DOCSLIB.ORG

64 the Cross and Substitutionary Atonement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
64 the Cross and Substitutionary Atonement The Cross and Substitutionary Atonement Simon Gathercole Simon Gathercole is Senior Lec- Introduction1 that has traditionally been used, but also turer in New Testament in the School A paper about the atonement should to offer two suggestions of new areas of of Divinity, History and Philosophy at need no justifi cation. If the doctrine is biblical material that might usefully be the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. under attack (as it frequently is) then there taken on board in future discussions of He also serves on the editorial board is a need to expound and defend it bibli- justifi cation. of the Journal for the Study of the New cally against its cultured despisers. Even if Testament. Dr. Gathercole has written it is not explicitly under attack, the central- Is Substitution Still Important? numerous articles and is the author of ity of the atonement to Christian doctrine When does a gospel become a false Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Sote- requires that we continue to preach it and gospel? Paul knew a heresy when he saw it riology and Paul’s Response in Romans teach it. So, whether in season or out of in Galatia, but Galatians gives us no hard 1-5 (Eerdmans, 2002). season, we all need to be theologians of, and fast principles to defi ne the limits and preachers of the atonement. of acceptable doctrine. This question of The focus here will be on the aspect of where lines should be drawn has become the atonement usually termed “substitu- an issue much discussed currently in the tion,” for which Robert Letham’s and Karl U.S.A. with the rise of openness theism, Barth’s defi nitions are helpful: a controversy that seems to have aroused much more than common discomfort. Christ himself willingly submit- ted to the just penalty which we The most recent book on the subject is deserved, receiving it on our behalf entitled Beyond the Bounds, which, as and in our place so that we will not the title suggests, argues that openness have to bear it ourselves.2 theism is not only wrong but danger- In His doing this for us, in His ously wrong.5 In this volume, there is a taking to Himself—to fulfil all useful essay by Wayne Grudem that is righteousness—our accusation and condemnation and punishment, in not focused specifi cally on the issue of His suffering in our place and for us, openness theism, but attempts to tackle there came to pass our reconciliation with God.3 more widely the problem of heresy. He gives, among other things, some helpful Although these defi nitions understand general criteria to assess what constitutes substitution in terms of substitutionary false teaching: for example, under the punishment, the issue of penalty will not heading of “Effect on personal and church be treated here below.4 I intend in this life,” he asks questions such as, “Will this paper simply to answer three questions false teaching bring signifi cant harm to in connection with substitution. First, people’s Christian lives, or to the work of is substitution still important? Second, is the Church?”6 This question is signifi cant substitution still alive? Third, is substitu- for our consideration of the status of the tion still biblical? The aim of this third doctrine of substitution. section will be both to sift the evidence The principal reason for this is that 64 it seems to be logically impossible to I know Whom I have believed, have true assurance of salvation if we do And am persuaded that He is able To keep that which I’ve committed not accept that Christ died in our place. Unto Him against that day. The problem with logic of course is that people are not always so consistent that There are two contrasting possibilities they will inevitably be so logical. But it is if one rejects substitution. The fi rst and diffi cult to avoid the conclusion that if we more obvious consequence of abandoning do not believe that Christ has in his death assurance rooted in the cross of Christ is exhausted the punishment that we would presumably insecurity at the prospect of otherwise face, then we cannot be certain judgment. Calvin brings out this point of escaping the consequences of our sin. with his characteristic clarity: Assurance is no optional add-on to the gospel, or something reserved for senior We must specially remember this substitution in order that we may saints: the New Testament constantly not be all our lives in trepidation asserts or presupposes that assurance of and anxiety, as if the just vengeance, which the Son of God transferred future salvation in Christ is part and par- to himself, were still impending cel of the Christian life. Romans 8.31-39 is over us.7 one of the most well-known