Understanding Victorious Substitution: A Fresh Look at How Jesus Saves: Vee Chandler’s “Victorious Substitution” Model

The death of Jesus Christ stands as the central event of human history and the foundation of Christian faith. Yet throughout church history, believers have wrestled with exactly how Christ’s death accomplishes our salvation. Does Jesus take our punishment like a criminal in our place? Does he win victory over Satan and evil powers? Does he demonstrate God’s love to change our hearts? Or does he unite with our human nature to heal us from within?

Recent theological scholarship has witnessed renewed interest in these questions, with several scholars offering fresh perspectives on this ancient doctrine. Among these voices, Vee Chandler’s “Victorious Substitution” model presents a particularly innovative approach that seeks to bridge historical divides between different atonement theories.

This comprehensive analysis examines Chandler’s unique contribution alongside three other significant contemporary voices: Fleming Rutledge’s multi-perspectival approach, Oliver Crisp’s “Union Account,” and William Lane Craig’s philosophical defense of penal substitution. Each represents a distinct methodology and set of conclusions about how Christ’s work saves us.

Vee Chandler’s revolutionary synthesis

Vee Chandler’s “Victorious Substitution” model represents one of the most creative theological developments in recent atonement studies. As a female theologian with a PhD who is “not afraid to challenge popular contemporary Christian teaching,” Chandler has developed a framework that refuses to accept the traditional either/or choice between competing atonement theories.

The heart of victorious substitution

At its core, Chandler’s model argues that Christ’s death accomplishes both substitutionary sacrifice and victorious conquest in one unified act. Rather than seeing Penal Substitution and Christus Victor as competing theories, she demonstrates how they work together as complementary aspects of a single atonement.

Traditional Penal Substitution teaches that Christ bears God’s wrath as punishment for human sin, satisfying divine justice. The classical Christus Victor model emphasizes Christ’s triumph over sin, death, and Satan through his death and resurrection. Most theologians have assumed these approaches conflict with each other—if Christ is winning victory, how can he simultaneously be suffering defeat? If God is punishing Jesus, how can this represent divine love?

Chandler’s breakthrough insight suggests these questions assume a false dilemma. Instead of God pouring out wrath on Jesus, she proposes that Christ voluntarily enters into solidarity with fallen humanity to bear the consequences of sin while simultaneously breaking the power of evil forces. The same act that provides substitutionary covering for sin also delivers the decisive blow against Satan’s kingdom.

Biblical foundation and methodology

Chandler’s approach demonstrates careful attention to biblical exegesis, challenging traditional interpretations “according to their scriptural usage” rather than inherited theological formulations. Her later work on forgiveness reveals a methodology that prioritizes careful study of biblical terms and concepts over systematic theological tradition.

This exegetical focus appears throughout her work on atonement. Rather than starting with philosophical questions about divine justice or theological debates about God’s attributes, Chandler begins with what Scripture actually says about Christ’s work. Her approach can be characterized as:

Biblical-theological rather than systematic-theological: She allows biblical imagery and language to drive her theological construction rather than forcing biblical texts into predetermined systematic categories.

Synthetic rather than reductionist: Instead of choosing one atonement theory as primary and dismissing others, she seeks to understand how different biblical motifs work together.

Practical rather than merely academic: Her work flows from pastoral concerns about how atonement doctrine affects Christian living, forgiveness practices, and understanding of God’s character.

The theological framework

Based on available research and her published works, Chandler’s theological framework can be reconstructed around several key principles:

Divine unity in salvation: Rather than creating tension between Father and Son (with Father punishing Son), Victorious Substitution maintains that the Trinity acts with unified purpose. The Father doesn’t pour out wrath on Jesus; instead, Father and Son together provide the solution to human sin and Satan’s dominion.

Substitutionary solidarity: Christ doesn’t merely receive punishment as an external transaction. Instead, he enters into genuine solidarity with fallen humanity, bearing the real consequences and effects of sin while remaining personally sinless.

