legal system that could make the atonement feel more like an accounting exercise than an act of divine love.

What did this system look like in practice? The Protestant Orthodox treatment of the atonement developed a detailed vocabulary. Christ's "active obedience" (obœdientia activa) referred to His perfect keeping of the entire law of God on our behalf throughout His life. His "passive obedience" (obœdientia passiva) referred to His endurance of the penalty of death on the cross. Both were required: the active obedience satisfied the demands of God's legislative justice (the law must be perfectly fulfilled), while the passive obedience satisfied the demands of God's punitive justice (the penalty for transgression must be paid). Together, they formed a "double imputation" — our sin was imputed to Christ, and His righteousness was imputed to us.⁵⁸

This was an impressively comprehensive system, and it captured real biblical truths. But the way it was constructed also created vulnerabilities. As Aulén observed, the underlying idea of God became dominated by justice and law: "The idea of God which underlies it is, above all, that of a Justice which imposes its law and demands satisfaction; only within these limits is the Divine Love allowed to operate."⁵⁹ The love of God was not denied, but it was effectively subordinated to — and constrained by — the demands of justice. This is the opposite of what I believe the New Testament actually teaches. In the New Testament, God's love is the initiating and governing reality (John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:10), and divine justice operates within the framework of love, not the other way around. When justice becomes the master category and love merely its servant, something essential about the gospel has been lost — even if every individual doctrinal statement remains technically correct.

This narrowing set the stage for the backlash that was coming. When critics in subsequent centuries attacked penal substitution, they were often attacking this particular expression of it — the rigid, legalistic, justice-dominated version — rather than the broader biblical vision of substitutionary atonement. Understanding this helps explain why some of the criticisms that followed were both understandable and, at the same time, misdirected.

II. The Socinian Critique: The First Systematic Attack

The first truly systematic assault on penal substitutionary atonement came from a surprising quarter. Faustus Socinus (1539–1604), an Italian-born theologian who eventually settled in Poland, launched a devastating critique of the doctrine that would echo through the centuries. His objections were so sharp, so logically precise, that nearly every subsequent criticism of penal substitution has been a variation on one of his original arguments.⁵

Socinus raised three main objections. First, he argued that punishment cannot be transferred from the guilty to the innocent. Guilt is personal. It belongs to the person who committed the offense. The idea that God could take the punishment due to one person and transfer it to another — especially to a sinless person — struck Socinus as fundamentally unjust. How can justice be served by punishing someone who has done nothing wrong?

Second, Socinus pressed a logical point: if Christ actually paid the penalty for our sins, then forgiveness is unnecessary. Think about it this way. If someone owes you a hundred dollars, and a friend comes along and pays the debt in full, you do not then "forgive" the debt. The debt is simply gone — paid in full. There is nothing left to forgive. But the New Testament everywhere describes salvation in terms of forgiveness (see, for example, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14). If Christ literally paid the exact penalty we owed, what is there for God to forgive? This is sometimes called the "double payment" objection: if the price has been paid, forgiveness becomes logically impossible.

Third, Socinus charged that penal substitution makes God's mercy and justice contradictory. The Socinians felt that Anselm and the Reformers had privileged God's justice above His love. If God must punish sin — if His justice absolutely requires it — then in what sense is He free to be merciful? A God who cannot forgive without first extracting payment does not seem particularly gracious. On the other hand, if God is free to be merciful, why does He need a bloody sacrifice at all?⁶

These are serious objections. I want to acknowledge that upfront. They are not stupid questions, and they deserve thoughtful answers. Over the centuries, defenders of substitutionary atonement have responded to each of them, and we will engage those responses in detail in Chapters 25–27 (on the philosophical coherence of substitutionary atonement). For now, let me simply preview the direction those answers take.

On the first objection (punishment transfer), the response is that Christ is not a random third party dragged unwillingly into the courtroom. He is God incarnate — the Judge Himself stepping into the place of the condemned, as Karl Barth would later put it so memorably. Moreover, the biblical concept of representation and corporate solidarity (the "in Christ" motif that runs throughout Paul's letters) provides a framework in which the transfer of consequences between a representative head and those he represents makes moral and theological sense (see Chapter 28).

On the second objection (forgiveness becomes impossible if the debt is fully paid), the answer involves recognizing that the metaphor of commercial debt payment does not capture the full reality. Christ's death does not function as a strict commercial transaction in which a precise monetary equivalent is exchanged. Rather, it is a personal, substitutionary sacrifice that satisfies divine justice while simultaneously making room for God's grace to operate. Forgiveness is still required because the individual sinner must receive the benefits of Christ's work through faith — the atonement is objectively accomplished but must be subjectively appropriated.⁷

On the third objection (justice vs. mercy), I believe the deepest answer is the one we explored in Chapter 3: love and justice are not competing attributes in God. They are both fully present, fully active, and perfectly harmonized at the cross. As Psalm 85:10 expresses it, "Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other." The cross is not a place where one divine attribute wins out over another. It is the place where all of God's perfections converge.

The Socinians themselves rejected penal substitution entirely and proposed instead that the cross was simply a demonstration of God's love and an example for believers to follow — a view that anticipated what would later be called the moral influence theory.⁸

III. Hugo Grotius and the Governmental Theory

One of the most creative responses to the Socinian attack came from the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius (1583–1645). Grotius developed what has come to be called the governmental theory of the atonement in his important work Satisfaction of Christ.⁹ The governmental theory emphasizes God's role as the just ruler of the moral universe. According to Grotius, Christ's death was not so much the exact payment of a debt owed to God's justice (as the strict penal substitution model held), but rather a public demonstration that God takes sin seriously — a demonstration that upholds the moral order of the universe while still allowing God the freedom to forgive.

