ALISTER McGRATHS THEORY OF ATONEMENT AS A FORCE FOR UNITY:

IMAGES OF SALVATION EVANGELICALS SHOULD AGREE ON

A Paper Submitted to
Dr. Jeffrey Riley and Dr. Adam Harwood
of the
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Ph.D. Seminar
THEO 9404 The Work of Christ
in the Division of Theological and Historical Studies

Jacob G. Milstead
B.A., William Carey University, 2007
M.Div., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012
October 29, 2014

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................

THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD OF ALISTER McGRATH ....................

Critical Realism
Historical Theology
Christocentrism
THE INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS OF McGRATHS CHRISTOLOGY .............

Luthers Theologia Crucis

Pannenbergs Christology
McGRATH ON THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST .....................

14

Theology and Spirituality

Identity and Significance of Jesus
Images of Salvation
IMPLICATIONS FOR ECCLESIOLOGY.................................

25

CONCLUSION ..................................................

28

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................

29

!iii

INTRODUCTION
Alister McGraths dialogue with Daniel Dennett at the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint
Forum in Faith and Culture in 2007 on the topic of the future of atheism began unexpectedly
with agreement between the avowed atheist, Dennett, and the former atheist, McGrath. In his
opening remarks, McGrath agrees with Dennett, People sometimes feel very defensive about
religion. Religious people often get extremely defensive when challenged about the basis of their
beliefs, which hinders any serious debate about the nature of their faith. . . . The issue, I suspect,
is that a challenge to faith often threatens to pull the rug from under the values and beliefs that
have sustained someones life.1
The debate went on without much defensiveness, but such is seldom the case in real life.
Concerns about theology are not just barriers between atheists and Christians, but maybe even
more so between Christians of various groups. The question, then, is how can the defensiveness
that bars unity and cooperation be overcome between Christian individuals and their respective
groups? This question bears particular importance for those who, like Evangelicals within
varieties of denominations, already hold much in common.
There is no more contentious religious issue than any that is related closely to the person
1Daniel

Dennett and Alister McGrath, The Future of Atheism: A Dialogue, in The

Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue, ed. Robert B.Stewart,
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 28. The chapter referenced here is a transcript of the dialogue
between Dennett and McGrath mentioned above.

!2
and work of Christ. Therefore, if needless barriers in Christology can be removed, there is great
hope for a deeper and broader unity within the church universal. Alister McGraths
understanding of the atonement as images of salvation is a potential force for uniting Christians,
particularly Evangelicals. Ecclesiological implications from McGraths work illustrate the
significance of this unifying force.
The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to show how images of salvation make up
McGraths theory of the atonement and demonstrate that this theory should serve to unite
Evangelicals around a broad view of Christs work, not limited by barriers such as historical
situation or denominational priorities. This object will be achieved by showing how his approach
to the the person and work of Christ highlights the historically situated nature of other atonement
theories and focuses instead on the timeless aspects of the biblical images of salvation. In turn,
ecclesiological implications will be drawn by linking McGraths atonement theory to his
positions on ecumenicism, Evangelicalism, and evangelism. These implications will show the
significance of uniting the body of Christ in understanding the atoning work of Christ through
biblical images of salvation.

THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD OF ALISTER McGRATH

Due to the influence of McGraths theological method on his Christological conclusions,
the images of salvation are best understood in light of his commitment to critical realism,
historical theological perspective, and explicit Christocentrism. His theological method is
directly shaped by the person and work of Christ itself, making his approach to theology is
explicitly Christocentric. Additionally, there are a few other elements that round out McGraths

!3
theological method and help to examine his conclusions concerning the work of Christ. His
exploration of the relation between Christian Theology and the natural sciences in his threevolume A Scientific Theology is the key to understanding his methodology,2 but even his earliest
works bear the inchoate marks of this same consistent approach.

Critical Realism
Foundationalism3 was the overly optimistic epistemology of the Enlightenment that
claimed a universal foundation to knowledge that was accessible to anyone who would apply
their inherent powers of reason. According to McGrath, this form of foundationalism is all but
dead in the wake of the Enlightenments epistemological collapse.4 Even so, the idea of
foundational beliefs has been revived by eliminating the universal nature of the concept claimed
by Enlightenment thinkers and acknowledging the tentative nature of knowledge. The result is
realism within the beliefs of a system, whether natural science or theology, that can be selfcritical and adjust its conceptions of reality according to continuous revision.5 In other words, the
2Alister

McGrath, A Scientific Theology, vol. 1, Nature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001),

xi.
3Foundationalism

is one of any number of philosophical or theological approaches

affirming specific truths as bases and criteria for all other truths. Donald K. McKim,
foundationalism, in Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 1996). Said truths being self-evident, they do not need further
justification for belief. Thus all knowledge and justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of
noninferential knowledge or justified belief. Fumerton, Richard, Foundationalist Theories of
Epistemic Justification, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta, ed. <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/justep-foundational/>.
4Alister

McGrath, A Scientific Theology, vol. 2, Reality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002),

33.
5Ibid.,

35.

!4
foundations of a belief system are limited to that systems own existence and provisional selfunderstanding and need not apply to other systems. There is no universal foundation for
epistemology, but individual belief systems are justified in holding to their own foundational
beliefs that are held provisionally and modified as necessary to best explain the reality in
question.6
Critical realism is the auxiliary principle that allows McGraths epistemological
perspective to function within his theological method without reverting to the naive realism of
the Enlightenment.7 For McGrath, critical realism navigates the tension between nave realism
and postmodern anti-realism.8 This approach splits undesirable epistemological extremes
allowing McGrath to skirt the modernist pitfall of affirming unmediated interaction with reality
as well as the postmodernist pitfall of denying knowledge of reality altogether. Critical realism
acknowledges both independent outward reality and the mediated nature of personal experience.9
An inherent part of a robust critical realism for McGrath is an understanding of
6Ibid.

McGrath offers the image of a boat on voyage that must be repaired and maintained
at sea. There is nothing outside the boat, no foundation on which to ground the work. Those who
are doing the repairs and maintenance are in the boat themselves, so they make adjustments as
they go along the best they can from within the boat.
7Given

that McGraths epistemology has suffered from disparate attempts at definition,

this section will focus on critical realism as a key principle of his epistemology.
8McGrath,
9See

Reality, 195.

also Alister McGrath, The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology,
(Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), 105-10. McGraths use of critical realism in his theological
method enables him to avoid a disinterested perspective by involving the knower whose
theoretical formulations of knowledge shape action and, in turn, reality; McGrath, Reality, 196.
Theology then is not some dry theoretical formulation but an existential understanding of Gods
self-revelation.