Simultaneous accomplishment: The cross achieves multiple biblical goals simultaneously rather than sequentially. Christ’s death provides covering for sin, defeats evil powers, demonstrates divine love, and accomplishes reconciliation through one unified work.

Comprehensive victory: The atonement addresses not just the guilt of individual sins but the entire complex of problems introduced by the fall: sin’s power, death’s sting, Satan’s authority, and humanity’s separation from God.

Fleming Rutledge’s multi-dimensional masterpiece

Fleming Rutledge brings a unique Episcopal perspective to contemporary atonement theology through her massive work “The Crucifixion: Understanding the Death of Jesus Christ.” Her approach offers an interesting comparison to Chandler’s synthesis because she also refuses to accept single-theory explanations of the cross.

Eight motifs working together

Rutledge argues that the biblical witness to Christ’s death is too rich and complex to be captured by any single theory. Instead, she identifies eight interconnected motifs that work together like facets of a gem:

1. Passover/Exodus – Christ as Passover lamb providing protection from judgment
2. Blood Sacrifice – Christ’s death as ultimate sacrificial offering
3. Ransom/Redemption – Christ paying the price to free captives
4. The Great Assize – Christ facing final judgment on humanity’s behalf
5. Christus Victor – Christ’s triumph over sin, death, and Satan
6. Descent into Hell – Christ entering the realm of the dead
7. Substitution – Christ taking humanity’s place
8. Recapitulation – Christ summing up human experience to heal it

Rutledge insists these motifs must work together rather than competing with each other. Her approach shares with Chandler a refusal to reduce the atonement to a single mechanism.

Substitution without punishment

Perhaps most significantly for our comparison, Rutledge strongly affirms substitutionary atonement while rejecting penal substitution. She writes: “I profoundly believe that Jesus Christ died for me and in my place, substituting himself for me and for the entire, afflicted human race.”

However, she finds “little biblical support for punishment as a feature of the atonement.” Instead, she argues that Christ substitutes himself under the “curse” of godforsakenness rather than bearing punishment. Drawing primarily from Galatians 3:13 (“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us”), Rutledge suggests that Christ experiences the ultimate consequence of sin—separation from God—without God actually punishing him.

This creates an interesting parallel with Chandler’s approach. Both theologians affirm genuine substitution while avoiding the idea that God pours out wrath on Jesus. Both maintain that something objective and necessary happens at the cross, not merely subjective moral influence.

Apocalyptic framework and divine action

Rutledge’s distinctive contribution lies in her apocalyptic interpretation of the cross. Drawing heavily from New Testament scholars like J. Louis Martyn and Ernst Käsemann, she views Christ’s death as God’s invasion of enemy territory.

In this framework, the cross represents divine warfare against the cosmic Powers of Sin, Death, and Satan. Christ’s substitutionary suffering serves the larger purpose of God’s apocalyptic victory over evil. The atonement is fundamentally about God acting decisively to rectify injustice and liberate creation from bondage to evil powers.

This apocalyptic lens shapes how Rutledge interprets key biblical passages. Rather than focusing primarily on individual guilt and forgiveness, she emphasizes the cosmic scope of Christ’s work. Sin is not just personal moral failure but participation in rebellion against God’s good creation. Death is not just biological termination but the ultimate enemy of life. Satan represents real spiritual opposition to God’s kingdom.

Justice as rectification

Rutledge’s understanding of divine justice differs significantly from traditional penal substitution models. Rather than retributive justice requiring punishment, she emphasizes restorative justice that sets things right.

She prefers translating the Greek word “dikaiosyne” as “rectification” rather than “justification,” arguing that “God’s righteousness is best understood as a VERB not [just a noun].” Divine justice involves active intervention to correct what has gone wrong in creation rather than legal punishment to satisfy divine honor or law.

This understanding of justice creates space for her substitutionary model without punishment. Christ doesn’t receive retribution for human sin but enters into the consequences of sin (godforsakenness, death) in order to break their power and provide rectification.