Think of it this way. A good government does not enforce laws merely for the sake of vengeance. It enforces them to maintain order, to protect citizens, and to uphold justice for the common good. When God sent Christ to the cross, He was demonstrating to the entire universe that sin has real and serious consequences. This public display of the seriousness of sin allows God to forgive repentant sinners without undermining the moral fabric of His creation.

Now, there is a very interesting scholarly debate about what Grotius actually taught. The standard account, repeated in most textbooks, presents Grotius as departing from strict penal substitution. In this reading, the governmental theory is a "softer" version that replaces the idea of Christ bearing the exact penalty with the idea of Christ's death being a general display of justice.¹⁰

But as David Allen has demonstrated, drawing on the careful research of Garry Williams, this standard reading of Grotius is quite misleading. Williams showed that Grotius "plainly set out ... to defend the Penal doctrine, and he remains faithful to his purpose throughout the work."¹¹ Grotius used the words "penalty" and "punishment" extensively. He affirmed that Christ made full payment for sins, bore the penalty sinners deserved, and served as a substitute. In Grotius's own view, the formal cause of Christ's death was a genuine payment of the penalty of sins, not merely a symbolic display of justice.¹²

Allen summarizes the conclusion: "It is necessary to conclude that he taught that the punishment endured by Jesus on the cross arose from the very nature of God as an example of His retributive justice and was of an equivalent value to the punishment deserved by sinners."¹³ So Grotius was not abandoning penal substitution — he was defending it while adding a new emphasis on the public, governmental dimension of the cross. His real innovation was to stress that the atonement also serves the purpose of upholding the moral governance of the universe — a point that the strict satisfaction model had not emphasized as much.

That said, later advocates of the governmental theory did sometimes move away from Grotius's own position and present the theory as an alternative to penal substitution. In these later versions, Christ's death is merely a deterrent — a demonstration of the seriousness of sin for the sake of maintaining cosmic order — without any real transfer of penalty. This weaker version of the governmental theory is vulnerable to the criticism that it reduces the cross to a public relations exercise, a divine "scare tactic" rather than a genuine act of redemption.¹⁴

IV. The Enlightenment Assault

If the Socinian critique was the first shot fired at penal substitution, the Enlightenment brought a full-scale bombardment. The eighteenth century saw an explosion of intellectual confidence in human reason, and the theologians of this era subjected every traditional doctrine to the test of rational scrutiny. The doctrine of the atonement was a primary target.

The Enlightenment critique came from several angles. First, there was the moral objection — one we already met in Socinus, but now stated with new philosophical force. The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that moral guilt is absolutely non-transferable. Each person is responsible for their own moral condition. The idea that one person could bear another person's punishment struck Kant as morally incoherent. Guilt, he insisted, is not like a financial debt that can be passed from one account to another. It is a personal, inner reality that belongs inseparably to the individual who committed the offense.¹⁵

This Kantian objection remains one of the most powerful philosophical challenges to substitutionary atonement, and we will engage it in depth in Chapter 27. For now, I will simply note that Kant's framework assumes a purely individualistic understanding of moral responsibility — an assumption that the biblical vision of corporate solidarity and representative headship challenges at its root (see Chapter 28).

Second, the Enlightenment theologians attacked the very idea of a God who demands blood sacrifice. This seemed to them a relic of primitive religion — "a relic of Judaism," as Aulén notes they called it — unworthy of a rational, benevolent Creator.¹⁶ The idea that God needed to be "propitiated" or "appeased" through suffering struck them as barbaric and anthropomorphic (meaning it wrongly attributed human emotions like anger and vindictiveness to God). A truly loving God, they argued, would simply forgive — no blood required.

Third — and this is crucial for understanding what came next — the Enlightenment theologians proposed an alternative vision of God's relationship to humanity. God's attitude toward the world, they insisted, must "always and unalterably, be one of benevolence and goodwill."¹⁷ If God is fundamentally and unchangeably benevolent, then no atonement is needed — at least not on God's side. The only change that needs to happen is within human beings. We need to become better, more moral, more enlightened. God does not need to be reconciled to us; we need to be reconciled to reality.

Aulén perceptively noted the irony in this position. The Orthodox theologians had always said that the only alternative to satisfaction was a love that amounted to moral laxity. And the Enlightenment seemed to prove them right: "The rejection of the Orthodox doctrine of satisfaction actually involved a weakening of the idea of sin, and a toning-down of the radical opposition of the will of God to all that is evil."¹⁸ In getting rid of the cross as an objective act of divine justice, the Enlightenment had also gotten rid of any sense that sin was a serious problem requiring a serious solution.

This is a pattern we see again and again in the history of atonement theology. When the objective dimension of the atonement is denied — when we say that nothing needs to change in God's relationship to humanity, that the only problem is in us — the seriousness of sin inevitably fades. If God does not need to be reconciled to us, then our condition before God cannot be all that dire. Sin becomes a matter of ignorance or immaturity, not of genuine guilt and alienation. And if sin is not a serious problem, then the cross is not a serious solution — it is merely a moral lesson, an inspiring example, a touching gesture.

But this was not the view of the Enlightenment alone. Aulén pointed out another irony: the Enlightenment theologians, while insisting that no change in God was needed and no propitiation was required, simultaneously assumed "just such an influence upon God from man's side. For the extent to which 'atonement' is effected depends upon that which is done in and by men, on their penitence, their conversion; therefore God's attitude to men is really made to depend on men's attitude to God."⁶⁰ In other words, the supposedly "enlightened" view — which rejected the idea that anything needed to happen between God and humanity — smuggled back in a version of that very idea through the back door. Instead of God's attitude being changed by Christ's sacrifice (which they rejected), God's attitude was changed by human moral improvement (which they affirmed). The anthropocentrism — the human-centered focus — of the whole scheme was evident.

