Angles of the Cross: Part Two

28th September, 2016

In part one of this article, I tried to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of three of the major atonement models: the Christus Victor approach, Anselm’s satisfaction model, and moral exemplarism. What follows is my attempt to synthesize all three by discussing them in the context of several important theological ideas: sin, the Incarnation, and the Cross.

Topic One: Sin

Without sin, there would be no need to discuss atonement in a Christian context. However, there are two extremes it is often relegated to: the idea that sin is “simply a legal claim,”¹Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition (Grand Rapics: Baker Academic, 2004), 184. which is often espoused (both consciously and subconsciously) by those who hold to a more objective view, or the belief that when one is saved from sin, these sins have more to do with sinning against others and sins “committed through social institutions.”²Miguel De la Torre, Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins (2^nd ed.; Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2014), 35. The problem here is both approaches have merit: sin is so much more than simply “offending” God, yet the effect of sin on humanity’s standing before God required something to happen as a result. Not recognizing the truth in both extremes leaves one with an imbalanced view of sin.

References [ + ]

1.	↑	Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition (Grand Rapics: Baker Academic, 2004), 184.
2.	↑	Miguel De la Torre, Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins (2^nd ed.; Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2014), 35.

Angles of the Cross: Part One

David Marshall

16th September, 2016

Theology

Due to the nature of the topic, the church universal has yet to formulate a unified doctrine of the atonement. This article, written in light of the Anabaptist tradition where multiple atonement models have oftentimes been held in tandem,¹Frances F. Hiebert, “The Atonement in Anabaptist Theology,” Direction 30, no. 2 (Fall 2001), http://www.directionjournal.org/30/2/atonement-in-anabaptist-theology.html#Note15 (accessed August 15, 2016), 132. argues that three of the more popular models of the atonement (Christus Victor, satisfaction, and moral exemplar) can indeed be viewed as being complementary and mutually beneficial, despite those who would say otherwise. Part one will briefly review each model, including several critical remarks, followed by a short section detailing some of the initial concerns with this approach. Part two will deal with three topics in the context of the atonement (sin, the Incarnation, and cross) and how the aforementioned models can be utilized cohesively alongside one another.²This article was originally a paper written for CH503: The Church’s Understanding of Church, Humanity, and Christian Life in Its Theological Reflection; Fuller Theological Seminary, Summer Quarter 2016.

References [ + ]

1.	↑	Frances F. Hiebert, “The Atonement in Anabaptist Theology,” Direction 30, no. 2 (Fall 2001), http://www.directionjournal.org/30/2/atonement-in-anabaptist-theology.html#Note15 (accessed August 15, 2016), 132.
2.	↑	This article was originally a paper written for CH503: The Church’s Understanding of Church, Humanity, and Christian Life in Its Theological Reflection; Fuller Theological Seminary, Summer Quarter 2016.

A Non-Violent Reading of Anselm’s Atonement Theology

Alvin Rapien

10th August, 2016

Theology

“Anselm understood Jesus’ death as the debt payment that satisfied the honor of God, and thus restored balance and order in the universe…. Maintaining order in the universe depends on maintaining the honor of God, which necessitates a debt payment – the death of Jesus – to cover the offense to God’s honor that was enacted by human sin… Although Anselm’s understanding of satisfaction atonement differs significantly from penal substitutionary atonement, I have treated them together as two versions of atonement that depict a divine need for Jesus’ death and that thus direct the death of Jesus Godward. Although in different ways, each depends on retribution. The conclusion is inescapable that any and all versions of satisfaction atonement, regardless of their packaging, assume the violence of retribution or justice based on punishment, and depend on God-induced and God-directed violence.”¹J. Denny Weaver, “Narrative Christus Victor: The Answer to Anselmian Atonement Violence”, Atonement and Violence: A Theological Conversation, ed. John Sanders, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006), 8-9. Author’s emphasis.

The above passage indicates how Anselm is predominantly interpreted in atonement debates. It is also widely acknowledged that the language of Anselm’s so-called “satisfaction theory of atonement” influenced later theologians to eventually articulate penal substitutionary atonement, which explains why some argue that Anselm’s atonement theology is directly related to penal substitution.²Note the language of Weaver in the above passage: “…I have treated them [Anselm’s satisfaction atonement and penal substitutionary atonement] together as two versions of atonement that depict a divine need for Jesus’ death…”. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press, 1985), 24-26. Many assert that Anselm incorporated the language of the feudal system of his day, which led to a distorted idea of atonement: God is a feudal lord whose honor is offended and demands satisfaction through the form of violent punishment. Furthermore, the only one who can fully satisfy the infinitely offended God is the infinite God in human form, Jesus Christ.³J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, 2nd Ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2011), 236-237.

References [ + ]

1.	↑	J. Denny Weaver, “Narrative Christus Victor: The Answer to Anselmian Atonement Violence”, Atonement and Violence: A Theological Conversation, ed. John Sanders, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006), 8-9. Author’s emphasis.
2.	↑	Note the language of Weaver in the above passage: “…I have treated them [Anselm’s satisfaction atonement and penal substitutionary atonement] together as two versions of atonement that depict a divine need for Jesus’ death…”. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4, Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press, 1985), 24-26.
3.	↑	J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, 2nd Ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2011), 236-237.

There are no more results.