Satisfaction theory of atonement

[seer]

How is it that we do not find the satisfaction theory of atonement in the church until Anselm about 1000 years after Christ? Doesn't that in it's self make the theory suspect?

[Benjamin]

I does seem a little strange that such a core part of the gospel we preach comes 1000 years after the event. I certainly find the idea the God has an honor which must be satisfied before he can forgive a hard pill to swallow.

[Glenn P]

It does seem a little strange that such a core part of the gospel we preach comes 1000 years after the event.

Core part of the Gospel we preach? Not for Reformed Christians. In Calvinist circles the view of the atonement is one of penal substitution rather than satisfaction. penal substitution has its historical roots (other than the Bible) in the early church Fathers. While there are some similarities between satisfaction and penal substitution, it certainly isn't the same view.

Glenn

[Tercel]

Theonomy:
the view of the atonement is one of penal substitution rather than satisfaction. penal substitution has its historical roots (other than the Bible) in the early church Fathers.Which early church Fathers supported penal substitution? I was given to understand that the early church Fathers either adhered to the Ransom model or the Incarnational model. I intend -hopefully- to write an article mentioning the subject later this year... so if you could please, pretty please, pretty pretty please refer me to those early church Fathers then I would be ever so greatful... :smile: :smile:


While there are some similarities between satisfaction and penal substitution, it certainly isn't the same view.In my opinion, it might as well be. In both views, the central issue is changing God's attitude towards the sinner. In both views the sinner is saved from God. By constrast, in the Ransom and Incarnational models God saves sinners from the power of sin.

Whether you call it Satisfaction, or call it Penal Substitution, the upshot of it seems to be that we are being saved from God who was incapable of forgiving out of love.

[Benjamin]

+in slobbering anticipation of forthcoming article+

[Glenn P]

Which early church Fathers supported penal substitution? I was given to understand that the early church Fathers either adhered to the Ransom model or the Incarnational model. I intend -hopefully- to write an article mentioning the subject later this year... so if you could please, pretty please, pretty pretty please refer me to those early church Fathers then I would be ever so greatful...

the "Incarnational" model is not a traditional label, so I'm not sure what you mean there. Th emajority view in the early fathers was either the Ransom theory, or more dominantly, the "Christus Victor" model. I wouldn't claim that the early fathers held to penal substitution. What I would say (as I did say) is that the enal substitution view of the Reformers has its roots in the early Fathers. I think the fathers said some things that cerainly lead that way, even if they didn't follow their logic to that conclusion.

For example, Athanasias writes:

[Christ,] taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father — doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord’s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from floe fire.
Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word 8:4

To say that Christ gave Himself over to death "in the stead of all" goes further than a Ransom view, and presents Christ as dying on our behalf, which leads to a penal substitution view.


In my opinion, it might as well be. In both views, the central issue is changing God's attitude towards the sinner. In both views the sinner is saved from God. By constrast, in the Ransom and Incarnational models God saves sinners from the power of sin.

That much may be true, but the reason Jesus died is different in penal substitution and the satisfaction view. In the satisfaction view, Jesus' death was a kind of debt payment, satisfying the insult that God had suffered so that God would forgive instead of punish, whereas in penal substitution, God does punish - he poured out His wrath on Christ.


Whether you call it Satisfaction, or call it Penal Substitution, the upshot of it seems to be that we are being saved from God who was incapable of forgiving out of love.

And which view of the atonement are you thinking of where God "just forgives" without any conquest or death?

Glenn

[Benjamin]

An Orthodoxish view:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=119206#post119206

[Tercel]

Theonomy:
the "Incarnational" model is not a traditional label, so I'm not sure what you mean there. The majority view in the early fathers was either the Ransom theory, or more dominantly, the "Christus Victor" model.I'm not familiar with the Christus Victor model, but from what google is telling me about it I suspect it is very similar to what I call the incarnational model.


I wouldn't claim that the early fathers held to penal substitution. What I would say (as I did say) is that the penal substitution view of the Reformers has its roots in the early Fathers. I think the fathers said some things that cerainly lead that way, even if they didn't follow their logic to that conclusion.Okay, I understand that.


For example, Athanasias writes:I was hoping you'd be able to give me a name other than Athanasius - ironically, I was reading his Incarnation of the Word two days ago and thinking "Wow, this looks suspiciously close to penal substitution". So checking that carefully, especially the translation-dependentness of it (it's amazing the degree to which some translators manage to read-in their own theology) is already on my list of things to do.
Are there any other early Fathers though? I was under the impression there were none, so I was rather surprised to see Athanasius saying what he did. If you've got any other names, please please share....


To say that Christ gave Himself over to death "in the stead of all" goes further than a Ransom view, and presents Christ as dying on our behalf, which leads to a penal substitution view.If all it says is that Christ died instead of us, then it lends nothing to penal substitution over any other theory. If it implies that Christ paid our debt to God or to Justice (and in my cursory read Athanasius appeared to be saying that) then it is penal substitution or Satisfaction.


And which view of the atonement are you thinking of where God "just forgives" without any conquest or death?I was thinking of the view where God just forgives because He's eternally forgiving and loving and where the atonement has nothing to do with forgiveness but with reunification - the at-one-ing of man and God.
The view where Christ's incarnation and death was a step in acheiving reunification of man with God: through the unification of man and God in the incarnate Christ, through his (as God) sharing in the human life, and finally his sharing in the human slavery to death, so that through him sharing in our corruption and bondage to death we might share in his divine life and incorruption.
Something along those lines anyway... :teeth: