Preface
One of the most noteworthy developments in contemporary philosophy of religion has been the ingress of Anglo-American Christian philosophers into areas normally considered the province of systematic theologians. In particular, many Christian philosophers have taken up the task of helping to formulate and defend coherent statements of Christian doctrine. So Christian philosophers have been actively engaged, for example, in discussion of the doctrines of the Trinity, incarnation, and atonement, which might be called “the big three” of peculiarly Christian doctrines. The work of Christian philosophers in systematic theology has even served to spawn a new subdiscipline of theology: analytic theology, which is committed to using the tools of analytic philosophy in exploring Christian doctrine.
The activity of Anglo-American Christian philosophers in the field of systematic theology has even come to the attention of German theologians. In the standard German reference work in theology, the Theologische Realenzyklopädie (TRE), Christoph Gestrich draws attention to the contribution of Anglo-American analytic philosophy to the subject of the incarnation and its possible relevance for the subject of the atonement:
In Great Britain there was already during the 19th century a widespread and growing atonement-literature spanning theological lines and confessions and a nearly general consensus concerning Christ’s substitutionary atonement. It was extensively debated, for example, whether one should speak of the “objective” validity of this atonement or the necessity of a “subjective” realization in faith and morals. By the 20th century this topic had for the most part been exhausted in the English-speaking realm—until during the ’70s a lively discussion about the historicity of the incarnation of the Son of God, stimulated by analytic philosophy, was kindled. Is the atoning descent of the heavenly Son of God to earthly flesh “only” a metaphor—and thus by no means a part of objective history? Chiefly related to this question there was once more in the ’80s and ’90s of the 20th century a whole series of English-language theological investigations concerning the “problem” of the atonement. The predominant result: the admittedly metaphorical talk of the incarnation of the Son of God in the Christian confession remains now as always indispensable and refers to an actual event. Nevertheless, one must consider anew in what way it leads to the divine atonement.
The present book is intended to be a contribution to this ongoing debate, exploring the relation between atonement and the death of Christ. I shall explore this question exegetically, historically, and finally philosophically. My aim is articulate the core of an atonement theory which is both biblical and philosophically coherent.
I am especially indebted to Dr. Daniel P. Bailey for extensive conversation and correspondence as well as literature concerning the meaning of Paul’s term hilastērion in Romans 3:25. I am also grateful to Dr. E. Descheemaeker of the Edinburgh Law School for stimulating correspondence concerning the relevance of the philosophy of law to the subject of the atonement and for guidance into the legal literature. I am grateful, too, to Shaun McNaughton at Brown & Streza, LLP, for help in obtaining court opinions. I am also thankful to my research assistant Timothy Bayless for procuring for me research materials, as well as proofreading and preparing the bibliography and indices. As always, I am thankful for my wife Jan’s faithful support and interest in this subject.
My short book The Atonement (Cambridge University Press, 2018) in the Cambridge Elements of Philosophy series is an extract of this book and serves as a sort of précis of it. Material from this book has also been published in various journals: “Is Penal Substitution Incoherent? An Examination of Mark Murphy’s Criticisms,” Religious Studies 54, no. 4 (2018): 509–26; “Is Penal Substitution Unjust?” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 83 (2018): 231–44; “Is Penal Substitution Unsatisfactory?” Philosophia Christi 21, no. 1 (2019): 155–68; and “Divine Forgiveness and Legal Pardon,” in The Philosophy of Forgiveness, vol. 4, Christian Perspectives on Forgiveness, ed. G. L. Bock (Wilmington, Del.: Vernon Press, 2018), 1–22.
William Lane Craig
Atlanta, Georgia
See, for example, the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. “Philosophy and Christian Theology,” by Michael J. Murray and Michael Rae, August 9, 2012, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/, which singles out for discussion the doctrines of the Trinity, incarnation, and atonement. It is surprising that this article includes no discussion of penal substitutionary theories apart from satisfaction theories.
Theologische Realenzyklopädie, ed. Gerhard Müller, vol. 32, Spurgeon-Taylor (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001), s.v. “Sühne V: Kirchengeschichtlich und dogmatisch,” by Christoph Gestrich. A list of references to English-language resources by Christian philosophers and theologians then follows. The nineteenth-century British literature alluded to by Gestrich is still worth reading and is, sadly, largely overlooked by Christian philosophers today. Standouts include George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement, as Taught by the Apostles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1870); R. W. Dale, The Atonement, 9th ed. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1884); and a bit later James Denney, The Death of Christ: Its Place and Interpretation in the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1907).