!5
stratified reality, which demands a variety of modes in investigation and representation.10 He
illustrates this stratification as brute physical facts overlaid with social facts.11 McGrath
argues that each stratum is to be seen as real and can be uniquely studied as long as the unity
of reality as a whole is maintained with inherent causal links recognized between each strata.12
At the same time, no layer of reality can be reduced to another.13
Critical realism is an aid to theology, allowing for the scientific study of theology on its
own terms. McGrath argues that theology should be considered the base strata rather than titular
pinnacle of science, because God is the creator and causer of existence.14 Thus each layer of
reality is affected by the researchers theology and faith. McGrath also maintains that this
approach holds the critical realist theologian accountable to the realities of all the other strata,
with the added bonus of enriching the doctrines that are consequently set forth.15 His brand of
10Alister

McGrath, A Scientific Theology, vol. 3, Theory (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2003), 82. The concept of representation here is key for understanding his definition of
theory, which will be explored below.
11McGrath,

Reality, 198. For example, the swamplands of Louisiana are a brute physical
fact, while being Cajun is an overlaid social fact that is linked to and yet separate from the
swamp itself.
12Ibid.,

217.

13Ibid.,

225. For example, though there are causal connections between them, chemistry
cannot simply be reduced to some sort of holistic form of physics. The fallacy of reductionism is
that reality is determined by observability (226) so that the only thing that would be real about
chemistry is what can be observed by physics. But real experiences in the science of chemistry
affirm the ability of scientists to study it as its own discipline, though not totally disconnected
from physics. By this logic, critical realism guards theology from being reduced to sociology or
some other strata.
14Ibid.,

228. The implication here is that theology has ultimate explanatory power for all

of nature.
15Ibid.,

240.

!6
critical realism lends itself well to historical theology, which is of great consequence to McGrath.

Historical Theology
Though his scientific work is notable, McGrath is primarily known as a historical
theologian. He defines historical theology as that which aims to explore the historical
development of Christian doctrines, and identify the factors which were influential in their
formulation and adoption.16 It has both a pedagogic and a critical role, aiming to inform . . .
about what has been thought in the past (and why!), while identifying the factors that make some
form of restatement necessary.17 Thus McGrath approaches theology with an understanding that
the past of a doctrine is essential for reformulating the truths contained therein for the present
situation. As a critical tool, historical theology allows us to see the relative importance of
certain doctrines at different points in history, the situations of their formulation, subsequent
mistakes, and the possibility of correcting those mistakes in contemporary reformulations.18
16Alister

E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian

Thought, 2d ed. (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 8-9.
17Ibid.;
18Ibid.,

original emphasis and parentheses.

12. McGrath also described historical theology as aiding systematic theology in

critical reappropriation of past theology for contemporary use (14). As an example, he tells of
how doctrinal formulations about the impassibility of God fell out of favor. Through historical
evaluation theologians came to realize that the ideas behind the formulations of impassibility as
an attribute of God came not from Scripture but from the Greek milieu of ideas that were popular
early in church history (13). See also Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian
Doctrine of Justification, 3d ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005). His
seminal work on the justice of God is the prototypical example of how McGrath uses his
historical approach to theology. He explains that the development of the doctrine of justification
is . . . a paradigm for the study of ideological interaction in the development of doctrine,
illustrating how theological and secular concepts were related as theologians responded to the
cultural situation of their period (vii).

!7
As in his scientific theology, McGraths historical emphasis in theology is influenced by a
conviction concerning the provisional nature of contemporary theological assertions, which, in
turn, is tied to his critical realism.19 The study of past theological formulations impresses upon
the theologian how a particular understanding of a doctrine can quickly pass from being the
assumed understanding of the day to being rejected outright. Conversely, historical theology also
highlights the uninterrupted central characteristics of Christian theology that can be traced from
the beginning of the church to the present. McGrath even uses language that alludes to the work
of Christ to describe this dual ability of historical theology. Historical theology is concerned
with the application of Gods saving action toward every period in history as well as the
experience of Gods saving work in particular cultures.20

Christocentrism
As seen above, the historical perspective of McGraths theology relates closely to the
central place of Jesus in history, which is another aspect of his method. He believes that Jesus
19McGrath,
20McGrath,

Nature, 37.

Historical Theology, 9. The full quotation bears reading: Christian theology

can be regarded as an attempt to make sense of the foundational resources of faith in the light of
what each day and age regards as first-rate methods. . . . Christian theology regards itself as
universal, in that it is concerned with the application of Gods saving action toward every period
in history. Yet it is also characterized by its particularity as an experience of Gods saving work
in particular cultures, and is shaped by the insights and limitations of persons who were
themselves seeking to live the gospel within a particular context. The universality of Christianity
is thus complemented with rather than contradicted by its particular application.

!8
Christ is the historical point of departure for Christianity.21 Access to Jesus is through the
interpretation of historical events, but his significance is primarily theological since he reveals
God, is the bearer of salvation, and defines the shape of the redeemed life.22 McGrath
makes quite clear the position Jesus holds in all Christian theology: Christian theology has
recognized that it is impossible to speak of God within the parameters of the Christian tradition
without relating such statements to the person and work of Jesus Christ.23
More specifically than the person of Jesus, for McGrath, the cross itself is real history
that must be grappled with in theology. Rather than being an idea to be mulled over, the cross of
Christ defines what is authentically Christian and what is not.24 The Christocentric nature of
Christian doctrine seen in the cross is totally unique and cannot be compromised. In fact,
McGrath claims that the uniqueness of the salvation experience offered through Jesus Christ
requires that the gospel be freshly applied in each new context where it is proclaimed in order to
21Alister

E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 5th ed. (Chichester, West

Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 266. Here McGrath echoes Wolfhart Pannenbergs
understanding of the place of history in Christian theology; Basic Questions in Theology:
Collected Essays, vol. 1, trans. George H. Kehm (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), 15. Pannenberg
writes, History is the most comprehensive horizon of Christian theology. All theological
questions and answers have meaning only within the framework of the history which God has
with humanity, and through humanity with the whole creation the history moving forward
toward a future still hidden from the world by already revealed in Jesus Christ. McGrath quotes
this passage from Pannenberg repeatedly. See, for example, McGrath, Nature, 301. See also
Alister E. McGrath, The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to
Pannenberg, (Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 164. McGrath explains, For Pannenberg,
revelation is essentially an historical event interpreted as an act of God (165). More will be
said on the relationship between McGrath, Pannenberg, and Christology below.
22Ibid.,

267-68. See also McGrath, Reality, 298-300.

