Satisfaction Atonement

[JonC]

In the 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. Until this time the Ranson Theory was the common structure under which Christians understood the cross.

Initially this was a ransom paid to "sin and death", embodied as "Satan" or "the Devil", or simply a ransom paid. But there was no concise framework. It was simply held that Christ ransom us. This changed over the centuries as Christians moved towards more developed theologies.

By the 12th century it was common for the laity to hold that God paid a ransom to Satan in order for Satan to release humanity.

Anselm developed the Satisfaction Theory to create a concise doctrine that corrected what had become an error and to address the 12th century worldview. This would be Calvin's primary source for developing his theory.

In this theory, Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God.

In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. The injustice committed by Adam was robbing God of honor. This injustice continued through man as all sin. Sin dishonors God. Christ perfectly obeyed God and restored on behalf of man what through sin man had destroyed.

 

[JonC]

We can read about Satisfaction in Anselm's writing - Cur Deus Homo (lit. ‘Why the God Man’).

In his understanding, God’s offended honor could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man (Christ).

Anslem believed that the satisfaction due to God was greater than what all created beings are capable of doing, since they can only do what is already required of them. So God had to make satisfaction for himself.

But for this satisfaction to benefit humans, it had to be made by a human.

Therefore only a being that was both God and man could satisfy God and give him the honor that is due him.

 

[JonC]

While this theory is close to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement there are important differences.

Penal Substitution states that Christ bore the penalty for sin, in place of those sinners.

Anselm regarded human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ's death, the ultimate act of obedience, gives God great honour.

This is substitution, but this substitution is not penal as his death pays our honour not our penalty.

 

[JonC]

Anselm's theory has been revised in two primary ways;

1. By Thomas Aquinas (his revision can be read in Summa Theologiae).

Aquinas developed Anselms theory into what is now the Roman Catholic understanding of atonement by replacing honor with merit.

Christ's death was meritoriously sufficient to satisfy both the bondage of Satan (sin) and the bondage of God (our lack of merit).

Aquinas developed the idea that Christ was punished for our sins, but to avoid heresy expounded on this being satisfactory punishment rather than simple punishment. Substitution also had to be representative (on our behalf) rather than penal (instead of us). This avoided Christ suffering a punishment due sins to preserve God as being just.

2. By John Calvin (his revision can be read in Institutio Christianae Religionis).

Calvin rejected Aquinas' revision of Aquinas as he viewed the problem of sin to be a legal problem. Adding to Calvin's rejection of Aquinas was Aquinas' development of punishment and substitution as this did not fit into a legal justice.

He revised Anselm's theory to be centered on legal justice in order to meet the demands of this justice that we could not.

 

[Charlie24]

While holding to the PSA theory, I try to understand why God initiated the Law of Sin and Death, why must unrepentant man be separated from God?

Now we enter into the character of God, who He really is, and His just demands from man as the Creator.

 

[JonC]

While holding to the PSA theory, I try to understand why God initiated the Law of Sin and Death, why must unrepentant man be separated from God?

Now we enter into the character of God, who He really is, and His just demands from man as the Creator.

Anselm would say because man dishonored God and could not repair the damage.

Aquinas would say man could not merit that relationship.

Calvin would say the law demanded separation.

I view this separation within the Hebrew concept of justice - that there is no room for unrighteousness within the Righteous. Man has to be made righteous or be cast out.

It is like a cancer. Why does cancer need to be removed from a healthy body? Because the body with cancer is not healthy.

Likewise, righteousness with unrighteous parts is unrighteous.

 

[easternstar]

A brief comment: I view Anselm's Satisfaction Theory as somewhat less objectionable than PSA, and if I had to choose between the theories of Aquinas and Anselm, I'd reluctantly choose Aquinas. But I reject all theories developed in the West, PSA being the most heinous, because they totally misrepresent the character of God.

 

[37818]

Romans 3:23, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; . . . .

Romans 5:12, Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: . . . .

Romans 6:23, For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:8, But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.