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

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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)

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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 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.

 

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?

 

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