23Ibid.,

267.

24Alister

17-18.

E. McGrath, The Mystery of the Cross, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988),

!9
preserve Jesus place in Christian theology.25 To state the matter simply, The Christian story
cannot be told without the crucifixion and resurrection.26 Further analysis of McGraths
understanding of the crucifixion and resurrection lies ahead, but an overview of some key
influences on his Christology will help to frame further discussion.

THE INTELLECTUAL ORIGINS OF McGRATHS CHRISTOLOGY

There are two main influences on McGraths christology that are readily traced, and both
stem from his studies in historical theology: the Reformation and modern German Christology.
Specifically, the aspects of McGraths understanding of the person and work of Christ that are
pertinent to this project can be narrowed to two specific influences: Martin Luthers theologia
crucis and Wolfhart Pannenbergs conflation of the person and work of Christ.

Luthers Theologia Crucis

McGraths earliest published works as a theologian deal extensively with Martin Luthers
theological development in general and with the discovery of his theology of the cross in
particular.27 Luthers hermeneutic increasingly emphasized the work of Christ as it benefits the
25Alister

E. McGrath, New Dimensions in Salvation, in New Dimensions in

Evangelical Thought: Essays in Honor of Millard J. Erickson, ed. David S. Dockery, 317-29.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 318-29.
26McGrath,
27Graham

The Mystery of the Cross, 26.

Tomlin notes that McGrath was a liberal Christian early on in his theological
education who became convinced of the emptiness of liberal theology while studying Luthers
discovery of theologia crucis; Alister E. McGrath on the Cross of Jesus Christ, in Alister E.
McGrath & Evangelical Theology: A Dynamic Engagement, ed. Sun Wook Chung, 3-23
(Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 2003) 7-10.

!10
Church and individual believers.28 From this point, Luther shifted gradually toward the
realization that the sole authentic locus of human knowledge of God is the cross of Christ, in
which God is to be found revealed, and yet paradoxically hidden in that very same revelation
and that revelation constitutes but a fleeting glimpse of God.29 The shift McGrath describes
can be seen most clearly in theses 19 and 20 of the Heidelberg Disputation: 19. That person
does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as
though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened (Rom.
1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25), 20. he deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends
the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.30 Therefore,
Christian theology must begin with the cross, engaging in its mystery to deduce doctrine from
there, what McGrath calls the map of meaning.31
The beginnings of McGraths own foundation for Christian theology may be glimpsed
28Alister

E. McGrath, Luthers Theology of the Cross: Martin Luthers Theological

Breakthrough, 2d ed. (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 163. The first edition was
published in 1985.
29Ibid.,

203; original emphasis.

30Martin

Luther, The Heidelberg Disputation, http://bookofconcord.org, April 26 and

May, 1518, accessed October 29, 2014, http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php; original
punctuation and symbols. McGrath translates Luthers theses to emphasize an allusion to Moses
encounter with God in Exodus 32: 19. Anyone who observes the invisible things of God,
understood through those things that are created, does not deserve to be called a theologian. . . .
20. But anyone who understands the visible rearward parts of God as observed in suffering and
the cross does deserve to be called a theologian; McGrath, Luthers Theology of the Cross,
202-03.
31McGrath,

Luthers Theology of the Cross, 205. McGrath later restates Luthers idea this
way, Theology begins at the foot of the cross of the crucified Christ; it does not begin
somewhere else, and then proceed to assimilate the cross into its predetermined
categories (207).

!11
when he writes, The cross, for Luther, is thus the foundation and criterion of an authentically
Christian theology.32 All of theology for Luther must begin at the cross because Gods selfrevelation is evidenced there primarily.33
Furthermore, McGrath evidences an inchoate critical realism when he writes that
Luthers theologia crucis and the discovery of the righteousness of God is thus a radical
critique of the analogical nature of theological language.34 Analogical theology was evidenced
in Luthers day by the attempts to understand Gods righteousness as somehow analogous to
human righteousness, but his discovery called in to question the assumptions that God could be
accurately described through analogies that he himself did not provide.35 The resultant
theological twilight . . . world of half-light and half-truths36 appears to have been very
influential on McGraths tenuous approach to the work of Christ, especially as concerns the
atonement in particular. McGraths view of the atonement will be discussed at some length
32Ibid.,

208.

33Ibid.,

213. See also the proof of thesis 20 of the Heidelberg Disputation; Luther, http://
bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php.
34Ibid.,

217-18.

35Ibid.,

218-19.

36Ibid.,

219.

!12
following a brief sketch of Pannenbergs influence.37

Pannenbergs Christology
As noted above,38 Wolfhart Pannenberg seems to have had a unique influence on
McGraths understanding of Christology. One of the notable aspects of McGraths systematic
Christology is that he does not think the distinction between the person and work of Christ is
very helpful because the person of Christ becomes known through his work.39 He concludes
that Christology and soteriology are thus seen as two sides of the same coin, rather than two
independent areas of thought.40 The idea reflected in this statement, like the conflation of the
work of Christ with soteriology, has direct correlations to Pannenbergs Christology.
In critiquing Christologies from above, Pannenberg found that there could be no
37Another

area of influence from Luthers theologia crucis that is not necessarily

germane to the argument of this paper has to do with Luther's understanding of the
communication of attributes between God the Father and Jesus and the question of whether or
not God suffered on the cross. Luther connects the identity to the function of Jesus in a very
similar way to McGrath. While not affirming Patripassionism, McGrath sees the Trinitarian
understanding of this issue as indicating, contra the patristic view, that God did indeed suffer on
the cross. See McGrath, Christian Theology, 281. Some allusions will be made to this in the
discussion on the work of Christ below.
38See

fn. 19.

