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.,

 

[JonC]

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.

Lutherans hold a type of satisfaction theory.

While I believe it wrong (very wrong) I would not say PSA is heinous. It is Anselms theory, just changing the basis from honor and satisfaction to legal justice and punishment.

PSA holds it is more transactional. When viewing God's character they consider it as God taking upon Himself a debt (like absorbing a financial debt). So man owed God a sum of money, God forgave the debt and assumed the lost. When dealing with men they switch back to a criminal court model. PSA is inconsistent, but not heinous.

I would not view one as worse than the other.

 

[Ascetic X]

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.

Sometimes people like to imagine God as love, a being who is always sweet and gentle, a God who has no wrath. They focus on the happy, pleasant side of God’s personality. It’s a non-biblical, one dimensional view of the character of God.

They seem to forget about Noah and the flood, the elimination of nations that were grossly perverted and opposed to Israel, disasters God brought upon certain individuals who brought strange fire in the temple and disobeyed commands in Old Testament, Ananias and Sapphira’s punishment in Acts, and many other times when God was displeased.

We must not be scared of God as a tyrant who is eager to harm sinners. But we should have a healthy fear, in the sense of extreme awe, reverence, and respect for Him and His holiness. It was common for people to fall down in fright and shame when God manifested His presence.

To persist in thinking of God only in terms of His everlasting mercy and kindness is incomplete. The book of Revelation alone presents the character of God in a more exact manner, unleashing His fury at the despicable sinners who ruin life on earth.

Who would worship a God who felt no anger at all the wars, rape, torture, financial exploitation, oppression of the poor, child trafficking, lies, sorcery, drug pushing, food over-processing, political scheming, murder, religious deceptions, cults, and other crimes and sins in the world?

So many Psalms are pleading with God to pursue, punish, and destroy wicked persons and evil nations.

Love that does nothing in the face of evil is not true love.

Jesus is the perfect example of who God is. Jesus healed, fed, taught, turned water into wine, raised the dead, and wept. Jesus also got angry a few times, boldly confronted individuals, knocked tables over in the temple, and made declarations of woe and warning.

Isaiah 66:2

For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

Jeremiah 5:22

Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence…?

 

[JonC]

Sometimes people like to imagine God as love, a being who is always sweet and gentle, a God who has no wrath. They focus on the happy, pleasant side of God’s personality. It’s a non-biblical, one dimensional view of the character of God.

They seem to forget about Noah and the flood, the elimination of nations that were grossly perverted and opposed to Israel, disasters God brought upon certain individuals who brought strange fire in the temple and disobeyed commands in Old Testament, Ananias and Sapphira’s punishment in Acts, and many other times when God was displeased.

We must not be scared of God as a tyrant who is eager to harm sinners. But we should have a healthy fear, in the sense of extreme awe, reverence, and respect for Him and His holiness. It was common for people to fall down in fright and shame when God manifested His presence.

To persist in thinking of God only in terms of His everlasting mercy and kindness is incomplete. The book of Revelation alone presents the character of God in a more exact manner, unleashing His fury at the despicable sinners who ruin life on earth.

Who would worship a God who felt no anger at all the wars, rape, torture, financial exploitation, oppression of the poor, child trafficking, lies, sorcery, drug pushing, food over-processing, political scheming, murder, religious deceptions, cults, and other crimes and sins in the world?

So many Psalms are pleading with God to pursue, punish, and destroy wicked persons and evil nations.

Love that does nothing in the face of evil is not true love.

Jesus is the perfect example of who God is. Jesus healed, fed, taught, turned water into wine, raised the dead, and wept. Jesus also got angry a few times, boldly confronted individuals, knocked tables over in the temple, and made declarations of woe and warning.

Isaiah 66:2

For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

Jeremiah 5:22

Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence…?

I think the issue @easternstar is pointing to is more about PSA than wrath (not speaking for him, but that would be my objection as PSA has God literally doing evil).

But some do object to the imagery (the "cosmic child abuse" argument). That argument is flawed.

I think we all agree that God's love is the reason His wrath is upon the wicked and why they will be cast out.

If love embraced evil it would not be love.

 

[JonC]

I view Anselm's Satisfaction Theory as somewhat less objectionable ...

I view all of the Latin theories as highly questionable. I would not hold any of them (I held PSA for most of my life, but not any more).

I do not think Anselm's theory is applicable any more, at least not in its original form. We simply do not hold that worldview. Calvin's theory has been on the decline as we also do not hold his worldview, but it is not as far removed as Anselm's focus on honor.

 

[easternstar]

I view all of the Latin theories as highly questionable. I would not hold any of them (I held PSA for most of my life, but not any more).

I do not think Anselm's theory is applicable any more, at least not in its original form. We simply do not hold that worldview. Calvin's theory has been on the decline as we also do not hold his worldview, but it is not as far removed as Anselm's focus on honor.

To me, the least objectionable, least heinous Latin/Western theory is the Governmental Theory. But it is somewhat nonsensical. I don't accept it.

 

[JonC]

To me, the least objectionable, least heinous Latin/Western theory is the Governmental Theory. But it is somewhat nonsensical. I don't accept it.

It is probably better. But I do not think we need to choose a view at all. I would not say it is a Latin view, per se. It is a Wesleyan theory, so it has its roots there. I never thought where it would be classified.

Just reading our bibles would take care of a lot of this.

Think of the traditional Anabaptist view. It is the Classic view, but the Anabaptists did not study the Early Church writings.

I arrived at my view working through the biblical text. I left PSA and decided to simply write down what was in the biblical text to see if that made sence. But I found it was in the Early Church writings and traditional Anabaptist writings (a pleasant surprise, I kinda expected to have to rework my view).

 

[easternstar]

To me, the least objectionable, least heinous Latin/Western theory is the Governmental Theory. But it is somewhat nonsensical.

It is probably better. But I do not think we need to choose a view at all. I would not say it is a Latin view, per se. It is a Wesleyan theory, so it has its roots there. I never thought where it would be classified.

Just reading our bibles would take care of a lot of this.

Think of the traditional Anabaptist view. It is the Classic view, but the Anabaptists did not study the Early Church writings.

I arrived at my view working through the biblical text. I left PSA and decided to simply write down what was in the biblical text to see if that made sence. But I found it was in the Early Church writings and traditional Anabaptist writings (a pleasant surprise, I kinda expected to have to rework my view).

Excellent post. I'm exactly where you are on this. Quite remarkable, actually.
I guess that opens up the possibility that you and I will get charged with the accusation of being the same person -- again.