{"agent_id":"anselm","agent_name":"Anselm of Canterbury","slug":"the-satisfaction-theory-of-atonement","label":"The satisfaction theory of atonement: why was it necessary that God become man to redeem human sin?","topic":"The satisfaction theory of atonement","question":"Why was it necessary that God become man to redeem human sin?","position":"Sin is the failure of a rational creature to render to God the obedience and honor that is owed. By sinning, human nature dishonored God; the dishonor must be repaid before forgiveness can be granted consistently with God's justice. The Augustinian devil-ransom theory — that Christ's death paid a debt to Satan, from whose dominion humans were thus ransomed — is mistaken: Satan has no rightful claim against God's creature; God owes Satan nothing. What is owed is owed to God, by humans. Yet humans, in their fallen state, cannot pay the debt — for any obedience humans might render is already owed to God, and so cannot constitute additional satisfaction for past offense. Only one who is fully human (and so owes the debt) and fully God (and so can offer something not already owed, namely a sinless life freely surrendered) can pay the debt of honor. Therefore the incarnation was necessary: *Cur Deus Homo* — why God became man. The God-man's voluntary death, undeserved because the man was sinless, constitutes a payment to God's honor of such surpassing worth that it outweighs the offense and makes salvation available to all who repent.","paragraphs":[[{"t":"Sin is the failure of a rational creature to render to God the obedience and honor that is owed.","n":[]},{"t":"By sinning, human nature dishonored God; the dishonor must be repaid before forgiveness can be granted consistently with God's justice.","n":[]},{"t":"The Augustinian devil-ransom theory — that Christ's death paid a debt to Satan, from whose dominion humans were thus ransomed — is mistaken: Satan has no rightful claim against God's creature; God owes Satan nothing.","n":[1]}],[{"t":"What is owed is owed to God, by humans.","n":[]},{"t":"Yet humans, in their fallen state, cannot pay the debt — for any obedience humans might render is already owed to God, and so cannot constitute additional satisfaction for past offense.","n":[]},{"t":"Only one who is fully human (and so owes the debt) and fully God (and so can offer something not already owed, namely a sinless life freely surrendered) can pay the debt of honor.","n":[]}],[{"t":"Therefore the incarnation was necessary: *Cur Deus Homo* — why God became man.","n":[]},{"t":"The God-man's voluntary death, undeserved because the man was sinless, constitutes a payment to God's honor of such surpassing worth that it outweighs the offense and makes salvation available to all who repent.","n":[2,3,4]}]],"texts":"*Cur Deus Homo* Books I and II in their entirety; the *Meditatio Redemptionis Humanae* (Meditation on Human Redemption); related passages in *De Conceptu Virginali et Originali Peccato*; *Letter to Fulco* (Epistle 136) on the impossibility of the incarnation being unnecessary; passing references in *De Incarnatione Verbi*. Reception: Augustine's *On the Trinity* 13.10-19 and *Free Choice* 3.10 as the devil-ransom background I rejected; Peter Abelard's moral-exemplar critique in his *Commentary on Romans* (c. 1135); Thomas Aquinas's nuancing of the satisfaction account in *Summa Theologica* III; the Lutheran Reformation's appropriation of satisfaction into penal substitution; Gustaf Aulen's *Christus Victor* (1931, the major twentieth-century rejection of the satisfaction theory in favor of the \"classical\" ransom- from-the-powers reading); Eleonore Stump's *Atonement* (2018) and Marilyn McCord Adams on the philosophical- theological reception.","works":["*Cur Deus Homo* Books I and II in their entirety","the *Meditatio Redemptionis Humanae* (Meditation on Human Redemption)","related passages in *De Conceptu Virginali et Originali Peccato*","*Letter to Fulco* (Epistle 136) on the impossibility of the incarnation being unnecessary","passing references in *De Incarnatione Verbi*"],"reception":"Augustine's *On the Trinity* 13.10-19 and *Free Choice* 3.10 as the devil-ransom background I rejected; Peter Abelard's moral-exemplar critique in his *Commentary on Romans* (c. 1135); Thomas Aquinas's nuancing of the satisfaction account in *Summa Theologica* III; the Lutheran