39McGrath,
40Ibid.;

Christian Theology, 282-83.

see also 316. Note that McGrath sees the work of Christ and soteriology as being
the same thing, or at least equally adequate explicators of the significance of the person of Christ.
He does not clarify whether he sees Christs work as only related to salvation or whether
salvation is simply central to all of Christs work.

!13
separation between Christology and soteriology.41 Here Pannenberg exemplifies both of the
characteristics of McGraths Christology mentioned previously: the inseparable unity of Christ to
his work and the identification of that work with soteriology. Despite Pannenbergs perceptible
influence, McGrath is not uncritically receptive of his christological perspective.
As noted above, McGraths focus on history echoes Pannenbergs historical emphasis,
but he is also critical of the height to which Pannenberg elevates history in relation to theology.
McGrath acknowledges that the sort of immediate access to Jesus in history that Pannenberg
envisions is ideal. Yet McGrath argues that, in reality, Jesus can only be accessed through the
kerygma.42 Even so, he recognizes some validity to Pannenbergs critiques of Christology from
above and highlights two weaknesses of such Christologies: 1) they ignore Jesus as a person in
history and 2) disconnect the kerygma from the person of Christ.43 Gerardo Alfaro expresses a
similar understanding when he writes,
There exists beneath the diversity of the New Testament a profound coherence in which
the pattern of the real Jesus is revealed as the Messiah-servant, in a tense paradox of cross
and resurrection. The modern criticism, having abandoned this New Testament pattern
and opting for a regrouping of disordered fragments, not only makes largely irrelevant
41Wolfhart

Pannenberg, JesusGod and Man, trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A.

Priebe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 47. Christology from above begins with a priori
knowledge about Jesus and works from a metaphysical perspective toward conclusions about
Jesus person. Pannenberg engages in Christology from below, beginning with a posteriori
historical evidence.
42McGrath,

The Making of Modern German Christology, 178. Here McGrath makes his
divergence from Pannenberg clear: It is quite simply impossible to begin Christological
speculation from the history of Jesus of Nazareth, precisely because the primitive Christian
kerygma has influenced the interpretation placed upon that history, and hence upon the
presentation of that history within the New Testament, by the first Christians. This position
reflects some Bultmannian concessions that Pannenberg was opposed to, but McGrath is not
denying the historicity of the content of the kerygma like Bultmann did.
43Ibid.,

179-80. See also Pannenberg, JesusGod and Man, 34-36.

!14
but also abandons the meaning of the Christian following.44
In light of these dangers and in line with his commitment to critical realism, McGrath tries to
avoid approaching Christology strictly from above as well as strictly from below.

McGRATH ON THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST

Having examined key influences on McGraths view of the work of Christ, this section
seeks to probe deeper into McGraths understanding of the atonement. Understanding McGraths
theological method and his historical theological perspective reveals influences that shed light on
his conclusions concerning Jesuss identity and significance.45 Even though most of the works
dealt with below are popular in nature, they are helpful in that they exemplify views that
McGrath advocates in ways that his academic works in historical theology do not.

Theology and Spirituality

Bradley Nassif sees in the sort of Evangelicalism that McGrath embodies a shared
concern for orthodox doctrine and vital spirituality with Eastern Orthodoxy.46 Indeed, Larry
44Gerardo A. Alfaro,Historia

y Theologia del Jess Histrico, Kairs, no. 33 (JulyDecember 2003), 63.Existe bajo la diversidad del Nuevo Testamento una coherencia profunda
en la que el patrn del Jess real se revela como el Mesas-siervo, en una tensa paradoja de cruz
y resurreccin. La crtica moderna, al abandonar este patrn nuevotestamentario y optar por una
reagrupacin de fragmentos desarticulados, no solo se hace, en gran parte, irrelevante, sino que,
adems, abandona el significado del seguimiento cristiano.
45Identity

and significance are generally synonymous terms for the person and work of
Christ respectively. They used to keep the two areas of theological investigation concerning
Jesus knit closely together. See, for example, Alister E. McGrath, Understanding Jesus: Who
Jesus Christ Is and Why He Matters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 174.
46Bradley

Nassif, New Dimensions in Eastern Orthodox Theology, in New Dimensions

in Evangelical Thought: Essays in Honor of Millard J. Erickson, ed. David S. Dockery, 92-117
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 114.

!15
McDonald examines this very connection between McGraths theology and a vibrant spirituality
at length and concludes in part that a close connection between spirituality and theology
undergirds McGrath's views as he insists that spirituality must be built on a solid and reliable
foundation in the self-revelation of God. He sees the relationship between spirituality and
theology as preventing spirituality from degenerating into a human-centered quest for heightened
religiosity as well as preventing theology from becoming an abstract speculation about God.47
What about McGraths work evokes such high praise and how does it relate to his views
on the work of Christ? First of all, the link perceived by Nassif, McDonald, and others originates
not with the concept of spirituality in McGraths work, but with the cross: it is the chief function
of Christian theology, ethics and spirituality to unfold the implications of the cross for Christian
existence.48 As mentioned before, Jesus of Nazareth, and particularly his crucifixion as seen in
the light of the resurrection, is the centerpiece of the Christian faith to McGrath and so for his
theological method.
The result of this spiritual unfolding of the cross in much of McGraths popular work is a
deeply reflective and doxological approach to theology and doctrine. Even in his academic
works, McGrath makes a habit of presenting hymns and poetry related to the topic at hand. In

47Larry

S. McDonald, The Merging of Theology and Spirituality: An Examination of the

Life and Work of Alister E. McGrath (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2006), 125.
See also Richard J. Mouw, The Born-again identity: Alister McGrath's sober but hopeful vision
for the future of evangelicalism, Christianity Today 39, no. 5 (April 24, 1995), 23-24. For a
brief example of this balance between spirituality and theory from McGrath, see Theory, 6-9.

48McGrath,

The Mystery of the Cross, 36. See also Theory, 3.