Oliver Crisp’s philosophical precision

Oliver Crisp brings the tools of analytic philosophy to bear on traditional atonement questions, resulting in his sophisticated “Union Account” or “representational union account.” His work represents the most technically precise of our four theologians, offering careful distinctions and systematic argumentation.

Beyond penal substitution to union

Crisp’s central thesis argues that traditional penal substitutionary models fail on philosophical grounds because they cannot adequately explain how guilt transfers from sinners to Christ while maintaining divine justice. The fundamental problem: how can it be just to punish someone who is not actually guilty?

Rather than defending penal substitution against these objections, Crisp develops an alternative model based on realistic union between Christ and humanity. His “representational union account” proposes that:

Fallen humanity and redeemed humanity are ontologically real entities: Human beings participate in “fallen humanity” through connection to Adam and in “redeemed humanity” through union with Christ.

Christ becomes part of both realities: Through incarnation, Christ genuinely joins fallen human nature while also creating redeemed human nature through his perfect life.

Representative rather than substitutionary: Christ acts as the representative head of humanity rather than merely a substitute receiving external punishment.

Consequence-bearing without guilt transfer: Christ experiences the consequences that belong to fallen human nature without having guilt imputed to him.

Christological foundation

Crisp’s atonement model depends heavily on classical Christology—the doctrine that Christ possesses both divine and human natures in one person. This Christological foundation enables his union account:

Human nature enables representation: Christ can represent humanity because he genuinely possesses human nature and serves as humanity’s federal head.

Divine nature provides infinite value: Christ’s divine nature gives his human obedience and suffering infinite worth, making his work adequate for all humanity.

Incarnational union accomplishes atonement: The union of divine and human natures in Christ enables the union between fallen and redeemed humanity.

Transformation through participation: Believers are actually changed through union with Christ’s perfect humanity rather than merely declared righteous through external imputation.

This Christological emphasis creates interesting comparisons with both Chandler and Rutledge. All three theologians ground atonement in the incarnation rather than treating it as an external transaction. All emphasize the importance of Christ’s human nature for accomplishing salvation.

Systematic integration

Crisp’s work demonstrates remarkable systematic coherence, connecting his atonement theology to broader doctrinal questions including creation, anthropology, justification, sanctification, and ecclesiology. His union account provides a framework for understanding:

How justification works: Believers are declared righteous because they are actually united to Christ’s righteousness, not through legal fiction.

How sanctification proceeds: Growth in holiness occurs through deeper participation in Christ’s perfect humanity.

How church relates to salvation: The church is the community of those united to Christ and therefore to each other.

How creation is renewed: Christ’s union with human nature begins the process of cosmic renewal that will culminate in new creation.

This systematic vision bears resemblance to Chandler’s comprehensive approach, though expressed through different methodological tools. Both theologians see atonement as addressing the full scope of problems introduced by the fall rather than merely individual guilt.

William Lane Craig’s rigorous defense

William Lane Craig represents the most systematic philosophical defense of traditional penal substitutionary atonement among contemporary theologians. His approach provides an important counterpoint to the other three scholars by maintaining classical Reformed positions while addressing contemporary objections.

Penal substitution as central motif

Craig argues that while the atonement can be viewed from multiple perspectives, penal substitution provides the central, organizing principle. Using the metaphor of a multi-faceted jewel, he suggests that penal substitution is the “table” (the largest central facet) around which other motifs are arranged.

His definition of penal substitutionary atonement: “The doctrine that God inflicted upon Christ the suffering that we deserved as the punishment for our sins, as a result of which we no longer deserve punishment.”

This definition puts Craig in direct tension with Chandler, Rutledge, and Crisp, all of whom avoid the language of God punishing Jesus. Craig explicitly argues that divine justice requires retributive punishment and that Christ literally receives this punishment in humanity’s place.

