Recapitulation, Satisfaction, and Peter Abelard

[ViaCrucis]

I'm going to first admit that this is a very spontaneous and almost random thought of mine.

As someone who has wrestled with and tried to actively engage with the theology Atonement and its many theories (Penal Substitution, Satisfaction, Ransom, etc) I've been of several minds over my lifetime. I grew up in traditions that were very emphatically Penal Substitution, which as I've studied Scripture and the historic teachings of the Church I slowly abandoned in favor of a more Christus Victor approach. I'm still, I'd maintain, within the Christus Victor camp; however I have over the years also recognized the value and importance of Satisfaction theory, especially as I've grown and learned more as a Lutheran.

So the focuses I have generally tended toward when speaking about the Atonement is Satisfaction and Recapitulation. That is, trying to bring together the language of Christ as making satisfaction on our behalf as the second Adam, the new man. A re-presentation of mankind to God in His righteous obedience by which righteousness is satisfied and the declaration of righteous is made (i.e. justification). We are justified on Christ's account who has been the obedient and righteous one in our stead, even to the point of death and participation in our mortal humanity.

So with this thread of thought, my spontaneous question--which I wanted to present before all of you reading this--is this: Is it possible to "redeem" Peter Abelard's Moral Influence Theory within the context of Satisfaction and/or Recapitulation? Is there a way to tie together Abelard's ideas, or at least some of those ideas (I don't expect to reconcile everything) that don't produce problematic theological results.

For a refresher of Abelard's Moral Influence Theory, here's the wikipedia article: Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia

Disclaimer: I don't have an any opinion, this is a genuine inquiry to get as many diverse opinions as possible. I'm being selfish here in that I am wanting to pick apart y'all's brain.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It is important to understand Moral Influence in its proper place. This theory originated in the mediaeval period and its base assumptions are very different from our own.

We look at this from a strong individualistic streak, of man separate from his surroundings, of a Cartesian dualistic view. So we think Jesus is influencing us to be moral, as if we then choose to follow his example. This is not what is going on. The word Influence means an inflowing, and was most commonly understood as an Astrological term in the mediaeval period (which was perfectly respectable back then). As people's characters and actions were influenced by the planets, channelling their deeds a certain way as water flows if a path is readied for it. If you were under the influence of Jupiter say, you'd tend on average to be more Jovial, or fated to be if more extreme, etc. In the same way celestial phenomena could be held responsible for plague or such. Man was understood as a Microcosm within the Macrocosm, with forces acting upon him at all times, for Good or Ill. There was no clear individual separate completely as we look at it today.

So Moral Influence was more akin to Christ's nature flowing into the person, making him more Christ-like, as how celestial forces unbeknownst or known impacted our terrestrial actions and altering them. It isn't just Christ mentoring us to be good people as it is so often presented. From a Penal Substitution point of view, again taking the mediaeval social mileau in mind, this fits very well. When someone was released from prison, they had an obligation as to the terms of their release and their further action. Think of John II of France's voluntary return to captivity in England, for the spirit thereof. So Christ's taking our place both influences and channels our actions to be able to be more able to be moral, and perhaps ultimately to put on Christ more fully as the Christ-nature flows in (influences) us, and places us in a series of moral obligations to His Person as freedmen.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm going to first admit that this is a very spontaneous and almost random thought of mine.

As someone who has wrestled with and tried to actively engage with the theology Atonement and its many theories (Penal Substitution, Satisfaction, Ransom, etc) I've been of several minds over my lifetime. I grew up in traditions that were very emphatically Penal Substitution, which as I've studied Scripture and the historic teachings of the Church I slowly abandoned in favor of a more Christus Victor approach. I'm still, I'd maintain, within the Christus Victor camp; however I have over the years also recognized the value and importance of Satisfaction theory, especially as I've grown and learned more as a Lutheran.

So the focuses I have generally tended toward when speaking about the Atonement is Satisfaction and Recapitulation. That is, trying to bring together the language of Christ as making satisfaction on our behalf as the second Adam, the new man. A re-presentation of mankind to God in His righteous obedience by which righteousness is satisfied and the declaration of righteous is made (i.e. justification). We are justified on Christ's account who has been the obedient and righteous one in our stead, even to the point of death and participation in our mortal humanity.

So with this thread of thought, my spontaneous question--which I wanted to present before all of you reading this--is this: Is it possible to "redeem" Peter Abelard's Moral Influence Theory within the context of Satisfaction and/or Recapitulation? Is there a way to tie together Abelard's ideas, or at least some of those ideas (I don't expect to reconcile everything) that don't produce problematic theological results.

For a refresher of Abelard's Moral Influence Theory, here's the wikipedia article: Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia

Disclaimer: I don't have an any opinion, this is a genuine inquiry to get as many diverse opinions as possible. I'm being selfish here in that I am wanting to pick apart y'all's brain.

-CryptoLutheran

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware outlined his view, which is basically the Eastern Orthodox view, which embraces multiple paradigms of soteriology concurrently in a non-contradictory manner. Basically, the idea of salvation as a Sacrifice, as a Victory, as a Moral Influence, and as Recapitulation, and as a Ransom, but not as vicarious atonement or penal substitution/satisfaction. So rejecting the approach of Anselm of Canterbury and John Calvin, best summarized by Billy Graham saying “When Christ died on the Cross the lightning bolt of God’s Wrath hit Him instead of you.”

He delivered an engaging lecture on this subject which has been uploaded on YouTube and remains one of my two favorite theological lectures on YouTube, the other being Fr. John Behr’s lecture on “The Shocking Truth of Orthodoxy.” Although more recently Fr. John Behr delivered a thrilling lecture on the Gospel of John at the Lanier Theological Library.

I assume based on your erudition you probably saw Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s lecture, but if not, or if anyone else wants to see it, I will place a link to it below my comments. I believe I presented his main argument, that if we set aside the Renaissance Reformation idea of penal substitutionary atonement or its precursor, the medieval idea, linked to chivalry, that God requires satisfaction for our sins to avenge his wounded honor, the remaining five theories, ransom, recapitulation, sacrifice, victory and moral influence, fit together harmoniously. This aligns with the Eastern Orthodox view that, without for a second accepting Pelagius or Pelagianism (a heresy thoroughly debunked by the great Latin monk St. John Cassian, a contemporary of St. Augustine of Hippo and historically, much more important and widely read, but later, almost forgotten for a time in the Latin and Protestant Western Churches while very important in the Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian Slavonic and other Eastern churches) the theology of St. Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas is problematic, and led to further errors by John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer and the other reformers.

I have also linked to Fr. John Behr’s lecture, because in it he discusses, among other things, Ransom Soteriology.

 

[Andrewn]

I grew up in traditions that were very emphatically Penal Substitution, which as I've studied Scripture and the historic teachings of the Church I slowly abandoned in favor of a more Christus Victor approach. I'm still, I'd maintain, within the Christus Victor camp; however I have over the years also recognized the value and importance of Satisfaction theory, especially as I've grown and learned more as a Lutheran.

The idea that an angry God needs to be satisfied or, even worse, needs to be appeased with blood is a malicious idea that millions of Christians believe it is fundamental Christianity. They base their belief on a verse like:

Rom 5:9 How much more then, having now been set right by His blood, shall we be saved from God’s wrath through Him.

But "God's wrath" clearly refers to post-mortem punishment not to some anger that needs satisfaction. And we are "set right by his blood" or "justified by his blood" means by believing in Christ and belonging to Christ and sharing in his death and resurrection in Baptism and godly living.

There is no sense in which God was satisfied with Christ's blood and punishment.

So Moral Influence was more akin to Christ's nature flowing into the person, making him more Christ-like,

I agree.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware outlined his view, which is basically the Eastern Orthodox view, which embraces multiple paradigms of soteriology concurrently in a non-contradictory manner. Basically, the idea of salvation as a Sacrifice, as a Victory, as a Moral Influence, and as Recapitulation, and as a Ransom, but not as vicarious atonement or penal substitution/satisfaction.

I watched the video before and it is absolutely fantastic, the best presentation of atonement theories.

 

[The Liturgist]

I watched the video before and it is absolutely fantastic, the best presentation of atonement theories.

That does not surprise me. I feel like we share a common theological trajectory.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I wonder if a "theory of the atonement" is necessary for a healthy Christian faith?

Maybe it is sufficient to confess that Christ died fore sinners and that I am a sinner who desires the benefit of his death.

 

[The Liturgist]

I wonder if a "theory of the atonement" is necessary for a healthy Christian faith?

Maybe it is sufficient to confess that Christ died fore sinners and that I am a sinner who desires the benefit of his death.

Well I think Christ did atone for our sins, but not to appease God the Father, nor to satisfy the demands of the devil, but rather to restore and glorify our humanity so that the imageo dei would be untarnished.

As for what is sufficient, I think baptism and chrismation and the Eucharist, or even Baptism in the case of infants and the gravely ill, are sufficient. It is the sacraments which are the normal means of receiving salvific grace, as opposed to some intellectual process, for else those who are demented or die in early childhood could not be saved. Faith should not be reduced to intellectual belief; the demons believe in God and probably know more about what He did on the Cross than most Christians, because they are the ones suffering for it, not our triumphant Savior, God the Son, the victorious risen Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God, King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The demons believe, and yet they have no faith. The realization of faith is in doing what our Lord instructed, both liturgically, through Baptism and the Eucharist and the other mysteries, and by following his commandments, the Summary of the Law, and praying the prayer He instructed, and following His example. As Fr. John Behr put it, “God died to show us what it means to be human.”

