The word “atonement” simply means to receive reparation for something you did wrong. In the way of the Christian doctrine of atonement, the very same definition can be applied. It would mean to receive reparation for your sins. The general understanding of the doctrine of atonement is that “humans sin, [which] causes debt we are unable to pay, [therefore] we deserve punishment. Instead of our being punished, God sends his Son to be punished in our place. We are forgiven” (Senor 4). This causes some confusion logically since we did not actually get punished for our sins. This would suggest that, in any situation, all I have to do is find someone else to pay for my crimes and I will be forgiven. However, that statement is not true. It
…show more content…
This would suggest that since we did not personally commit the sin, it is not our sin to bear the consequences of. Anselm continues to suggest that “If we aren’t born guilty, then unbaptized infants would not be guilty. But unbaptized infants are guilty. So we are born guilty” (Senor 3). This would suggest that we are guilty by nature, and there is no way not to be born not guilty. The main objection to the Christian doctrine of atonement is that “the incarnation, passion, and death of God incarnate shows that either God is not omnipotent or that God is not wise” (Senor 13). Anselm would argue against this, stating that it does not have to do with questioning God’s omnipotence. He would argue against the statement “The method of attaining the goal of human salvation that involves the Incarnation and passion and death of the Incarnate Son of God is not the least costly and painful method that could have been used to attain the goal of human salvation” (Senor 16). He would reject that statement as false, stating instead that “the goal humanity is reconciled to God and enjoys an eternity of blessed happiness) could be achieved in no other way” (Senor 16). Continuing on the Christian doctrine of atonement, Anselm wants to argue how
This would suggest that since we did not personally commit the sin, it is not our sin to bear the consequences of. Anselm continues to suggest that “If we aren’t born guilty, then unbaptized infants would not be guilty. But unbaptized infants are guilty. So we are born guilty” (Senor 3). This would suggest that we are guilty by nature, and there is no way not to be born not guilty. The main objection to the Christian doctrine of atonement is that “the incarnation, passion, and death of God incarnate shows that either God is not omnipotent or that God is not wise” (Senor 13). Anselm would argue against this, stating that it does not have to do with questioning God’s omnipotence. He would argue against the statement “The method of attaining the goal of human salvation that involves the Incarnation and passion and death of the Incarnate Son of God is not the least costly and painful method that could have been used to attain the goal of human salvation” (Senor 16). He would reject that statement as false, stating instead that “the goal humanity is reconciled to God and enjoys an eternity of blessed happiness) could be achieved in no other way” (Senor 16). Continuing on the Christian doctrine of atonement, Anselm wants to argue how