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

Exposition on Joel -42 - 3:9-21

1.    Vv. 9-16—Images of war – for everyone

a.    Vv. 9-12—Joel foretold of a time when God would provoke the nations of His enemies to war.

                           i.      V. 9—all people great in statue and small were warned to prepare.

1.       The enemies of God need all the help they can get.

                         ii.      V. 10—time for harvesting grain & grape would be replaced by time for God to harvest enemies.

1.       God’s enemies were being called to fight but it has they who would be harvested.

2.       10c—even the weak must fight, there is no longer a choice.

                        iii.      V. 11a—the nations are called to gather quickly.

                       iv.      V. 11b—A shift in the proclamation.

1.       Joel prayed that God would call His army (mighty men) to battle these Gentile armies.

                         v.      V. 12—God stirred the nations to judgment.

1.       12a—Joel invited the nations to battle, almost like a taunt.

2.       12b—the armies are called to the Valley called, “The Lord has Judged”.

3.       12c—God’s justice is proclaimed. He declared intentions to judge the nations by this war.

b.    V. 13—Joel shifted his voice to utter God’s call to His people for their participation.

                           i.      God called the people to do battle with the nations, ensuring their destruction.

1.       God’s people are to finally judge even those God used to judge them.

2.       Like Rev. 14:18 Joel used agricultural bounty to describe fullness of time of judgment.

c.    V. 14—Battle in the Valley of Jehoshaphat is compared to the DotL.

                           i.      Many people are there in this valley of “judicial declaration”.

d.    V. 15—Familiar imagery for the darkness of destruction/vindication.

                           i.      Apocalyptic language doesn’t have to be interpreted literally to be taken seriously (2:10, 30).

                         ii.      Hebraism describing darkness of a day—the DotL which may in fact be more than 1 – 24 day.

                        iii.      Image represents the natural order turned on its head.

1.       Think of the recreation or the resurrection of the Heavens and the Earth.

2.       There must be death for there to be resurrection.

e.    V. 16—this is a transition verse. The Lord is a Judge and Advocate.

                           i.      16a—the Lion of Judah devours His prey. This is a statement of His power over His enemies.

                         ii.      16b—the Lion of Judah delivers His people (Ps. 142:5; Jer. 16:19).

2.    V. 17-21—Images of Peace – for Judah/Jerusalem

a.    17a—Section book ended by declaration of God being the Lord of His people.

                           i.      Lion’s actions demonstrate great power of deliverance/affiliation with Holy Place—Zion.

b.    17b—Jerusalem (place & people) are Holy by virtue of their association with the Lord.

                           i.      Never invaded again—complete reversal of curse of invasion/exile (2:27—thesis of Joel).

c.    V. 18-19—Description of Kingdom consummation

                           i.      18—this is the final reversal of the covenantal curses—consummated at “that day” of eternity.

1.       18a—wine, milk, honey, & produce were all images of Heaven that Jews could understand.

2.       18b—the Valley of Shittim (surrounding Jordan from Sea of Galilee to Dead Sea)

a.     Dry and barren place where only Acacia trees grow, will one day flourish with greenery.

b.     The fountain that irrigates the inhabited eternal Land comes from a place and a people, both of which are used as instruments of blessing through dominion.

                         ii.      19—the final destruction of God’s enemies is part of the final deliverance of His people.

1.       Punished for their treatment of God’s people is like the punishment they inflicted.

d.    Vv. 20-21—Summary of the effects of the DotL

                           i.      20—Promise of eternal inhabitation reverses the curse of exile.

1.       Some say this is only the redeemed Jews inhabiting an eternal/recreated physical land.

a.     Land is recreated but Judah/Jerusalem is an image of the eternal Land for all God’s elect.

                         ii.      21—Promise of final vindication

1.       In the midst of the terrorization of His people, God encouraged remnant by this promise.

2.       The Promise of God’s eternal presence is the bookend of the section of verses—17-21.

Exposition on Joel -41 - 2:28-3:8

1.      Overview 2:28-3:8

a.       Joel described the New Covenant age using 2 primary elements:

                           i.      Out pouring of the Spirit.

1.      Compressed its beginning (Spirit pouring out) with its end (prophesy, dreams, & visions).

                         ii.      The coming DotL.

1.      Described the restoration/vindication/deliverance of God’s people.

2.      Described the retribution/destruction of their enemies.

2.      2:28-29—The Spirit in the NT

a.       Joel continues in his prophetic perfect verb tense.

                           i.      Indication of timing: “afterward”. After the restoration of the physical remnant to Jerusalem.

b.      Prophesy of the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 2)

                           i.      Spirit in OC/NC

1.      No lack of controversy over this difference. Not as much difference as some perceive.

a.       Spirit always illuminates and regenerates—OC & NC

2.      Localization of the Spirit – OC

a.       Spirit filled the Community as a whole

3.      Democratization of the Spirit – NC

a.       Spirit fills every individual in the Community now—same Community.

b.      This is the primary function of Joel’s mention of the Spirit—poured out on all flesh.

c.       Didn’t adopt universalism but the expansion of Kingdom to all tribes & tongues.

                         ii.      Evidences of the differences

1.      Great Commission

2.      Democratization within the Kingdom

a.       Signs

                                                                     i.      Prophesy

                                                                   ii.      Dreams

                                                                  iii.      Visions

b.      Scope

                                                                     i.      Spirit’s inhabitation is no longer “officially oriented”. (Priesthood of believer).

                                                                   ii.      Trans-class inhabitation.

3.      2:30-32—Prediction of the NC era—the beginning to the end is compressed.

a.       Signs of the end of the age.

                           i.      Wonders in the heavens & on Earth.

                         ii.      Blood, fire, & columns of smoke.

b.      Salvation is in Zion; salvation is in Jerusalem.

                           i.      Images of the Eternal City—Heaven.

4.      3:1-4—The DotL

a.       Fortune is found in Judah & Jerusalem.

                           i.      Indication of timing: “in those days…” In or associated with the NC era (described in 2:28-32).

                         ii.      When does this restoration take place? Only a few options:

1.      Physical restoration of remnant in 516.

2.      Physical restoration in some future era (Rom. 11:24-25).

3.      Prophetic account of  the final DotL

a.       Final deliverance for believers throughout all ages.

b.      Final Judgment for unbelievers.

b.      Judgment is found in the nations gathered in the Valley of Jehoshaphat (see 3:12 also).

                           i.      2:20—God judged Babylonian army specifically for invading (historical import).

                         ii.      3:2-3—God judged all the nations for terrorizing His people/Land (eschatological import).

                        iii.      Reasons for the destruction of the nations.

1.      Took nation into exile.

2.      Divided up the Land.

3.      Traded people as slaves and prostitutes.

                       iv.      God forsakes Tyre and Sidon (coastal cities in Lebanon— >100 miles north of Jerusalem).

1.      These two cities represented the enemies of God’s Kingdom.

a.       Calvin notes that the “Greeks” in v. 5 are “people beyond the [Mediterranean] sea”.

b.      Similar prophesy against Tyre in the OT—Is. 23, Jer. 27; 47, Zech. 9

c.       NT—Matt. 21:11, Luke 10:13.

2.      Relationship described in terms of debt and payment.

3.      God reverses the curse He sent on Judah and hands it to the destroying nation.

a.       God would punish the punisher by giving them to the Judeans.

b.      God would exile the very nation He used to judge Israel to a distant land—Sabeans: (Job 1—murdered his children, Is. 45—given to Judah as retribution, Men of Sheba—1 Kings 10:1-13; Jer. 6:20.)