Since 1997 a central issue in Dutch theological debate is concerned with the
interpretation of the concept of atonement and its doctrinal implications for a
contemporary understanding of the Gospel. Cees J. den Heyer, New Testament
scholar at the Theological University of Kampen, published a popular book
Verzoening (Atonement) in which he criticized the classical interpretation of the
doctrine of vicarious satisfaction brought about by Christ, as stated in the Heidelberg
Catechism.2 He blamed the classical (i.e. Protestant) doctrine of atonement for
imprisoning God in his own justice which dominates his mercy and requires the
punishment of sin by bloodshed. The Bible, according to Den Heyer, does not contain
a well-balanced doctrine of atonement because of its plurality of ideas and systematic
theologians are constructing abstract doctrinal formulae presupposing as core doctrine
a univocal interpretation of the New Testament notion of atonement.
Den Heyer’s book triggered off a discussion among Dutch theologians about the
meaning and theological status of concepts like atonement, reconciliation and
vicarious satisfaction. In this article, first published in the Netherlands3, I participate
in this debate on atonement by advocating a theory of multi-dimensionality of the
soteriological metaphors and theories which describe the death of Christ from a
different perspective within an identical conceptual frame. To my mind, such a theory
will be helpful for a (re)construction of present-day types of soteriology which can
cope the with the plurality of New Testament christological metaphors
Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.