The Debate on Atonement Theory

The discussion centers around two contrasting views of atonement: penal substitution and Christus Victor. William Lane Craig defends penal substitution, arguing that Christ's death on the cross serves as a necessary payment for sin, where Jesus bears the punishment that humanity deserves. This view emphasizes that God's justice requires retribution for sin, which is satisfied through Christ's sacrificial act. In contrast, Greg Boyd critiques this perspective, advocating that Christ's sacrifice should be understood as a victorious act over evil rather than a means to appease God's wrath, suggesting it perpetuates an image of a violent God.