Justifying Atonement: An Anselmian Response to Modern Critics

This paper considers three modern objections to Anselm's argument on atonement in book I of Cur Deus Homo. The objections are from Friedrich Nietzsche, R. C. Moberly, and Hastings Rashdall; each one makes the case that Anselm's argument is fallacious. Each one interprets Anselm's position as requiring that someone innocent suffer punishment in order to acquit guilt. I contend that these objectors do not offer a strong case against Anselm's argument, principally because they have not examined it completely and have misunderstood his reasoning. In fine, Anselm's case is (a) the Son's obedience to the Father suffices for atonement, (b) the Son is an advocate for Adam and his heirs and stands in for them because of his blood ties to humanity, and (c) the Son is the advocate for the Father in the latter's attempt to end human estrangement from justice. Being both an advocate of the Father and an heir to Adam, the Son's Incarnation itself prepares the way of reconciliation and the life of the upright will resolves estrangement. The fact that the Son suffers pain and death is due not to the Father's will but to our resistance to the justice of the Son's upright will.