!16
particular, his Truth and the Christian Imagination Series49 exemplifies his attempt to inspire
awe even as he communicates theological content to the readers. In addition, each chapter calls
for meditation on Christian art that corresponds to the topic being covered.
McGraths theological project might be compared to his own analysis of the theological
significance Gothic cathedral architecture. Summarizing Abbot Sugers inscription on the
restored abbey church of Saint-Denis, McGrath writes, The human mind is to be drawn upwards
through the light of the building to the true light, who is the enthroned Christ in heaven.50 The
emphasis here on spirituality serves to highlight the practical and doxological purpose he
believes Christian theology must possess. The subsequent sections will deal more explicitly with
his discussion of the person and work of Christ, the identity and significance of Jesus of
Nazareth.

Identity and Significance of Jesus

For McGrath, the identity and significance of Jesus Christ are fully disclosed through
the cross first by his being crucified upon it, and then by his being raised from the death which
it brought.51 This single statement draws together various aspects of McGraths Christology that
have been alluded to above. First of all, he uses the terms identity and significance to
highlight the fact that Christ is known only through what he has done so that there is no
49Alister

E. McGrath, Incarnation, Truth and the Christian Imagination Series,

(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005); Redemption, Truth and the Christian Imagination Series,
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006); Resurrection, Truth and the Christian Imagination Series,
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008).
50McGrath,

Theory, 6.

51McGrath,

Understanding Jesus, 174.

!17
understanding of the person of Christ to speak of without simultaneously addressing the work of
Christ. Second, what Christ has done consists of two inseparable historical events, the crucifixion
and the resurrection. Third, by claiming that the cross discloses something about Jesus he
emphasizes the revelatory purpose of the crucifixion.
In Understanding Jesus McGrath begins the discussion about the identity of Jesus with a
survey of the resurrection, arguing that the identity of Jesus as the Son of God is tied inextricably
to the resurrection.52 The main premise of his argument is that the historical reality of the
resurrection raises questions about Jesus identity, the best answer of which is that he is the Son
of God.53 The resurrection is also shown to have transformative power over peoples lives, thus
testifying to the identity of Jesus and connecting again the concepts of identity and significance.
Jesus is Savior and this aspect of his identity is known in works of salvation.54 McGrath
concludes that to take the resurrection seriously is to realize that the living and risen Christ is
to put it crudely much bigger than any one generations apprehension of him, and that he will
be equally present to future generations, despite difference in culture or intellectual outlook.55
The resurrection completes the work of Christ and rounds out his identity. His death alone, apart
52Ibid.,

63.

53Ibid.,

63-80; cf. 145. Here again we see the influence of Pannenbergs view of history as
McGrath compares him to Troeltsch in order to show the latters misuse of the principle of
analogy to deny reasonableness of miracles such as the resurrection (74-75).
54Ibid.,
55Ibid.,

76.

80. Note again how McGraths reference to the excessive greatness of Jesus
negates the possibility of boxing him in. He goes on to say that what the New Testament
community experienced in Jesus was so difficult to capture in words as to produce a wide variety
of testimonies to the same reality (83). These points are important for the rest of the discussion
because, for one thing, they show the outworking of a nascent critical realism in McGraths
earliest Christological conclusions.

!18
from the resurrection, was an erosion of faith and hope that needed to be restored.56
The identity of Christ established in the resurrection segues to the significance of Jesus
since only God can save and Jesus is God.57 The work of Christ is dependent on and reveals the
identity of Jesus. McGrath also clarifies that faith in the work of Christ is founded historically
and is itself the result of said work.58 Elsewhere he sounds a similar note when he claims that
the basis for responsible Christian discussion of God is given to us not chosen by us! in the
crucified Christ.59 The significance of Jesus, then, always grounds the theological reality for
Christianity in the crucifixion rather than the resurrection. McGrath insists that the crucifixion is
always seen in light of the resurrection, but the centrality of the crucifixion keeps the
significance of Christ in the here and now and protects theology from dangerous reductionistic
interpretations focused on the future of the resurrection.60
Some may be frustrated that McGrath does not seem to be saying much about the work of
Christ beyond affirmations of its significance. One must realize that a key point for McGrath is
that the work of Christ on the cross as interpreted through the resurrection is too great a reality to
be grasped completely. He warns, therefore, that reducing the meaning of the cross to
56McGrath,

Resurrection, 3.

57McGrath,

Understanding Jesus, 94, 107.

58Ibid.,

123, 134.

59McGrath,
60Ibid.,

The Mystery of the Cross, 41.

32. According to McGrath, To be a theologian of the cross is thus to remain

rooted in the specific historical situation in which we find ourselves, neither dismissing it as
irrelevant in the light of the future resurrection nor treating it as if it alone constituted the bounds
of our existence (31). This statement is yet another example of how critical realism fits into
McGraths commitment to navigate a via media in much of his theology.

!19
theological statements runs the risk oftwo serious mistakes.61 First, theological statements
run the risk of becoming detached from history and the actual event(s) which gave rise to
them. Second, theological statements run the risk of leading people to believe that
definitive statements of the meaning of the event can be deduced from the event.62 To protect
the complex witness of the New Testament to [Christs] impact on people it is necessary to
recognize the limits of human ability to do full justice to his identity and significance.63
In short, McGraths vision of Jesus identity and significance appears to be driven by a
distinction between comprehension and apprehension that complements a critical realist
approach to theology. He does not believe that the Christian community at any point in history
has or will be able to comprehend the mystery that has been revealed in Jesus Christ through the
crucifixion and resurrection (thus critical). McGrath nevertheless clearly affirms the ability of
the Christian community throughout history to apprehend very real truth about Christ (thus
realist). Truth about Christ is known through Scriptures witness to his identity and
significance as reflected on by the church in history, but that depth of truth therein is never fully
sounded by any generation of believers.
61Ibid.,

81; original emphasis.

62Ibid.,

82; original emphasis. McGrath is not against theological statements. Rather, as

he writes in Incarnation, Theology both helps faith and hinders faith, in about equal measures.
At its best . . . it opens up new vistas of faith. . . . It brings a new intellectual depth to our faith,
and helps us forge connections with other areas of life and thought. At its worst, however, it
conveys the deeply misleading idea that Christianity is simply about ideas, and that spiritual
growth is measured in the accumulation of those ideas (50). See also McGrath, Theory, 6;
Theoretical accounts of the vision of God are too limited to exactly represent it, but some
theoretical account of this vision of God must be offered (original emphasis).
63McGrath,

Incarnation, vi. Counterintuitively, McGrath proposes to limit our

understanding of [Jesus] identity in order to expand our appreciation of Jesus in worship and
prayer.

