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

Here is an opportunity without hijacking a thread.

A defense of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

 

Continuing with the topic of the thread, I don't believe it is accident or coincidence that each theory represents at least something of what was going on contemporary to that theory coming into existence.

This leaves to possible options, I think. Either developed Christian theories influenced the way the culture viewed things or the way culture viewed things influenced Christian theories. I believe the latter to be true. The reason I believe this is because the development of these cultural ideas do not always begin within the Christian community but are also and often the result of secular philosophy.

There are exceptions. Penal Substitution Theology can be linked to the Reformation. Aquinas' theories related to both philosophy and theology. But even here the secular and religious did not always hold distinct boundaries. That said, I do think that Christian philosophy has influenced secular culture as well (Augustine is a good example).

 

I agree completely with the Scripture you have provided (not only here but throughout this thread).

The wicked should rightly fear condemnation. If they do not repent and turn to God then they will suffer His wrath. If they do repent and turn to God then they will find Him compassionate and faithful to forgive.

To acquit the guilty is just as much an abomination to God as is condemning the righteous. But, as Scripture states, God will forgive the repentant.

The plain words of Scripture simply do not fit into the Theory of Penal Substitution. Why? Why must the Theory add things like "but God considers Jesus unrighteous so those passages don't count"?

I believe it is because the Theory of Penal Substitution has as it's starting point a philosophy foreign to Scripture.

So look again at the OP and explain how the philosophical approach to justice introduced by Penal Substitution Theory came about.

Or, if you just want to defend the Theory, do so on the thread provided (or start your own).

 

"Still had she gazed; but ’midst the tide two angel forms were seen to glide, the Genii of the stream: Their scaly armor’s Tyrian hue thro’ richest purple to the view betray’d a golden gleam." - Thomas Gray

Isn't it interesting that those who typically use slogans like "the plain words of Scripture", "my Bible says", and "obviously" in debate are typically expressing nothing but ignorance concerning the opposing view? I know what you think you see, Martin, but not all that glitters is gold.

What I am saying is that you do not seem to grasp the concept that ALL theories of the Atonement (not just Penal Substitution Theory) are familiar with and hold to those verses you have provided throughout this (and other) threads. BUT they interpret those verses differently.

Origen would view God as both just and the justifier of believers because God Himself paid and was the ransom paid to Satan. Those who do not believe will justly perish under God's judgment.

Abelard believed that God was just and would rightly judge the wicked. But having Himself suffered and died to redeem us, by that example and abiding love in those who have faith in Christ, God also and justly justifies the believer.

Aquinas believed that God came and died for man that all who believe would have life eternal. Those who do not believe and the unrepentant will be rightly judged and punished for their sin. The repentant will be justified as they draw upon the merit of Christ.

Martin Luther did not rationalize or moralize the plan of redemption (he, rather famously, remained a bit ambivalent towards the law). Yet he believed that God was is both just not only in punishing the wicked but also in justifying those who are transitioned "in Christ".

It seems the problem here is that you are unable to understand how other interpretations and theories exist apart from ignoring Scripture. This is a flaw, brother. You should be able to understand, by study, what these views believe and why they believe what they believe. How does their interpretation come about? How does your interpretation come about?

Until you can understand the opposing views, and until you can comprehend how they interpret these passages and how they arrive at a different conclusion, you simply are not qualified to hold any opinion because you lack the tools to evaluate opposing views against your own.

What view I am "following" is not the topic of this thread (read the OP & nice try to hijack it). The topic is how these things developed.

As I already have shown, all of the other theories deal logically with the passages you provide. I'm not going to get into the "how" of every theory because this thread is examining what influenced the theories.,

That Penal Substitution Theory as it stands today was not articulated until the Reformation and by John Calvin is a fairly recent claim. Reading J.I. Packer's defense of Penal Substitution Theory, one of the first thing he does is to recognize that the Theory itself did not exist prior to the Reformation - but he contends that the truths of the Theory in general were taught, that the elements were there, but many of the issues it addressed were not issues of antiquity. I believe he is partially correct (I believe the Theory flawed).


So what is changed with the advent of Penal Substitution Theory? What are the influences? First off we have John Calvin moving the Atonement into a law court language. We have the Theory assuming divine justice to be retributive justice (as opposed to the views that existed from the early church through the middle medieval period)?

Worldviews changed. Anselm could not but see the flaw in Ransom Theory. But he couched the Atonement in a middle-age concept of honor while Abelard did so in morality. Three hundred years later we see another change in thinking, and Aquinas reworks Anselm's theory to reflect merit and a system of penance. John Calvin, a lawyer, reforms the RCC system by moving it from this penance system (which does not fit into the Reformation view) into the law court system.

But prior to Calvin we see the theories approaching retributive justice - we see the development.

Why did the early church hold solely to a Christus Victor theme without considering all that is considered today? Why was that the "plain view of Scripture"? I believe it due to the persecutions the church was facing, but I also believe it due to their natural worldview (the view in which the New Testament is couched).

As an example, no one until John Calvin taught that God must first exercise divine punishment in order to forgive men and achieve redemption. Anselm was close, the difference being that he did not view Christ bearing punishment an issue of redemption to pay a "sin debt". Aquinas was a bit closer, but he only believed "satisfactory punishment" just in the Cross. Luther was even closer, but we don't get there until Calvin.

And then there are the Theories that have come about as a reaction to the invention of the Theory of Penal Substitution. Anabaptist theology has grown even tighter in some areas. Mennonite scholars, like Weaver, have all but ignored blood atonement.

 

There is no need to become defensive and insulting, MartinM.

Which theory are you interested in examining?

I have, actually, expressed a point of view on this very thread. I stated that Penal Substitution Theory is dependent on a post-Medieval worldview.

I also pointed out how other theories considered Christ's death as necessary (something that proved just outside your grasp).

"I drive a Ford truck - always have and always will. Ford trucks are better than Dodge trucks." If I am not an expert on Dodge trucks then all I can rightfully claim is that I like my Ford. I don't know enough about Dodge to have an opinion.

Both you and @The Archangel have stated on this forum that the other theories do not necessitate the Cross. Both of you have expressed the sentiment that Penal Substitution Theory is the plain teaching of Scripture. By your admission both of you are blind to how the other theories (even if they are wrong) interpret Scripture. Both of you are disqualified from having an opinion about other theories because neither of you grasp how the make sence of the Cross. By your own words neither of you comprehend how theology (as a process) was worked out in the development of these theories.

If you want a rational discussion about MY view of the Atonement then that may be done on a thread about Atonement views. That IS not the topic here. If you cannot or will not contribute to the topic, that is fine. But stop the nonsense.

Unlike you and @The Archangel , I do understand how the opposing view (Penal Substitution Theory) holds the cross as necessary. But I also comprehend how other theories view the cross.

 

Don't get all upset. This is a discussion board. Each of us will call it like we see it (no need to wear your feelings on your sleeve, no need to become abusive).

But - Yes, Brother. I am seriously telling you and @Martin Marprelate that IF you cannot understand how any of the other theories of Atonement require Christ's death then you do not understand those theories.

You are the one who indicated that you cannot understand how those theories, that present God as forgiving sin without payment, stresses the need for Jesus to have died.

Here is your chance to prove me wrong and stay on topic at the same time - how does the Moral Influence theory depend on Christ's death on the Cross? What about Ransom Theory? What about Satisfaction Theory (Anselm's theory)?

How do these theories that present God as being able to forgive without payment or punishment for those sins consider the Cross as absolutely necessary?

 

If you have a different idea of how these theories account for the necessity of the cross while affirming simple forgiveness then please share your knowledge (otherwise, why even post). I've covered Moral Influence, Ransom, Satisfaction, Substitution (Aquinas, anyway), touched on Luther, and of course we all know Penal Substitution Theory.

Would you be so gracious as to cover Government theory, Recapitulation, and Ontological Substitution - how they require that Christ die without requiring God punish sin in order to forgive?

 

It depends (I suppose entirely) on what one believes those demands of righteousness to be. I don't think that any theory is better than Penal Substitution Theory if God's righteousness is based on law and retributive justice. Perhaps Aquinas and Anselm are based similarly, but even with them punishment was not linked to punishment for our sins as a redemption (and I think Penal Substitution Theory an improved revision of Aquinas' theory).

If you hold to a Justinian idea of justice then God can forgive or punishment. If you repent then God can forgive you without needing to punish you for past sins. But God would also be just to punish you instead.

Restorative justice would focus on the results and motives of God's action of justice. God could condemn one to hell justly IF the effect is restorative to the whole. Or God could forgive one IF the effect is restorative. It isn't focused on sin and punishment but on states.

I hope that helps. You just have to keep in mind that not everyone things as we think, not everyone understands retributive justice, much less holds it.