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

[JonC]

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.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is not Scriptural. Neither is the Ransom Theory that God paid a ransom to Satan.

But both have biblical support. The Bible speaks of both penal and substitution aspects of the Atonement. The Bible speaks of redemption as a "ransom".

What is wrong are not the numerous passages each states. What is wrong is what each brings into their theories. The Theory of Penal Substitution assumes divine justice to be retributive justice (and that God cannot forgive sin except on condition that sin is punished). Most of the time (definitively on this forum) this is completely ignored.

To clarify, the Theory is not Scriptural (it's ideas are contrary to Scripture). But it is based on Scripture at the same time (it wasn't pulled out of thin air). I believe its error is in the philosophy it chooses through which to interpret the Atonement. You seem to be having difficulty understanding how I can say the Theory is both unbiblical and based on biblical passages at the same time and if I can help explain I will. Just let me know.

 

[JonC]

I don't know whether Thomas Aquinas could be considered a 'friend' of Abelard and Anselm,

None of those men were friends. Anselm and Abelard are eleventh century (and were not friends). Aquinas lived in the thirteenth century (you are looking at more like 200 years apart). These people did not work together at the Atonement Theory factory.

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

Sorry, I thought that was what you were saying in the past thread (the one I had quoted). Please disregard my comments if I had misunderstood your reply. I'll have to re-read it.

 

[JonC]

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.

Martin,

I re-read your post and my reply. I am sorry. I read too quickly and you are right that my reply had misrepresented your words.

You were objecting to my statement that you denied God could freely forgive (that you denied God could forgive men without first punishing sin ).

My understanding is that Penal Substitution Theory holds that God cannot forgive men except that the demands of divine justice be satisfied (God can't just forgive man without punishing sins).

I was not unaware that some who held the Theory also believed in simple forgiveness - that God could forgive men even without punishing sin. You are the exception, not the rule.

 

[JonC]

I meant to post this earlier (but in my aging mind couldn't remember who said it).

"Jesus' death isn't necessary because God has to have innocent blood to solve the guilt equation. Redemptive violence is our equation. Jesus didn't volunteer to get into God's justice machine. God volunteered to get into ours. God used our own sin to save us." (Mark Heim)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

None of those men were friends. Anselm and Abelard are eleventh century (and were not friends). Aquinas lived in the thirteenth century (you are looking at more like 200 years apart). These people did not work together at the Atonement Theory factory

I am fully aware of that, but the title of this thread is 'Anselm, Abelard and friends.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is not Scriptural.

That is your position, though you have failed to prove it or to interact with my posts with have provided Biblical evidence for the doctrine.

But both have biblical support. The Bible speaks of both penal and substitution aspects of the Atonement. The Bible speaks of redemption as a "ransom".

What is wrong are not the numerous passages each states. What is wrong is what each brings into their theories. The Theory of Penal Substitution assumes divine justice to be retributive justice (and that God cannot forgive sin except on condition that sin is punished). Most of the time (definitively on this forum) this is completely ignored.

It certainly is ignored by you. I asked you on Post #37 to consider this text: 'These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power' (2 Thessalonians 1:9), and tell me whether you see it as retributive or redemptive. You have not yet replied. I would also be interested to kow how you interpret Psalms 7:11 and Romans 3:26, both of which I have quoted in the past without reply from you.

To clarify, the Theory is not Scriptural (it's ideas are contrary to Scripture).

Needless to say, I disagree profoundly. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is in the warp and woof of Scripture, absolutely fundamental to it.

But it is based on Scripture at the same time (it wasn't pulled out of thin air). I believe its error is in the philosophy it chooses through which to interpret the Atonement. You seem to be having difficulty understanding how I can say the Theory is both unbiblical and based on biblical passages at the same time and if I can help explain I will. Just let me know.

Well it will certainly be helpful if you will explain your reasoning. Are you following Paul Fiddes, Stephen Travis and Tom Smail, or are you more in agreement with Eleonore Stump?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin,

I re-read your post and my reply. I am sorry. I read too quickly and you are right that my reply had misrepresented your words.

You were objecting to my statement that you denied God could freely forgive (that you denied God could forgive men without first punishing sin ).

My understanding is that Penal Substitution Theory holds that God cannot forgive men except that the demands of divine justice be satisfied (God can't just forgive man without punishing sins).

I was not unaware that some who held the Theory also believed in simple forgiveness - that God could forgive men even without punishing sin. You are the exception, not the rule.

Perhaps I need to re-state my position.
I was taking exception to your statement:

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

The reason I took exception is that I do not presuppose any type of justice on Scripture. I read Psalms 7:11 and Proverbs 17:15 and I take the view that God cannot be an unjust judge, nor an abomination to Himself. I look at Romans 3:26 and I observe that the reason given for the Atonement is not love but justice. Now if you take the opposite view, I need you to address these texts and tell me why you think I'm wrong. You have not yet done this.

 

[JonC]

Perhaps I need to re-state my position.
I was taking exception to your statement:
The reason I took exception is that I do not presuppose any type of justice on Scripture. I read Psalms 7:11 and Proverbs 17:15 and I take the view that God cannot be an unjust judge, nor an abomination to Himself. I look at Romans 3:26 and I observe that the reason given for the Atonement is not love but justice. Now if you take the opposite view, I need you to address these texts and tell me why you think I'm wrong. You have not yet done this.

Thank you for the clarification.

What I am speaking of is the assumption that God cannot forgive except a sin first be punished. This is what I believe you are reading into Scripture.

Psalm 7:11 does say God is a righteous Judge. But the assumption is His righteousness demands the exercise of punishment to forgive. Psalm 7:12 (the very next verse) looks not to this type of justice but to repentance.

Likewise, Proverbs 17:15 also says those who condemn the righteous are an abomination to God (I don't believe any of us think Christ "unrighteous"). Again, you are interpreting the passage as if divine justice was retributive justice without proof.

Also, Roman's 3:21 tells us this is God's righteousness apart from the law. But you presume the issue of verse 26 is concerned with the demands of the law (of retributive justice) and mercy.

What you did in these passages you have offered shows us, in a way, the end of the discussion. You've arrived at a point where those verses are interpreted (perhaps not even consciously) through one philosophical sense of justice (ours). But historically there are many ideas of justice. Repentance itself (true repentance) would satisfy restorative justice. A Justinian concept of justice could be satisfied without any type of punishment at all (God would be just to punish sin, or to forgive without punishment). And counting these two, we've only touched on three historical ideas of justice!!! Yet you assume...you presuppose...one philosophical concept of justice above all other possibilities.

So how did we get to the point that God's justice looks like this Western concept of justice? That is one point of this thread (not to focus on Penal Substitution Theory, but to see how we got here.

I'm not really interested here in looking at how correct the Theory may be.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thank you for the clarification.

You have a very unfortunate habit of playing the man and not the ball. Instead of dealing with the texts, your past post is all about me.

This is what I believe you are reading into Scripture.

Again, you are interpreting the passage as if divine justice was retributive justice without proof.

But you presume the issue of verse 26 is concerned with the demands of the law (of retributive justice) and mercy.

What you did in these passages

You've arrived at a point

In fact, I did hardly anything with the verses. My post was quite short. I merely asked you to deal with them.
You have not actually addressed any of the verses, except in a very perfunctory way. Is that the best you can do? If it is, I will address what you've written. But I would rather hope that you would be able to expand somewhat.

I also asked you on Post #37 to consider this text: 'These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power' (2 Thessalonians 1:9), and tell me whether you see it as retributive or redemptive. You have not yet replied. It was you who brought up the issue of retributive and redemptive justice, but you seem extremely reluctant to come down to brass tacks (as we say in Britain).

But perhaps the truth is found in your last line.

I'm not really interested here in looking at how correct the Theory may be.

Well I am, and if you're not there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing to discuss.

 

[The Archangel]

Thank you for the clarification.

What I am speaking of is the assumption that God cannot forgive except a sin first be punished. This is what I believe you are reading into Scripture.

If you are correct that God just forgives sin without a payment, why does Paul write Romans 3:

[21] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—[22] the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21–26 ESV; emphasis mine)​

If God can forgive sin without payment why does Jesus have to die? Regardless of the understanding of "Propitiation," it is clear that Jesus dies because God "passes over" former sins. Therefore, God cannot just forgive sin; He requires a payment--and Christ is that payment.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

You have a very unfortunate habit of playing the man and not the ball. Instead of dealing with the texts, your past post is all about me.





In fact, I did hardly anything with the verses. My post was quite short. I merely asked you to deal with them.
You have not actually addressed any of the verses, except in a very perfunctory way. Is that the best you can do? If it is, I will address what you've written. But I would rather hope that you would be able to expand somewhat.

I also asked you on Post #37 to consider this text: 'These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power' (2 Thessalonians 1:9), and tell me whether you see it as retributive or redemptive. You have not yet replied. It was you who brought up the issue of retributive and redemptive justice, but you seem extremely reluctant to come down to brass tacks (as we say in Britain).

But perhaps the truth is found in your last line.

Well I am, and if you're not there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing to discuss.

I addressed you because you were the one who posted the passages....they didn't just appear - you typed them in response to the post I typed (and you quoted).

I believe it natural to believe you think those passages evidence because you offered them as a reason for your belief.

To answer your question (and just pass over your previous "proof", since that seems to be your desire), I never said that God does not punish the wicked. I offered two alternatives to your presupposes philosophy of justice. My view is that God punishes the wicked and forgives the repentant (Psalm 7:11-12). His punishment is just but so is His forgiveness.

Back to the topic - why your idea of justice above all others? You and I are "born into it", but how does thus affect our views of Atonement? How are we justified in assuming it in our theology?

 

[JonC]

If you are correct that God just forgives sin without a payment, why does Paul write Romans 3:

[21] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—[22] the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:21–26 ESV; emphasis mine)​

If God can forgive sin without payment why does Jesus have to die? Regardless of the understanding of "Propitiation," it is clear that Jesus dies because God "passes over" former sins. Therefore, God cannot just forgive sin; He requires a payment--and Christ is that payment.

The Archangel

Hey Archangel! I haven’t seen you around in a while.

I believe that Paul wrote Romans 3 to explain the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law. Prior to Paul’s “now” God had “passed over” former sins in order to show this righteousness (this same and only righteousness of God manifested apart from the law – the Law bearing witness to it).

My concern here, however, is not what I believe the correct theory of atonement to be. I’ve already explained my understanding of the atonement (while back – the chief complaint was that it was too much Scripture, too less explanation….but made sense to me without any addition so I just left it alone).

So, how can the other theories hold that God can forgive sin without payment and yet require that Jesus die?

Abelard believed that Jesus came not just to die, but to be born, live and die. To him it was a matter of obedience as God demonstrated His love to us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Some believe that Christ had to die for our offenses to bear the curse of physical death which is the wage of sin, and thereby redeem mankind that through Him they may have life.

Luther taught that Christ had to die and descend into hell to overcome sin, death and hell on behalf of His bride (Luther, The Freedom of a Christian).

Anselm believed that Christ had to be born, suffer, and die as man’s representative and gain victory over sin and death (the curse) in order to restore the honor that had been robbed of God.

In fact, now that I consider it, I don’t think that ANY of the other theories fail to address why Jesus had to die.

I suppose how legitimate one believes one theory to be depends largely on what they are willing to carry into the study. Do we pretend that God holds a Western worldview and divine justice is retributive justice? Do we pretend that He holds a Justinian worldview? Do we pretend that Divine Justice is restorative justice?

OR can we examine the philosophies that are so often merely assumed? Why retributivism? Why not Restorative? Why not Abrahamic? Why not Utilitarianism? Why not Reparation?

The purpose of this thread is to examine how things develop - not argue for or against one theory of atonement. How did it come to be that, in this age and with all the information we have, all the history, that it is so difficult to trace the development of these things?

I look forward to your insights in explaining how and why retributive justice is used to interpret the Atonement (and other passages) when for so many Christians another mode is used.

Jon

 

[JonC]

If God can forgive sin without payment why does Jesus have to die? Regardless of the understanding of "Propitiation," it is clear that Jesus dies because God "passes over" former sins. Therefore, God cannot just forgive sin; He requires a payment--and Christ is that payment.

I offered this earlier, and it may help you in understanding why other people believe Jesus' death was necessary. It's from Mark Heim, Professor of Christian Theology at Yale Divinity School).