expressions of Christian assurance, in which Paul Calvin rightly recognizes that no doctrine exhorts his readers: “For I am convinced is an island, and sees clearly the practical, that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor pastoral relevance of substitution. rulers, nor things present, nor things to The alternative to this “trepidation and come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, anxiety” is that rejection of substitution nor anything else in all creation, will be leads to a false assurance, as a person is led able to separate us from the love of God to rely on something other than the cross, in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The ultimate whether that be confi dence in doctrinal basis for salvation and assurance in orthodoxy, in membership of the correct Romans 8 is elaborated at the beginning ecclesiastical party, or in one’s moral of the chapter: Christian believers have calibre. passed from being bound to the Law of The integral connection between sub- sin and death to the Law of the Spirit of stitution and assurance is one principal life in Christ (8:2). Hence, “there is now no reason, I think, for defending the doctrine condemnation for those who are in Christ of substitution so vehemently. As Fitzsim- Jesus” (8:1). This is grounded in the aton- mons Allison argued in his instructively ing work of Christ, in which through the titled book The Cruelty of Heresy, one of the punishment of sin in his fl esh, the goal of central aspects of false teaching is that it 8 the Law is reached. Passages such as John has pastorally disastrous consequences. 10:11-18 and 1 Pet 1:3-9 are clearly written It is very diffi cult sometimes to argue with a similar aim of instilling assurance. that some doctrines are heretical because The New Testament, then, assumes that they detract from God’s glory, or even in the believer should be able to sing Daniel some cases, that they are inconsistent with Webster Whittle’s close paraphrase of 2 Scripture. In the case of substitution, how- Tim 1.12: ever, it seems that the combination of the Bible’s clarity on the issue (as we will see below) and the fact that it is an essential 65 requirement for assurance means that it tion (hilastērion) in Rom 3:25. (We will be is not a legitimate area of disagreement returning to these biblical passages later.) among Christians. He goes on to defend the doctrine of penal substitution, arguing against both theo- Is Substitution Still Alive? A logical objections, as well as the caricature Review of Recent Literature by of the penal doctrine as “stock exchange Letham, Peterson, and Tidball divinity.” This is an image drawn from At the present time we are actually Edward Irving via Colin Gunton, paro- extremely well served with good litera- dying penal substitution as a kind of ture on the subject. There is of course a mechanical commercial transaction.12 lot of bad literature on the atonement, but Letham comments, “Talk of penal substi- three recent books in particular are excel- tution as ‘stock exchange divinity’ is sim- lent examples of both polemical (in the ply a coded message; its author means ‘I good sense) defence of the faith, and con- do not like it’.”13 The distinctive emphases structive exposition of doctrine according of Letham’s book are a welcome integra- to its inner logic. The three books are tion of the cross into the work of Christ as Robert Letham’s The Work of Christ,9 Where a whole, and an emphasis on the death of Wrath and Mercy Meet, edited by David Jesus in the wider context of his earthly Peterson,10 and Derek Tidball’s Message ministry. He notes the way in which penal of the Cross.11 All three defend the classic substitution does not push aside other doctrine of penal substitution. models of the atonement. While Letham Robert Letham’s The Work of Christ provides an elegant exposition of the doc- has the advantage of not being a book trine in itself and in the face of critics, it about the cross per se; rather it follows is a shame that the section ends with the the pattern of the traditional taxonomy rather damp squib of some refl ections on of the work of Christ as the threefold Anglican and Roman Catholic dialogue. offi ce: Christ as prophet, as priest, and as Again, much of the theological meat of king. As one might expect, the account of Letham’s discussion about the atonement the atonement comes under the second comes in an appendix on limited atone- head, as part of Christ’s priestly work. He ment at the end of the book.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Teaching the Scriptural Emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Faculty Publications 2019 Teaching the Scriptural Emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ John Hilton III Brigham Young University - Provo, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Mormon Studies Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Hilton, John III, "Teaching the Scriptural Emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ" (2019). Faculty Publications. 3255. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/3255 This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. This article was provided courtesy of the Religious Educator, a journal published by the Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University Click here to subscribe and learn more The scriptures consistently emphasize the importance of the Savior’s CrucifixionintheAtonement. theimportance consistentlyemphasize The scriptures oftheSavior’s Harry Anderson, The Crucifixion. © Intellectual Reserve, Inc. Teaching the Scriptural Emphasis on the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ john hilton iii John Hilton III ([email protected]) is an associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. colleague recently shared with me how, when teaching missionary A preparation classes, he would role-play with students. When students pretending to be missionaries would ask him (acting as an investigator) if he knew about Christ’s Atonement, he would say, “Yes, I saw that Mel Gibson movie about Christ dying for our sins on the cross.” At least half of his students would correct him, stating that Christ atoned for our sins in Gethsemane, but not on the cross.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Sin and the Atonement ! Jeff Speaks April 17,! 2014 ! 1
    Original sin and the Atonement ! Jeff Speaks April 17,! 2014 ! 1. The puzzle of original sin ................................................................................................1 2. Three theories of the atonement .....................................................................................3 2.1. Moral exemplar theories 2.2. The Christus Victor model ! 2.3. The penal substitution theory ! 1. THE PUZZLE OF ORIGINAL SIN The Nicene Creed says that ‘baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.’ If this is right, then even very young babies must be guilty of sins for which they need forgiveness. This is !‘original sin.’ !It is not hard to find this doctrine puzzling. Here is what Pascal said about it: “For it is beyond doubt that there is nothing which more shocks our reason than to say that the sin of the first man has rendered guilty those, who, being so removed from this source, seem incapable of participation in it. This transmission does not only seem to us impossible, it seems also very unjust. For what is more contrary to the rules of our miserable justice than to damn eternally an infant incapable of will, for a sin wherein he seems to have so little a share, that it was committed six thousand years before he was in existence? Certainly nothing ! offends us more rudely than this doctrine…" To respond to this worry, we need to answer the difficult question: exactly what are we !guilty of at birth? There have been two main answers to this question: (1) We are guilty of Adam’s sin, and !(2) we are guilty for the corruption of our own nature. !The problem is that there seems to be a simple argument that neither (1) nor (2) is true: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Participatory Model of the Atonement
    A Participatory Model of the Atonement Tim Bayne [email protected] St. Catherine’s College, University of Oxford Greg Restall [email protected] School of Philosophy, The University of Melbourne Abstract In this paper we develop a participatory model of the Christian doctrine of the atonement, according to which the atonement involves participating in the death and resurrection of Christ. In part one we argue that current models of the atonement—exemplary, penal, substitutionary and merit models—are unsatisfactory. The central problem with these models is that they assume a purely deontic conception of sin and, as a result, they fail to address sin as a relational and ontological problem. In part two we argue that a participatory model of the atonement is both exegetically and philosophically plausible, and should be taken seriously within philosophical theology.i What? Humanity sins but it’s God’s Son who pays the price? I tried to imagine Father saying to me, “Piscine, a lion slipped into the llama pen today and killed two llamas. Yesterday another one killed a black buck. Last week two of them ate the camel. The week before it was painted storks and grey herons. And who’s to say for sure who snacked on our golden agouti? The situation has become intolerable. Something must be done. I have decided that the only way the lions can atone for their sins is if I feed you to them.” “Yes, Father, that would be the right and logical thing to do. Give me a moment to wash up.” … What a downright weird story.
    [Show full text]
  • Atonement, Salvation and the Kingdom Rosedale Bible College Hosts Fifth Evangelical Anabaptist Symposium by Vicki Sairs
    RBC FEATURE Atonement, Salvation and the Kingdom Rosedale Bible College hosts fifth Evangelical Anabaptist Symposium By Vicki Sairs Rosedale Bible College hosted its fifth Evangelical Anabaptist Symposium, “Salvation: Exploring the Soul “Violence is something that happens of the Evangel, Proclaiming the Good News” November in this world, between humans. God 11-13. doesn’t act that way.” Speakers explored how the cross of Christ and God’s love come together to save humanity and how we can R Jesus as a sacrifice is a key element in penal substitution embody that good news in cities, overseas and in our and in Scripture. While eliminating crude and “less care- Middle American churches. fully formulated statements about penal substitution is a Rosedale faculty member Reuben Sairs opened the timely call,” eliminating the doctrine itself “is not going to symposium by discussing atonement and current critiques work.” of penal substitution, considered by some to be “the doc- Sairs asked whether this effort to get rid of one of the trinal explanation that ate all the other explanations for central understandings of the atonement signals “a fairly breakfast.” significant shift in soteriology.” In this new approach, why It is not, said Sairs, “merely a tidal wave of ignorance does Jesus die? “This leads, as I see it, to a different take and poor taste that made penal substitution a dominant, on the Christian faith than most evangelicals will be able though never exclusive, model or metaphor.” The idea of to own.” Dan Ziegler, president of Rosedale Bible College, invited his listeners to Conrad Showalter, pastor of Siloam Fellowship in Goshen, Ind ., talks live as citizens of the kingdom of God .
    [Show full text]
  • Atonement, Christology and the Trinity Seem Like Puzzling Constructions Produced by Academic Theologians
    ATONEMENT, CHRISTOLOGYAND THE TRINITY Vincent Brümmer is a philosopher of religion who takes systematic theology seriously. In his new book he uses his philosophical acumen to elucidate central topics of Christian doctrine: the Atonement, Christology, and the Trinity. For him they are not mere theological constructions but have their meaning and function in the context of the believer’s search for ultimate happiness. There is much to be learned from his clear and careful philosophical reworking of classical views of Reformed theology. New and controversial is the idea of a ‘matrix of faith’by which Christians claim to attain ultimate happiness and which Brümmer believes can be defended not only within the Christian, but also the Jewish and Islamic traditions. This will no doubt provoke discussion, and it should. – Professor Dr Ingolf Ulrich Dalferth, University of Zurich Professor Vincent Brummer writes as an established philosopher of religion who places his philosophical expertise at the service of theology. Here he builds on his earlier work on the non-manipulative nature of true love, expounds the work of Christ as God’s own act, and presses the logical entailments of language about atonement and the Trinity. Whether or not readers endorse all of his conclusions, his arguments are to be reckoned with and incisive observations and rigorous logic pose questions that need to be addressed. This is a challenging resource for ongoing debate in this area. – Anthony C. Thiselton, Emeritus Professor, University of Nottingham; Research Professor, Chester University College; and Canon Theologian, Leicester Cathedral and Southwell Minster For many believers today the doctrines of Atonement, Christology and the Trinity seem like puzzling constructions produced by academic theologians.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does the Atonement Mean to You?
