Featured Debt vs. Penal Substitution

Yet here you are, holding a position that could never possible exist apart from it. It was not until the eleventh century that ANYONE questioned divine simple forgiveness.

How do you think that this development (of denying divine simple forgiveness) occurred in the works of Anselm? What influences do you think that this had on the Theory of Penal Substitution? Do you see a difference between how Anselm's view of of debt in Satisfaction Theory and the view under Penal Substitution Theory? How does this compare to Abelard?

Are you suggesting that Abelard's view is another version of Penal Substitution Theory?

 

The question of the OP (the topic) is that “if Anselm and Abelard were as much against one another as it seems, and that their standings on this topic were as heated as it seems, how is it we are being taught both now-adays at the same time?”

My answer, in short (without the explanation) is that we are not being taught both at the same time. Penal Substitution Theory is different from both Satisfaction Theory and Moral Influence Theory. Penal Substitution Theory is a far newer theory that grew out of an attempt to reform the ideas of Thomas Aquinas.

Your answer? You have not addressed the topic at all except to interject your opinion of Catholic theologians.

Well, I've got some bad news for you Sunshine. Neither Anselm or Abelard were Baptists. If you don't want to discuss them, and are not willing to discuss their doctrines, and are not interested in looking at how their ideas may be taught today....well, you have nothing to say on this thread.

Either you are trolling or you have not read the OP.

 

It does not matter.....except that it is very much true.

But the issue of the OP is how these competing views (Anselm and Abelard) became the amalgamation we teach today.

I say it hasn't. Neither taught Penal Substitution Theory. And Penal Substitution Theory is different from what they taught (it is not a combination of the two ideas, although the Theory obviously is indebted to Anselm to an extent).

Please address the OP and interact with my points regarding the OP. The fact that simple forgiveness was not challenged until the eleventh century was a simple side note or observation not necessarily the focus of my argument (I mentioned it to show that some elements were carried forward, but there is still enough of a distinction to show Anselm would have strongly opposed Penal Substitution Theory).

 

No one has denied those passages. The issue that separated Abelard (I take it you are speaking of his ideas) was that he held a different view of justice. Retributive Justice is not the only view held by people throughout history.

To illustrate Abelard's more Justinian concept of justice as opposed to the Aquinian concept (the philosophical basis for the Theory of Penal Substitution):

Mike kills a man when he is 18 years old. At 19 years old he has repented and became saved. He confesses the sin to the family of the victim and they forgive him, telling him to go on with his life instead of destroying it in a corrupt legal system. Mike tells his pastor and congregation. They agree, no need for two lives to be destroyed. Mike is now 51 years old. He has a 9 year old daughter, a 14 year old son. He is happily married, a leader in his community and his church. He has led many to Christ, has helped the poor, and is held in high esteem. Last month a breakthrough came in that old murder case.

Under a Justinian concept of Justice (rendering to each his due), Mike has already been forgiven of the crime. The crime is not against the law but against the family of the man killed. What is due Mike? Punishment? No, of course not. Mike is a Christian, a leader in his community, well liked, respected and loved.

Under an Aquinian concept, the family and the community can very well forgive Mike. But Mike's crime is against the law, and the law demands a punishment be rendered. THIS is the basis for Penal Substitution Theory - NOT the passages you present but this idea through which those passages are interpreted (all of the theories accept the passages you present, but they use them differently).

So, you see, the difference between Anselm and Abelard when compared to those who hold the Theory of Penal Substitution is not passages of Scripture (which all affirm) but the worldview each holds.

 

Not derogatory or demeaning (and I'm sorry you took it that way). I was referencing a song ("In the Flesh" by Pink Floyd ). Again, I am sorry that you took offense.

 

I actually agree with your assessment in terms of Penal Substitution Theory.

This is why I say that the Theory, while obviously a benefactor of Satisfaction Theory, is not an amalgamation of the two. Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and Abelard's Moral Influence Theory stand in opposition not only to each other but also to the Theory of Penal Substitution..

That said, each view is far from irrational. The logic does not fit in today's worldview - BUT today's worldview was not shared by the past. From the early Church to the last part of the Medieval Church it would be irrational to claim God could not simply forgive sin without exercising punishment. The reason is that the ideas of justice have changed.

For Anselm, Christ world bear our punishment and taking on what it means to be man He would restore that honor which was lost. Punishment had a purpose, but it was not to redemptively pay our sin debt. People simply did not think of justice in those terms. For Abelard, Christ would bear our sins and by taking upon Himself a human nature suffer the wages of sin on our behalf as the ultimate and supreme act of love.

Both of these theories (like the Theory of Penal Substitution) have a biblical basis. They go wrong elsewhere.

 

You are ignoring the obvious fact that with the ideas discussed here....these competing views...they are well documented and contrary to each other (and the Catholic view). Since we have them they were obviously not burned. We know how much of the philosophies concerning justice came about and we can see how they were built. We know the context of Jewish justice was not the same as Roman justice. We can see and read arguments of the past (in your conspiracy theory there would be none because they would have been burnt).

Thank you for accepting my apology. And yes, I'm not saying I was wrong or promising I won't do it again. I just wanted you to know that I did not mean my comments offensive. Whether you accept that as a tactic or a genuine expression that I am sorry my words were taken as offensive...well....that has nothing to do with me.

"Is this not what you expected to see?"....


But again you are straying from the topic.