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

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?

 

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!

 

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!

 

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...

 

'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.

 

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.

See above.

Nope.

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

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.
​

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Agreed

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.

 

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.

 

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