    What Does the Atonement Mean to You? Cecil O. Samuelson _______________________________________________________________________ This address was given Friday, May 5, 2006, at the BYU Women’s Conference © 2006 by Brigham Young University Women’s Conference. All rights reserved For further information write: BYU Women’s Conference 352 Harman Continuing Education Building Provo, Utah 84602 801-422-7692 E-mail: [email protected] Home page: http://womensconference.byu.edu ________________________________________________________________________ It is wonderful to be with you and to consider together President Hinckley’s challenge to “rise to the divinity within us.”1 It is my judgment we can most effectively do this by knowing, understanding, and incorporating into our lives the special assets and blessings of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. As with our Nephite brothers and sisters of 2500 years ago, “we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ.”2 Even with all the current falsehoods and distractions about Jesus Christ created by the adversary, as well as the many misunderstandings expressed by others regarding our theology, it has always been the case, as taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, that“the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”3 These fundamental principles are grounded in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. As we read in the Bible Dictionary, “The word [Atonement] describes the setting ‘at one’ of those who have been estranged, and denotes the reconciliation of man to God.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Rights and the Theology of Atonement
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Religious Studies Theses Department of Religious Studies 12-14-2016 Civil Rights and the Theology of Atonement Joy Spann Georgia State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/rs_theses Recommended Citation Spann, Joy, "Civil Rights and the Theology of Atonement." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2016. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/rs_theses/53 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Religious Studies at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Religious Studies Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE THEOLOGY OF ATONEMENT by JOY E. SPANN Under the Direction of Dr. Monique Moultrie ABSTRACT In the Civil Rights era there was a resistance from some White Southern Evangelicals to push for equality for African Americans. This response is often attributed to racist attitudes towards African Americans within the Evangelical and Fundamentalist communities. Although racist attitudes are a definite motivating factor, I believe there is a larger theological argument that also needs to be examined- the internalization of atonement theology and what that meant for the understanding of suffering and sacrifice experienced by African Americans. I will also examine the ways in which atonement theology, specifically the penal substitution and Christus Victor models, influenced Martin Luther King, Jr.’s methods in the fight for Civil Rights as well as the response of Noel Smith, a white fundamentalist preacher, to the movement. In my conclusion, I will discuss the ways atonement theology continues to influence the interpretations and responses of these groups to Civil Rights issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Atonement Theories in Western
    THE EVOLUTION OF ATONEMENT THEORIES IN WESTERN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY: WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN AND WHERE THE ARE GOING by Madeleine Rebouche Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Departmental Honors in the Department of Religion Texas Christian University Fort Worth, Texas May 2, 2014 ii THE EVOLUTION OF ATONEMENT THEORIES IN WESTERN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY: WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN AND WHERE THEY ARE GOING Project Approved: Supervising Professor: C. David Grant, Ph.D. Department of Religion Elizabeth H. Flowers, Ph.D. Department of Religion Charlotte Hogg, Ph.D. Department of English iii ABSTRACT There are three main ways of viewing the atonement that have dominated Western Christian Theology in the past: the classic view, the Latin view, and the subjective view. Each of these views were important in their time and place within history, but it is time that we begin to search for a new way of viewing the atonement in order for the gospel to remain a viable narrative for Christians to connect to in contemporary thought. I argue that the God must be nonviolent and that divine justice should follow a restorative versus a retributive model of justice. It is through these new understandings of God’s character, agency, and justice that the atonement must be understood. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 HISTORY ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Christian Doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement
    The Christian Doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement Author: Conrad Hilario “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” -King Solomon Within recent years a movement has been “emerging” within Christianity promising to repaint the Christian faith. The leaders of this movement depict modern Christianity as a rigid, dusty orthodoxy, filled with endless dogmas and doctrines. According to their perspective, true Christianity must be understood as fluid, changing, and being reworked to throw off the straightjacket of doctrines restricting its modern relevance. Among these doctrines being reworked is the Christian teaching of substitutionary atonement –the belief that Jesus died to pay humanity’s moral debt to God. Rob Bell, a prominent leader of this emerging movement, recently completed his national speaking tour entitled “The Gods Aren’t Angry.” During his presentation, Bell shares three insights that form the basis of his talk. According to Bell, his third “revelation” came in Jesus. The sacrificial system in Leviticus became corrupt and led people to believe that God was angry with them. But at just the right time, God revealed that he never needed their sacrifice. The problem, Bell suggests, is not that God is angry with us, but that we think he is angry with us. While talking about the sacrificial system, Bell says, “the blood was never for God, that was just to help humans live with, absorb, and trust, the love of a God who keeps on insisting, trust me.”1 Thus, Jesus’ did not come to change God’s mind about us, but to change our mind about God.