V. Liberal Protestant Theology and the Turn to the Subjective

The nineteenth century saw the rise of what is called liberal Protestant theology, and with it a wholesale transformation of atonement thinking. The great liberal theologians — Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889), and Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930) — continued the Enlightenment's trajectory away from objective atonement theories and toward subjective ones. That is, they moved away from the idea that the cross changed something in God's relationship to humanity (the "objective" dimension) and toward the idea that the cross changes something in us (the "subjective" dimension).¹⁹

Schleiermacher, often called the "father of liberal theology," made a crucial distinction between Erlösung (salvation) and Versöhnung (atonement/reconciliation). Salvation, for Schleiermacher, was primary — and it meant the strengthening of the individual's consciousness of God, a kind of moral and spiritual uplift. Atonement or reconciliation was secondary — it meant the sense of harmony and blessedness that follows from this deepened awareness of God.²⁰ Notice the order: first the change in us, then the sense of being right with God. This is the exact reverse of the traditional understanding, in which God's objective act of reconciliation at the cross comes first, and our subjective experience of peace with God follows as a result.

In Schleiermacher's system, Christ's role was not to bear the penalty of sin or to satisfy divine justice. Rather, Christ was the ideal religious human being — the "Pattern Man" who had a perfectly blessed consciousness of God and who, by His example and influence, lifts others toward the same spiritual awareness.²¹ The cross was important not because of what it accomplished objectively (paying a penalty, satisfying justice) but because of the subjective moral and spiritual influence it exerts upon those who contemplate it.

Ritschl continued in essentially the same direction. For Ritschl, the heart of Christianity was the ethical transformation of individuals and communities. The cross reveals God's love in a way that breaks down human mistrust of God and inspires people to live according to God's purposes. But the cross does not change God's attitude toward humanity — God's love is constant and does not need to be activated or released through any sacrifice.²²

Allen notes that in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, key theologians "would build on the criticisms of Socinianism and propound variations of the Moral Influence theory of the atonement. The nineteenth century was ripe for this 'second coming' of Abelard."²³ Along with Schleiermacher and Ritschl, this construal was followed by Horace Bushnell in America and Hastings Rashdall and F. D. Maurice in England, among others.²⁴

Allen offers a clear summary of what the moral influence theory teaches: "The cross moves people to a better knowledge of God and to an appreciation of His love that breaks down human opposition to God and leads to a change of heart toward God and toward sin. The focus is on the response of the human heart to the act of sacrificial love exhibited by Christ on the cross."²⁵ In this view, Jesus becomes, as Allen bluntly puts it, "little more than an elevated martyr."²⁶

Aulén added a further observation about Hastings Rashdall, the English liberal theologian whose The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (1919) represented the fullest expression of the subjective type in English-speaking theology. Rashdall traced his view back to Abelard and summarized Christ's significance in ethical terms: the cross "justifies us, inasmuch as through it charity is stirred up in our hearts"; "the efficacy of Christ's death is attributed to the moral effects which it produces."⁶³ For Rashdall, God forgives people "freely and without any other condition than that of true penitence." As Aulén pointed out, the weakness of Rashdall's approach is not in what it affirms — the ethical effects of divine forgiveness on human lives are real — but in the fact that "the Divine Love is not clearly set forth as a free, spontaneous love" but is "made dependent upon the ethical effects in human lives."⁶⁴ In other words, God's forgiveness becomes conditional on our moral improvement rather than being the free, sovereign act of grace that precedes and enables moral change.

Now, I want to be fair. There is real truth in the moral influence tradition. The cross does display God's love. It does transform human hearts. First John 4:19 says "We love because he first loved us," and the contemplation of what Christ endured for us is one of the most powerful motivations for love and obedience in the entire Christian life. The apostle Peter himself makes this point (1 Peter 2:21). We explored this in Chapter 11.

But the moral influence theory, when it stands alone, has devastating weaknesses. Allen identifies two critical questions it cannot answer: "(1) How can one subjectively appropriate the benefits of the atonement if there is no objective foundation of dealing with the sin problem in the atonement? (2) Where is the holiness and justice of God to be found?"²⁷ If the cross does not actually deal with sin — if it is only an example or a moral influence — then on what basis are sinners forgiven? What has changed between God and humanity? The moral influence theory inspires us, but it does not save us. It tells us about God's love but cannot explain how that love addresses the real problem of human guilt before a holy God.

VI. Karl Barth: The Judge Judged in Our Place

The theological landscape shifted dramatically in the twentieth century with the arrival of Karl Barth (1886–1968), widely considered the most important Protestant theologian since the Reformation. Barth rejected liberal theology root and branch. Against Schleiermacher and Ritschl, he reasserted the absolute sovereignty and transcendence of God, the radical nature of human sin, and the objective reality of what God accomplished in Christ.

Barth's treatment of the atonement in Church Dogmatics IV/1 is a theological masterpiece. His central concept is captured in the striking phrase: "the Judge judged in our place." Christ is not merely a victim, not merely an example, not merely a moral influence. Christ is the divine Judge — the very God before whose justice all humanity stands guilty — who steps down from the bench and takes the place of the condemned. In Barth's words, "It is the Judge who in this passion takes the place of those who ought to be judged, who in this passion allows himself to be judged in their place."²⁸

This is a profoundly substitutionary vision. Barth was clear that the atonement is God's own act from start to finish. He insisted on three "Christological aspects" for understanding the atonement. First, "in Jesus Christ we have to do with very God. The reconciliation of man with God takes place as God himself actively intervenes." Second, "in Jesus Christ we have to do with a true man.... He is altogether man, just as he is altogether God." Third, Jesus Christ is one — "the God-man." Only when this full Christological reality is affirmed can the atonement be properly understood.²⁹

As John Stott observes, "Perhaps no twentieth-century theologian has seen this more clearly, or expressed it more vigorously, than Karl Barth." Barth understood that "the initiative lay with the eternal God himself, who has given himself in his Son to be man, and as man to take upon himself this human passion."³⁰

Barth's formulation is especially important for the argument of this book because it captures what I believe is the essential heart of the atonement: God Himself, in the person of the Son, voluntarily bearing the consequences of human sin. This is not a third party being punished by an angry deity. This is God entering into judgment, receiving the judgment in Himself, and thereby overcoming it. The Judge becomes the judged — not because He is forced to, but because His love will not allow Him to leave humanity under condemnation.