!20
Images of Salvation
What then does McGrath propose for a theory of the atonement, if theological statements
are so risky? First of all, one must note that McGrath has at some point wished to abandon the
language of theories of the atonement because atonement sounds archaic and theory
sounds like something that details precisely how redemption was accomplished.64 The New
Testament itself, according to McGrath, does not offer such an analysis. Instead Scripture makes
six points: 1) something new has happened, 2) that has objective effects, 3) causes change, 4)
offers ways of understanding the new relationship with God, 5) tells what needs to be done, and
6) gives guidance.65 So instead of a theory of atonement, McGrath uses images of salvation,
which are ways of picturing and understanding what God achieved for us through the cross and
resurrection of Christ.66
To clarify, McGrath is not denying the use of theories in theology, nor is he claiming that
atonement is incomprehensible in the contemporary discussion of the work of Christ. Rather,
given the popular audience the above comment was intended for, he is adjusting his language to
avoid contemporary misconceptions. Theory-building is actually essential to McGraths
theological project, so referring to his understanding of the atonement as a theory is appropriate
and even necessary in an academic discussion.
In his major work on the use of theory within theology, McGrath acknowledges that a
64Alister

E. McGrath, What Was God Doing on the Cross? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1992), 43.
65Ibid.,

43-44; original emphasis.

66Ibid.,

44.

!21
complete view of a complex reality requires a series of analogies or models.67 The analogy he
develops for this process is that of a prism taking a beam of white light and breaking it out into
each of its component colors, which illustrates his theory of atonement. Each color reflects a real
part of the original light but is not to be confused with the whole.68 He claims there are four
controlling themes or images for talking about the cross, which open further avenues for images
in potential overlap among the four.69 Each of the four major images will be presented below
along with other minor images that McGrath claims Scripture itself offers for thinking about the
work of Christ on the cross.
Sacrifice. Viewing the work of Christ as a sacrifice was popular in early Christian history
and then again in connection to the office of Christ as priest after the Protestant Reformation.
This view decreased in popularity, however, after cultural abuses of the term rendered it
virtually unusable.70 Yet McGrath claims the cross is the unique and perfect sacrifice that
covers and shields us from the righteous anger of God against sin, reconciles us to God and
opens the way to the glorious freedom of the children of God.71 Here other images of sacrifice
or images related to sacrifice by their effect are evidenced in McGraths thought. For example,
reconciliation implies the restoration of a broken relationship, the end of hostility and the
67McGrath,

Theory, 126.

68McGrath,

What Was God Doing on the Cross?, 107. Notice the subtle affirmation that
the images of salvation, like the colors from the white beam, havent been imposed upon the
cross; they have been discerned within it.
69McGrath,
70Ibid.,

Christian Theology, 319-35.

320-22.

71Alister

E. McGrath, Evangelicalism & the Future of Christianity (Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity, 1995), 66.

!22
beginning of peace.72 Similarly, his mention of covering and shielding evokes further images of
protection, and the idea of freedom implies liberation.
Victory. In some sense, McGrath claims that victory is not a theory of atonement but
maybe the basis for one if it serves as an expression of confidence in the difference that Christs
death and resurrection have made.73 As a note of caution, McGrath shares how the popular
appeal of victory inherent in the ransom theory of atonement ended with Enlightenment
skepticisms about the resurrection, the Devil, and hell.74 Even so, victory regained appeal for
describing the atonement after Gustaf Auln reintroduced the theory in the wake of World War I
and the consequent resurgent belief in the reality of evil.75 The image of victory has been open
repeatedly to abuses, but McGrath shows how even now recasting images of victory as
battleground images of the cross help to uncover true meanings in the work of Christ.76
Forgiveness. McGrath traces the origins of Anselms satisfaction theory to dissatisfaction
with Christus victor.77 Anselms theory gained much popularity over the years until the radical
72McGrath,

Understanding Jesus, 131-33. Note that the image of reconciliation also

implies a demonstration of the love of God, thus connecting to yet another image of salvation
(134).
73McGrath,

Christian Theology, 322-23.

74Ibid.,

323-24. The extra-biblical portrayal of ransom as a bated hook raised concerns

about the morality of God in such a theory; McGrath, Understanding Jesus, 155.
75Ibid.,

325.

76McGrath,
77McGrath,

What Was God Doing on the Cross?, 49-55.

Christian Theology, 326-27. For a more detailed discussion on the origins

Anselms view of the atonement see Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian
Doctrine of Justification, 3d ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 78-81.

!23
critique from the Enlightenment period rejected ideas of inherited guilt or transferable merit.78
Other images related to forgiveness are of the law court and hospital. A court of law elicits
thoughts of guilt and punishment, but as an image of the cross it shows the seriousness of sin and
how forgiveness ends enmity with God by justification, which in turn implies the need for
humanity to be made right in relation to God.79 The image of a hospital, however, does not
initially make one think of forgiveness, but McGrath argues that forgiveness can also have the
sense of healing with such rich imagery as putting us back together again, renewal and
restoration, and binding wounds.80
Love. Peter Abelard affirmed the subjective value of the cross in showing Gods love for
humanity, but Enlightenment ideas brought about a purely subjective rendering of Abelards
idea.81 Taken as the sole aspect of the cross by those who advocated exemplarist views of the
atonement, this purely subjective understanding of the image of love stemmed partially from a
poor understanding of human sin.82 Adoption and rehabilitation are both images that spring from
78Ibid.,

329. Similarly, McGrath notes how similar critiques of penal substitution have led
to other ideas of substitution (eg., confession in Campbell and Torrance; 330).
79McGrath,

What Was God Doing on the Cross?, 55-67.

80Alister

E. McGrath, Jesus the Lunatic: How do we show the world a reasonable case
for Christ? from Unbelievable?: The Conference 2013, London, Premier Christian Radio, May
25, 2013, accessed October 24, 2014, http://youtu.be/CLxCUbTWIM4.
81McGrath,
82Ibid.,

Christian Theology, 332-33.

