Page 141 - Bible Doctrines II w videos short

4. Satisfaction Theory (Walvoord, 158). “One of the first well-organized theories of the atonement
was offered by Anselm in the eleventh century in his classic work Cur Deus Homo? His teaching
springs from the concept that the necessity of the atonement arises in the fact that God’s honor has
been injured by sin. God could satisfy His honor by punishing the sinner or by accepting a suitable
substitute. Being a God of love and mercy, God provided through His Son the satisfaction that was
required. Christ in His life on earth perfectly kept the law of God but, as this was required of Him in
any case, it did not constitute a satisfaction of the honor of God on behalf of sinners. Christ went
further and died on the cross for sin which He did not need to do for Himself. As this was in the
nature of a work of supererogation, the benefits of it were applied to sinners who had fallen short of
attaining the righteousness of God. God’s honor was thus vindicated, and the sinner saved from the
penalty of sin.

Objections to this view are principally that more than God’s honor has been violated. While Anselm
supports the substitutionary character of the death of Christ, he falls short of recognizing properly that a
penalty was involved, and his view is somewhat similar to the Roman Catholic doctrine of penance
rather than a true biblical doctrine of propitiating a righteous God.”

5. Moral Influence Theory (Walvoord, 158-159). “This point of view, which has had much support in
modern liberal theology, was first introduced by Abelard in opposition to the commercial theory of
Anselm. It proceeds on the premise that God does not necessarily require the death of Christ as an
expiation for sin but has rather chosen this means to manifest His love and to show His fellowship with
them in their sufferings. The death of Christ therefore primarily demonstrates the love of God in such
a way as to win sinners to Himself. The death of Christ does not constitute a satisfaction of divine law,
but rather demonstrates the loving heart of God which will freely pardon sinners.

Liberal and neo-orthodox theologians today adopt in one form or another the moral influence theory of
Abelard. Actually, no new view of the atonement has arisen in the twentieth century; existing opinions
can be found in one or more of the classic theories which emerged in the nineteenth century or earlier.
The general disposition outside of orthodoxy itself has been to consider the death of Christ as something
less than penal and not vicarious in the strict sense of the term. Rather, Christ’s death is, on the one
hand, a demonstration of the love of God and, on the other, a revelation of God’s hatred of sin. Right-
wing liberals and neo-orthodox scholars tend to support the moral influence theory while left-wing and
extreme liberals regard the death of Christ as little more than an example or mystical influence.

Orthodox Christianity has always opposed this point of view as being quite insufficient to explain the
many scriptures which present the point of view that the death of Christ is a propitiation of a righteous
God and that His death is absolutely necessary to make it possible for God to justify a sinner. Though
Christ’s death is a demonstration of the love of God and should soften human hearts, it seldom does this
apart from a saving work of God.”

Evaluating the Theories.
• All of the theories make use of biblical concepts and ideas.
• All of the theories capture at least an important aspect of Christ’s work.
• Only the Substitutionary Atonement theory actually fits all of the biblical data.

140