At the same time, Barth's atonement theology is complex and resists easy categorization. He affirms substitution powerfully, but he reframes it in distinctly Christocentric terms. Everything centers on who Christ is — truly God and truly human — rather than on abstract legal categories of debt and payment. Some theologians have read Barth as moving beyond penal substitution toward a richer, more comprehensive vision of the atonement. Others see in Barth the deepest possible expression of substitutionary thought. I believe the latter reading is closer to the truth: Barth gives us substitution at its most profound, rooted in the very identity of the God-man who is both Judge and judged.³¹

What makes Barth's contribution so valuable for our purposes is that it shows how substitutionary atonement can be affirmed without the distortions that make it vulnerable to criticism. When the Judge Himself becomes the judged, we do not have an angry deity punishing an innocent victim. We have the sovereign God of the universe, in His own person, entering into the judgment that sinful humanity deserves and exhausting it from the inside. The love of God is not in tension with the justice of God; rather, the love of God expresses itself precisely through this act of self-judgment. Justice is satisfied because the Judge Himself bears the consequences. Love is revealed because no one compels Him to do so — He acts freely and willingly out of His boundless love for His creation.

Barth's influence on subsequent atonement theology has been enormous. Stott drew on Barth's insights for his own concept of "the self-substitution of God." Hans Urs von Balthasar, the great Catholic theologian, developed Barth's themes in his own magisterial treatment of Holy Saturday and the descent into hell in Mysterium Paschale. Even scholars who disagree with Barth on other points — such as his doctrine of election — acknowledge the depth and power of his atonement theology. In many ways, Barth single-handedly demonstrated that it was possible to affirm a robust doctrine of substitutionary atonement while leaving behind the rigid legalistic framework that had made it an easy target for critics.⁶¹

VII. Gustaf Aulén and the Christus Victor Thesis

In 1931, the Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulén (1879–1978) published a small but enormously influential book called Christus Victor. It sent shockwaves through the theological world and fundamentally reshaped the way scholars think about the history of atonement theology.

Aulén's argument was essentially a historical one. He claimed that scholars had been working with an incomplete map of the atonement landscape. The standard account recognized only two main types of atonement theory: the "objective" type (Anselm's satisfaction theory, later developed into penal substitution) and the "subjective" type (Abelard's moral influence, later picked up by the liberals). Aulén insisted that this two-model framework missed the most important type of all: what he called the "classic" idea — Christus Victor.³²

According to Aulén, the classic view sees the atonement as "a Divine conflict and victory; Christ — Christus Victor — fights against and triumphs over the evil powers of the world, the 'tyrants' under which mankind is in bondage and suffering, and in Him God reconciles the world to Himself."³³ This is not just a theory about moral improvement (the subjective type) or legal satisfaction (the Latin type). It is a cosmic drama — God invading enemy-occupied territory, defeating the powers of sin, death, and the devil, and liberating captive humanity.

Aulén made three bold historical claims. First, he argued that Christus Victor was the dominant understanding of the atonement in the early church — the patristic era (roughly the first through fifth centuries). Second, he claimed that this classic view was powerfully revived by Martin Luther, whose theology was far more "dramatic" and victory-oriented than the legal framework that his followers imposed on his thought. Third, he argued that Anselm's satisfaction theory represented a fundamental departure from the classic view — a "Latin" innovation that replaced the dynamic, God-centered drama of redemption with a static, legalistic framework in which Christ's work was offered to God from the human side.³⁴

What should we make of Aulén's thesis? I think he was partially right and importantly wrong.

He was right that the Christus Victor theme is genuinely biblical and genuinely patristic. As we saw in Chapters 13–14, the Church Fathers did speak powerfully about Christ's victory over the powers of evil. Texts like Colossians 2:15 ("He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him"), Hebrews 2:14 ("through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil"), and 1 John 3:8 ("The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil") clearly support a victory motif. Aulén was right to recover this important dimension of biblical and patristic thought.

He was also right that the standard two-model framework (Anselm vs. Abelard, objective vs. subjective) was inadequate. The history of atonement theology is far richer and more complex than a simple binary.

But Aulén was importantly wrong in two ways. First, he significantly overstated the case for Christus Victor as the exclusive or even dominant patristic view. As we demonstrated in detail in Chapter 15, the Church Fathers — both Eastern and Western — contain extensive substitutionary and penal language alongside their victory language. Aulén either overlooked or minimized this evidence. He acknowledged the common use of terms like "sacrifice" and "substitution" in the Fathers but too quickly assumed that such language always functioned within the classic/dramatic framework rather than the Latin/legal one.³⁵ The truth is more complex: the Fathers held multiple themes together without feeling the need to choose one over the others.

