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 (2nd 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 (2nd ed.; Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2014), 35. |