 |
| Medal of Honor |
Yesterday we looked at the Classic (Ransom) theory, and today we'll tackle the Satisfaction (Substitution) model. This theory started around 1000ce with a monk named Anselm.
Anselm didn't like the Ransom view because it gave the Devil too much power. He had a hard time believing God could owe Satan anything and instead argued that it was we who owed God something: honor.
Sin had robbed God of honor, but the problem was that humans were incapable of the obedience required to restore that honor, and so only a special being he calls the God-man (Jesus), could save the day.
In Anselm's day, living rightly stored up honor, almost like a piggy bank. He saw Jesus' perfect life, culminating in his innocent death, as the ultimate piggy bank, able to pay the world's debt to God because of sin. Christ's piggy bank was then substituted on behalf of ours, making God a happy camper again.
But what if the problem wasn't God's lost honor? What if it was God's justice that sin called into question? This idea was developed by people like Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, who felt that Christ's death did not repay God for lost honor, but rather paid the penalty of death that had been the consequence for sin all along (Gen 2.17, Rom 6.23). This view is known as the Penal-Substitution theory.
The Penal-Substitution theory argues that justice required God to punish humanity for sin, but God sent Jesus to bear the penalty. Jesus was even convicted as a criminal and sentenced to death, which made him the perfect substitute for us and satisfied God's wrath.
But even Aquinas and Calvin disagreed. Aquinas believed that Christ's death paid the penalty for all humanity, whereas Calvin felt it was limited only to those whom God had picked to be saved.
Next Post: Penal Problems
Anselm didn't like the Ransom view because it gave the Devil too much power. He had a hard time believing God could owe Satan anything and instead argued that it was we who owed God something: honor.
Sin had robbed God of honor, but the problem was that humans were incapable of the obedience required to restore that honor, and so only a special being he calls the God-man (Jesus), could save the day.
In Anselm's day, living rightly stored up honor, almost like a piggy bank. He saw Jesus' perfect life, culminating in his innocent death, as the ultimate piggy bank, able to pay the world's debt to God because of sin. Christ's piggy bank was then substituted on behalf of ours, making God a happy camper again.
But what if the problem wasn't God's lost honor? What if it was God's justice that sin called into question? This idea was developed by people like Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, who felt that Christ's death did not repay God for lost honor, but rather paid the penalty of death that had been the consequence for sin all along (Gen 2.17, Rom 6.23). This view is known as the Penal-Substitution theory.
The Penal-Substitution theory argues that justice required God to punish humanity for sin, but God sent Jesus to bear the penalty. Jesus was even convicted as a criminal and sentenced to death, which made him the perfect substitute for us and satisfied God's wrath.
But even Aquinas and Calvin disagreed. Aquinas believed that Christ's death paid the penalty for all humanity, whereas Calvin felt it was limited only to those whom God had picked to be saved.
Next Post: Penal Problems
4 comments:
Calvin is totally inconsistent in the way he deals with God, sin, and absolution as a whole.
Though pomo critiques make this out at some violent, abusive father God, I think this model is really helpful. The language can be troubling, "eternal offenses" and all that stuff... but at its core, it's helpful.
loving this series - I enjoy hearing how it got its roots. I can guess by the way you portray penal substitution (using terms like piggy bank) that you aren't in total agreement with it (neither am I).
No atonement model summarizes everything... everything gets bits right. Like, Sub. Atonement shows that it's God dying, rather than us, God bringing salvation rather than ourselves.
Jacobs latter rather the tower of babel... But it might miss the boat on what sin is, how god views mankind, ect.
agora: I agree, PSA can be caricatured and robbed of some of its value. I do think it was very valuable to the theological debates of its time, and still provides some insights for us today.
CCC: I thought the piggy bank was a helpful way of explaining it and didn't mean to belittle the idea - but your insight is correct, it is not my favorite :)
LG: well said. I look forward to the addition of more and more atonement models that help us grasp the profundity of the event.
Post a Comment