Atonement: Satisfaction or Recapitulation?

[benjohnson]

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

Thanks for bearing with us!

 

[KjetilK]

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.

First, Zwingli’s eucharistic argument is what it is because he was a premature modernist. He couldn’t manage to think outside a purely empirical view.

Second, I do not reject this just because of ‘human logic’ (whatever that means). I primarily reject the idea of ‘penal substitution’ because it is a novelty introduced in the 16th century without any precedence. Of course, novelties may be introduced. That the Father and the Son is ‘of the same essence’ is a novelty in that it is a term that wasn’t being used before 325 AD. But it had precedence, and was logically sound.

That ‘Christ was damed finitely infinitely’ for our sake is an idea without any precedence. You won’t find it in Scripture, and you won’t find it in the Tradition of the Church, written or unwritten.

John Calvin tried to present himself as part of the Anselmian tradition. The problem was that he added to it the idea of a ‘transfer of penalty,’ thus rejecting the very core of the Anselmian idea, i.e. that a wrongdoing could be atoned for either by punishment of the wrongdoer or by satisfaction made by the wrongdoer or a representative. Aut poena aut satisfactio, ‘either punishment or satisfaction.’ Note the either/or. This, unfortunately, can be said of Luther, too. Fortunately his idea never made it into the confessions. At least not in his Small Catechism or Confessio Augustana.

You should read Paul Fiddes’ book Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement (Westminster/John Knox Press 1989), especially chapter five, ‘The demands of justice’ (pp.83-111). The whole chapter can be read on Google Books. He writes (p.97-98):

Anselm rejects a view of ‘penal substitution’; Christ is not punished in our place, but releases us from punishment through satisfaction. When, however, later on in the Reformation period, the Roman view of criminal law as a supreme principle had been re-established in society, replacing feudal law, there could be no alternative to punishment if the law were infringed. The only satisfaction that could be offered to outraged justice was punishment. When Calvin built a theory of atonement upon the principle of divine justice, he therefore concluded that ‘the guilt, which held us liable to punishment, was transferred to the head of the Son of God’. God’s law had been infringed through human sin, and so penatly must be inflicted upon offenders in orders to maintain the moral order of the universe.

Read the entire chapter.

So it is a combination. I reject this primarily because it is found neither in Scripture nor in Tradition, and cannot be reconciled with either, and also because it is blatantly contradictory. So I think I have ‘pointed you to the right place.’ It doesn’t just stand on ‘human logic’ (whatever that means). But it cannot contradict it either.

 

[benjohnson]

First, Zwingli’s eucharistic argument is what it is because he was a premature modernist. He couldn’t manage to think outside a purely empirical view.

Good way of putting it.

Second, I do not reject this just because of ‘human logic’ (whatever that means).

I’m only contrasting ‘human’ logic as a misapplication of God’s gift of reason to Him with theological study of what God has revealed.

I primarily reject the idea of ‘penal substitution’ because it is a novelty introduced in the 16th century without any precedence. Of course, novelties may be introduced. That the Father and the Son is ‘of the same essence’ is a novelty in that it is a term that wasn’t being used before 325 AD. But it had precedence, and was logically sound.

Agreed… along with John 10:30

That ‘Christ was damed finitely infinitely’ for our sake is an idea without any precedence. You won’t find it in Scripture, and you won’t find it in the Tradition of the Church, written or unwritten.

John Calvin tried to present himself as part of the Anselmian tradition. The problem was that he added to it the idea of a ‘transfer of penalty,’ thus rejecting the very core of the Anselmian idea, i.e. that a wrongdoing could be atoned for either by punishment of the wrongdoer or by satisfaction made by the wrongdoer or a representative. Aut poena aut satisfactio, ‘either punishment or satisfaction.’ Note the either/or. This, unfortunately, can be said of Luther, too. Fortunately his idea never made it into the confessions. At least not in his Small Catechism or Confessio Augustana.

You should read Paul Fiddes’ book Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement (Westminster/John Knox Press 1989), especially chapter five, ‘The demands of justice’ (pp.83-111). The whole chapter can be read on Google Books. He writes (p.97-98):

Anselm rejects a view of ‘penal substitution’; Christ is not punished in our place, but releases us from punishment through satisfaction. When, however, later on in the Reformation period, the Roman view of criminal law as a supreme principle had been re-established in society, replacing feudal law, there could be no alternative to punishment if the law were infringed. The only satisfaction that could be offered to outraged justice was punishment. When Calvin built a theory of atonement upon the principle of divine justice, he therefore concluded that ‘the guilt, which held us liable to punishment, was transferred to the head of the Son of God’. God’s law had been infringed through human sin, and so penatly must be inflicted upon offenders in orders to maintain the moral order of the universe.

Read the entire chapter.

So it is a combination. I reject this primarily because it is found neither in Scripture nor in Tradition, and cannot be reconciled with either, and also because it is blatantly contradictory. So I think I have ‘pointed you to the right place.’ It doesn’t just stand on ‘human logic’ (whatever that means). But it cannot contradict it either.

Thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it

Sadly, the hyperbole of ‘infinite suffering’ has taken hold in some of the reformed churches here.

 

[KjetilK]

I’m only contrasting ‘human’ logic as a misapplication of God’s gift of reason to Him with theological study of what God has revealed.

I guess I’m not sure what you mean by ‘human logic.’ Can you clarify? Is there a ‘divine logic’ that is not the same as ‘human logic’? Can God, for instance, say that squares are circles?

In my mind logic is logic. Every time you take different ideas or principles and land on a conclusion, you are using logic. There is no ‘divine logic’ different from ‘human logic.’ And logic is a tool which can be applied on things, including what God has revealed.

That is what happened when the Fathers of Nicea said that the Father and the Son is ‘of the same essence.’ They deduced from Revelation that this is the case. And the same thing happens when I reject Calvin’s self-contradictory idea of Christ being ‘infinitively punished for a finite amount of time’ (that he atoned our eternal punishment by a ‘transfer of penalty’ that lasted three days). If the penalty was ‘transferred,’ Christ would be damned for all eternity. That is just a logical contradiction, and it cannot be right just by saying ‘God did it.’

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Cav-

I just now saw your post, and I apologize for the delay in responding. However, I have not studied Anselm, so I cannot comment.

I offer this from newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.

The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God’s merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.

The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.