Philosophical sophistication

Craig’s distinctive contribution lies in his systematic philosophical argumentation. Rather than simply asserting penal substitution as biblical truth, he engages seriously with philosophical objections and offers rigorous responses:

The justice objection: Critics argue it is unjust to punish someone who is not guilty. Craig responds that legal systems already recognize vicarious liability in many contexts (insurance, corporate responsibility, etc.).

The incoherence objection: Some claim guilt cannot be transferred between persons. Craig argues that imputation is a legal concept that doesn’t require metaphysical guilt transfer but rather the assignment of legal liability.

The child abuse objection: Critics suggest that penal substitution portrays God as an abusive father punishing his innocent son. Craig emphasizes that Christ voluntarily accepts this role and that his divine nature means he is not merely passive victim but active participant.

Legal framework and divine attributes

Craig’s model depends on understanding God’s relationship to creation through legal and governmental metaphors. God functions as legislator (establishing moral law), judge (determining guilt and innocence), and executive (carrying out sentences).

This framework shapes his understanding of divine attributes:

Divine justice requires retribution: God’s nature as righteous judge means that sin cannot go unpunished. Justice is not merely restorative but retributive.

Divine love provides substitute: God’s love motivates the provision of Christ as substitute to bear the punishment justice requires.

Divine wisdom resolves the tension: The cross demonstrates how God can be “just and the justifier” by punishing sin while saving sinners.

Divine freedom within moral constraints: God cannot simply overlook sin because this would violate his nature as righteous judge.

This emphasis on legal categories creates the sharpest contrast with our other three theologians. While Chandler, Rutledge, and Crisp all move away from strictly forensic models toward more organic, participatory, or cosmic frameworks, Craig maintains that legal metaphors best capture the biblical witness.

Biblical passages through four different lenses

Understanding how these four theologians interpret key biblical texts reveals the practical implications of their different models. The following detailed comparisons show how theological frameworks shape biblical interpretation.

Isaiah 53:4-6 – The suffering servant

The Isaiah 53 passage reveals fundamental differences in how each theologian understands the mechanism of atonement. Craig sees direct punishment transfer; Crisp emphasizes realistic participation; Rutledge focuses on cosmic invasion; Chandler combines substitutionary and victorious elements.

Romans 3:21-26 – God’s righteousness revealed

The Romans passage highlights different understandings of divine righteousness. For Craig, righteousness primarily means retributive justice requiring punishment. For Rutledge, it means God’s active commitment to set creation right. For Crisp, it operates through Christ’s representative work. For Chandler, it encompasses both justice and love working together.

2 Corinthians 5:21 – The great exchange

This passage reveals different approaches to the “great exchange” concept. Craig interprets it through legal imputation and punishment. Crisp emphasizes realistic participation. Rutledge sees cosmic transformation. Chandler finds both substitutionary and victorious elements.

Galatians 3:13 – Christ as curse

The Galatians passage proves especially significant because it forms a central pillar for Rutledge’s non-penal substitution. While Craig sees the curse as punishment from God, Rutledge interprets it as the consequence of abandonment to evil powers. Crisp focuses on representative curse-bearing, and Chandler sees both penalty and victory.

Colossians 2:13-15 – Victory over powers

This passage highlights the relationship between legal and victory motifs. For Rutledge, victory is primary with legal elements serving the larger cosmic battle. For Craig, legal satisfaction is primary with victory as a secondary benefit. For Chandler, both happen simultaneously. For Crisp, both flow from incarnational union.

Comparison summary: where the four models converge and diverge

Major areas of agreement

Despite their differences, these four theologians share several important commitments:

Objective necessity of the cross: All four maintain that Christ’s death was objectively necessary for salvation, not merely a moral example or demonstration. Something real and essential happened at Calvary that changed the human condition.

Biblical authority: Each theologian demonstrates serious commitment to biblical exegesis and allows Scripture to shape theological construction. While they interpret biblical texts differently, all prioritize biblical witness over philosophical speculation.

Trinitarian approach: None of these models presents the cross as creating division within the Trinity. Even Craig’s penal substitution emphasizes that Father and Son act together with unified will.

