This analysis critiques penal substitution theory's vulnerabilities in justice considerations, suggesting alternatives may provide clearer insights.
William Lane Craig has put a lot of clever work into trying to remodel and restore the penal substitution view of atonement. I argue, however, that Craig has fallen into a money pit. His penal substitutionary view is vulnerable to two versions of the justice worry. And his case for his view is methodologically flawed; it assumes biblical Mooreanism, which I argue does not apply in theorizing about atonement. I present a better, inference to the best explanation, theological methodology and suggest that on it other atonement theories fare better than penal substitution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joshua C. Thurow (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: