Interfaith Group
Related: About this forumRethinking the atonement
Chuck Queen
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was the first to expound the theory that Jesus death was necessary for the satisfaction of Gods honor. This evolved into the theory of penal substitutionary atonement, perhaps most elaborately developed by Princeton theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878).
This theory became so popular in Western Christianity that it came to be equated with the gospel preached in the Great Awakening, and in more recent times by renowned evangelist Billy Graham.
Today, a growing number of evangelical and progressive Christians are questioning the truthfulness and viability of this theory. Why is this so?
Two reasons are most often given by interpreters. First, it is suggested that this theory of the atonement makes God look small and petty. What kind of God requires the violent death of an innocent victim? And if God demands a violent atonement, then violence must in some sense be redemptive, which a growing number of Christians believe contradicts the good news of Gods nonviolent rule that Jesus proclaimed and embodied.
http://www.abpnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28460-rethinking-the-atonement#.UyNOwzHD9cs
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Anselm lived in a feudal society, made up of rights and duties ruled by custom, law, and contractual agreement. Liberty and equality were not even ideals. Social status determined responsibilities and legal status. In this society a crimes seriousness was measured against the respective dignities of the victim and perpetrator. Thus an offense against ones lord was worse than a similar offense against ones peers or inferiors. There was little room for mercy in the system, nor was simple restitution enough for an injury to ones liege. Even if a lord forgave an offense, the slight to his honor must be satisfied. It was almost impossible for a vassal, because of his inferior status, to repair dishonor to the liege without the intercession of an equally powerful noble.
This mindset is evident in every page of Anselm. Adams disobedience offended God and outlawed him and his posterity. Humans could not repair the fault because their inferior status was worsened by sin. It would not be fitting simply for God to forgive the offense, for that would allow sin to go unpunished. This, Anselm said, is unseemly, for it puts sinners and the innocent on an equal footing before God. Further, reparations must be made to the divine honor; otherwise justice is not served.
Thus Anselm builds the case for the Incarnation: On one hand, because sinners are human, a human must make satisfaction; on the other, because God is offended, no one less than God can make amends. Justice is served and Gods love is shown in sending the Son to earth to suffer and die as a human for sinners. In Anselms scheme, death is the punishment for sin. Since Jesus was sinless, his death was above anything required of him. His willingness to die to establish solidarity with us went beyond the reparation demanded by justice and made satisfaction for the sins of Adam and all Adams descendants. It was out of love for his fellow humans that Jesus willingly suffered the consequences of sin.
Anselms ingenuity made his work popular. He emphasizes that it was for us and for our salvation that Christ came to earth and was crucified. However, his theory has flaws. He has Jesus death alone, apart from his life, constituting satisfaction. Nor does he consider the Resurrection. Also, God seems merciless and relentless in pursuit of justice and honor or if not merciless, helpless by being fenced in by the divine law.
goldent
(1,582 posts)Maybe it isn't a Catholic thing
I'm all for different ideas and points of view, but this one doesn't line up with my beliefs and feelings.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)I guess I never thought of this as "satisfying God's honor"