A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Aquinas - 1

Theological Comparisons

Aquinas

     So much could be said of the good Doctor Angelicus, Saint Thomas Aquinas; short life though he lived, his copious collection of theological musings warranted a more Methuselan period of time. On the particular doctrine of the atonement, Thomas has been quoted by Roman Catholic and protestant scholars both, as having held to their position. One such extreme instance of this is an article in Table Talk magazine where Dr. John Gerstner claimed that Saint Thomas held to justification by grace, through faith alone; while others remain more cautious because of the dichotomy he made between congruent and condign merit: congruent being that merit that one has outside of the gracious work of Christ and condign being that merit graciously provided by God, yet still a merit that Thomas finds in the act of the justification of a sinner. Make no mistake, Thomas firmly believed that God’s grace was absolutely necessary and any good deed would ultimately be attributed to its infusion. Thomas proved this in his own words,

Now everlasting life is a good exceeding the proportion of created nature; since it exceeds its knowledge and desire, according to 1 Cor. 2:9: ‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man.’ And hence it is that no created nature is a sufficient principle of an act meritorious of eternal life, unless there is added a supernatural gift, which we call grace.[i]

But therein lays the true issue. Thomas proved this in his own words as he attempted to answer this question, May a man, by God’s grace, condignly merit eternal life? To that effect, “If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting, it is meritorious of life everlasting condignly. For thus the value of its merit depends upon the power of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting according to John 4:14.”[ii]

The major difference in Thomas’ theory of atonement and that of Anselm’s is this idea of righteousness infused. To import our own categories into the discussion, the Reformers were careful to say that we are not made righteous at all (especially by the infusion of meritorious acts such as belief), but that we are instead declared righteous on account of Christ’s merit for us. This was in fact Anselm’s position; he claimed that Christ’s death—which was an act over and above what God demands of all His creatures, a life of perfect obedience—merited infinite righteousness which would be imparted, as an alien source, to the sinner God chose to benefit. Thomas’s opinion of the sinner made righteous before God, graciously being given the capacity to do that which God commanded, was what he referred to as the transmutation of the human soul. By virtue of the soul being caused to obey, the person becomes righteous before God, therefore God can (and is in fact obliged—insinuated by Thomas) really and actually call the person righteous because they indeed are righteous.

---

[i] Thomas Aquinas, “Suma Theologica,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library ST Ia.114.2. Cited 17 March 2010. Online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FS_Q114_A2.html

[ii] Thomas Aquinas, “Suma Theologica,” Christian Classics Ethereal Library ST Ia.114.3. Cited 17 March 2010. Online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FS_Q114_A3.html.

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Mix up

Sorry folks...got a couple of the posts miss-timed. Notice the section of Anselm divided in two; the earlier post was supposed to follow the one posted on 3/29.

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Anselm - 1

Theological Comparisons

 Anselm

     Anselm, being perhaps the first theologian in 800 years to say so, did not find propitious, this theory of atonement which had an exclusive emphasis on ransom, thus facilitating his proposition of another theory. Anselm’s pioneering ideas in general proved to have influenced a 1000 years of atonement theology since his death. 55 years ago one philosopher described Anselm in this way.

The theology of Anselm is so full of rational speculation that one of his historians has labeled it a “Christian rationalism,”[i] Its ambivalence is due to the fact that, expressing the inner life of faith that seeks understanding, it is both overflowing with a religious feeling which sometimes borders on mysticism and full of dialectical passion which translates faith into terms of rational necessity. Hence its twofold influence in the fields of theology and of philosophy.[ii]

Though this sounds somewhat critical, the influence can’t be denied. He went so far as to object to the contemporary trend of questioning the radical nature of the cross because of its abject violence—why would the God of the universe chose to show His love to His creatures in such a brutal way? Anselm was careful to point out that this God could only incarnate the way that He did and that incarnation could only lead to the end we observe through the narrative of the four Gospels. Anselm put to his readers this hypothetical objection to God’s death on a cross,

