Atonement: Satisfaction or Recapitulation?

[icamhif]

I see that you are quoting many scriptural passages in support of the idea of penal substitution. Now, it is not my intention to dispute that a nascent version of penal substitution is found in the scriptures and the fathers (though this is controversial in scholarly contexts), though it can be hard to distinguish between penal substitution which relies on a framework of satisfaction and the ransom theory, which does not. Many Orthodox thinkers, I must note however, do find fault with the framework of satisfaction.

Since that is in fact the topic of this thread (satisfaction vs. recapitulation), I would simply like to ask you a few questions. Do you think that Anselm’s framework of satisfaction as laid out in Cur Deus Homo is either obvious or self-evident from the scriptures? Is it, for example, self-evident from scripture that God cannot cover up sins with compassion (chapter XII) or that the honor of God can be found in the punishment of the wicked (chapter XIV) and that God consequently must punish the wicked since he cannot suffer any loss of honor (chapter XIII and chapter XV)? Similarly, do you find the recapitulation theory to be self-evident in scripture? In other words, is it self-evident from scripture that Christ’s saving passion and resurrection established a new manner of existence for humanity, and that by being joined to Christ, we are joined to this new manner of existence? Naturally, these questions could also be extended to the fathers as well, if you so wish.

Thank you, Cavaradossi, for helping to keep this thread on topic.

 

[KjetilK]

But why death specifically?

Some of our Jewish forbearers were expecting a Messiah in glory and triumph - so I’m still puzzled.

If we entirely remove the satisfaction elements, it seems to me that we’re left with a lot more questions. That’s fine, but it’s not easy.

But the ‘satisfaction elements’ doesn’t entail that Christ was punished as if he was guilty. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[Matthew_Light]

This is interesting reading as well:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

 

[Seraphim73]

But why death specifically?

Some of our Jewish forbearers were expecting a Messiah in glory and triumph - so I’m still puzzled.

If we entirely remove the satisfaction elements, it seems to me that we’re left with a lot more questions. That’s fine, but it’s not easy.

Well there are lots of elements. Christ died to fulfill all righteousness and to destroy death by His own death. When light meets darkness it is the darkness that is dispelled. When life itself entered death it is death that is destroyed.

 

[benjohnson]

But the ‘satisfaction elements’ doesn’t entail that Christ was punished as if he was guilty. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Agreed! Christ’s sacrifice for us is all the more poignant because He is the spotless victim.

 

[KjetilK]

Agreed! Christ’s sacrifice for us is all the more poignant because He is the spotless victim.

Yes, but he is NOT the victim of the Father’s wrath.

The way he atoned for our transgressions was that he offered God satisfaction; he gave God something that surpassed the punishment. He gave himself as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, an ongoing sacrifrice (cf. 1John 2:2, Heb 7:24-25, 8:1-3) that we may partake of in faith, and through the sacraments (especially the Eucharist).

 

[Indifferently]

Yes, but he is NOT the victim of the Father’s wrath.

The way he atoned for our transgressions was that he offered God satisfaction; he gave God something that surpassed the punishment. He gave himself as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, an ongoing sacrifrice (cf. 1John 2:2, Heb 7:24-25, 8:1-3) that we may partake of in faith, and through the sacraments (especially the Eucharist).

Well, both are true. Jesus Christ was once for all the object of the Father’s wrath when he bore our sins on the cross. He became sin (2 Cor. 5:21). He was forsaken by the Father. The darkness fell as he was on the cross.

Nevertheless, yes, in the Eucharist, we come through his wounds to offer the heavenly Father the sacrifice of thanks and praise that is possible by his one perfect oblation.

 

[Indifferently]

Gal. 3:13 - Jesus was cursed on the cross.

 

[ericc]

There is still something not quite just about punishing an innocent man for another person wrong. Adam sinned and he paid for it with his death. So his descendants now became deficient in some way and heaven is not accessible to them. Jesus torture and death opened the gates of heaven to all of us.

A) But why the torture? He could die a less painful death, like in his sleep.
B) why death? Isn’t other punishment efficacious?
C) Children of Adam continue to die and suffer bodily and possibly spiritually. So the penalty still remains in some manner. In what way did Jesus death satisfy Adam’s debt that Adam hasn’t paid yet?