Second, Aulén set up Christus Victor and substitutionary atonement as competing alternatives — as if one must choose between them. But as we will argue in detail in Chapters 21 and 24, this is a false choice. The New Testament itself combines penal and victory themes in the same passages. Colossians 2:13–15 is perhaps the clearest example: the "record of debt" is cancelled (a penal/legal image in verse 14) and the powers are disarmed (a victory image in verse 15) in the same event. The cross is simultaneously a legal transaction and a cosmic battle. Substitution and victory are not rivals; they are partners.

Indeed, when we think carefully about it, the two themes require each other. How does Christ achieve victory over the powers of evil? Precisely by dealing with sin and its consequences — by bearing the penalty, cancelling the debt, and removing the legal ground on which the accuser stands. The "record of debt" that stood against us "with its legal demands" (Colossians 2:14, ESV) was the weapon the powers wielded against humanity. When Christ nailed that record to the cross, He disarmed the powers by removing their ammunition. Victory comes through substitution. The penalty-bearing and the power-defeating are not two separate acts but two dimensions of one magnificent act of divine redemption.

William Hess, whose work Crushing the Great Serpent we have engaged at various points in this book, represents a more recent version of Aulén's thesis. Hess argues for a more classical, Christus Victor understanding of the atonement and against penal substitution, particularly against the idea that God the Father poured out His wrath on the Son.⁶² I share some of Hess's concerns about overly wrathful portrayals of PSA (as I have made clear throughout this book — see especially Chapter 20). But I part company with Hess when he moves from criticizing distortions of substitutionary atonement to rejecting the substitutionary dimension itself. The Christus Victor theme that Hess rightly values does not replace substitution — it complements it. And as we demonstrated in Chapter 15, the patristic writers whom Hess appeals to frequently employed substitutionary language alongside their victory language. The early church did not face the either/or choice between victory and substitution that Aulén and Hess present; they affirmed both.

VIII. The Extent of the Atonement Debate within Reformed Theology

While we are discussing post-Reformation developments, we should briefly note an important internal debate within Reformed theology that has major implications for our understanding of the atonement: the question of its extent. Did Christ die for all people without exception, or only for the elect?

The Synod of Dort (1618–1619) affirmed what is commonly called "limited atonement" or "particular redemption" — the view that Christ's death was intended by God to save only those whom He had chosen from eternity. This became the "L" in the famous TULIP acronym summarizing the five points of Calvinism. John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (1647) provided the most rigorous logical defense of this position.³⁶

But not all Reformed theologians agreed. The school of thought known as Amyraldism (after the French theologian Moïse Amyraut, 1596–1664) affirmed a hypothetical universalism: Christ's death was sufficient for all and intended for all in some sense, but its saving application was limited to the elect. This position tried to hold together a genuine universal offer of the gospel with a Reformed doctrine of election.³⁷

As I have stated throughout this book, I believe the biblical evidence points decisively toward an unlimited atonement — Christ died for all people without exception. We will make this case in detail in Chapters 30–31. For now, the point is simply that the post-Reformation period saw significant disagreement even among those who affirmed penal substitution about the scope of that substitution. This internal debate reminds us that affirming substitutionary atonement does not commit one to a particular position on election or the extent of the atonement.

IX. Late Twentieth- and Twenty-First-Century Criticisms

The late twentieth century and early twenty-first century have witnessed an explosion of criticism directed at penal substitutionary atonement, coming from multiple directions simultaneously. We need to survey the major voices.

A. Steve Chalke and the "Cosmic Child Abuse" Accusation

Perhaps the most inflammatory modern critique of penal substitution came from the British evangelical Steve Chalke, who, together with Alan Mann, described penal substitution as "cosmic child abuse — a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed."³⁸ This phrase — "cosmic child abuse" — hit the evangelical world like a thunderbolt. It became the rallying cry for critics of penal substitution and a source of deep outrage for its defenders.

Allen calls this characterization "blasphemous" and argues that it "fails to acknowledge the trinitarian framework of the cross and undermines the sovereignty of God over the cross (Acts 2:23) as well as the reality of redemptive suffering as expressed in Isaiah 52:13–53:12."³⁹

Bruce McCormack offers what I find to be one of the most penetrating responses. He points out that the logic of penal substitution, properly understood, is "not that the Father does something to His eternal Son, but rather that the cross is an event between the Father and the Son, the Logos, as human." When the triune God is properly in view, "the triune God pours his wrath out upon himself in and through the human nature that he has made his own."⁴⁰ The event is entirely internal to God's own triune life. There is no divine abuse because there is no unwilling victim — only the self-giving love of the triune God who bears the cost of redemption in Himself.

This response aligns closely with what we will argue in Chapter 20: the cross is not the Father punishing the Son against His will. It is the unified, self-sacrificial action of the triune God. The Son goes willingly (John 10:18). The Father sends the Son in love (John 3:16). The Holy Spirit enables the offering (Hebrews 9:14). To call this "child abuse" is to fundamentally misunderstand both the Trinity and the nature of self-sacrificial love.

B. Joel Green and Mark Baker: Recovering the Scandal of the Cross

Joel Green and Mark Baker's influential book Recovering the Scandal of the Cross (2000) offered a more measured critique than Chalke's but pushed in a similar direction. They argued that penal substitution had become so dominant in evangelical circles that it had effectively displaced all other atonement models, impoverishing the church's understanding of the cross. They called for a recovery of the full range of biblical metaphors — not just legal/penal ones — and argued that the meaning of the atonement should be expressed in culturally appropriate ways rather than locked into a single theological system.⁴¹

There is something right about Green and Baker's concern. If penal substitution becomes the only lens through which the cross is viewed — if we forget about victory, reconciliation, redemption, moral transformation, and recapitulation — then we have indeed impoverished our theology. This is precisely the concern that motivates the multi-faceted approach I am advocating throughout this book. But Green and Baker go too far, in my view, when they suggest that penal substitution is merely one culturally conditioned metaphor among many, with no special claim to centrality. As I have argued in preceding chapters, the substitutionary dimension is not just one metaphor — it is the heart of what the cross accomplishes.