Therefore, if he was willing to save the human race only in the way you described when he could have done it by sheer will, to put it mildly, you really disparage his wisdom. For surely, if for no reason a man did by hard labor what he could have done with ease no one would regard him as wide. And you have no rational ground for saying that God showed in this way how much he loved us unless you can show that it was quite impossible for him to save man in some other way.[iii]

It’s not as though God was forced to restore the relationship of His creatures and creation to Himself after it had been broken by Adam’s sin, but when He chose to do so He chose to reconcile some of mankind to Himself by not imputing the consequence of Adam’s sin to them, thus forgiving them their debts and loving them instead. But it is not as though this sin and offense—one we know is infinite because it is an offense against an infinite God—no longer exists and God has simple shrugged it off the way we do when we are actually asked to forgive one another. On the contrary, the sins we have committed, the sin nature we have inherited from Adam must be dealt with even if it is not counted to our own debt. So Anselm postulated the representation of Christ as our sin bearer, converse to our representation in Adam as he sinned and stored up guilt for all his children to inherit. Christ on the other hand stored up positive merit for our inheritance which should be counted to us by the Father in place of our demerit.

---

[i] H. Bouchitte, Le rationalisme chretien de saint Anselme,—Anslem as “father of scholasticism”: M. Grabman, Geschichte der schol. Meth., I, (Paris, 1842), 58.

[ii] Etienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York: Random House, 1955), 139.

[iii] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, in A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, trans. and ed. by Eugene R. Fairweather, M.A., B.D., Th.D, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), 107

 

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Abelard - 2

Theological Comparisons

Abelard

His comment begins regarding Rom. 3:21 and Abelard was quick to separate the formal, covenantal Law from the natural transcendent law of God and he then went on to make a contrast between the age prior to Christ when that formal Law ruled, and his present age, ruled, as he said, by grace, the age in which Christ has been manifest through the teaching of the gospel. And when we read further we see that Abelard made an additional contrast between the Law (be it formal or natural, it is not clear from his comments here) and love for God. Whereas, I believe the more orthodox position is that love for God is the fulfillment of God’s formal Law, not only an aspect of God’s natural law. Here is that contrast, “A righteousness, I say, imparted to all the faithful in the higher part of their being—in the soul where alone love can exist—and not a matter of the display of outward works.”[i] And then there are those passages that seem to exonerate Abelard of a justification by anything other than faith and show a doctrine of atonement more like that of Anselm than of Niebuhr or Tillich. “‘In his blood.’ [citing Paul’s letter to the Romans] This means by his death; and since this propitiation is set forth and established by God, not for all but only for those who believe, he adds, ‘Through faith’[citing Paul’s letter to the Romans]; for this reconciliation affects them only who have believed it and hoped in it.”[ii] But then, as one might expect, there are the occasions of his leaning toward what we now call the “Moral Influence” theory,

By the faith which we hold concerning Christ love is increased in us by virtue of the conviction that God in Christ has united our human nature to himself and, by suffering in that same nature, has demonstrated to us that perfection of love…So we, through his grace are joined to him as closely as to our neighbor by an indissoluble bond of affection...[iii]

And this comment further on in Rom. 3:26, “In other words, to show forth his love to us, or convince us how much we ought to love him who ‘sparred not even his own son’ [citing Paul’s letter to the Romans] for us…That is to say that through this righteousness [the showing of God’s righteousness or justice as in v. 26]—which is love—we may gain remission of our sins”[iv]

The common view of Abelard in the last 100 years or so can be summed up in the words of Sam Storms, “In fairness to Abelard, it would be a mistake to conclude that he omitted all reference to the sacrifice of Christ as a payment for our sin. Yet, his emphasis is clearly on the subjective effects of that sacrifice rather than its objective relationship to the wrath of God.”[v] Abelard’s primary emphasis therefore being the equation of love and righteousness (being justified), I believe the Abelardian theory of the atonement is positively stated, by God’s grace we are made lovers of Him and those who love God are justified before Him. Or, in the final accounting we are justified by faith and our love for the Father; the Father gives us this capacity to love Him, by His grace, therefore we are saved by grace through our love of God. It must be noted that “love for God” in the sense that Abelard used in his commentary on Romans in particular, encompasses faith; so there is no justification without love for God, there is no love for God without faith.

---

[i] Ibid., 278

[ii]Ibid., 279

[iii] Ibid., 278

[iv] Ibid., 279

[v] Sam Storms, “11) Anselm” [cited 13 March, 2010]. Online: http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/11-anselm/

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Abelard - 1

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.

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Anselm - 2

Theological Comparisons

Anselm

In his formulation of God’s purpose in the atonement, Anselm used an idea that nearly every Medieval European could have understood; His ideas were illustrated by the cultural practices in which he found himself imbedded. In his attempt to rationally explain the incarnation of God, Cur Deus Homo, Anselm found himself describing what the atonement meant and why God did it the way that He did. He spoke of our offence against God as being akin to the offence against a nobleman—and in the feudal structure to which they were so very accustomed, they knew all too well that the offence against one of nobility would result in the harshest kind of punishment and required the most laborious type of compensation. It was in this context that Anselm developed his understanding of the atoning work of Christ—or at least attempted to illustrate it. It should be noted that Anselm received some critique for his use of feudal terms to illustrate the glorious atonement of Christ. Some were scandalized that he would speak of God’s honor rather than His holiness, but in the view of this author, the idea presents the same result, especially for us looking back. We see Anselm’s rendering in contrast to others of his day and that being the case, we should easily stomach his use of feudal nomenclature to describe the atonement differently than the “Ransom Theory” before him.

To add nuance to this idea of God’s honor being offended as a vassal might offend his king, listen to Anselm’s own words, “B. What is the debt which we owe God? A. Every inclination of the rational creature ought to be subject to the will of God…One who does not render this honor to God take away from God what belongs to him, and dishonors God, and to do this is sin.”[i] Put positively Anselm’s theory is this, that the offence of man against God was so heinous and God’s holiness is so contrary to it that, the penalty for the offence had to be reconciled, and that reconciliation had therefore to be made by God Himself, hence His own death on a cross. One primary element of Anselm’s theory was that all persons, all humans, Christ included, owed God perfect obedience. Obviously Christ is the only One who will ever fill that demand, but Anselm’s point was that God required something over and above that He required, that Christ would die to fulfill the obligation for the forgiveness of the human race. And Christ would be rewarded with the salvation of His bride. Some extrapolated version of this formula is the current atonement theory that Reformed community and a majority of Evangelicalism regards as orthodox. We call it “penal substitution”, “substitutionary atonement”, or the “Satisfaction Theory”.

---

[i] Ibid. (119)

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Theological Comparisons: Preface

     Now we will begin to consider the varied renderings of atonement theology as represented by these three monumental figures. In the years prior to Anselm, the prevailing view of the atonement was called the “Ransom Theory”. Perhaps this idea was in part a hold-over from the dualistic tendencies of the Gnostics or Manicheans, it presents the ultimate goal of the atonement as being one where God was on mission to rescue or ransom sinners from their owner and master, the devil. So, after Adam’s sin his posterity was plunged into the servant-hood of God’s antithesis, Satan. And God, loving those He had predetermined to save, paid the penalty those poor sinners owed the devil so to ransom them out of their bondage to him and free them to the service of the King Jesus.

A Comparison of Christ's Atonement in the Medieval Scholastic Period - Introduction

     When comparing three of the most prominent theologians of the Medieval Scholastic period: Anselm, Peter Abelard and St. Thomas Aquinas, one must note their relative places in time. Thus I will rightly begin with Anselm, born in the Italian village of Aosta, who lived from 1033 to 1109. His memory enjoys the titles, “The Tongue of Augustine” and “The Second Augustine” because of his self conscious effort to appropriate that great man’s theology, and as we shall hopefully see—if one can imagine it—even emulate certain aspects of it. And rightly so, for whom else in the 1000 years prior to Anselm was a theological mind worthy of such flattery? Would anyone dare to disagree that before Anselm, Augustine was the name that sticks out among those theologians whose words are necessary to consult. It is true, many great men and women lived in those so called, “Dark Ages” between these two men: Gregory the Great in the 6^th century and Scotus Erigena in the 9^th are but two examples. But the scope of this paper lies within the 2^nd millennia.

