Mood:
hungryI feel that I did not do the Classic View of Atonement justice last time. Some of what I said was accurate, but some was only what some of the Orthodox writers I have read have to say.
The Classic View:
In any view, the Atonement is founded on the Divine Incarnation. By this great mystery, the Eternal Word took to Himself the nature of man and, being both God and man, became the Mediator between God and men. From this, we have one of the first and most profound forms of theological speculation on the Atonement, the theory which is sometimes described as Mystical Redemption. Instead of seeking a solution in legal figures, some of the great Greek Fathers were content to dwell on the fundamental fact of the Divine Incarnation. By the union of the Eternal Word with the nature of man all mankind was lifted up and, so to say, deified. "He was made man", says St. Athanasius, "that we might be made gods" (De Incarnatione Verbi, 54). (from the Catholic Encyclopedia)
Although I am not so sure about the concept of deification, I would say that I agree with the Classic View. I also agree with the Latin or Judicial View as well. They work together. Yes, Christ's death was an atoning sacrifice paying for our sins (Latin View). Yes, Christ's life and death as an incarnate man reconciled us to God and draw us up into His embrace.
I feel that this is a necessary thing to bring up only because I did it an injustice earlier. The important thing is that through His life and death, Christ brought humanity and God back together, healing the wounds of sin and fallenness. Both images are correct; neither is fully complete.
We spend too much time worrying about "which" doctrine or theology is correct, when sometimes, "both" are.
