Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:44:38.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The mystery of atonement and Swinburne's reparation theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2015

ALEXANDER HYUN
ALEXANDER HYUN*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Traditional Christianity holds that Jesus Christ somehow helps to bring about our salvation. A ‘theory of atonement’ is a theory about how he does this. One influential and elegant theory of atonement is Richard Swinburne's reparation theory. In this article, I contend that this theory fails to satisfy an important condition of adequacy on theories of atonement that has been overlooked in the literature. I first argue that in order to be plausible, a theory of atonement must not imply that failure to believe in the correct theory of atonement greatly hinders one from being benefited by Christ's salvific work. I then argue that reparation theory does have this problematic implication.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 133 - 141
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aspenson, Steven S. (1996) ‘Swinburne on atonement’, Religious Studies, 32, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Joel B. (2006) ‘Kaleidoscopic view’, in Beilby, James & Eddy, Paul (eds) The Nature of the Atonement (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press), 157–185.Google Scholar
Grensted, L. W. (1962) A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement (Manchester: Manchester University Press).Google Scholar
McNaughton, David (1992) ‘Reparation and atonement’, Religious Studies, 28, 129–144.Google Scholar
Murphy, Mark C. (2009) ‘Not penal substitution but vicarious punishment’, Faith and Philosophy, 26, 253–273.Google Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (1989) Responsibility and Atonement (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar