Romans 5:7-9

For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

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


Concluding Remarks
     
 So, as I conclude I will make a summary comparison of the atonement theologies of the three men in question. We can say that Anslem approached the theory of substitutionary atonement as expressed in Reformed and Evangelical circles today: satisfaction for sins, the necessity of Christ’s death for our life, etc. The Abelardian view maintained that by God’s grace we are made lovers of God so as to prove our fellowship with him. Often loosely interpreted in our day as the moral theory of the atonement, it far more emphasized the idea of God’s love being shown through Christ’s passion than an answer to His justice. And Thomas’ view was worked out in the difference between the imputation of and the infusion of Christ’s righteousness to the believer; Thomas saw the atonement as a provision of the grace God used to make a sinner righteous before He called him just. His theory, like Anselm’s, counted on God’s grace, but where Anselm saw this in terms of God’s grace extended in mercy by forgiving the guilty because He punished the Innocent, Thomas saw it in more of what we would now consider Roman Catholic terms, that in order for God to call someone just that person must actually be just, thus God makes them so by infusing Christ’s righteousness thereby transmuting their soul from wickedness to righteousness.
Thus in the final assessment, even though their lives were separated by no more than 200 years, neither Anselm of Canterbury, nor Peter Abelard, nor Thomas Aquinas shared the same view of the atonement. Some of their ideas overlapped but the three of them drew rather different conclusions and therefore have influenced the world of theology in different ways: Anselm: penal substitution, Abelard: moral influence, and Aquinas: Roman Catholic Sacramentalism.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

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


Theological Comparisons

The Westminster Divines
     So to put forth what may be considered the present day expression of the Reformed view of the atonement, I shall employ the words of the Westminster Confession.
The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.[i]
     This is one basis for the present formulation of the atonement theory which is referred to as “penal substitution” or “substitutionary atonement”. It has been worked out in all its implications in various sources since then; to name a few reliable ones: Loraine Boettner, John Murray, J.I. Packer, Mark Dever, Leon Morris, Robert L. Reymond, and John Stott. This theory has obvious legal overtones and surmises that, being the due punishment for original and actual sins, Christ’s death was a substitute for our own which is henceforth applied by God’s gracious instrument—faith.



[i] Westminster Confession of Faith contributors, The Westminster Confession of Faith, (Georgia: Great Commission Publications, 2006), 33.

Friday, April 2, 2010

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

Theological Comparisons

Aquinas

It must first be pointed out that Thomas saw the need to conciliate God’s justice, which was quite different than the terms Anselm employed in his theory. “This is Aquinas' major difference with Anselm. Rather than seeing the debt as one of honor, he sees the debt as a moral injustice to be righted.”[i] Now regarding Thomas on the act of atonement itself, he first, with Anslem saw the necessity of Christ’s incarnation. “Now a mere man could not have satisfied for the whole human race, and God was not bound to satisfy; hence it was needful for Jesus Christ to be both God and man.”[ii] Secondly, that the death of Christ was perfectly satisfactory because of His infinite deity and was necessary due to the highly offensive nature of our sin. “…a sin committed against God has a kind of infinity from the infinity of the Divine majesty, because the greater the person we offend, the more grievous the offence. Hence for adequate satisfaction it was necessary that the act of the one satisfying should have an infinite efficacy, as being of God and man.”[iii] Thirdly, that Christ came into the world to blot out both original and actual sin. “It is certain that Christ came into this world not only to take away the sin which is handed on originally to posterity, but also in order to take away all sins subsequently added to it…”[iv]Fourth that in some way in Thomas’ mind, Christ’s merit is extended to the whole church. Thomas pointed out the objections to the merit of Christ extending to others by asserting that, just as Adam’s demerit is extended to the whole race physically, Christ’s merit is extended to the members of His body, the church, because He is its head. Thomas responded to those objections in these varied ways. “But Adam’s demerits reached to the condemnation of others. Much more, therefore does the merit of Christ reach others.”[v] And here is his logical progress from the representation of Adam to the representation of Christ, “As the sin of Adam reaches others only by carnal generation, so, too, the merit of Christ reaches others only by spiritual regeneration, which takes place in baptism; wherein we are incorporated with Christ…and it is by grace that it is granted to man to be regenerated in Christ. And thus man’s salvation is from grace.”[vi] Now it is clear from this last statement that Thomas’ understanding of the sacraments is in contrast to the Reformers, and that the division of the Calvinistic categories of the church into “visible” and invisible” are likewise not yet present. Even further, it is clear that Thomas differed from Anselm in yet another way.
Aquinas articulated the formal beginning of the idea of a superabundance of merit, which became the basis for the Catholic concept of the Treasury of Merit…Aquinas also articulated the ideas of salvation that are now standard within the Catholic church: that justifying grace is provided through the sacraments; that the condign merit of our actions is matched by Christ's merit from the Treasury of Merit; and that sins can be classified as mortal and venial. For Aquinas, one is saved by drawing on Christ's merit, which is provided through the sacraments of the church. Aquinas' view may sound like penal substitution, but he is careful to say that he does not intend substitution to be taken in legal terms[vii]
     Thus Thomas—I believe contrary to Gesner’s assertion, alluded to earlier—is now aligned with the current Roman Catholic understanding of the atonement, in all its parts and implications.


[i] New World Encyclopedia contributors. “Atonement (satisfaction view)”. New World Encyclopedia; 2008 Sep 4, 22:35 UTC [cited 17 Mar, 2010]. Online: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atonement_%28satisfaction_view%29?oldid=799847.
[ii] Thomas Aquinas, The Suma Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas: vol. II Daniel J. Sullivan, ed., (Chicago, London, Toronto: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952), 702.
[iii] Ibid. 704
[iv] Ibid. 706
[v] Ibid. 820
[vi] Ibid. 821
[vii] New World Encyclopedia contributors. “Atonement (satisfaction view)”. New World Encyclopedia; 2008 Sep 4, 22:35 UTC [cited 17 Mar, 2010]. Online: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Atonement_%28satisfaction_view%29?oldid=799847.