So Augustine’s brief statement here of the atonement has (1) a sinless substitutionary God-Man, (in some sense, a necessity - we will table the question of whether it is an absolute/simple necessity or a consequent necessity in Augstine’s thought for the time being), (2) a moral example of obedience, (3) Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection is in some sense necessary for the healing of our bodies as well as our souls, and (4) a vanquishing of the devil, and (5) any other helpful (read - exegetically sustained) ways of explaining the atonement added to this list.
Aulen’s thesis falls apart with quotes like this (and perhaps! several subsequent attempts to revise/reinterpret the Latin West and its theological descendants). This is just one brief, concise example from Augustine (among others, which can be multiplied among other theologians and will be D.V. over the next few posts!) that the atonement theology of the Latin West did incorporate all of those strands that Aulen tries to separate and pit one against the other in a complementary fashion early on.
[here]
