Reddit reviews A Better Atonement: Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin

There are so many interpretations of the cross that have been embraced at different points throughout the history of Christianity. I think the cross is one of the most meaning-filled events in history that not one of these interpretations can contain its meaning. It's overflowing with meaning. Personally, I can't reconcile to myself interpretations wherein God sets up schema and then is backed into a corner, forced to do something because of the schema God created. I'd suggest checking out Tony Jones' ebook, A Better Atonement, if you're interested in learning more about these other theories. You've probably heard of Christus Victor, for example, which has had a bit of resurgence as of late. If I have time, I'll add some more of my thoughts to this comment. Hope this helps a little!

Edit: Here's a redditor describing a handful of these theories.

> If Jesus didn't die because of God's wrath, why did he die in the first place?

Atonement theories (Scroll down to Joshua Hopping's review for a brief overview)

Chritstus victor

> Your statement ignores God's holiness. God is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin.

I believe that God is holy, but the view that he is alergic to sin contradicts his omnipotence. The view that God cannot be in the presence of sin comes from a biblical narrative that I don't subscribe to and I believe to be self-contradictory.

> Well because of original sin, we now have a world that is no longer perfect.

Yes, the evangelical view is that people suffer because of Adam's original sin. The problem with this view is that it is not just for children to die as a consequence of someone else's sin. You do believe God is just don't you? Also, genetics has pretty much settled the question of whether we all came from a single human couple. We didn't.

I firmly believe that God is merciful, I just believe that that mercy will be realised in its fullness in the next life.