"Jesus' death isn't necessary because God has to have innocent blood to solve the guilt equation. Redemptive violence is our equation. Jesus didn't volunteer to get into God's justice machine. God volunteered to get into ours. God used our own sin to save us."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Back to the topic - why your idea of justice above all others?

For crying out loud! My idea of justice doesn't matter a jot, and nor does yours But 'what does the Scripture say?'
Since you are obviously not going to expand on your post #48, I will answer it later on this evening.

But I notice you still haven't answered my question: 'These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power' (2 Thessalonians 1:9). Do you see it as retributive or redemptive. I beginning to wonder whether you know.

 

[The Archangel]

I offered this earlier, and it may help you in understanding why other people believe Jesus' death was necessary. It's from Mark Heim, Professor of Christian Theology at Yale Divinity School).

"Jesus' death isn't necessary because God has to have innocent blood to solve the guilt equation. Redemptive violence is our equation. Jesus didn't volunteer to get into God's justice machine. God volunteered to get into ours. God used our own sin to save us."

I read it. It isn't an issue with "understanding" and what "other people believe." It is an issue of "What does the scripture say?" Paul's explanation in Romans 3:21ff stands solidly against Prof. Heim.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I look forward to your insights in explaining how and why retributive justice is used to interpret the Atonement (and other passages) when for so many Christians another mode is used.

Jon

Because, as is argued in Romans 3, that's what God did.

This isn't some theoretical exercise of placing innumerable angels on the head of a pin. It isn't thinking about what God might have done. It is, however, an examination of what He told us He has done. Clearly He has paid a price (hence the word "redemption") and He has paid it in Christ. That the price was not paid in the past calls into question His righteousness. Redemption through Christ demonstrates God's justice (that He requires a payment for sin) and it demonstrates Him to be the justifyer (that He Himself is the pay-er or the required payment).

This isn't theory; it is the plain teaching of scripture.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

I read it. It isn't an issue with "understanding" and what "other people believe." It is an issue of "What does the scripture say?" Paul's explanation in Romans 3:21ff stands solidly against Prof. Heim.

The Archangel

I disagree. It is very much a matter of understanding. I say this because all of the theories (even Origen's Ransom Theory....which is IMHO horribly mistaking) take into consideration Romans 3:19-31.

The issue is not only "what does the Scripture say?"....which is something ALL here agree on, but "what does the Scripture mean?". And what are we carrying into the interpretation.

I strongly deny the Theory of Penal Substitution. BUT I strongly claim the necessity of Christ's death (the necessity of the Blood in the Atonement). I strongly affirm Romans 3.

It is an issue of understanding because it does not seem to make sense to those who cannot fathom Scripture apart from the judicial philosophy that that they would bring into the conversation that other views see a necessity of Christ's death.

Hence my intent of this thread. Do you understand why other theories hold to it being necessary that Christ die? Do you understand how other theories hold that Christ bore our sins, that God was "pleased to crush Him", and that by His stripes we are healed even while they reject Penal Substitution Theory? If so, then let's discuss it. If not, then it is an issue of ignorance.

I'm not asking you to defend Penal Substitution Theory. I am asking if you can identify how it developed.

 

[JonC]

Because, as is argued in Romans 3, that's what God did.

Romans 3 is exactly what God did - Amen. God manifested His Righteousness apart from the law.

But why do you think that all others who believe Romans 3, and all others who believe their interpretation to be the "plain teaching of Scripture", are wrong and you are right?

Origen taught that God offered a ransom to Satan because that was (to him) the plain teaching of Scripture. Others teach that God's redemption is a righteousness apart from the law (and Penal Substitution Theory a misunderstanding) because this is to them the "plain teaching of Scripture". You believe Penal Substitution Theory the "plain teaching of Scripture". I understand this. BUT can you look beyond what you believe to be the "plain teaching of Scripture" to why it is so plain to you - yet different from so many other Christians (who may disagree with each other as well)?

Can you explain why divine justice IS retributive justice rather than any of those other forms that would affirm the same passages yet come up with different "plain teachings of Scripture"? How did these things develop.

That is the focus of this thread - not indoctrination into the Theory of Penal Substitution or any other theory of Atonement. How did these things develop? How did the Western Church move from one system of justice to another when looking at divine justice?

 

[The Archangel]

I disagree. It is very much a matter of understanding. I say this because all of the theories (even Origen's Ransom Theory....which is IMHO horribly mistaking) take into consideration Romans 3:19-31.

