Satisfaction is the classic view but when people describe Penal atonement they seem to mean the same thing. Christ died for us, for our sins. In his death, he took punishment due to us, and brought us God's reward (if we accept him). That's the classic satisfaction view. Penal substitution purportedly believes the same thing. So what is the difference between the two?
All this theologizing is superfluous. Such vast quantities of ink need not be spilled over all our atonement theories and bureaucratic petty little human legalism. Read Mark's Gospel. Read Isaiah 53. The two compliment and mirror each other. As this is Messiah season, He gave His back to the smiters, and His cheeks to them that plucked off His hair: He hid not His face from shame and spitting. And with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way. And the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. We are healed. Theories can only mask "what if"s and doubts, but what's done is done. Praise the Lord.
It's set forth quite plainly in Scripture. Why make up theories for this? It creates camps and divisions between theological schools. Even if it wasn't clear and obvious, the climax of Romans 8 should be enough to set our minds at ease. The wisdom of this world isn't needful. That's part of the joy of the Gospel.
I don't think "the wisdom of this world" is the best way to describe the task of theology. I'm glad that it's so clear and obvious to you (that's not sarcasm), but many theologians and regular Christians find the topic to be very deep. It may not be as easy for others as it is for you, so the theological approach is helpful.
Please allow me to share a model of the theories of atonement from Thomas C. Oden. You really need to read the accompanying text in his publication to fully understand the model. Here is the reference and an online link. Oden, T. C. (2008). Comparison of Complementary Tendencies: Four Atonement Models. In Systematic Theology (3 vols.): Volume Two - The Word of Life, p. 344-414. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. [Later published as Classic Christianity (1 vol.) by HarperOne (2009).]. What did Christ Do? What is Humanity's Problem? (Apologia and the Occident, http://hayesworldview.wordpress.com/tag/thomas-oden/).
Before I close my participation in this interesting topic, I want to share another theological model from Thomas C. Oden. This second model is about patterns of church life. Again, as with Oden's atonement model, it is helpful to read the accompanying text in his publication to fully understand the model. Evangelical Calvinistic traditions fall within the first church pattern: Coetus Electorum; Classic Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic traditions fall primarily within the center church pattern: Corpus Christi; and the Episcopal and mainline Protestant traditions are frequently found in the third church pattern: Communio Sanctorum. Here is the reference and an online link. Oden, T. C. (2008). Ecclesiology: Three Patterns of Church Life. In Systematic Theology (3 vols.): Volume 3 - Life in the Spirit, p. 261-297. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. [Later published as Classic Christianity (1 vol.) by HarperOne (2009). Patterns of Recollection and Action in the Church (Apologia and the Occident, http://hayesworldview.wordpress.com/tag/thomas-oden/). ***** Thomas Oden is the General Editor of the popular Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series published by Intervarsity Press. ***** And the last image is Thomas C. Oden (b. 1931).
From what I've read Anselm's model is about God's honour being wounded and the restoration of His honour (framed within the feudal lord system that was well known at the time) Penal subsitution is about God's Justice being restored. I'll read up on it and see if I can find more about it
Yes, IMHO this view removes the legalism added by the West and restores the understanding of the Church Fathers.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor Ah, the classic Church understanding of Christ coming to defeat the Evil One and remove the barrier between humanity and the Father. If we would translate the Our Father better, we might better understand that Jesus delivers us from the Evil One. From Bishop Ware We prefer the image of Christ as victor over death, love stronger than death, the kind of victory that we sense at the Paschal service Easter midnight in the Orthodox Church, when there is a constant refrain, “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and to those in the tombs he has given life.” That is the image of Christ’s work that we chiefly stress. ========================== Some historical perspective from Theopedia Christus Victor Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) is a view of the atonement taken from the title of Gustaf Aulén's groundbreaking book, first published in 1931, where he drew attention back to the early church's Ransom theory. In Christus Victor, the atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. Aulén argues that the classic Ransom theory is not so much a rational systematic theory as it is a drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the powers and liberatinghumanity from the bondage of sin. As Gustav Aulén writes, "the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil."^[1]^ The Ransom Theory was predominant in the early church and for the first thousand years of church history and supported by all Greek Church Fathers from Irenaeus to John of Damascus. To mention only the most important names Origen, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom. The Christus Victor view was also dominant among the Latin Fathers of the Patristic period including Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, and Gregory the Great. A major shift occurred when Anselm of Canterbury published his Cur Deos Homo around 1097 AD which marks the point where the predominate understanding of the atonement shifted from the ransom theory to the Satisfaction Doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church and subsequently the Protestant Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church still holds to the Ransom or Christus Victor view. This is built upon the understanding of the atonement put forward by Irenaeus, called "recapitulation".^[2]^ As the term Christus Victor indicates, the idea of “ransom” should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin. Unlike the Satisfaction or Penal-substitution views of the atonement rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice, the Christus Victor view is rooted in the incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. Irenaeus called this "Recapitulation" (re-creation). As it is often expressed: "Jesus became what we are so that we could become what he is".
Isn't it odd that a view said to be so ground-breaking was first discovered in 1931. Did the Church Fathers themselves have a systematic description of their doctrine, that matched Gustaf Aulen's? Where's the proof for their views, and does Aulen provide citations for his attribution to them of his theory?
The Classic or Random theory of atonement dates from Origen of Alexandria (185-254). Gustaf Aulen is a modern advocate of this theory who introduced a few refinements. Aulen gets modern credit because the title of his book--actually a review of three historic theories of atonement--was Christus Victor (1931, later editions). My guess is--timing can be very important in the formula for theological recognition.
Please do, because the feudal system wasn't very developed by the time Anselm was writing. Aquinas and later scholastics, sure, a true knightly-feudal system, but under Anselm there was little like that. William's knights at the Battle of Hastings (1066) were so weak and ineffectual that they couldn't even break through the Saxon shieldwall. Also, what I've seen of the Satisfaction theory does seem to speak in terms of wounded justice. And finally, the "Penal substitution" model is usually mentioned in the context of the Reformed, which leads me to think that e.g. the Lutherans and the Anglicans would be less strongly affected by it.
To members of this forum: What is your view of the atonement -- Penal Substitution, Satisfaction, Governmental, Moral Influence, Christus Victor, a combination of these, something else?
I'm somewhat of a Recapitulationist although I also think Anselm was on to something. The scripture refers to Christ as both the New Adam and our Redeemer. I think the answer is probably both/and
As for me, I hold to Christus Victor. I am not a fan of any of the Latin Western theories -- Roman Catholic or Protestant.
Is it OK to just say: I was born in Adam, I sinned, God died in my flesh, I was born again in Christ, and I lived? I guess that would be Substitutionary? Whatever Anselm taught, I assent to that one. What is the essence of Christus Victor, Celtic1?
Here is an article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor It is the view originally held by the EOC which they still hold.