The only caveat being, if one has mental faculties one obviously should have faith in order to be baptized, as opposed to being baptized while primarily believing in another religion, for example, if a committed Pagan or practitioner of an Animist religion like Shinto or Voodoo, decides on the basis of Paschal’s Wager to be baptized and receive communion as a sort of insurance policy, that is clearly hypocrisy and would be ill-advised, except to the extent that Baptism, in the traditional churches at least, is among other things an exorcism by its very nature, and so someone seeking the sacraments with a hypocritical mindset might well have the demons driven out of them and receive through the grace of the Holy Spirit true saving faith.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The idea that an angry God needs to be satisfied or, even worse, needs to be appeased with blood is a malicious idea that millions of Christians believe it is fundamental Christianity. They base their belief on a verse like:

Rom 5:9 How much more then, having now been set right by His blood, shall we be saved from God’s wrath through Him.

But "God's wrath" clearly refers to post-mortem punishment not to some anger that needs satisfaction. And we are "set right by his blood" or "justified by his blood" means by believing in Christ and belonging to Christ and sharing in his death and resurrection in Baptism and godly living.

There is no sense in which God was satisfied with Christ's blood and punishment.


I agree.


I watched the video before and it is absolutely fantastic, the best presentation of atonement theories.

I want to be clear that my use of satisfaction isn't related to Penal Substitution. I'm not speaking of satisfaction as Jesus appeasing an angry God; but that Christ succeeds in righteous obedience (whereas Adam did not). Which is why I feel that Satisfaction and Recapitulation meet together very neatly. Christ satisfies the just demands of the Law by His own righteousness--in both His life and death, as His dying was also an act of righteous obedience.

I agree that the idea that Jesus' death was for the appeasement of an angry God is in error.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware outlined his view, which is basically the Eastern Orthodox view, which embraces multiple paradigms of soteriology concurrently in a non-contradictory manner. Basically, the idea of salvation as a Sacrifice, as a Victory, as a Moral Influence, and as Recapitulation, and as a Ransom, but not as vicarious atonement or penal substitution/satisfaction. So rejecting the approach of Anselm of Canterbury and John Calvin, best summarized by Billy Graham saying “When Christ died on the Cross the lightning bolt of God’s Wrath hit Him instead of you.”

He delivered an engaging lecture on this subject which has been uploaded on YouTube and remains one of my two favorite theological lectures on YouTube, the other being Fr. John Behr’s lecture on “The Shocking Truth of Orthodoxy.” Although more recently Fr. John Behr delivered a thrilling lecture on the Gospel of John at the Lanier Theological Library.

I assume based on your erudition you probably saw Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s lecture, but if not, or if anyone else wants to see it, I will place a link to it below my comments. I believe I presented his main argument, that if we set aside the Renaissance Reformation idea of penal substitutionary atonement or its precursor, the medieval idea, linked to chivalry, that God requires satisfaction for our sins to avenge his wounded honor, the remaining five theories, ransom, recapitulation, sacrifice, victory and moral influence, fit together harmoniously. This aligns with the Eastern Orthodox view that, without for a second accepting Pelagius or Pelagianism (a heresy thoroughly debunked by the great Latin monk St. John Cassian, a contemporary of St. Augustine of Hippo and historically, much more important and widely read, but later, almost forgotten for a time in the Latin and Protestant Western Churches while very important in the Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian Slavonic and other Eastern churches) the theology of St. Augustine of Hippo, Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas is problematic, and led to further errors by John Calvin, Martin Luther, Thomas Cranmer and the other reformers.

I have also linked to Fr. John Behr’s lecture, because in it he discusses, among other things, Ransom Soteriology.

I think I might need to set aside some time to watch these lectures. Thank you for this.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

I want to be clear that my use of satisfaction isn't related to Penal Substitution. I'm not speaking of satisfaction as Jesus appeasing an angry God; but that Christ succeeds in righteous obedience (whereas Adam did not). Which is why I feel that Satisfaction and Recapitulation meet together very neatly. Christ satisfies the just demands of the Law by His own righteousness--in both His life and death, as His dying was also an act of righteous obedience.

I agree that the idea that Jesus' death was for the appeasement of an angry God is in error.

-CryptoLutheran

That sounds like something Metropolitan Kallistos Ware said, only I believe he referred to it as Atonement.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think I might need to set aside some time to watch these lectures. Thank you for this.

-CryptoLutheran

I am surprised you haven’t seen them given the extent to which you, @Andrewn and myself seem to be theologically on the same page, so to speak, but that’s actually to your benefit, because these lectures were thrilling, as both Fr. John Behr and Metropolitan Kallistos can be very entertaining as well as knowledgeable and intelligent. Which is a good thing considering that they are now both Oxford professors (Fr. John left St. Vladimir’s Seminary to basically fill the shoes of Metropolitan Kallistos, who has been emeritus for many years, but who Fr. John Behr studied under; if we are greatly blessed, this could lead to a dynasty of Eastern Orthodox clergy educated at and later teaching at Oxford.

