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

[JonC]

Indeed! And at such a cost.

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.

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.

I think we have to keep in mind that theological development always addresses the contemporary. What I mean by this is that theology tries to answer the questions being asked.

People have argued, for example, that John Calvin did not hold to the doctrine of limited atonement. Technically, this is probably true. BUT the reason is not that Calvin rejected limited atonement either. The reason is that the issue of the scope of the Atonement was a post-Calvin issue.

It is a fact that no one prior to the Reformation held what is known today as the Theory of Penal Substitution. BUT that does not necessarily mean that those who held the elements advocates point to in ECF writings (both penal and substitutionary aspects have always been inherent in the Atonement) wouldn’t have affirmed the Theory had they been contemporary to our time.

You often turn to Trinitarian doctrines as an example of theory vs. doctrine. It is a good example here. The doctrine was developed over time. Does this mean that the Apostles would have rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity? No. But at the same time they did not affirm the Doctrine in the way that it became articulated (three coeternal hypostases; the relationship of perichoresis, eternal generation, etc.).

So looking back at what the Church believed prior to the Reformation really doesn’t prove or disprove the Theory of Penal Substitution. Was the basis of redemption, in their minds, God punishing sin by pouring His wrath upon Christ who took our punishment in our stead? Only if we ignore context and replace “them” with “us”. But they also did not think in the same terms as us. They were not subject to the same ideas, the same philosophies, and the same ideologies as the post-Enlightenment world. They had a different worldview. The contemporary questions their theologies addressed were not exactly the same contemporary questions we would address. We can say (without doubt) that they did not hold Penal Substitution Theory, but we cannot say that they would not have (or that this proves the Theory incorrect).

Which brings us back to Scripture and the necessity to first examine and prove our presuppositions (not only yours, but mine as well). In terms of Penal Substitution Theory it is up to you (to those who would defend the theory), not me (or those who oppose the theory), to make a case for retributive justice as divine justice. Likewise, when I defend my position it is up to me to justify those things that I would presuppose.

The reason I believe this to be true is that IF redemption is based on divine justice AND divine justice is retributive justice, then I see no logical disagreement with the Theory of Penal Substitution. If the presuppositions the Theory hold are correct, then there exists no grounds for disagreeing with the Theory because it is the only theory that addresses the Atonement in that context. So if I held to the Theory, my first priority would be to prove its presuppositions. If they are proven true then the argument is won.

 

[JonC]

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

I am sorry if it appeared I had ignored your question (it was directed to Martin, but Martin holds to Penal Substitution Theory). I was thinking about how best to explain.

As I am sure you are aware, there are different ideas about justice. Retributive justice is just one philosophy among many.

Let’s look at Abelard. Suppose you punch me in the nose. Under “a punch for a punch” rule I am justified in punching you in your nose and if I did the onlookers would say you got what was coming to you. But I would also be justified in forgiving you and foregoing hitting you back. This is akin to a Justinian concept which is not concerned with the moral quality of actions but rather with the protection of interests (there is no retributive requirement). Your crime (punching me in the noise) is between you and me (not against the “law”).

Now let’s look at retributive justice. For the same circumstance you punching me in the nose demands (under “a punch for a punch”) that you also be punched in the nose. I can forgive you, but that doesn’t matter. You broke a law. In order for the judge (or the presider over the law) to forgive the crime a punch must land.

This need for a punishment is what is referred to as “sin debt” (in the illustration). The judicial scale must be balanced in order for you to once again be considered just under the “punch for a punch” law.


Thomas Aquinas came up with the idea that one person may be punished for another as long as both are willing and a relationship exist. Your best friend can step in and be punished in your place. BUT this cannot be a punishment for the punch you threw (because in truth, your friend is innocent and it would be unjust to punish him for your crime). Your friend, however, can be punished with the fine of $100 which can satisfy the debt you owe to the law for punching me in the noise.