C. Feminist and Liberation Critiques

Some of the most passionate modern critiques of penal substitution have come from feminist theologians, especially Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker. In their book Proverbs of Ashes (2001), they argued that the traditional doctrine of the atonement — with its emphasis on a Father who requires the suffering and death of His Son — legitimizes suffering, glorifies victimhood, and provides theological cover for abuse. If God the Father sends His own Son to suffer and die, and if we are told to see this as a good and beautiful thing, then what message does this send to victims of domestic violence, child abuse, and oppression?⁴²

This is a critique that must be taken seriously, even by those of us who affirm substitutionary atonement. The experience of suffering is real, and no theological argument should be used to justify the abuse of the vulnerable. But the critique, while emotionally powerful, rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology. As we will argue in Chapter 20, the cross is not a case of an all-powerful Father demanding the suffering of a helpless Son. The Son is not a victim. He is a co-equal, co-eternal Person of the Trinity who acts voluntarily out of love. The Father does not coerce the Son; the Godhead acts in unified, self-giving love. To project human patterns of abuse onto the inner-Trinitarian life of God is to commit a serious theological error.

Moreover, the feminist critique often conflates two very different things: the misuse of atonement theology to justify human suffering (which is genuinely harmful and should be rejected), and the doctrine itself (which, when properly understood, actually stands against the glorification of suffering). The cross does not teach us that suffering is good. It teaches us that God takes suffering so seriously that He entered into it Himself to overcome it. The cross does not tell victims to be passive. It tells oppressors that God stands with the oppressed and will ultimately judge injustice. A proper understanding of substitutionary atonement, far from glorifying abuse, reveals a God who absorbs the worst consequences of human evil in order to defeat it from the inside. The One who hangs on the cross is not a helpless child but the Lord of the universe, freely choosing the path of self-sacrifice out of love for His broken creation.⁶⁵

D. J. Denny Weaver and the Nonviolent Atonement

From the Anabaptist tradition, J. Denny Weaver's The Nonviolent Atonement (2001, revised 2011) argued that any atonement theory requiring violence — including penal substitution — is incompatible with the nonviolent ethic of Jesus. Weaver proposed what he called "narrative Christus Victor" — a reading of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection as a nonviolent victory over the powers of evil, achieved not through the shedding of blood but through Jesus' faithful obedience and God's vindication of Him in the resurrection.⁴³

Weaver's concern for nonviolence is admirable, but his proposal creates more problems than it solves. The New Testament is saturated with sacrificial, blood-shedding language — "the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14), "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Hebrews 9:22), "the blood of his cross" (Colossians 1:20). To remove the element of sacrificial death from the atonement is to remove something the New Testament writers considered absolutely essential. As Allen pointedly notes, the claim that there is "no such thing as a non-violent atonement theory" has real force: "Every theory of the atonement, even non-violent ones, involves God in redemptive violence."⁴⁴

E. N. T. Wright and Mark Heim

Not all modern voices fit neatly into the "for" or "against" categories. N. T. Wright, one of the most influential New Testament scholars of our time, occupies a nuanced middle position. Wright affirms that Jesus died a substitutionary death, bearing the consequences of Israel's sin and the world's sin. But he resists certain formulations of penal substitution that he sees as too narrowly focused on an abstract legal transaction between the individual sinner and God. For Wright, the cross must be understood within the larger narrative of God's covenant with Israel, the exile and return, and the coming of God's kingdom. His emphasis is less on the mechanics of penalty transfer and more on the story of how God in Christ fulfills Israel's destiny and inaugurates the new creation.⁴⁵

Mark Heim, in his Saved from Sacrifice (2006), drew on the work of René Girard to argue that the cross should be understood not as God requiring sacrifice but as God exposing and ending the cycle of sacrificial violence that plagues human societies. In this reading, Jesus is the ultimate scapegoat whose innocent suffering unmasks the violence of the human system and breaks its power.⁴⁶ There is genuine insight here — the cross does expose human violence and injustice — but Heim's proposal cannot account for the rich sacrificial and substitutionary language that permeates the New Testament. The biblical writers did not understand the cross merely as an expose of violence; they understood it as a genuine sacrifice offered to God for the forgiveness of sins.

X. Contemporary Defenses of Substitutionary Atonement

The wave of modern criticism has been met by a powerful wave of defense. Several major works have argued forcefully for the continued validity — indeed, the centrality — of substitutionary atonement.

A. John Stott, The Cross of Christ (1986)

Though it appeared before the most intense round of modern debates, Stott's The Cross of Christ remains one of the most important defenses of substitutionary atonement ever written. Stott's central argument — developed most fully in his magnificent Chapter 6, "The Self-Substitution of God" — is that the cross is not God punishing someone else. It is God punishing Himself. The substitute is not a third party; the substitute is God Himself in the person of His Son. "The concept of substitution may be said, then, to lie at the heart of both sin and salvation. For the essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man."⁴⁷ This framework preserves the penal dimension — divine justice is genuinely satisfied — while making clear that the cross is an act of divine self-sacrifice, not divine abuse. We will engage Stott's argument extensively in Chapter 20.

B. Simon Gathercole, Defending Substitution (2015)

Gathercole provides a focused, rigorous exegetical defense of substitutionary atonement specifically in Paul's letters. Working carefully with texts like 1 Corinthians 15:3 ("Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures") and Romans 5:6–8, Gathercole demonstrates that substitution — Christ dying in our place, not merely for our benefit — is a central Pauline category, not a later theological imposition on the text.⁴⁸ Gathercole's work is especially valuable because he focuses on the broader category of substitution (Christ in our place) rather than narrowly on the penal dimension, which aligns well with the emphasis of this book: substitution is the heart, with the penal dimension as real but secondary.

