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.