Theological Comparisons
Abelard
Peter Abelard’s
view of the atonement is quite less obvious from a simple reading of his
writings on logic and on the interaction of the Christian with unbelievers as
in Dialogue Between a Philosopher, a Jew
and a Christian. One must make more interpretation and speculate on his
doctrine than when engaging Anselm or Thomas on the same topic, although, in
his commentary on Romans there are a couple of revealing statements. In large
part, the scholars among those who do now or have in the past held to the
“Moral Theory” or “Exemplary Theory” of the atonement generally attribute the
theories infancy to Abelard. This theory and his reasons behind Christ’s death
were somewhat in the face of Anselm’s; where Anselm would have claimed that
Christ’s punishment on the cross was a necessity born out of our offence toward
His honor, Abelard would have claimed that His death was a cosmic illustration
of the sheer love God had for humanity and we are called by such love, to love
others in such a way—first receiving the love of Christ through the presentation
of it on the cross and therefore loving others likewise, thus justifying
ourselves before a loving God. So it is not so much that we owe God holiness
and cannot provide it so Christ did on our behalf, but that God is so loving
that we must show that quality (certainly by God’s grace) so that we are rendered
righteous and acceptable. An Abelardian formula might be this: God is love so
we must love in order to be reconciled to Him. On the other hand, the Anselmian
formula might be like this: God is honorable so we must have Christ’s holiness
to be reconciled to Him because our sin dishonors Him. So the primary effect of
the atonement was not to satisfy God’s wrath against ungodliness but rather, to
provide the ultimate example whereby we might become holy ourselves and
accepted by a holy God. In the final analysis Abelard, while not technically an
advocate of the “Moral Theory” of the atonement (for to say such a thing is to
engage in anachronism) does emphasis the reason for Christ’s death as being the
love of God toward men nearly to the exclusion of the Anselmian necessity of
Christ’s death for the purpose of appeasing the Father’s honor. Thus he is
interpreted by those actual proponents of an exclusively moral influence view
of the atonement and credited as the theological forbearer of their own novel
ideas of Christ’s work. What I find most interesting is that Abelard, as he
describes his understanding of the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice, he seems to
expose a sort of semi-Augustinian view of salvation. Whether his view of man’s
capacity to actually love God in some satisfactory sort of way as to cause his
merit leads to his view of the atonement or vice-versa, I dare not say with any
degree of certainty. But I will say that it is easy to observe the relationship
and ask this question: having rejected the “Ransom Theory” as the atonement’s
exclusive purpose, did Abelard adopt a semi-Augustinian anthropology and
henceforth react with the proposition of another extreme theory whereby sinners
are made righteous before God by the exhibition of their own love for Him. Like
most theologians, Abelard betrayed himself and appeared to answer both “sic et non”; “yes” and “no”. Here is one
instance of such an amalgamation of these two ideas: justification is by faith (not
yet alone as so strongly put forth by
Luther four centuries later) and justification is by love,
I said that by
particular works of the written law, that is, by those formal precepts of which
natural law knows nothing, no one is justified in God’s sight; but now, in this
dispensation of grace, a righteousness [translated justice elsewhere] of God—something which God approves and by which
we are justified in God’s sight, namely love—has been manifested, through the
teaching of the gospel, of course, apart from the law with its external and
particular requirements. Still, this is a ‘righteousness witnessed by the law
and the prophets,’ who also enjoin it. Upon what righteousness depends he [Paul]
adds immediately by saying, ‘The justice of God’ [Rom. 3:22]. He means the
faith of Christ which we hold concerning him—either by believing him or by
believing in him. And when he [Paul] continued, ‘Them that believe,’ he did not
specify anyone in particular, that it might impartially extended over all.”[i]
[i]
Peter Abelard, Exposition of the Epistle
to the Romans, trans. and ed. by Eugene R. Fairweather, M.A., B.D., Th.D,
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), 278.
No comments:
Post a Comment