I don’t know much about this theology. But would love to understand this better. It just seems so unfair to Jesus. I understand the concept of his love for us, but I don’t understand how it could right the wrong. A father may pay for the damage caused by his son, but there is nothing that the father can do to right the wrong done by the wrongdoer. Punishing the father does not make it just either. Willingness to substitute for the son’s punishment demonstrate the father’s love only. Why would God The Father exact such a high price on his beloved Son? I must be missing something big.

I hope to be enlightened some day.

 

[Indifferently]

There is still something not quite just about punishing an innocent man for another person wrong. Adam sinned and he paid for it with his death. So his descendants now became deficient in some way and heaven is not accessible to them. Jesus torture and death opened the gates of heaven to all of us.

A) But why the torture? He could die a less painful death, like in his sleep.
B) why death? Isn’t other punishment efficacious?
C) Children of Adam continue to die and suffer bodily and possibly spiritually. So the penalty still remains in some manner. In what way did Jesus death satisfy Adam’s debt that Adam hasn’t paid yet?

I don’t know much about this theology. But would love to understand this better. It just seems so unfair to Jesus. I understand the concept of his love for us, but I don’t understand how it could right the wrong. A father may pay for the damage caused by his son, but there is nothing that the father can do to right the wrong done by the wrongdoer. Punishing the father does not make it just either. Willingness to substitute for the son’s punishment demonstrate the father’s love only. Why would God The Father exact such a high price on his beloved Son? I must be missing something big.

I hope to be enlightened some day.

It’s partly mysterious, but I think western individualism makes this a lot more difficult for us to understand. Because we find the covenantal view of identity that Scripture teaches so alien to us, we’re likely to say that we think it’s unjust that the curse of Adam’s sin should be visited upon his posterity. We’re likely also to say that God is unjust when giving out the decalogue, to say that he will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children.

But if we think these are unjust, we must also think the blessedness that God promises is unjust too. Without the imputation of sin, we can’t have the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

God, if you like, sets the terms here. Substitutionary atonement is woven into the very fabric of the economy of our relationship with God. In fact, God says that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb. 9:22). This is mysterious to us.

And yet, without vicarious atonement, we have no hope of a relationship with God. Thank God for the mystery of Christ’s death! Without it, we should have to pay the debt ourselves, consumed by God in sacrifice, in an everlasting fire (Matt. 25:41).

 

[KjetilK]

He became sin (2 Cor. 5:21).

No, he did not. The Greek noun ἁμαρτία can mean sin, but it can also mean sin offering. If we say that he became a sin offering, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he became sin. But to say that he became sin is just self-contradictory. The one who has no sin cannot BECOME sin.

And the fact that he rose from the dead also disproves this. A friend of me asked me why Jesus rose from the dead. He asked: If he died for our sins, as this is understood in Reformed circles, wouldn’t that break the deal?

And the answer is that on a Calvinistic reading, he is right on the money. If our punishment is everlasting damnation, and if salvation meant that Jesus took our punishment, and we took his righteousness, then the resurrection would break the deal. It would mean that Jesus didn’t take our punishment, as that would entail him being damned (or ‘being sin’) for ever and ever.

So no, salvation is not a ‘transfer of penalty.’ Christ is NOT our replacement onto whom God could inflict punishment. He is our representative, offering himself as a gift to God.

 

[benjohnson]

Yes, but he is NOT the victim of the Father’s wrath.

The way he atoned for our transgressions was that he offered God satisfaction; he gave God something that surpassed the punishment. He gave himself as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, an ongoing sacrifrice (cf. 1John 2:2, Heb 7:24-25, 8:1-3) that we may partake of in faith, and through the sacraments (especially the Eucharist).

Well said!

For if anything, scripturally, it was our own wrath that tortured and then killed Him.

 

[benjohnson]

. He was forsaken by the Father.

I would point out that the what Jesus expressed on the Cross is the beginning of Psalm 22 that ends with:

All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship;
before him shall bow all who go down to the dust,
even the one who could not keep himself alive.
Posterity shall serve him;
it shall be told of the Lord to the
coming generation; they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it.

My limited understanding is that Jesus understands what us humans go through when we feel forsaken, but that He was telling us to trust that He will fulfill his promises.

