There is a thread discussing Ransom Theory (termed the "Classic View", and after Aulén's book "Christus Victor"). There is a thread discussing the Moral Influence Theory.
In the latter I mentioned Anselm's theory (the Moral Influence Theory was in reaction to Anselm's theory). I am not starting a thread to discuss his theory in detail because it is no longer a relevant theory (it held a 10th Century understanding of honor at its center and has been revised in Roman Catholic Theology).
Anselm found the "classic view" incorrect because by the 10th Century it had taken the form of God paying a ransom to Satan. Anselm changed the "ransom" to a debt.
His theory is the "Satisfaction Theory" ("satisfaction" here means "to make restitution"). The basic idea was that Adam, by sinning, robbed God of honor. Christ made restitution in His life and obedience on our behalf, restoring to God the honor that by man's actions was lost.
In the 13th Century Thomas Aquinas reformed this theory by basing the Atonement on moral justice rather than honor and codeified the Substitution Theory of Atonement (see his Summa Theologica). This remains the Roman Catholic and Lutheran theory of Atonement.
The major difference between Anselm and Aquinas is effect of sin or the debt that needed to be paid. Where Anselm viewed the debt as one of honor robbed from God, Aquinas viewed the debt as a moral injustice that needed to be corrected.
In Summa Theologica Aquinas developed the following principles:
Aquinas defined punishment as satisfactory punishment because it would be unjust for Christ to suffer our punishment. Instead Jesus would suffer a punishment that God would deem satisfactory to cover our moral failure.
Aquinas concluded that an innocent man could be justly punished instead of a guilty man provided the punishment was not for the actual crime but instead for the man himself and that both parties were willing.
Aquinas taught that we can make satisfaction for our own sin but that our problem is original sin.
This is the theory that John Calvin reformed. Calvin took issue with the Roman Catholic Church's position of penance (this is linked with Luther's rejection of indulgences). The major issue Calvin had with Aquinas' theory is did not address individual sins and instead left this to individual penance.
Calvin accepted most of Aquinas' Substitution Theory but reformed it in a way to address individual sins rather than leave this to man.
Calvin's solution was that Christ's death on the cross did not pay a general penalty sins (original sin), but a specific penalty for the sins of individual people. John Calvin's view is called Penal Substitution Theory because it reformed Substitution Theory from a general penality for original sin to a specific punishment for individual sins committed by individual people.
In the latter I mentioned Anselm's theory (the Moral Influence Theory was in reaction to Anselm's theory). I am not starting a thread to discuss his theory in detail because it is no longer a relevant theory (it held a 10th Century understanding of honor at its center and has been revised in Roman Catholic Theology).
Anselm found the "classic view" incorrect because by the 10th Century it had taken the form of God paying a ransom to Satan. Anselm changed the "ransom" to a debt.
His theory is the "Satisfaction Theory" ("satisfaction" here means "to make restitution"). The basic idea was that Adam, by sinning, robbed God of honor. Christ made restitution in His life and obedience on our behalf, restoring to God the honor that by man's actions was lost.
In the 13th Century Thomas Aquinas reformed this theory by basing the Atonement on moral justice rather than honor and codeified the Substitution Theory of Atonement (see his Summa Theologica). This remains the Roman Catholic and Lutheran theory of Atonement.
The major difference between Anselm and Aquinas is effect of sin or the debt that needed to be paid. Where Anselm viewed the debt as one of honor robbed from God, Aquinas viewed the debt as a moral injustice that needed to be corrected.
In Summa Theologica Aquinas developed the following principles:
- Punishment is a morally good response to sin
- Christ bore a satisfactory punishment
- Substitution for another's sin is entirely possible
Aquinas defined punishment as satisfactory punishment because it would be unjust for Christ to suffer our punishment. Instead Jesus would suffer a punishment that God would deem satisfactory to cover our moral failure.
Aquinas concluded that an innocent man could be justly punished instead of a guilty man provided the punishment was not for the actual crime but instead for the man himself and that both parties were willing.
Aquinas taught that we can make satisfaction for our own sin but that our problem is original sin.
This is the theory that John Calvin reformed. Calvin took issue with the Roman Catholic Church's position of penance (this is linked with Luther's rejection of indulgences). The major issue Calvin had with Aquinas' theory is did not address individual sins and instead left this to individual penance.
Calvin accepted most of Aquinas' Substitution Theory but reformed it in a way to address individual sins rather than leave this to man.
Calvin's solution was that Christ's death on the cross did not pay a general penalty sins (original sin), but a specific penalty for the sins of individual people. John Calvin's view is called Penal Substitution Theory because it reformed Substitution Theory from a general penality for original sin to a specific punishment for individual sins committed by individual people.
