Christians claim that they have been redeemed or saved by the life and death of Christ.

Now, what could that possibly mean?

What is it to me that 2,000 years ago, a poor carpenter's son was cruelly executed?

Now, even if we accept that he was resurrected by the God whom he called my father, we are left wondering, what

is the point of this? How can an instrument of torture such as the cross be considered

a medium of salvation? Now quite a number of theologians share some of the reservations,

if not misgivings, that I've just alluded to.

Traditional theories of salvation, so it is argued, operate with a notion of God who needs the murderous sacrifice of his son to appease this divine wrath.

Furthermore, a number of scholars actually associate this profoundly problematic

theory of salvation with Thomas Aquinas himself. Probably echoing Gustav Hollens' study

Christus Fichtor, which was published first in 19331, Gerald O'Collins, for instance, argued that Aquinas'est's

sociology contributed to the development of a monstrous version of redemption, Christ as the penal

substitute propitiating the divine anger. And although he doesn't name Aquinas explicitly, Edward Schillebix writes in a similar vein,

quote,

Many existing theories of our redemption through Jesus Christ

deprive Jesus, his message and career of their subversive power,

and even worse, sacralize violence to be a reality within God.

God is said to call for a bloody sacrifice with stills or calms his sense of justice.

This kind of criticism, by the way, is not new.

Already in the 12th century, Peter Abelar questioned theories of salvation that attributed saving meaning

to the suffering of Christ.

Abelar wrote, how very cruel and unjust it seems that someone should require the blood

...