ABSTRACT
This chapter begins by taking a step back from our overarching discussion to consider how we as human agents proceed, and ought to proceed, in sorting through competing explanations of various phenomena. In this brief discussion, we see that explanations of atonement can be weighed against one another on the basis of the degree to which they alleviate our own subjective puzzlement, their fit with scripture, and their balancing of other theoretical virtues—e.g., simplicity and explanatory power. After introducing these dimensions of evaluation, we apply them to the case of penal substitution, a theory which scores well in terms of simplicity but runs into difficulties when attending to scriptural passages concerning sacrifice. We then consider an alternative explanation of atonement in the work of N. T. Wright that scores well in terms of explanatory power and fit with scripture, so far as we can tell. However, I suggest that Wright’s model is not sufficiently simple in its current state to help most people with the subjective dimension of evaluation when looking at explanations of atonement, and I propose that a sacrificial explanation of atonement might offer a via media going forward.
