Anselm, Abelard, and Friends - Influences of Theories of Atonement

[JonC]

There was an interesting (subjective, I know ) discussion on another thread which was closed because it started devolving into nonsense. I’d like to look at some aspects of that thread here (at least to give an opportunity for those who are interested in historical theories of atonement (probably the least popular topic on this forum).

On the other thread @Brooksntea brought up Anselm and Abelard and their theories of atonement. They both believed that Christ bore our sins in his body, that He died for us, that Christ died as our representative, that He is the "last Adam", that He was bruised for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities...in short, they believed the same passages that we all affirm (regardless of where we stand in terms of these theories).

But affirming the same passages, they disagreed very strongly regarding the nature of the Atonement.

What role (if any) do you believe the ideas of these men (and perhaps others) contributed to the theories of atonement today?

What differences existed between these men (and perhaps the men of today) that can account for their disagreements?

 

[JonC]

Anselm of Canterbury is probably best known as the Benedictine monk who developed the atonement theory called Satisfaction Theory. This theory would usurp the Ransom Theory that supposed the atonement amounted to God paying a ransom to Satan for mankind. This theory is similar to the Penal Substitution Theory of today because Penal Substitution Theory is a type of satisfaction theory. But it was also very different.

In Cur Deus Homo Anselm articulated his theory as a modification to the Ransom Theory. Although it may not make much sense to us today, his ideas spoke clearly to the ideologies of his time. Anselm viewed the problem of man as one of an eternal dishonor brought on by sin. A redeemer was needed to reverse this and restore honor. Christ bore the punishment of man (physically) in obedience to God, thereby restoring honor that had been lost. Several differences can be seen when placed alongside the Theory of Penal Substitution. The most obvious is Anselm’s view that the result of sin was a loss of honor. We simply don’t think that way. But at a deeper level, Anselm did not view Christ bearing punishment as redemptive towards our sin debt. For one, they simply didn’t think that way back then. But for another, his issue was honor.

 

[JonC]

Peter Abelard is probably best known as the father of nominalism. He was a medieval French theologian and philosopher who is often associated with the Moral Influence Theory.

Abelard strongly opposed Satisfaction Theory because he believed it twisted the nature of God. His belief was that it is by faith in Christ that God’s love is increased in us, and it is by virtue of that faith that God (in Christ) united our nature to Himself, and that by suffering in that very same nature (human nature) God has demonstrated to us His Supreme Love (which we share in Christ).

Abelard argued that our redemption is that Supreme Love abiding in us – the same love of God demonstrated through the suffering of Christ not only frees us from the bondage of sin gut gains for us liberty as children of God. It is God’s love that liberates us – not because of the exercise of retributive punishment (Penal Substitution Theory) or in order to restore honor to God by bearing a punishment on our behalf (Satisfaction Theory) but because the very presence of the Love of God imputed to us. This justifies sinners in and of itself (Abelard held to a Justinian concept of justice and believed God could forgive freely).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Historical Theology is a fascinating subject, bit I repeat that we should not be looking to draw our teaching from medieval Roman Catholics. "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
Both Abelard and Anselm were 'scholiasts' or 'schoolmen.' Scholasticism was an approach to theology which was especially concerned with the relationship between faith and reason. It asked how far 'pure reason' could discover or prove the doctrines of the Christian faith. In such a viewpoint the Bible tended to take a back seat compared to philosophy. The later schoolmen were much addicted to the pagan philosopher Aristotle. Hence the cry of the Reformers: "Scripture alone!" [Though some later Anglican reformers like Richard Hooker still wanted to sieve the Scriptures through fallen human 'reason.']

Also, medieval schoolmen saw God as being like a medieval earthly king, concerned with his prestige and honour rather than with justice and righteousness. The much earlier ECFs, though they had their own failings, were not afflicted with such views.

Hence Justin martyr wrote, 'For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, "Cursed is everyone that coninueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them." And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this........But if those who are under the law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes' [Dialogue with Trypho, sect 95]. Justin saw what Paul also saw: that the thrice-holy God is concerned with righteousness. I am convinced that one of the key verses in this whole debate is Romans 3:26. '.....To demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

 

[JonC]

Historical Theology is a fascinating subject, bit I repeat that we should not be looking to draw our teaching from medieval Roman Catholics. "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
Both Abelard and Anselm were 'scholiasts' or 'schoolmen.' Scholasticism was an approach to theology which was especially concerned with the relationship between faith and reason. It asked how far 'pure reason' could discover or prove the doctrines of the Christian faith. In such a viewpoint the Bible tended to take a back seat compared to philosophy. The later schoolmen were much addicted to the pagan philosopher Aristotle. Hence the cry of the Reformers: "Scripture alone!" [Though some later Anglican reformers like Richard Hooker still wanted to sieve the Scriptures through fallen human 'reason.']