Substitutionary elements: All four affirm that Christ acts “for us” and “in our place” in some sense, though they understand the mechanism differently. Even Crisp’s representational model maintains substitutionary themes.

Cosmic scope: Each theologian recognizes that atonement addresses more than individual guilt, encompassing victory over evil powers, cosmic renewal, and restoration of creation.

Key areas of divergence

Understanding of divine justice:

• Craig: Retributive justice requiring punishment
• Rutledge: Rectifying justice that sets things right
• Crisp: Justice satisfied through representative offering
• Chandler: Justice and love united in victorious substitution

Mechanism of atonement:

• Craig: Legal punishment transfer through imputation
• Rutledge: Apocalyptic invasion defeating cosmic powers
• Crisp: Realistic participation through incarnational union
• Chandler: Simultaneous substitution and victory

Primary metaphors:

• Craig: Legal/forensic (courtroom, punishment, acquittal)
• Rutledge: Military/apocalyptic (invasion, battle, victory)
• Crisp: Organic/participatory (union, solidarity, healing)
• Chandler: Synthesis (legal satisfaction plus cosmic victory)

View of divine wrath:

• Craig: Wrath requires retributive punishment of Christ
• Rutledge: Wrath as God’s opposition to cosmic evil
• Crisp: Wrath addressed through vicarious representation
• Chandler: Wrath satisfied without God being angry at Jesus

A conservative biblical assessment

From a conservative Christian perspective that affirms the authority of Scripture and the necessity of Christ’s death for forgiveness of sins, how should we evaluate these four approaches?

Strengths of each model

Chandler’s Victorious Substitution offers significant strengths for conservative theology:

• Biblical comprehensiveness: Incorporates multiple biblical motifs without reducing the atonement to a single theory
• Avoids problematic implications: Maintains substitutionary atonement without suggesting that God was angry at Jesus or that the Trinity was divided
• Pastoral sensitivity: Provides a framework for understanding God’s love and justice that doesn’t create pastoral difficulties about divine character
• Cosmic scope: Addresses the full range of problems created by sin, not merely individual guilt

Rutledge’s Multi-perspectival Approach contributes valuable insights:

• Biblical richness: Demonstrates the multifaceted nature of biblical atonement language
• Substitution without punishment: Shows how substitutionary themes can be maintained without problematic penal elements
• Cosmic vision: Emphasizes the apocalyptic framework of New Testament theology
• Social implications: Connects atonement to issues of justice and liberation

Crisp’s Union Account provides philosophical sophistication:

• Rigorous argumentation: Addresses philosophical objections with careful reasoning
• Christological foundation: Grounds atonement in solid incarnational theology
• Systematic integration: Connects atonement to broader theological framework
• Participatory emphasis: Explains how believers are actually changed through union with Christ

Craig’s Penal Substitution offers traditional strengths:

• Clear biblical support: Points to numerous passages that seem to support penal themes
• Logical coherence: Provides a systematic explanation for how atonement works
• Historical precedent: Maintains continuity with Protestant theological tradition
• Judicial framework: Takes seriously the legal dimensions of biblical language

Potential concerns from a conservative perspective

Chandler’s model, while attractive, faces the challenge of limited available detail. Without access to her complete theological framework, it’s difficult to assess how successfully she resolves tensions between substitutionary and victory motifs. Her approach would benefit from more extensive biblical exegesis and systematic development.

Rutledge’s approach raises questions about whether substitution without punishment adequately addresses biblical texts that seem to emphasize penal themes. Her apocalyptic framework, while valuable, may not fully account for individual guilt and personal forgiveness emphasized in much of the New Testament.

Crisp’s union account faces the challenge of philosophical complexity that may not reflect the simple faith described in Scripture. Additionally, his emphasis on realistic participation may not adequately address the legal aspects of justification emphasized by Paul.