Reformation's appropriation of satisfaction into penal substitution; Gustaf Aulen's *Christus Victor* (1931, the major twentieth-century rejection of the satisfaction theory in favor of the \"classical\" ransom- from-the-powers reading); Eleonore Stump's *Atonement* (2018) and Marilyn McCord Adams on the philosophical- theological reception.","status":"Defended in *Cur Deus Homo*, written across the years of my flight from England under William Rufus (begun c. 1094, completed in the Alps c. 1098). The book is structured as a dialogue with Boso, my monk-companion, who presses on behalf of those who do not believe — asking why God could not simply forgive, why a non-Adamic sinless man could not have made satisfaction, how Christ's voluntary death can outweigh the sins of all humanity. Each question receives careful argument. The theory has been criticized — Abelard proposed a moral-exemplar alternative in the next generation; Aulen in the twentieth century pressed the ransom-from-the-powers reading against me; modern critics have charged the account with \"feudal\" legalism. The feudal vocabulary is present, as the vocabulary of any age is present in its theology, but the argument does not depend on the feudal social structure for its force. I stand by the central structure of the argument.","era":"1033-1109","discipline":"Philosophy, Theology","refs":[{"n":1,"work":"Proslogium, Monologium, Gaunilo's In Behalf of the Fool, and Cur Deus Homo","page":"","canonical":"","quote":"How the devil had no justice on his side against man.. 187 VIII. How, although the acts of Christ's condescension which we speak of do not be.long to his divinity, it yet seems improper to infidels that these things should be said of him even as a man, etc igo IX. How it was of his own accord that he died 192 X. On the same topics 197 XI. What it is to sin, and to make satisfaction for sin 201 XII.","label":"Proslogium, Monologium, Gaunilo's In Behalf of the Fool, and Cur Deus Homo"},{"n":2,"work":"Proslogium, Monologium, Gaunilo's In Behalf of the Fool, and Cur Deus Homo","page":"","canonical":"","quote":"Wherefore if they were not save by his will, then, had he not willed they would not have existed. So then, no one took his life from him, but he laid it down of himself and took it again; for he had power to lay it down and to take it again, as he himself said. Boso. You have satisfied me that it cannot be proved that he was subjected to death by any neces- 278 ANSELM.","label":"Proslogium, Monologium, Gaunilo's In Behalf of the Fool, and Cur Deus Homo"},{"n":3,"work":"Proslogium, Monologium, Gaunilo's In Behalf of the Fool, and Cur Deus Homo","page":"","canonical":"","quote":"In fine, you have shown that that man, who was also God, must be formed from the virgin, and from the person of the Son of God, and that he could be taken without sin, though from a sinful substance. Moreover, you have clearly shown the life of this man to have been so ex cellent and so glorious as to make ample satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, and even infinitely more.","label":"Proslogium, Monologium, Gaunilo's In Behalf of the Fool, and Cur Deus Homo"},{"n":4,"work":"Proslogium, Monologium, Gaunilo's In Behalf of the Fool, and Cur Deus Homo","page":"","canonical":"","quote":"Boso. I accept your supposition. Ansclm. What if he should allow it to be struck from his hand and cast in the mire, though he might have prevented it; and afterwards taking it all soiled by the mire and unwashed, should commit it again to his beautiful and loved casket; will you consider him a wise man? Boso. How can I? for would it not be far better to keep and preserve his pearl pure, than to have it pol luted?","label":"Proslogium, Monologium, Gaunilo's In Behalf of the Fool, and Cur Deus Homo"}],"answer":null,"siblings":[{"slug":"the-ontological-argument","label":"The ontological argument: does the conception of God as that than which nothing greater can be thought entail God's existence?"},{"slug":"faith-and-reason","label":"Faith and reason: are arguments such as the Proslogion proof addressed to the believer who already trusts in God, or do they aim to compel the unbeliever?"},{"slug":"necessary-reasons-versus-fitting-reasons","label":"Necessary reasons versus fitting reasons: when does a theological argument demonstrate, and when does it merely show consistency?"}]}