Now let’s look at a reformed view of Aquinas’ theory. Instead of your friend bearing punishment (satisfactory punishment) by paying $100, suppose the law demanded that that person be actually punched to balance the scale. A simple punishment is required (someone must be punched in the nose because that is the law – a punch for a punch). Not only that, but since the crime is against the law (not really against me personally but against justice itself) the purveyor of the law is the executioner of the law. The judge must punch someone in the nose in order to forgive you for punching me because your punch was ultimately a crime against the judge who represents the law.


The idea of a “sin debt” that must be paid before one can be forgiven does not exist except under the system of retributive justice.

Throughout most of the middle ages the idea of crime was a crime against a person, community, or group. There were no crimes against the law. Even in the Old Testament this is true. There are crimes against God (transgressors of God’s covenant, which was personal to His people), crimes against other people, and crimes against the community. But the law as an entity (how it is viewed under Penal Substitution Theory) is questionable. God says “don’t steal”. When you transgress that command (that law) you are not sinning against a set of rules but you are disobeying God Himself.

 

[Yeshua1]

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...

Any sin is a chosen transgression to break the law of God, and every soul that sins must die, and that death would be both spiritual and physical, as happened to Adam, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Those who reject Jesus to save them indeed are under the wrath of God, and God due to His mercy waits until their death to deal with them on their sin problem!
God os holy, and His Holyiness produces divine wrath, and that means that whoever atones for the sin problem will incur that divine wrath must be paid for in full!

 

[Yeshua1]

I think we have to keep in mind that theological development always addresses the contemporary. What I mean by this is that theology tries to answer the questions being asked.

People have argued, for example, that John Calvin did not hold to the doctrine of limited atonement. Technically, this is probably true. BUT the reason is not that Calvin rejected limited atonement either. The reason is that the issue of the scope of the Atonement was a post-Calvin issue.

It is a fact that no one prior to the Reformation held what is known today as the Theory of Penal Substitution. BUT that does not necessarily mean that those who held the elements advocates point to in ECF writings (both penal and substitutionary aspects have always been inherent in the Atonement) wouldn’t have affirmed the Theory had they been contemporary to our time.

You often turn to Trinitarian doctrines as an example of theory vs. doctrine. It is a good example here. The doctrine was developed over time. Does this mean that the Apostles would have rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity? No. But at the same time they did not affirm the Doctrine in the way that it became articulated (three coeternal hypostases; the relationship of perichoresis, eternal generation, etc.).

So looking back at what the Church believed prior to the Reformation really doesn’t prove or disprove the Theory of Penal Substitution. Was the basis of redemption, in their minds, God punishing sin by pouring His wrath upon Christ who took our punishment in our stead? Only if we ignore context and replace “them” with “us”. But they also did not think in the same terms as us. They were not subject to the same ideas, the same philosophies, and the same ideologies as the post-Enlightenment world. They had a different worldview. The contemporary questions their theologies addressed were not exactly the same contemporary questions we would address. We can say (without doubt) that they did not hold Penal Substitution Theory, but we cannot say that they would not have (or that this proves the Theory incorrect).

Which brings us back to Scripture and the necessity to first examine and prove our presuppositions (not only yours, but mine as well). In terms of Penal Substitution Theory it is up to you (to those who would defend the theory), not me (or those who oppose the theory), to make a case for retributive justice as divine justice. Likewise, when I defend my position it is up to me to justify those things that I would presuppose.

The reason I believe this to be true is that IF redemption is based on divine justice AND divine justice is retributive justice, then I see no logical disagreement with the Theory of Penal Substitution. If the presuppositions the Theory hold are correct, then there exists no grounds for disagreeing with the Theory because it is the only theory that addresses the Atonement in that context. So if I held to the Theory, my first priority would be to prove its presuppositions. If they are proven true then the argument is won.

Why do you reject divine wrath towards sins, as that is one of the main themes of the OT prophets throughout the OT!

 

[JonC]

Why do you reject divine wrath towards sins, as that is one of the main themes of the OT prophets throughout the OT!

That's what you get out of my reply???!!

I don't. I am saying even Ninevah realized God was compassionate and able to forgive so they could escape the wrath to come (Jonah realized that too). They believed in a God who was Sovereign and who was able to rightfully forgive the sins of men.

They had a different worldview.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am sorry if it appeared I had ignored your question (it was directed to Martin, but Martin holds to Penal Substitution Theory). I was thinking about how best to explain.

As I am sure you are aware, there are different ideas about justice. Retributive justice is just one philosophy among many.

Let’s look at Abelard. Suppose you punch me in the nose. Under “a punch for a punch” rule I am justified in punching you in your nose and if I did the onlookers would say you got what was coming to you. But I would also be justified in forgiving you and foregoing hitting you back. This is akin to a Justinian concept which is not concerned with the moral quality of actions but rather with the protection of interests (there is no retributive requirement). Your crime (punching me in the noise) is between you and me (not against the “law”).

Now let’s look at retributive justice. For the same circumstance you punching me in the nose demands (under “a punch for a punch”) that you also be punched in the nose. I can forgive you, but that doesn’t matter. You broke a law. In order for the judge (or the presider over the law) to forgive the crime a punch must land.

This need for a punishment is what is referred to as “sin debt” (in the illustration). The judicial scale must be balanced in order for you to once again be considered just under the “punch for a punch” law.


Thomas Aquinas came up with the idea that one person may be punished for another as long as both are willing and a relationship exist. Your best friend can step in and be punished in your place. BUT this cannot be a punishment for the punch you threw (because in truth, your friend is innocent and it would be unjust to punish him for your crime). Your friend, however, can be punished with the fine of $100 which can satisfy the debt you owe to the law for punching me in the noise.

Now let’s look at a reformed view of Aquinas’ theory. Instead of your friend bearing punishment (satisfactory punishment) by paying $100, suppose the law demanded that that person be actually punched to balance the scale. A simple punishment is required (someone must be punched in the nose because that is the law – a punch for a punch). Not only that, but since the crime is against the law (not really against me personally but against justice itself) the purveyor of the law is the executioner of the law. The judge must punch someone in the nose in order to forgive you for punching me because your punch was ultimately a crime against the judge who represents the law.


The idea of a “sin debt” that must be paid before one can be forgiven does not exist except under the system of retributive justice.

Throughout most of the middle ages the idea of crime was a crime against a person, community, or group. There were no crimes against the law. Even in the Old Testament this is true. There are crimes against God (transgressors of God’s covenant, which was personal to His people), crimes against other people, and crimes against the community. But the law as an entity (how it is viewed under Penal Substitution Theory) is questionable. God says “don’t steal”. When you transgress that command (that law) you are not sinning against a set of rules but you are disobeying God Himself.

I break the law by killing someone in cold blood, and the judge cannot just forgive me, not unless he finds someone else to take my place and pay for that crime!

 

[Yeshua1]

That's what you get out of my reply???!!

I don't. I am saying even Ninevah realized God was compassionate and able to forgive so they could escape the wrath to come (Jonah realized that too). They believed in a God who was Sovereign and who was able to rightfully forgive the sins of men.

They had a different worldview.

Then if God has divine wrath that needs to be vented and propiated upon the object of wrath, sinners, how is that wrath averted if jesus is not the One to receive in him what was due to us?

 

[JonC]

Then if God has divine wrath that needs to be vented and propiated upon the object of wrath, sinners, how is that wrath averted if jesus is not the One to receive in him what was due to us?

I never said that God has divine wrath that needs to be vented.

I explained (tried to explain) how a different view would negate the existence of "sin debt" and how another would depend upon such a thing.

Did you even read my reply?

 

[JonC]

I break the law by killing someone in cold blood, and the judge cannot just forgive me, not unless he finds someone else to take my place and pay for that crime!

This is called "retributive justice", and killing someone to satisfy the demand of the law is called "retributive punishment".

I am saying not everyone believes that divine justice (or justice at all) falls into this context.

 

[Yeshua1]

I never said that God has divine wrath that needs to be vented.