335. See also McGrath, Understanding Jesus;140-48. McGrath is critical of

modern reductions of the work of Christ solely to demonstrating Gods love because they divorce
love from the identity of Christ as God revealed in the incarnation and subsequently fail to
demonstrate Gods love at all. If moral influence removes the uniqueness of Jesus to qualify as a
symbol of Gods love, then his death on the cross could just as easily be a demonstration of
human love. Even so, McGrath affirms in the strongest terms the essential reality of Gods love
to any understanding of the work of Christ.

!24
the controlling image of Gods love.83 In fact, according to McGrath, Gods giving of himself in
the work of Christ is the greatest possible expression of love for humanity.84
Though McGrath does not subscribe to a classical theory of atonement, the images of
salvation he draws from Scripture, along with the prism analogy he uses to describe them, serve
as a theory of atonement for him in that they address typical concerns related to the work of
Christ. Thus he rejects the limitations of traditional theories of atonement while embracing their
positive aspects within his own comprehensive theory.
McGrath notes that the moral influence theory and Christus victor are both inadequate
because the New Testament presents the cross as affecting both objective and subjective changes
of situation and perception. In fact, McGrath holds that the subjective perception of the effects of
the cross must necessarily reflect the objective situation so that if the objective situation changes
the subjective can follow.85 He speaks of salvation in terms of judgment and acquittal that echo
the penal substitutionary theory.86 McGrath also affirms that, whether in substitution,
representation, or participation, the sinner is said to have been present at Christs crucifixion,
just as in some way, each of us may be said to share in his resurrection.87
McGrath never wholly embraces any of these theories nor does he reject them outright.
83McGrath,

Understanding Jesus, 134; McGrath, What Was God Doing on the Cross?,

67-72.
84McGrath,

Understanding Jesus, 139-40. Interestingly, McGrath avoids the typical

language of God giving his own son at the cross in favor of emphasizing Gods self-offering. See
also The Mystery of the Cross, 97.
85McGrath,

What Was God Doing on the Cross?, 88-89.

86McGrath,

Christian Theology, 319.

87McGrath,

Understanding Jesus, 169.

!25
Rather, he sees atonement theories as attempts at describing what occurred in Christs work of
salvation through analogies. Accordingly, these analogies interact. They qualify one another,
and allow each to be interpreted properly.88 McGraths theory of salvation images allows for
this interpretive interaction in a way that no other theory does, because he portrays salvation as a
mystery that can be apprehended in human terms through the images offered in Scripture but
never comprehended within a single one. Each image relies on the others to be fleshed out; even
then, no individual image can be said to dominate the interpretation of the others.
A theory of atonement as images of salvation lends itself to critical realism in that the
reality of salvation is affirmed without appealing to a finality within the task of theorizing. The
theologian and the Christian community as a whole need not be locked into an understanding of
the atonement that is historically situated and at risk of needlessly running afoul of cultural
developments. Viewing the atonement through images of salvation allows Christs work to be
represented via whatever image is most impactful for the contemporary situation without
denying any of the other images, which necessarily complement each other. Also, the task of
studying the work of Christ has legitimate grounds for continued sharpening and revision since
no theory from a single image can be seen as dominant or final. The implications of McGraths
theory of atonement may indeed be quite vast. For the purposes of this project, three primary
implications for ecclesiology will be highlighted.

IMPLICATIONS FOR ECCLESIOLOGY

Ecumenicism. The first of the three implications is ecumenical. McGrath himself ties
88McGrath,

What Was God Doing on the Cross?, 77.

!26
ecumenicism to the work of Christ when he says that the unity of the church is grounded in the
saving work of God in Christ.89 Proper understanding of the cross that allows for flexibility of
expressing the various images of salvation offered by Scripture according to cultural contexts is
ground for ecumenical stability. As stated earlier, the defensiveness that arises out of holding
tightly to specific forms of doctrinal expression is a persistent cause for division. If, however,
there is freedom to express the central themes of the cross according to multiple images of
salvation, defensiveness may be reduced since the images of salvation do not compete for control
but rather complement each other.90
Evangelicalism. McGrath is a self-professed Evangelical with a firm grasp of the
complex nature of Evangelicalism and there are those who think he has described a plausible
future for the movement.91 Nevertheless, he is not calling for a laying down of arms that accepts
peace at the expense of integrity. As McGrath writes,
The Christianity that is declared to be homogeneous with all other higher religions
would not be recognizable as such to most of its adherents. It would be a theologically,
Christologically and soteriologically reduced version of the real thing. It is thus not
Christianity that is being related to other world faiths; it is little more than a parody and
caricature of this living faith, grounded in the presuppositions and agendas of western
liberalism rather than in the self-revelation of God, which is being related to
theologically-reduced and -homogenized versions of other living religions. Dialogue
turns out to involve the sacrifice of integrity. The identity of Christianity is inextricably
linked with the uniqueness of Christ.92
89McGrath,
90Tomlin,

Christian Theology, 393.

Alister E. McGrath on the Cross of Jesus Christ, 16.

91Richard

J. Mouw, The Born-again identity: Alister McGrath's sober but hopeful vision
for the future of evangelicalism, 24.
92Alister

E. McGrath, The Christian church's response to pluralism, Journal Of The

Evangelical Theological Society 35, no. 4 (December 1, 1992): 489.

!27

He sees the unique Christology and soteriology of Christianity as something indispensable to

true Christian theology. At the same time, the indispensable centrality of the cross, among a few
other things, might be enough to hold together an Evangelicalism that is already present in every
major Christian denomination.93
Evangelism. McGrath demonstrates much dissatisfaction with the liberal suggestion that
we defend Christianity by making its ideas acceptable to the secular world.94 In his view the
liberal method has been tried, and found wanting; we must now commend the Christian
proclamation of judgement and conversion through Christ with the invitation to stand within the
Christian tradition, as an alternative strategy. It is thus evangelism, rather than just apologetics,
which commends itself as of strategic importance in the present situation.95 The central
importance of the cross requires communication of Jesus crucified to each new generation and
every unreached people group in clear and comprehensible ways. McGraths theory of images of
salvation has great potential as a prism that draws out the many truths hidden away in the gospel.
With these truths distilled the gospel can itself be apprehended, though not comprehended.
Though more implications may be drawn from McGraths view of the atonement, this
study focuses on the above implications in order to propose an understanding of the atonement
that may serve as a basis for unifying Christians around a broad understanding of the work of
Christ. Consequently, McGraths work in apologetics and his many projects in scientific and
93McGrath,
94Alister

Christian Theology, 393.