Also, medieval schoolmen saw God as being like a medieval earthly king, concerned with his prestige and honour rather than with justice and righteousness. The much earlier ECFs, though they had their own failings, were not afflicted with such views.

Hence Justin martyr wrote, 'For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, "Cursed is everyone that coninueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them." And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this........But if those who are under the law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes' [Dialogue with Trypho, sect 95]. Justin saw what Paul also saw: that the thrice-holy God is concerned with righteousness. I am convinced that one of the key verses in this whole debate is Romans 3:26. '.....To demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Thank you - and yes. It bears repeating that we do not study historical theology in order to adopt a position any more than we would study World War 2 in order to repeat it.

We can study WW2 to gain insight not only what that "greatest generation" believed and how they handled circumstances but also to see the influences the war holds for today.

Likewise we study theological issues of the past not only to learn how they handled situations but also to be able to detect influences of the past in the present.

Good point, Martin.

 

[Yeshua1]

Historical Theology is a fascinating subject, bit I repeat that we should not be looking to draw our teaching from medieval Roman Catholics. "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
Both Abelard and Anselm were 'scholiasts' or 'schoolmen.' Scholasticism was an approach to theology which was especially concerned with the relationship between faith and reason. It asked how far 'pure reason' could discover or prove the doctrines of the Christian faith. In such a viewpoint the Bible tended to take a back seat compared to philosophy. The later schoolmen were much addicted to the pagan philosopher Aristotle. Hence the cry of the Reformers: "Scripture alone!" [Though some later Anglican reformers like Richard Hooker still wanted to sieve the Scriptures through fallen human 'reason.']

Also, medieval schoolmen saw God as being like a medieval earthly king, concerned with his prestige and honour rather than with justice and righteousness. The much earlier ECFs, though they had their own failings, were not afflicted with such views.

Hence Justin martyr wrote, 'For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, "Cursed is everyone that coninueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them." And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this........But if those who are under the law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes' [Dialogue with Trypho, sect 95]. Justin saw what Paul also saw: that the thrice-holy God is concerned with righteousness. I am convinced that one of the key verses in this whole debate is Romans 3:26. '.....To demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

How is the sin debt that we owe God get paid for IF the Pst is not the view held?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you - and yes. It bears repeating that we do not study historical theology in order to adopt a position any more than we would study World War 2 in order to repeat it.

We can study WW2 to gain insight not only what that "greatest generation" believed and how they handled circumstances but also to see the influences the war holds for today.

Likewise we study theological issues of the past not only to learn how they handled situations but also to be able to detect influences of the past in the present.

Good point, Martin.

To me the best reason to study historical theology would be in knowing what the Church has held to be heresies pretty consistently, as they are really no new ones, just repackaged ones!

 

[JonC]

To me the best reason to study historical theology would be in knowing what the Church has held to be heresies pretty consistently, as they are really no new ones, just repackaged ones!

Also how circumstances produced those heresies (theology never occurs in a vacuum).

 

[Yeshua1]

Also how circumstances produced those heresies (theology never occurs in a vacuum).

Very interesting to me how the 19th Century was a hotbed for heresies, as we had the JW/Sda/Mormons all come about during that time!

 

[agedman]

How is the sin debt that we owe God get paid for IF the Pst is not the view held?

What makes you think there is a "sin debt?"

Is "sin debt" actually found in Scriptures?

Is there an indication that God so needed to get rid of the sin debt that He sent His only natural born Son into the world...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What makes you think there is a "sin debt?"

Is "sin debt" actually found in Scriptures?

'Sin debt is not a term I use, but you might try Matthew 6:12. What debt is there that we owe God save that of a righteousness we do not possess?

Is there an indication that God so needed to get rid of the sin debt that He sent His only natural born Son into the world...

God did not 'need' to get rid of the 'sin debt;' He chose to do so. 'But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that when we were yet sinners, Christ died for us' (Romans 5:8).

 

[agedman]

'Sin debt is not a term I use, but you might try Matthew 6:12. What debt is there that we owe God save that of a righteousness we do not possess?

God did not 'need' to get rid of the 'sin debt;' He chose to do so. 'But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that when we were yet sinners, Christ died for us' (Romans 5:8).

Certainly your references are true, but the application would oblige you as you stated to not use the term "sin debt" for it is not presenting the proper picture of what took place.