    [Show full text]
  • Rediscovering a Biblical and Early Patristic View of Atonement Through Orthodox–Evangelical Dialogue
    religions Article Rediscovering a Biblical and Early Patristic View of Atonement through Orthodox–Evangelical Dialogue Petro Kovaliv Theology Department, Ukrainian Evangelical Theological Seminary, 04075 Kyiv, Ukraine; [email protected] Abstract: One of the most effective ways to discover (or rediscover) truth is through dialogue. I believe that both Orthodox and Evangelicals have something important to offer for a reconstruction of a holistic biblical concept of atonement. Orthodox theology has an important perspective to offer, which is not well-known in Western theology—an ontological perspective on atonement. However, Orthodox theologians have lacked assertiveness, clarity, and comprehensiveness in their presentation of this view, especially in connection with biblical texts. In Protestant theology, we can find many critiques of inadequate existing views as well as in-depth biblical study of separate atonement ideas, but what is lacking is a holistic concept of atonement that would be able to harmoniously integrate various biblical atonement metaphors and also faithfully reflect the early patristic view. I believe that an ontological perspective on atonement combined with the integration of key biblical atonement ideas and metaphors can bring us back to the heart of the apostolic and early church gospel message. Several issues have hindered accomplishing such a project in the past. I will point to these problems and show some possible solutions. Finally, I will present the ontological perspective and show how it can integrate various biblical atonement metaphors. Keywords: atonement; redemption; ransom; metaphor; concept; theory of atonement; kerygma; Citation: Kovaliv, Petro. 2021. Orthodox; Evangelical; theology Rediscovering a Biblical and Early Patristic View of Atonement through Orthodox–Evangelical Dialogue.
    [Show full text]
  • Week 4: the Doctrine of Atonement
    Week 4: The doctrine of atonement • Marilyn McCord Adams, Christ and Horrors: The Coherence of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) • Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, trans. A. G. Herbert (London: SPCK, 1931) • D. M. Baillie, God Was in Christ: An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement (2nd edn; London: Faber and Faber, 1955) • F. W. Dillistone, The Christian Understanding of Atonement (Welwyn: Nisbet, 1968) Readings II • Paul S. Fiddes, Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1989) • Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology, trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1974) • Simeon Zahl, ‘Atonement’ in The Oxford Handbook of Theology and Modern European Thought, ed. Nicholas Adams, George Pattison, and Graham Ward (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 533–654. 1. Soteriology as part of Systematic Theology • Friedrich Schleiermacher said that Christology and Soteriology dealt with the same content in different ways. • What he means is that in the Christian tradition, the idea of salvation through Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the person of Jesus are closely correlated. • We have seen how central Christology is to Christian theology. • Its centrality is due to the significance of the person of Jesus. • Yet this significance is due to the belief that he is the saviour. Soteriology in ST II • The need to explain who he is conditioned by the need to explain what he does and how he does it.
    [Show full text]
  • Stump on Forgiveness
    STUMP ON FORGIVENESS Richard Swinburne I claim that all the criticisms made by Eleonore Stump in her Atonement of my account of the nature and justification of human and divine forgiveness are entirely mistaken. She claims that God’s forgiveness of our sins is always immediate and unconditional. I argue that on Christ’s understanding of for- giveness as deeming the sinner not to have wronged one, God’s forgiveness of us is always conditional on our repenting and being willing to forgive others. Her account of forgiveness merely as the expression of love for the sinner leaves her without a separate word for the all-important act of “wiping the slate clean.” Unlike Stump, I endorse the account in The Letter to the Hebrews of Christ’s passion and death as a sacrifice for human sin. Eleonore Stump’s Atonement is a brilliant exposition of a totally new theo- logical interpretation of how the Passion and death of Jesus Christ on the cross made it possible for humans to be at-one with God. In doing so, she rejects all other interpretations as seriously deficient. She regards her own interpretation as a development of the imperfect interpretation provided by Aquinas; and has strong criticisms of the only other kind of interpre- tation prevalent in the last thousand years, which is that of Anselm. She recognizes that my own theory, contained in my book Responsibility and Atonement, is a version of Anselm’s theory, and claims that it is subject to most of the criticisms which apply to Anselm’s own version.
    [Show full text]