C. William Lane Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ (2020)

The philosopher William Lane Craig brings the tools of analytic philosophy to bear on the doctrine of the atonement. Craig argues that penal substitutionary atonement is both biblically grounded and philosophically coherent. He engages the major philosophical objections — the problem of punishment transfer, the justice of punishing the innocent, the relationship between mercy and justice — and argues that each can be adequately answered within a carefully formulated framework of divine justice and human representation.⁴⁹ We will engage Craig's philosophical arguments extensively in Chapters 25–27.

D. Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions (2007)

Written in direct response to the Chalke controversy, Pierced for Our Transgressions provides a comprehensive defense of penal substitutionary atonement — biblical, theological, historical, and pastoral. The authors argue that PSA has deep roots in the Bible, the Church Fathers, and the entire Christian tradition, and they respond point by point to the major objections raised by modern critics.⁵⁰

E. Garry Williams

We have already seen Williams's important work on rehabilitating the historical reading of Hugo Grotius. Williams has also contributed a significant essay, "Penal Substitution: A Response to Recent Criticism," which defends PSA against the specific charges raised by Chalke, Green and Baker, and others. Williams argues that many modern criticisms are directed at caricatures of PSA rather than at the actual doctrine as articulated by its most careful proponents.⁵¹

XI. Where Things Stand Today

So where does the atonement debate stand in our own time? The landscape is complex, but a few observations can be made.

First, the old two-model framework (objective vs. subjective, Anselm vs. Abelard) has been decisively abandoned. Thanks in large part to Aulén, scholars now recognize a much richer variety of atonement models, including Christus Victor, recapitulation, theosis, and others. This is a healthy development.

Second, there is a growing consensus — even among some who are critical of penal substitution — that the atonement is multi-faceted and that no single model can capture the full reality of what happened at the cross. This too is healthy. Scholars like Fleming Rutledge, Joshua McNall (The Mosaic of Atonement), and Adam Johnson (Atonement: A Guide for the Perplexed) have all argued for an integrative approach that takes multiple models seriously.⁵² Rutledge's massive and magisterial The Crucifixion (2015) is a particularly important example. She organizes her treatment around the major biblical motifs — godlessness, justice, sin, blood sacrifice, Christus Victor, substitution, recapitulation — and argues that the crucifixion is "the most biblical of all doctrines," requiring the full range of biblical imagery to be understood. Rutledge affirms substitution as one of the essential motifs but places it within a larger constellation of themes rather than treating it as the sole framework.

Third, the Roman Catholic tradition has continued to offer important insights that evangelical Protestants would do well to engage. As we noted earlier in this book (and as we will explore further in Chapter 23), the Thomistic concept of "vicarious satisfaction" — grounded in mercy and love rather than in retributive wrath — provides a way of affirming the objective reality of what Christ accomplished while avoiding the distortions that make some Protestant formulations of PSA vulnerable to criticism. Philippe de la Trinité's important work What Is Redemption? represents this tradition beautifully. He argues that Christ is a "victim of love" acting in union with the Father, and that the preeminence of mercy — not retributive vengeance — governs the entire work of redemption.⁶⁶ This Catholic emphasis aligns closely with my own conviction that substitution must always be understood within a framework of divine love, never as a transaction driven by divine rage.

Fourth, the debate over penal substitution specifically remains intense. The critics have raised legitimate concerns — about caricatures that pit the Father against the Son, about overly narrow legal frameworks, about the danger of glorifying violence. But the defenders have shown that these concerns can be addressed without abandoning the substitutionary heart of the atonement. When penal substitution is properly understood as an act of the triune God's self-giving love — rather than as a transaction between an angry Father and an unwilling Son — most of the modern objections lose their force.

Fifth, as Allen observes, today there are essentially three approaches to penal substitution: "(1) those who denigrate it; (2) those who cautiously support it as a model of atonement to be incorporated with other models; and (3) those who consider it foundational."⁵³ I place myself firmly in the third camp, while also insisting (with those in the second camp) that the atonement is genuinely multi-faceted and that other models contribute real insights. Substitution is the center, but it is not the circumference. The cross accomplishes more than penalty-bearing — it also defeats the powers of evil (Christus Victor), recapitulates and heals human nature (recapitulation), reveals the depth of God's love (moral influence), and upholds the moral governance of God's universe (governmental). But none of these other dimensions can stand on its own without the substitutionary foundation on which they all rest.

As Stephen Holmes has perceptively noted, one reason penal substitution faces cultural resistance today is the declining cultural plausibility of retributive justice in Western societies, the "prevailing instinctive political liberalism among cultural elites," and the fact that many people in Western culture "simply do not view themselves as sinners in need of salvation."⁵⁴ In other words, the resistance to penal substitution is not purely intellectual — it is also cultural and existential. Many modern people resist the doctrine not because the arguments against it are so strong, but because the category of guilt before a holy God has become foreign to their experience. Holmes rightly insists: "Penal substitution remains of value because it reveals something about the inescapability of guilt and so about our need for atonement."⁵⁵

Conclusion

We have covered a vast amount of ground in this chapter — from the Protestant scholastics of the seventeenth century to the heated debates of our own time. Let me draw the threads together.

