The Cross of Christ (Part 1): Reconciliation

​*The 11th century theologian Anselm once wrote, “All defective views of the atonement have this one thing in common—they have not yet considered how grievous a thing sin is.”  In many evangelical churches today and among many evangelical Christians there is a defective view of the atonement.  If the average Christian was asked to explain the purpose of the cross of Christ, many would likely say, ‘To provide salvation’, which is correct.  And if asked what the cross achieved?  Many would say, ‘forgiveness’, which is also correct.  However, if the average Christian was asked whether or not the cross was historically necessary, I fear that many would agree with the 13th century theologian Duns Scotus who held that not only was the cross not historically necessary, but neither was the death of Christ.  In other words, God could have provided salvation through any means.  God could have allowed an animal to die in the place of sinners or could have just forgiven people of their sins without requiring a sacrifice of any kind.  God provided salvation through Christ simply because He chose to do so.  Let’s remember the words of Anselm: “All defective views of the atonement have this one thing in common—they have not yet considered how grievous a thing sin is.”

Read More