 

[SyCarl]

No, he did not. The Greek noun ἁμαρτία can mean sin, but it can also mean sin offering. If we say that he became a sin offering, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he became sin. But to say that he became sin is just self-contradictory. The one who has no sin cannot BECOME sin.

And the fact that he rose from the dead also disproves this. A friend of me asked me why Jesus rose from the dead. He asked: If he died for our sins, as this is understood in Reformed circles, wouldn’t that break the deal?

And the answer is that on a Calvinistic reading, he is right on the money. If our punishment is everlasting damnation, and if salvation meant that Jesus took our punishment, and we took his righteousness, then the resurrection would break the deal. It would mean that Jesus didn’t take our punishment, as that would entail him being damned (or ‘being sin’) for ever and ever.

So no, salvation is not a ‘transfer of penalty.’ Christ is NOT our replacement onto whom God could inflict punishment. He is our representative, offering himself as a gift to God.

First let me say that there is no reason to limit the atonement to any one theory. It can have many aspects. It is not even necessary to know how Jesus atoned for our sins, just that he did. Also, although I am a Presbyterian, I do not accept all of Calvin’s teachings.

That said when it comes to punishment, what we would suffer is an infinite punishment. It can be argued that Jesus also experienced an infinite punishment. Ours is infinite because it would be eternal. Jesus’ punishment would be infinite due to His nature, being infinite God.

 

[KjetilK]

First let me say that there is no reason to limit the atonement to any one theory.

It’s a good thing, then, that I did no such thing.

It can have many aspects.

Yes, but there is a huge difference between ‘limiting the atonement to any one theory’ and rejecting theories of atonement that involves absurdities and contradictions. One such idea is the theory that Christ was punished with an infinite punishment that was finite.

That said when it comes to punishment, what we would suffer is an infinite punishment. It can be argued that Jesus also experienced an infinite punishment. Ours is infinite because it would be eternal. Jesus’ punishment would be infinite due to His nature, being infinite God.

Are you seriously not seeing that contradiction here? What you are saying is that Christ, as the all-good, all-holy, non-changing God, changed and experienced infinite punishment for sin.

 

[benjohnson]

Are you seriously not seeing that contradiction here? What you are saying is that Christ, as the all-good, all-holy, non-changing God, changed and experienced infinite punishment for sin.

Father, you’ve got me curious - do you reject this because of logic only?

The logical argument you’ve given reminds me of Zwingli’s eucharistic argument that the finite morsel of bread can’t contain the infinite God.

So I would like more to stand on that just human logic if you could point me to the right place.

 

[Indifferently]

Lutherans love the snap at the heels of the Reformed, even though they usually don’t understand Reformed theology and seem to read it through the caricatures of their own synodical and confessional documents.

 

[steido01]

Lutherans love the snap at the heels of the Reformed, even though they usually don’t understand Reformed theology and seem to read it through the caricatures of their own synodical and confessional documents.

Congrats on the 1,000th post.

To be fair, many Reformed don’t understand Reformed theology. See: PCUSA, and some Anglican communions.

 

[Indifferently]

Congrats on the 1,000th post.

To be fair, many Reformed don’t understand Reformed theology. See: PCUSA, and some Anglican communions.

I know that.

My frustration is that Lutheranism and Reformed theology are not altogether different. Those who are Reformed recognize this, and acknowledge that Lutheran churches teach the true gospel - not something that Reformed Christians readily grant to many other systems with which we are not in total agreement. Lutherans on the other hand treat us who are Reformed as if we are pariahs and adherents to a totally different religion.

There are exceptions. Rod Rosenbladt (a lecturer at Concordia) was a long-time contributor to the Reformed “White Horse Inn” radio show.

 

[steido01]

My frustration is that Lutheranism and Reformed theology are not altogether different.

I can understand the frustration; we do have much in common, and I spend a good amount of time on Reformed websites, as well as Catholic (but mostly Lutheran ).

I think it’s also important to keep in mind that there is also much that separates Lutherans from the Reformed. Just take this thread. When it comes to Atonement: Limited vs. Unlimited Atonement and Double Predestination vs. Predestination of the Elect, just to name two. These cause significant shifts when approaching other theological concepts.