Like Augustine before him was posthumously referred to as the “Father of Medieval Theology”, Anselm turned out to be considered the father of the time following his life; in hindsight, he is considered the “Father of Medieval Scholasticism”. I make these observations, as I will likewise do with Peter Abelard and Saint Thomas Aquinas, in order to highlight the importance of these men in the progress of theological thoughts and philosophical meanderings that take us on a journey from the Ransom Theory of the atonement to the various theories adopted in the Scholastic Period.

Peter Abelard lived from 1079 to 1142; being born in a village in France called Le Pallet, lived most of his life in France. Abelard’s most notable historical moment may actually have had nothing to do with his work on the theory of universals called, conceptualism, or his ideas on the atonement, or his being condemned as a heretic, but his forbidden romance with his most beautiful and intellectually deserving student Heloise. Their love for one another has been burned in the annals of time by pen and brushstroke alike.

Where Anselm is lauded by the Church as a hero, Abelard was condemned as a heretic under the judgment of Bernard of Clairvaux only one year before his death in 1142, having aged 63 years). Though he stood against the Nominalists with Thomas on the issues of universals, his heterodox views along with his extracurricular interests cause his memory to thus be rewarded by a strange mix of both scathing remarks and admiration.

Lastly, one of the 33 esteemed “Doctors of the Church”, Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, “…was born in 1225, in the family castle at Roccasecca. Forty-nine years later on March 7, 1274, he died at Fossanova, perhaps 20 kilometers distant from his birthplace. Between those two he had lived in Naples, Cologne, Paris, Rome, Orvieto, Viterbo, Paris again, and finally Naples.” [i] Thomas is considered by many to be the foremost Catholic Theologian, having contributed to the doctrinal definitions now extolled by Roman Catholics and also having shaped the pagan philosophy of the late Medieval Period and Western thought thereafter. Like Anselm and Abelard—and their intellectual ancestor Origin—he too was largely concerned with the marriage of faith and knowledge. Though the three of them would have disagreed on the vows and terms of this marriage, the thought of divorcing the two disciplines wasn’t even marginal. Thomas’ contribution to the world of philosophy has been far reaching, having philosophers even as recent as Etienne Gilson referring to themselves as “Thomists”; a category bearing the name of its pioneer, Thomas Aquinas.

---

[i] Ralph M. McInerny, Aquinas (Blackwell Publishing Ltd: Oxford, 2004), 3.

New Series - Theories of Christ's Atonement

Today, after a long respite, I will begin a new series of posts that will be generated out of a paper I just completed. The topic is the doctrine of Christ's atonement and its formulation through the Medieval Scholastic Period (1000-1500). This series will deal with three theologian/philosophers from that period: Anselm the Bishop of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, and Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Exposition on Joel -43 - Summary

1.    Introduction—1:1

2.    Warning—1:2-1:20

a.    Locust Image/Comparison to the Past—1:3-4

b.    Description of impending judgment—1:5-18

                           i.      Call for drunkards to mourn—1:5

                         ii.      Call for priests to mourn—1:8:9,13,14

                        iii.      Call for farmers to mourn—1:10-12

c.    Joel’s Prayer—1:19-20

3.    Judgment—2:1-11

a.    Description of invader

4.    Call to Repentance—2:12-17

a.    Description of Repentance

5.    Promise of Restorations & Vindications—2:18-3:21

a.    Temporal restoration—2:18-27

b.    Eternal Restoration & Vindication—2:28-3:21

                           i.      DotL—The Come & The Coming Kingdom

1.       pouring out of the Holy Spirit—2:28-32

2.       justice and mercy—destruction/deliverance—3:1-17

3.       eternal inheritance—3:18-21