Matthew speaks of OUR debt (or sin, offensiveness). But that is not in context used as an accounting term but a term of relationship.

Should one use it as an accounting or contractural term then some obvious conflicts with other Scripture would be generated. For example:

Does one still owe (as a believer) a debt of sin to God? If so, how then is that debt resolved, through purgatory, penitence, ... such as the RCC and some others would consider. Or does it remove one from the salvation as the A. of G. would hold?

What of the unbeliever. John 6 states that God's wrath still abides upon them - so the sin debt wasn't paid for them?
Some of the reformed hold that as true, but that doesn't raise to the standard the Scriptures present.

If God truly loved all the world (John 3), does not John in his letters state that Christ shed blood for not only for the believers but all humankind?

Does not Romans 5 negate the thinking of debt when there is no condemnation?

You are correct, it is not a sin debt, rather it is a debt of love.

As Isaac Watts wrote:

But drops of grief can ne’er repay
The debt of love I owe:
Here, Lord, I give myself away,
’Tis all that I can do.
​

Going back to John 6, in the declaration of Christ it is recorded He said, "...no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

So, If sin had a debt that was paid, then the RCC and the Assembly of God folks would be right for the debt of sin would return. But because there was no debt of sin, but the wrath of God for sin, the relationship broken because of sin, then it remains that the relationship restoration in which Christ accomplished remains in the authority of the Father and not of human volition.

 

[JonC]

'Sin debt is not a term I use, but you might try Matthew 6:12. What debt is there that we owe God save that of a righteousness we do not possess?

That is the passage that comes to my mind - but it does not bode well for the actual idea of "sin debt" (forgive us as we forgive others).

I think what is typically meant is the wages of sin in a Penal Substitution context.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Certainly your references are true, but the application would oblige you as you stated to not use the term "sin debt" for it is not presenting the proper picture of what took place.

Matthew speaks of OUR debt (or sin, offensiveness). But that is not in context used as an accounting term but a term of relationship.

If it is OUR debt [i.e. that of Christians], then is is already atoned for, but we still have to confess our sins to God ( 1 John 1:9). If the Holy Spirit does not lead us to repentance, that is an indication that we are not saved.

Should one use it as an accounting or contractural term then some obvious conflicts with other Scripture would be generated. For example:

Does one still owe (as a believer) a debt of sin to God? If so, how then is that debt resolved, through purgatory, penitence, ... such as the RCC and some others would consider. Or does it remove one from the salvation as the A. of G. would hold?

See above.

What of the unbeliever? John 6 states that God's wrath still abides upon them - so the sin debt wasn't paid for them?

Nope.

Some of the reformed hold that as true, but that doesn't raise to the standard the Scriptures present.

If God truly loved all the world (John 3), does not John in his letters state that Christ shed blood for not only for the believers but all humankind?

This opens a whole new can of worms and belongs on the Calvinism vs. Arminianism thread.

Does not Romans 5 negate the thinking of debt when there is no condemnation?

You are correct, it is not a sin debt, rather it is a debt of love.

As Isaac Watts wrote:

But drops of grief can ne’er repay
The debt of love I owe:
Here, Lord, I give myself away,
’Tis all that I can do.​

Exactly so. Christ, our surety, has paid the debt in full upon the cross. All the sins of believers were laid upon His sinless shoulders, and His perfect righteousness is credited to them. So they say:

'Love so amazing, so divine
Demands my soul, my life, my all.'
The debt of righteousness is paid in full; what remains is a debt of love.
​

Going back to John 6, in the declaration of Christ it is recorded He said, "...no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

So, If sin had a debt that was paid, then the RCC and the Assembly of God folks would be right for the debt of sin would return. But because there was no debt of sin, but the wrath of God for sin, the relationship broken because of sin, then it remains that the relationship restoration in which Christ accomplished remains in the authority of the Father and not of human volition.

This is a vast underestimate of what was accomplished on the cross.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is the passage that comes to my mind - but it does not bode well for the actual idea of "sin debt" (forgive us as we forgive others).

I'm not sure why not. We (Christians) have been forgiven so much; how can we not forgive others their sins against us when they ask it of us (Matthew 18:21-35; Luke 17:3-4)?

I think what is typically meant is the wages of sin in a Penal Substitution context.

I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[agedman]

To the readers who may need to gain a bit of more understanding on this topic of "sin debt," I offer Galatians 3.

I highlighted the areas that I hope will help focus as to how the offense of sin came and the promise given before the law.

Those familiar with the passage may skip to the three points at the bottom of the post.

15Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 17What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

19Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. 21Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise
​

How then does this apply to the topic.