I explained (tried to explain) how a different view would negate the existence of "sin debt" and how another would depend upon such a thing.

Did you even read my reply?

Yes, but you did not show how God could just forgive without having to account for the sin done!

 

[Yeshua1]

This is called "retributive justice", and killing someone to satisfy the demand of the law is called "retributive punishment".

I am saying not everyone believes that divine justice (or justice at all) falls into this context.

How can the Judge meet the legal demands of the law though by just letting the guilty go free?

 

[JonC]

Yes, but you did not show how God could just forgive without having to account for the sin done!

How can the Judge meet the legal demands of the law though by just letting the guilty go free?

If God has to vent His wrath towards men before He can forgive men then you have a point. If divine justice is retributive then Penal SubstitutionTheory is the top contender.

I do not believe the type of justice Penal Substitution Theory presupposes is correct.

So my answer is that God is able to forgive men because He is God. God does not have to account for sin. God does not let the guilty go free (there is forgiveness and a second act of creation 8n Christ).

Your questions have already been answered, Bro. Read what I have already written regarding "sin debt".

 

[Yeshua1]

If God has to vent His wrath towards men before He can forgive men then you have a point. If divine justice is retributive then Penal SubstitutionTheory is the top contender.

I do not believe the type of justice Penal Substitution Theory presupposes is correct.

So my answer is that God is able to forgive men because He is God. God does not have to account for sin. God does not let the guilty go free (there is forgiveness and a second act of creation 8n Christ).

Your questions have already been answered, Bro. Read what I have already written regarding "sin debt".

The wrath of God is not vented as we would by having a cow, but he is expressing righteous anger towards sins!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Which brings us back to Scripture

I can't help noticing that it doesn't bring you back to Scripture. Your quite lengthy post did not contain a verse of it. Nor have any of your subsequent posts.

I have previously addressed the Biblical and theological basis of Penal Substitution without any meaningful response from you. I have posted it in full twice already. I am quite prepared to copy and paste it again if you ask me to, but in the meantime, here is the link to it again. The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

 

[JonC]

I can't help noticing that it doesn't bring you back to Scripture. Your quite lengthy post did not contain a verse of it. Nor have any of your subsequent posts.

I have previously addressed the Biblical and theological basis of Penal Substitution without any meaningful response from you. I have posted it in full twice already. I am quite prepared to copy and paste it again if you ask me to, but in the meantime, here is the link to it again. The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution

That is because we can't examine Scripture until we face the presuppositions (which was my point of the post you quoted). What good would it do for you to say "Jesus was made sin for us therefore the Theory of Penal Substitution is correct" and me to say "Jesus was made sin for us therefore the Theory is not correct"?

People need to stop pretending that inundating posts with Scripture lends clarity or evidence, especially in discussions like this where ALL agree on the passages yet disagree on their meaning.

In the past I asked you to prove that divine justice is an issue of retributive justice. You never could do that. Instead you posted passages that we both affirmed and asserted the "plain meaning" was the Penal Substitution Theory's definition. For me (other people are different, but for me) this is the first thing that has to be shown because it is the basis of Penal Substitution Theory.

We have to first look at our presuppositions and defend the extra-biblical context that we would bring into Scripture before we can go forward. Penal Substitution Theory brings a lot into Scripture but very rarely attempts to defend what it assumes.

Why do you believe divine justice falls within the context of retributive justice rather than another model (why not, for example, restorative justice, or Justinian)?

You assume that God cannot freely have mercy because of the type of justice that you presuppose on Scripture. Historically you are in a minority. So why should we accept your idea of justice as the biblical model of God's justice? Just because your idea is more popular in western thought now, and just because it is a more contemporary model.....what makes it right to interpret ancient texts?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That is because we can't examine Scripture until we face the presuppositions (which was my point of the post you quoted). What good would it do for you to say "Jesus was made sin for us therefore the Theory of Penal Substitution is correct" and me to say "Jesus was made sin for us therefore the Theory is not correct"?