E. McGrath, The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in Foundations of Doctrinal

Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 199.
95Ibid.

!28
natural theology have hardly been touched on. There the centrality of the cross is surely also to
be found along with potential avenues of further research and implications to be drawn from
McGraths theory of the atonement.96

CONCLUSION
The person and work of Christ are very personal areas of study precisely because they are
so much more than areas of study. They are personal experiences and cherished doctrines that
speak to Christians everywhere about their relationships to God in Christ. Surely, however,
contentiousness within the church is not the goal of God in revealing such rich imagery
regarding himself and his works in the cross of Christ. Could it be that the many images of
Scripture concerning the cross of Christ are actually intended to humble Christians who seek to
know God with the realization that there is more in him than will ever be known?
McGraths theological method allows him to treat the identity and significance of Jesus
of Nazareth with awe and reverence that refrains from going beyond the scope of Scripture while
still protecting the historical truths that the church has cherished concerning her Lord throughout
the ages. This project shows the potential of McGraths theory of atonement as a basis for
theological unity in Christianity and the significance of such potential for ecclesiology. Such a
theory commends itself to anyone who seeks both to know and worship Jesus in spirit and in
truth.
96McGrath,

Nature, 175; Reality, 298-301; Theory, 94, 284-84. For example, might not
the images of salvation offer a way of understanding Scriptures allusions to universal and
limited aspects of the atonement?

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alfaro, Gerardo A. Historia y Theologia del Jess Histrico. Kairs, no. 33 (July-December
2003): 51-82. (accessed October 24, 2014).
Dennett, Daniel and Alister McGrath. The Future of Atheism: A Dialogue. In The Future of
Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue, ed. Robert B.Stewart, 17-49.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.
Luther, Martin. The Heidelberg Disputation. http://bookofconcord.org. April 26 and May,
1518. Accessed October 29, 2014. http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php.
Mland, Brd. Invention in contemporary doctrinal theory: a discussion related to selected
works of Alister McGrath, Wolfhart Pannenberg and Oswald Bayer. Studia
Theologica 58, no. 2 (January 1, 2004): 157-173. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 25, 2014).
McDonald, Larry S. The Merging of Theology and Spirituality: An Examination of the Life and
Work of Alister E. McGrath. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2006. Kindle
Edition.
McGrath, Alister E. The Christian church's response to pluralism. Journal Of The Evangelical
Theological Society 35, no. 4 (December 1, 1992): 487-501. ATLA Religion Database
with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 25, 2014).
________. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 5th ed. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: WileyBlackwell, 2011.
________. Christianity: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
________. Christianitys Dangerous Idea: The Protestant RevolutionA History from the
Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First. New York: HarperOne, 2007.
________. Evangelicalism & the Future of Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995.
________. The Future of Christianity. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2002.
________. The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in Foundations of Doctrinal Criticism.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
!29

!30
________. Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth. New York: HarperOne, 2009.
________. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. 2d ed.
Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.
________. Incarnation. Truth and the Christian Imagination Series. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.
________. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. 3d ed. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
________. Jesus the Lunatic: How do we show the world a reasonable case for Christ?
from Unbelievable?: The Conference 2013, London, Premier Christian Radio, May 25,
2013. Accessed October 24, 2014. Video. http://youtu.be/CLxCUbTWIM4.
________. John Calvin and Roman Catholicism. Catholic Historical Review 97, no. 1 (January
2011): 141-142. Art Full Text (H.W. Wilson), EBSCOhost (accessed October 24, 2014).
________. Justification and christology: the axiomatic correlation between the historical Jesus
and the proclaimed Christ. Modern Theology 1, no. 1 (October 1, 1984): 45-54. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 25, 2014).
________. Luthers Theology of the Cross: Martin Luthers Theological Breakthrough. 2d ed.
Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
________. The Making of Modern German Christology: From the Enlightenment to Pannenberg.
Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
________. The Mystery of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.
________. New Dimensions in Salvation. In New Dimensions in Evangelical Thought: Essays
in Honor of Millard J. Erickson, ed. David S. Dockery, 317-29. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1998.
________. A Passion for Truth: The Intellectual Coherence of Evangelicalism. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 1996.
________. Redemption. Truth and the Christian Imagination Series. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006.
________. Resurrection. Truth and the Christian Imagination Series. Minneapolis: Fortress,
2008.
________. A Scientific Theology. Vol. 1, Nature. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
2001.
________. A Scientific Theology. Vol. 2, Reality. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,

!31
2002.
________. A Scientific Theology. Vol. 3, Theory. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans,
2003.
________. Theology and the Futures of Evangelicalism. In The Futures of Evangelicalism:
Issues and Prospects, eds. Craig Bartholomew, Robin Parry, and Andrew West, 15-39.
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003.
________. Understanding Doctrine: Its Relevance and Purpose for Today. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1990.
________. Understanding Jesus: Who Jesus Christ Is and Why He Matters. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1987.
________. What Was God Doing on the Cross? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Moore, Andrew. Not Explanation but Salvation: Scientific Theology, Christology, and
Suffering. Modern Theology 22, no. 1 (January 2006): 65-83. Academic Search
Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 20, 2014).
Mouw, Richard J. The Born-again identity: Alister McGrath's sober but hopeful vision for the
future of evangelicalism. Christianity Today 39, no. 5 (April 24, 1995): 23-24. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 24, 2014).
Nassif, Bradley. New Dimensions in Eastern Orthodox Theology. In New Dimensions in
Evangelical Thought: Essays in Honor of Millard J. Erickson, ed. David S. Dockery,
92-117. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. JesusGod and Man. Translated by Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A.
Priebe. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.
________. Basic Questions in Theology: Collected Essays. Vol. 1. Translated by George H.
Kehm. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970.
Tomlin, Graham. Alister E. McGrath on the Cross of Jesus Christ. In Alister E. McGrath &
Evangelical Theology: A Dynamic Engagement, ed. Sun Wook Chung, 3-23. Cumbria,
UK: Paternoster, 2003.
Vainio, Olli-Pekka. Alister E. McGrath. In Key Theological Thinkers: From Modern to
Postmodern, eds. Svein Rise and Stle Johannes Kristiansen, 559-66. Farnham, Surrey,
England: Ashgate, 2013.