1) The promise of the seed was given before the law. Therefore there was no debt (accounting) but a reconciliation (legal/contractural) necessary.
2) The law came as a keeper and tutor so that the promise would be by faith (not of works) to those who believe.
3) Therefore, believers are heirs according to promise not by payment of sin debt.

 

[agedman]

If it is OUR debt [i.e. that of Christians], then is is already atoned for, but we still have to confess our sins to God ( 1 John 1:9). If the Holy Spirit does not lead us to repentance, that is an indication that we are not saved.

Agreed

This is a vast underestimate of what was accomplished on the cross.

I agreed, but I do try to remember other folks looking in might need to see even on a primary level certain matters of distinctive.

 

[JonC]

I'm not sure why not. We (Christians) have been forgiven so much; how can we not forgive others their sins against us when they ask it of us (Matthew 18:21-35; Luke 17:3-4)?

I'm not sure what you mean.

We have been forgiven so much.

What I mean my the passage not being evidence of a "sin debt" as used in Penal Substitution is it the passage simply points to forgiving one of a wrong. If you call me "sunshine"....for example (kidding). If you punched me in my nose then you have wronged me and it is up to me to forgive you. It is, in this way, a debt (I could hold a grudge, seek legal action, etc). That said, the verse also doesn't contradict "sin debt" either.

I think that most who hold to Penal Substitution Theory consider the "wages of sin" and "sin debt" along the same lines (I don't know that most, unfortunately, have given it that much thought).

Perhaps this is something that could be explored here. I think that we would agree that Penal Substitution Theory as it is formulated now was not articulated early on. Perhaps people just took the ideas for granted. Perhaps there wasn't a need. My opinion, of course, is that it didn't exist.

BUT assume it is the correct explanation of the Atonement. Is it meaningless to explore how it came about to be articulated in it's current form? It seems to me that each of these theories (and more) can benefit from exploration.

That's my thoughts, anyway (I realize people think differently....some do hold that such questioning may cast doubt in the minds of others - and I understand that line of reasoning).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

We have been forgiven so much.

Indeed! And at such a cost.

What I mean my the passage not being evidence of a "sin debt" as used in Penal Substitution is it the passage simply points to forgiving one of a wrong. If you call me "sunshine"....for example (kidding). If you punched me in my nose then you have wronged me and it is up to me to forgive you. It is, in this way, a debt (I could hold a grudge, seek legal action, etc). That said, the verse also doesn't contradict "sin debt" either.

I think that most who hold to Penal Substitution Theory consider the "wages of sin" and "sin debt" along the same lines (I don't know that most, unfortunately, have given it that much thought).

The reason I do not tend to use the term 'sin debt' is partly because of the rabbit-hole down which we are now diving. The debt that we owe God is not money. Yet the analogy of money is used in the Bible, most notably in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant and in the Lord's Prayer. Men are morally and spiritually bankrupt before God; they owe God perfect righteousness (Leviticus 18:5; James 2:10) but they are unable to fulfill their obligation (Romans 3:10) and therefore come under the righteous anger (wrath) and condemnation of God (Psalm 7:11). Christ is our 'surety' or guarantor (Hebrews 7:22). As various verses in Proverbs show, a surety is responsible to take on the entire debt of those for whom he is the surety, and that the Lord Jesus has done.

Perhaps this is something that could be explored here. I think that we would agree that Penal Substitution Theory as it is formulated now was not articulated early on. Perhaps people just took the ideas for granted. Perhaps there wasn't a need. My opinion, of course, is that it didn't exist.

SFAIK, there are no books on the atonement before Anselm. When we look at the ECFs we are looking at comments made as parts of other arguments.. For example, we read from Irenaeuas, 'The Lord redeemed us by his blood and gave his life for our life, his flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the father to unite us and reconcile God and man......' [Against Heresies, v.i. 1-2] It's pretty thin, but it certainly doesn't deny Penal Substitution, but it's just a tiny part of Irenaeus' great argument with the Gnostics. P.S. doesn't really concern him.

My own experience has been that when I was saved at the age of 38, I knew no doctrine, and the church at which I was converted was pretty doctrine-lite. It wasn't until a few years later when I began to study that I came across the various doctrines concerning the Atonement and Penal Substitution appeared as the only consistent one. However, it is discussion on this board that has really made me search the Scriptures and firmed me up on the doctrine, so to that extent, I owe you my thanks.

I have to finish now as I'm off to a meeting.

 

[JonShaff]

Historical Theology is a fascinating subject, bit I repeat that we should not be looking to draw our teaching from medieval Roman Catholics.

LoL...sorry had to laugh here. Aren't you a Calvinist?