People need to stop pretending that inundating posts with Scripture lends clarity or evidence, especially in discussions like this where ALL agree on the passages yet disagree on their meaning.

Yet you were continually telling me that there was no Scripture supporting the Doctrine of Penal Substitution until I produced a great pile of it, since then you have refused to engage with it and waffle on about presuppositions. The Lord Jesus cut throught the waffle of the Scribes and Pharisees by asking, "Have you not read......?

In the past I asked you to prove that divine justice is an issue of retributive justice. You never could do that. Instead you posted passages that we both affirmed and asserted the "plain meaning" was the Penal Substitution Theory's definition. For me (other people are different, but for me) this is the first thing that has to be shown because it is the basis of Penal Substitution Theory.

As I recall we could not agree on how 'retributive justice' differed from 'restorative justice.' But again, it is so much waffle; the Bible says what it says.

We have to first look at our presuppositions and defend the extra-biblical context that we would bring into Scripture before we can go forward. Penal Substitution Theory brings a lot into Scripture but very rarely attempts to defend what it assumes.

Evidence please. Show me exactly what you're talking about, please.

Why do you believe divine justice falls within the context of retributive justice rather than another model (why not, for example, restorative justice, or Justinian)?

'These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power' (2 Thessalonians 1:9). You tell me, is that restorative or retributive? [Although neither of those terms are found in Scripture]

You assume that God cannot freely have mercy because of the type of justice that you presuppose on Scripture.

No I don't. Don't 'assume' things of me that are not true and put them on a public forum. We've been here before.

Historically you are in a minority.

So you say, not that it matters.

So why should we accept your idea of justice as the biblical model of God's justice?

The only reason to accept anything as Biblical is if you find it in the Bible.

Just because your idea is more popular in western thought now, and just because it is a more contemporary model.

I couldn't care less whether it is popular of otherwise in western thought; all that matters is whether it is true. The Bible is not as difficult a book as you are making out.

what makes it right to interpret ancient texts?

What on earth does that mean? The Bible is an ancient text. Are you saying we shouldn't interpret it?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't know whether Thomas Aquinas could be considered a 'friend' of Abelard and Anselm, since he lived more that 100 years later, but he was the greatest of the 'schoolmen' and in his Summa Theologiae (vol. 54), he wrote this:

'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death against his will. Nor did God the father so treat Christ in whom he inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, 'He did not spare his own Son.' But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might himself suffer, God gave him one who would satisfy for him. Paul stresses this, saying, 'He has delivered him for us all,' and 'God has established him [Christ] as a propitiation by his blood through faith.'
[Quest. 47, art 3. Italics and square brackets in the original]

Aquinas seems to have been quite clear that God in His justice, must punish sin, but in His mercy has done so in Christ.
Here's another example:

'By sin man contracts a twofold obligation. First, he is bound in slavery to sin inasmuch as 'everyone who sins is a slave of sin, and by whatever a man is overcome, of this also he is the slave. Because then, the devil had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was delivered into the bondage of the devil. Secondly, by sin man was held to the debt of punishment according to divine justice......
As therefore Christ's passion provided adequate, and more than adequate satisfaction for man's sin and debt, his passion was as it were the price of punishment by which we are freed from both obligations. satisfaction offered for oneself or for another resembles the price whereby one ransoms himself from sin and from punishment.....Now Christ offered satisfaction.....by giving the greatest of all things, namely himself, for us. For that reason, the passion of Christ is said to be our ransom.'
[Quest. 48, art 4. Italics in the original]

Aquinas makes it clear that Christ's 'passion was ....the price of punishment by which we are freed.' That sounds like Penal Substitution to me. A little later, Aquinas makes it clear that the price of punishment was paid to God, not the devil.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No. I was not the one telling you that the Theory of Penal Substitution had no Scripture support.

I think you'll find you said that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution was not Scriptural. I can probably find the thread if I look for it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If you cannot tell me which number you deny then please stop this nonsense about Penal Substitution Theory not being retributive justice.

When have I ever said that the Doctrine of Penal Substitution is not retributive justice? [edited]