The history of atonement theology after the Reformation is a history of challenge and response, critique and defense, narrowing and broadening. Protestant Orthodoxy gave penal substitution its most rigorous and systematic expression but also narrowed the atonement to a primarily legal framework. The Socinians launched the first systematic critique, raising philosophical objections that still resonate today. Grotius responded creatively, though his thought has often been misread. The Enlightenment brought a frontal assault on the entire idea of objective atonement, and liberal Protestant theology followed by turning the cross into a moral example. Karl Barth dramatically reasserted the objectivity and divine initiative of the atonement with his concept of "the Judge judged in our place." Aulén recovered the Christus Victor theme as a genuine biblical and patristic model but overstated his case by pitting victory against substitution. And the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have seen both intense criticism (Chalke, Brock and Parker, Green and Baker, Weaver) and vigorous defense (Stott, Gathercole, Craig, Jeffery/Ovey/Sach, Williams).

Several important lessons emerge from this historical survey. First, many of the criticisms directed at penal substitution are really criticisms of particular distortions of penal substitution — the overly legalistic framework of Protestant Orthodoxy, the wrathful-Father caricature, the neglect of other atonement dimensions. When the doctrine is stated carefully, within a Trinitarian framework of divine love and with full acknowledgment of its multi-faceted character, most of these objections lose their force.

Second, the alternatives proposed by the critics have consistently proven inadequate. The moral influence theory cannot explain how sin is dealt with. The purely nonviolent reading cannot account for the pervasive sacrificial language of the New Testament. The Girardian scapegoat theory captures one dimension of the cross but misses the positive, God-ward dimension of sacrifice. Even the Christus Victor model, powerful as it is, cannot stand alone — it needs to explain how the victory is achieved, and the answer the New Testament gives is: through substitutionary, penalty-bearing sacrifice.

Third, the history shows that the best defenses of substitutionary atonement have always been those that root the doctrine most deeply in the character and love of God. Barth's "Judge judged in our place," Stott's "self-substitution of God," Philippe de la Trinité's "victim of love" — these formulations all protect the substitutionary core while preventing the distortions that give critics their ammunition. The Father does not rage at the Son. The Trinity does not fracture at Calvary. Rather, the triune God acts in unified, self-giving love, with the Son willingly and lovingly accepting the judicial consequences of human sin so that humanity can be forgiven, reconciled, and made new.

Through it all, I believe the evidence points in a clear direction. Substitutionary atonement — properly understood, within a Trinitarian framework of divine love, free of the caricatures that distort it — remains the most comprehensive and biblically faithful account of what happened at the cross. The critics have performed a valuable service in exposing genuine distortions and in reminding us that the atonement is richer and more multi-faceted than any single model can capture. But their efforts to replace substitution with something else — whether moral influence, nonviolent Christus Victor, or Girardian scapegoating — always end up losing something essential that the New Testament insists upon: that Christ died in our place, bearing the consequences of our sin, satisfying the demands of divine justice, and reconciling us to God.

As Leon Morris put it with characteristic directness: "To put it bluntly and plainly, if Christ is not my Substitute, I still occupy the place of a condemned sinner. If my sins and my guilt are not transferred to Him, if He did not take them upon Himself, then surely they remain with me."⁵⁶ And as Lewis Smedes expressed it: "While the substitutionary death of Christ is not everything in redemption, nothing else is enough without it."⁵⁷

The story of the atonement debate after the Reformation is, at its heart, a story about rediscovery. Each generation has rediscovered something that previous generations had neglected — the victory theme, the moral influence, the cosmic scope, the Trinitarian center. Our task today is not to choose one of these discoveries and reject the rest, but to hold them all together in the integrated, multi-faceted vision that the New Testament itself presents. And at the center of that vision — as the foundation on which everything else rests — stands the substitutionary sacrifice of the Son of God, who loved us and gave Himself for us.

In the chapters that follow, we will turn from history to theology and philosophy. Having surveyed what scholars and theologians have said about the atonement across two millennia, we are now ready to make the positive case — the biblical, theological, and philosophical argument for substitutionary atonement as the center of a multi-faceted understanding of the cross. That case begins in Chapter 19.

Bibliography

Allen, David L. The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019.

Aulén, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. Translated by A. G. Hebert. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003.

Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Mysterium Paschale: The Mystery of Easter. Translated by Aidan Nichols. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. 4, pt. 1, The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956.

Blocher, Henri. "The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ: The Current Theological Situation." European Journal of Theology 8, no. 1 (1999): 23–36.

Brock, Rita Nakashima, and Rebecca Ann Parker. Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search for What Saves Us. Boston: Beacon Press, 2001.

Chalke, Steve, and Alan Mann. The Lost Message of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

Clifford, Alan C. Amyraut Affirmed: Or, 'Owenism,' a Caricature of Calvinism. Norwich: Charenton Reformed Publishing, 2004.

Craig, William Lane. Atonement and the Death of Christ: An Exegetical, Historical, and Philosophical Exploration. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020.

Gathercole, Simon. Defending Substitution: An Essay on Atonement in Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

Green, Joel B., and Mark D. Baker. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.

Heim, S. Mark. Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Hess, William L. Crushing the Great Serpent: Did God Punish Jesus? 2024.

Jeffery, Steven, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.

Johnson, Adam J. Atonement: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: T&T Clark, 2015.

Kant, Immanuel. Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. Translated by Allen Wood and George di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

McNall, Joshua M. The Mosaic of Atonement: An Integrated Approach to Christ's Work. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2019.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.

Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1959.

Philippe de la Trinité. What Is Redemption? How Christ's Suffering Saves Us. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road, 2021.

Rashdall, Hastings. The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology. London: Macmillan, 1919.

Rutledge, Fleming. The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. Edited by James T. Dennison Jr. 3 vols. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992–1997.

Weaver, J. Denny. The Nonviolent Atonement. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

Williams, Garry. "Penal Substitution: A Response to Recent Criticism." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 1 (2007): 71–86.

Wright, N. T. The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus's Crucifixion. San Francisco: HarperOne, 2016.