A search of the archives could probably turn up dozens of hits on this website alone.
I didn't read all the hits that I got from the search, but this post seems worth a read:
The Orthodox do not consider the "atonement" view of salvation as wrong since, as has been correctly, pointed out, it is very scriptural. But this forensic viewpoint should not stand as pars pro toto which, unfortunately, has happened way too much in Western Christianity and especially in the Protestant branches. I always found it ironic that these same Protestants who insist on such a juridical view of salvation consider such things as the Divine Liturgy, veneration of the saints, fasts, monasticism, etc. as legalism. But, if we solely consign ourselves to ONLY (that's the key word) the atonement view of salvation as equivalent to a "not guilty" verdict which Christ paid for us on the cross, what comes after that? Does the defendant just walk out of the courtroom and go on as if nothing happened? When reading St. Paul, he uses the juridical terminology to a point, but then switches to another metaphor of Christ's redemptive work, namely of life/death. For the Orthodox, Christ's redemptive work was necessary so that upon hearing the "not guilty" we are transformed and desire to achieve theosis, to participate in God's nature (II Pet. 2:14).
Again, the problem with the western viewpoint is that it is incomplete. By itself, the Orthodox have no problem with the "vicarious atonement", but to leave it simply as a "not guilty" neglects the incarnation in that what Christ assumed was to be healed (St. Gregory the Theologian) and death becomes truly powerless.
Scamandrius
