Statement of Topic:
This paper will examine the notion of atonement as interpreted through various theories related
to the work of Christ.
Bibliography Information for Resource #1:
Macchia, Frank D. "Baptism in the Holy Spirit-and-Fire: Luke’s Implicitly Pneumatologically
Theory of Atonement." Religions 9, no. 2 (2018): 63.
Author Credentials Statement:
Dr. Frank Macchia holds the position of Associate Director at the Centre for Pentecostal and
Charismatic Studies at Bangor University in Wales, UK, and is a Professor of Christian Theology
at Vanguard University in California, as well as an Adjunct Professor of Communication at the
University of Washington. He earned his Doctor of Theology (D.Theol.) from the University of
Basel in Switzerland, specializing in historical and systematic theology with an emphasis on
modern theology. As an ecumenical theologian, he engages a broad audience in discussions that
cross disciplinary lines, aiming to interpret Christian scriptures in relation to diverse viewpoints
within the church and the broader academic field.
Relevance Statement for Article:
This article raises the question: Does Luke offer a theory of atonement? The author effectively
responds to this question and claims that "At the very least, Luke is a resource for a
pneumatologically theory of atonement today."i From Macchia's viewpoint, Luke views Christ’s
death and resurrection as culminating in Pentecost, paving the way for the Spirit, a new
covenant, and a new community.ii Therefore, this article highlights and analyzes the role of the
Spirit in atonement as presented in Luke’s Gospel, making it relevant to my research as it posits
that Pneumatology is essential to understanding the theory of atonement in Luke’s narrative.
Salient Quote from Article:
Quote: “There are numerous questions that one could raise about the role of the Spirit in the
atonement. Within the parameters of Luke’s Gospel (in the light of Acts), one may affirm that
Christ’s mission is to heal the alienation of flesh from Spirit.”iii
Bibliography Information for Resource #2:
Kovaliv, Petro. "Rediscovering a Biblical and Early Patristic View of Atonement through
Orthodox–Evangelical Dialogue." Religions 12, no. 7 (2021): 543.iv
Author Credentials Statement:
Dr. Petro Kovaliv is a professor of Theology and leads the Modular BTh program at the
Ukrainian Evangelical Theological Seminary in Kiev, Ukraine. His mission is to reconcile
Orthodox and Evangelical perspectives on Salvation, engaging Christians from both traditions.
Through various dialogues, he has pinpointed critical areas where Orthodox and Evangelical
views on Christ and his salvific work intersect, presenting both questions and challenges. His
scholarly work and presentations aim to tackle these issues and propose potential resolutions.
Relevance Statement for Article:
This article aims to rediscover the biblical understanding and concept of atonement through open
dialogue between Orthodox and Evangelical traditions. The author highlights that "among
Christians there is very little unity regarding what it means and what exactly was accomplished
on the cross…. Many theologians of different streams have offered their perspectives on what
atonement is all about, but none of the existing ‘theories of atonement’ have been able to gain
wide support."v This article is crucial for my research on theories of atonement as it identifies
challenges while striving for a comprehensive understanding of atonement by considering both
viewpoints.
Salient Quote from Article:
Quote: “…the process of the formulation of the biblical concept of atonement can be very
productive through dialogue in which Orthodox theology can offer important foundational
interpretive guidelines, while the commendable study of Scripture of many Protestant scholars in
the area of biblical studies and the sphere of metaphorical theology can provide solid biblical
support for such a concept of atonement.”vi
Bibliography Information for Resource #3:
Davis, Ryan W. "The Authority of God and the Meaning of the Atonement: Co-Winner of the
2014 Religious Studies Postgraduate Essay Prize." Religious Studies 50, no. 4 (December 2014):
405-23.
Author Credentials Statement:
Dr. Ryan W. Davis is a co-winner of the 2014 Religious Studies Postgraduate Essay Prize. He
currently teaches in the Department of Philosophy at Harvard University, and this article was
published by Cambridge University in April 2004 as part of religious studies, specifically within
the Philosophy of Religion.