The issue is not only "what does the Scripture say?"....which is something ALL here agree on, but "what does the Scripture mean?". And what are we carrying into the interpretation.

I strongly deny the Theory of Penal Substitution. BUT I strongly claim the necessity of Christ's death (the necessity of the Blood in the Atonement). I strongly affirm Romans 3.

If you deny what Paul is clearly meaning, you do not affirm Romans 3.

It is an issue of understanding because it does not seem to make sense to those who cannot fathom Scripture apart from the judicial philosophy that that they would bring into the conversation that other views see a necessity of Christ's death.

Our understanding is not the issue; the meaning of the text is. Our understanding does not determine the meaning of the text.

In your statement above there is a begging of the question. You assume those who disagree with you are bringing external judicial philosophies to the text. However, we are, instead, coming away with the judicial philosophy that Paul is reporting to be God's own way of doing and thinking. You have yet to prove from the text that our understanding of Paul is wrong. Paul's meaning could not be more clear.

Hence my intent of this thread. Do you understand why other theories hold to it being necessary that Christ die? Do you understand how other theories hold that Christ bore our sins, that God was "pleased to crush Him", and that by His stripes we are healed even while they reject Penal Substitution Theory? If so, then let's discuss it. If not, then it is an issue of ignorance.

I'm not asking you to defend Penal Substitution Theory. I am asking if you can identify how it developed.

First, while you are not asking for the defense of PSA, Martin, myself (and others, I'm sure) clearly see the need to stand against the vandalism of scripture, which is why any engagement with this thread must include a defense.

Secondly, you are presenting a false dichotomy. Just because I disagree with certain theories (or choose not to engage in their mishandling of the text of scripture) does not mean that I don't understand them. Your implication of such is the false dichotomy, and it reveals you may be thinking thinking of "if you did understand you'd agree."

The development of bad doctrine is, in and of itself, a fascinating trip. Penal Substitution has been around for quite some time (e.g. Paul explains it) and was recovered in the Reformation.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

If you deny what Paul is clearly meaning, you do not affirm Romans 3.



Our understanding is not the issue; the meaning of the text is. Our understanding does not determine the meaning of the text.

In your statement above there is a begging of the question. You assume those who disagree with you are bringing external judicial philosophies to the text. However, we are, instead, coming away with the judicial philosophy that Paul is reporting to be God's own way of doing and thinking. You have yet to prove from the text that our understanding of Paul is wrong. Paul's meaning could not be more clear.



First, while you are not asking for the defense of PSA, Martin, myself (and others, I'm sure) clearly see the need to stand against the vandalism of scripture, which is why any engagement with this thread must include a defense.

Secondly, you are presenting a false dichotomy. Just because I disagree with certain theories (or choose not to engage in their mishandling of the text of scripture) does not mean that I don't understand them. Your implication of such is the false dichotomy, and it reveals you may be thinking thinking of "if you did understand you'd agree."

The development of bad doctrine is, in and of itself, a fascinating trip. Penal Substitution has been around for quite some time (e.g. Paul explains it) and was recovered in the Reformation.

The Archangel

Brother,

You are both right and wrong here.

I do deny your interpretation of Roman's 3. Instead I believe that Paul is speaking of God's righteousness apart from the law (something not permitted under the Theory of Penal Substitution).

That you are unable to grasp the fact I also affirm Romans 3 while rejecting your interpretation evidences the issue to be, as I said earlier, one of understanding.

I appreciate your attempt to address the thread. If you can please keep on topic by discussing how these theories developed then please do so.

Again, I am not interested here in discussing the correctness of any of these theories, much less yours. I want to look at th he influences. If you can't identify these then how can you but stay off topic.

Think about what I am asking, Brother. How did these theories develop? Why retributive justice in Penal Substitution Theory? Why Justinian justice in the Moral Influence Theory? What is the difference? How does this influence interpretation?

Or do you believe Scripture is subjective and dependent on what each worldview would see as its "plain meaning"? (I just realized I have presupposed objective truth into the discussion while you may hold a more liberal view).

Thank you for your interest and the time it took to respond to my thread. I hope you will be able to contribute to the topic of the OP as well.

Jon