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. |