 

[Fervent]

I wonder if a "theory of the atonement" is necessary for a healthy Christian faith?

Maybe it is sufficient to confess that Christ died fore sinners and that I am a sinner who desires the benefit of his death.

The rub of it is...what do we mean by "for"? On behalf of? In place of? Atonement theology is critical, and much of the strife in Western theology has been because of views that make God the impediment to salvation rather than sin.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The rub of it is...what do we mean by "for"? On behalf of? In place of? Atonement theology is critical, and much of the strife in Western theology has been because of views that make God the impediment to salvation rather than sin.

I used "for" to mean "for the benefit of" or maybe "on behalf of".

 

[Andrewn]

Christ satisfies the just demands of the Law by His own righteousness--in both His life and death, as His dying was also an act of righteous obedience.

I've often thought that it was possible Christ satisfies the just demands of the Law by His own righteousness. But in my view, the Law is not the Torah but rather a cosmic Law imposed by God, kind of like the laws of physics.

 

[fhansen]

Christ paid the penalty, whatever it took, of introducing the light of truth and love into a world which preferred darkness. The resurrection proved that the world cannot extinguish that light; love overcomes the sin and pride and love of falsehood that seeks to oppose and destroy it. It’s here now for anyone to embrace. He’s here now for anyone to embrace.

As we, too, embrace that love in return, the sin that causes harm to neighbor and so much ugly injustice in this world and that condemns us is extinguished instead. The sin that would seek to extinguish God is finally put to death itself and justice is restored to His creation, by His love, as we come into alignment with it.

Christ’s sacrifice is an appeal to us- it’s what it took-and the cross still stands as an everlasting point that we can navigate to in order to begin to understand the true depth and vastness of God’s love-and the awfulness of sin. It’s what God would do; it’s what God did. It reveals His nature as nothing else could, as no mere talk could accomplish.

Love is a choice; He won’t and cannot force it upon us. We can respond to the cross…or not. Everything Jesus said and did, culminating in the cross, is meant to pierce through the darkness and reveal His nature and will to us. Eternal life consists of that knowledge- John 17:3

With the atonement, God appeases and satisfies Himself while showing what true righteousness is, and that it can be done, but only through reconciliation, at-one-ment, with Him, something man could never do.

Just some thoughts-probably still, um, unsatisfactory.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've often thought that it was possible Christ satisfies the just demands of the Law by His own righteousness. But in my view, the Law is not the Torah but rather a cosmic Law imposed by God, kind of like the laws of physics.

As used by Lutherans "The Law" refers to all God's commandments, not just the Torah. Which is to say, Jesus was obedient, whereas Adam was disobedient. Christ's righteous obedience satisfies and restores what was lost in Adam's disobedience; and brings that New Adam to us as grace through faith.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

With the atonement, God appeases and satisfies Himself while showing what true righteousness is, and that it can be done, but only through reconciliation, at-one-ment, with Him, something man could never do.

One aspect does not make sense, since I do not see that God has a need to appease Himself.

Furthermore, the Greek fathers suggest that the wrath of God, since God is immutable, is the experience of the consuming fire of His uncreated energies of love and grace when one is in opposition to God, as opposed to God becoming angry in a human sense, which seems to contradict the doctrines of divine immutability and of God being perfect love.

In other words, when hatred struggles against the perfect love of God, that is the wrath of God.

 

[The Liturgist]

Just some thoughts-probably still, um, unsatisfactory.

Well considering I agreed with most of what you said…

Really, what I have learned on CF.com is the faith of traditional Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and other liturgical high church Protestants is like that of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and collectively these liturgical churches form an almost cohesive strand of Christianity divided primarily by political schisms, with doctrinal disputes being surprisingly mild.

 

[fhansen]

One aspect does not make sense, since I do not see that God has a need to appease Himself.

It's that justice must be served; sin doesn't fit with the holiness of God or the innocence and goodness of His creation. So something must be done and we can't do it; we're stuck in our sin, in our alienation from Him; we're lost. So He does it for us.

His act of righteousness as a human shows us that humans are capable of it and reconciles us to Himself as we then respond and turn to Him, entering a union that now affords us the ability to begin to live the righteousness ourselves that is intrinsic to fellowship with God. Justice restored- rather than merely imputed and ignored. The essence of the New Covenant and the basis of man's justice is union with God. Anything apart from or outside of that relationship is ipso facto, sin.

 

[fhansen]

Well considering I agreed with most of what you said…

Well, to be honest I haven't found a totally satisfactory Atonement Theory-still workin' on it.