Craig’s penal substitution confronts the significant problem of suggesting divine conflict at the cross. If God pours out wrath on Jesus, this creates pastoral and theological difficulties about divine love and the unity of the Trinity.

Toward a biblical synthesis

A conservative assessment suggests that the most faithful biblical approach will likely incorporate insights from multiple models while maintaining several non-negotiable commitments:

Jesus died genuinely for sins: The cross provides real, objective forgiveness for human sin, not merely moral example or psychological transformation. Christ’s death deals with the guilt and consequence of sin.

God was not angry at Jesus: The Father and Son work together with unified will to provide salvation. The cross demonstrates divine love, not divine wrath toward Jesus.

Substitutionary elements are essential: Christ acts in our place and on our behalf in ways that we could not accomplish for ourselves. His work is vicarious and substitutionary.

Victory over evil powers is real: The cross achieves triumph over sin, death, and Satan, not merely individual forgiveness. Cosmic renewal and liberation are central biblical themes.

Divine justice and love are unified: God’s justice and love are not competing attributes that require resolution but unified aspects of divine character that work together in salvation.

Multiple biblical images are necessary: No single theory captures the fullness of biblical atonement language. Different metaphors illuminate different aspects of Christ’s work.

Chandler’s unique contribution to contemporary theology

In the landscape of contemporary atonement theology, Vee Chandler’s “Victorious Substitution” model offers a distinctive voice that deserves serious consideration from conservative Christians. Her approach addresses several significant challenges facing traditional atonement theology while maintaining biblical fidelity.

Innovation within orthodoxy

Chandler’s greatest contribution may be showing that theological innovation can occur within orthodox boundaries. Rather than abandoning traditional concerns about substitutionary atonement, she demonstrates how these concerns can be preserved while addressing legitimate criticisms.

Her work suggests that the traditional debate between Christus Victor and Penal Substitution represents a false dilemma. Instead of choosing between Christ’s victory and Christ’s substitution, biblical theology can embrace both themes as complementary aspects of one unified work.

This synthetic approach reflects a mature theological method that refuses to let systematic categories override biblical witness. Rather than forcing Scripture into predetermined theological boxes, Chandler allows the biblical witness to shape theological construction.

Pastoral implications

Chandler’s model offers significant pastoral advantages over strict penal substitution:

Unified Trinity: By avoiding the suggestion that God pours out wrath on Jesus, Victorious Substitution maintains the unity and love of the triune God. This provides a foundation for Christian assurance and trust.

Divine love emphasized: The cross demonstrates divine love rather than divine anger toward Jesus. This supports Christian confidence in God’s character and intentions.

Comprehensive salvation: By including victory motifs alongside substitutionary themes, the model addresses the full scope of human need—guilt, power of sin, death’s sting, and Satan’s dominion.

Practical sanctification: The victory elements provide resources for Christian living that purely legal models may lack. Believers are not merely forgiven but empowered through Christ’s triumph.

Theological development needs

For Chandler’s model to achieve its full potential, several areas require further development:

Biblical exegesis: More detailed analysis of specific biblical passages would strengthen the model’s foundation. How exactly do substitutionary and victory themes work together in texts like Isaiah 53, Romans 3, and Colossians 2?

Systematic integration: How does Victorious Substitution connect to other theological loci like anthropology, Christology, pneumatology, and eschatology? A more comprehensive systematic presentation would be valuable.

Historical engagement: How does Chandler’s model relate to historical atonement theology? What can be learned from patristic, medieval, and reformation sources?

Contemporary dialogue: Engagement with other contemporary atonement theologians would help clarify distinctive features of Victorious Substitution and address potential objections.

The future of atonement theology

The conversation between Chandler, Rutledge, Crisp, and Craig illustrates the vitality of contemporary atonement studies. Each theologian contributes valuable insights while facing distinct challenges.

Emerging themes

Several themes appear to be gaining prominence in contemporary atonement theology:

Multi-perspectival approaches: There is growing recognition that single-theory explanations of the atonement may be inadequate to capture biblical richness. Both Chandler and Rutledge exemplify this trend.