Relevance Statement for Article:
This article explores various theories of atonement and leveraging the author’s expertise in the
philosophy of religion, attempts to show that "even the most sophisticated versions of these
theories cannot explain why the atonement was necessary."vii This work is essential for my
research on theories of atonement as it goes beyond human understanding and evaluates
atonement through the perspective of God’s sovereignty and authority. The article addresses the
challenges posed by substitution and satisfaction theories and presents God’s authority as a
resolution to contemporary unresolved questions.
Salient Quote from Article:
Quote: “Why would God require the incredible suffering of the atonement before being willing
to forgive his children? Within our ordinary moral practice, it is possible to forgive another
person who has wronged us without ever wanting that person to suffer, let alone without that
person ever actually suffering.”viii
Bibliography Information for Resource #4:
Johnson, Adam J. "Theories and Theoria of the Atonement: A Proposal." International Journal of
Systematic Theology 23 (2021): 92–108.
Author Credentials Statement:
Dr. Adam J. Johnson is a distinguished theologian recognized for his numerous accolades in
writing. His works, articles, and presentations focus on the doctrine of atonement, examining the
several ways in which Jesus Christ's death and resurrection reconcile all things to God.
Relevance Statement for Article:
This article investigates the historical background of 'theories' of atonement as articulated by
Friedrich Schleiermacher and F.C. Baur within the evolution of Protestant theology in Germany,
tracing its development to America and Great Britain. The author warns against the uncritical use
of theoretical language in atonement studies and concludes that the concept of theory is a more
suitable approach that underscores the significance of Christ's work in analyzing atonement
theories.
Salient Quote from Article:
Quote: “Prior to Baur, theologians did not use ‘theory’ language in a systematic and sustained
way to describe the views of others and their histories, and hardly, if ever, referred to ‘theories’
of the atonement – but after Baur, the word is ubiquitous in German works, followed shortly
thereafter in the work of American and British theologians.”ix
Bibliography Information for Resource #5:
Brent, Kyle G. "Punishing and Atoning: A New Critique of Penal Substitution." International
Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74, no. 2 (2013): 201–18.
Author Credentials Statement:
Brent G. Kyle is an associate professor in the Department of Philosophy at the U.S. Air Force
Academy and holds a Ph.D. from Cornell University. His areas of expertise include
Epistemology, Philosophy of Religion, and Meta-Ethics. He has published numerous notable
articles and presentations and has received multiple honors from institutions such as the U.S.
Naval Academy, USAFA, Cornell University, Yale University, and Oxford University.
Relevance Statement for Article:
In this article, the author contends that the doctrine of penal substitution is flawed, arguing that
for God to punish Christ for humanity's sins, God must regard Christ as responsible for an
offense. Thus, he concludes that the doctrine of penal substitution should be taken out. This
article is relevant to my research as it not only critiques penal substitution but also guides readers
towards a more viable atonement theory that the author believes is credible: the Anselmian
satisfaction theory.
Salient Quote from Article:
Quote: “I cannot, in this paper, provide a conclusive argument in favor of any one atonement
theory. But I will show that a similar theory, the Anselmian satisfaction view, which is also
characterized in terms of punishment, can avoid my objection.x
i Frank, D Macchia, Baptism in the Holy Spirit-and-Fire: Luke’s Implicitly Pneumatologically Theory of
Atonement, (Religions 9, no. 2 2018), 5
ii Ibid, 5
iii Frank, D Macchia, Baptism in the Holy Spirit-and-Fire: Luke’s Implicitly Pneumatologically Theory of
Atonement, (Religions 9, no. 2 2018), 5 2 Ibid, 5 3 Ibid, 6
iv Petro, Kovaliv, Rediscovering a Biblical and Early Patristic View of Atonement through Orthodox–
Evangelical Dialogue, (Religions 12, no. 7 2021): 543, 1
v Ibid, 1
vi Ibid, 14
vii Davis, Ryan W, The Authority of God and the Meaning of the Atonement: Co-Winner of the 2014 Religious
Studies Postgraduate Essay Prize, (Religious Studies 50, no. 4 12, 2014): 405-23, 1
viii Ibid, 4
ix Adam, Johnson J, Theories and Theoria of the Atonement: A Proposal, (Int J Systematic Theology 2021),
93
x Kyle, Brent G, Punishing and Atoning: A New Critique of Penal Substitution, (International Journal for
Philosophy of Religion 74, no. 2 2013), 216
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