Incarnational emphasis: Increasing attention to how the incarnation itself contributes to atonement, not merely providing the mechanism for Christ’s death. Crisp’s union account represents this development.

Cosmic scope: Recognition that atonement addresses cosmic rather than merely individual problems. All four theologians incorporate this emphasis to some degree.

Trinitarian unity: Concern to maintain unity within the Trinity at the cross rather than suggesting conflict between Father and Son. This concern appears in three of our four models.

Participatory themes: Interest in how believers participate in Christ’s work rather than merely receiving its benefits. This appears most clearly in Crisp but influences the others as well.

Continuing challenges

Despite these positive developments, contemporary atonement theology faces ongoing challenges:

Biblical complexity: Scripture contains diverse atonement language that resists easy systematization. Any adequate model must account for this complexity without losing coherence.

Pastoral sensitivity: Atonement theology profoundly shapes Christian spirituality and pastoral care. Theological models must be evaluated for their pastoral implications as well as their intellectual coherence.

Contemporary objections: Modern philosophical and ethical objections to traditional atonement models require serious engagement. Simply dismissing these concerns is inadequate.

Denominational differences: Different Christian traditions emphasize different aspects of atonement theology. Contemporary models must navigate these differences constructively.

Cultural translation: Atonement theology developed within particular cultural contexts using specific metaphors. Contemporary theology must consider how these metaphors translate across cultures.

Looking forward

The work of theologians like Chandler, Rutledge, Crisp, and Craig suggests several promising directions for future atonement theology:

Integration rather than competition: Future models may increasingly seek to integrate insights from various historical approaches rather than defending single theories against alternatives.

Biblical theology methodology: Careful attention to biblical language and imagery will likely shape theological construction more than systematic philosophical concerns.

Practical implications: Greater attention to how atonement theology affects Christian living, worship, evangelism, and social action.

Ecumenical dialogue: Increased conversation across denominational boundaries to explore how different traditions can contribute to fuller understanding.

Global perspectives: Incorporation of insights from non-Western theological traditions that may illuminate aspects of biblical witness overlooked in traditional Western models.

Conclusion: embracing the mystery while affirming the truth

The cross of Jesus Christ remains the central mystery of Christian faith. How exactly Christ’s death accomplishes our salvation exceeds full human comprehension, requiring theological humility alongside confident affirmation.

The conversation between Vee Chandler, Fleming Rutledge, Oliver Crisp, and William Lane Craig demonstrates that faithful Christians can maintain strong convictions about the necessity and effectiveness of Christ’s atonement while disagreeing about the precise mechanism. Each model contributes valuable insights while facing legitimate challenges.

From a conservative Christian perspective, Chandler’s “Victorious Substitution” model offers significant promise for addressing contemporary challenges while maintaining biblical fidelity. Her synthesis approach suggests that apparent tensions between historical atonement theories may reflect false dilemmas rather than real contradictions.

The cross reveals both God’s justice and his love, both Christ’s substitutionary work and his victorious triumph, both individual forgiveness and cosmic renewal. Rather than choosing between these themes, mature atonement theology embraces their mysterious unity in the one saving work of Jesus Christ.

As the church continues to proclaim the gospel and disciple believers, atonement theology must remain both intellectually rigorous and pastorally sensitive, both biblically grounded and culturally relevant. The work of these contemporary theologians provides valuable resources for this ongoing task.

Ultimately, the question is not merely how Christ’s death saves us but how this saving work shapes our lives as his disciples. Whether through Chandler’s victorious substitution, Rutledge’s apocalyptic invasion, Crisp’s incarnational union, or Craig’s penal substitution, the cross calls us to worship, obedience, and mission in response to God’s amazing grace.

The blood of Jesus Christ, shed for our sins and for our victory, remains the foundation of Christian hope and the center of Christian proclamation. In that truth, all four theologians—despite their differences—stand united.

© 2025, Matthew. All rights reserved.