Journal: Global Journal of Classical Theology
Volume: GJCT 04:3 (Oct 2004)
Article: The Doctrine Of Atonement Before Anselm
Author: Robert D. Culver

The Doctrine Of Atonement Before Anselm 1

Robert D. Culver, Th.D

Houston, MN

In this paper I seek to show that through the centuries various aspects of the atonement by Christ’s death on the cross were discerned by Christian teachers, yet all the while a doctrine of satisfaction by vicarious sacrifice was understood, even if dimly at times and often stated obscurely. In other words, the evangelical doctrine was never a novelty imposed upon the scriptures. In every age it was at least partially understood. It is not, as some claim, an invention of the former Archbishop of Canterbury.2

I propose Anselm’s work, especially his tract, Cur Deus Homo? as the breaking point in sound interpretation of Christ’s work of atonement for several reasons. For one, he formulated and passed down to later generations the great idea of objective, finished accomplishment--a done deal as my lawyer says. For another he saw that scripture roots both “the sending in the likeness of sinful flesh” and “for sin” in the very nature of God. Anselm found both holiness and justice (righteousness) taking no back seat to His love. Further, he appears to be about the first of the medieval scholastics to become aware of the incompleteness of the ancient creeds with respect to Christ’s work of redemption. His proposal of vicarious satisfaction of penal justice toward the infinite majesty of God, though needing some qualification, gave rational coherence to a theology of atonement. Evangelical theology has improved on Anselm but not rejected his accomplishments.

In concluding a sketch and summary of “Anselm’s Theory of the Atonement,” W. G. T. Shedd says:

[I]t is evident that if his views and experience, as exhibited in the Cur Deus Homo? could have become those of the church . . . the revival of the doctrine of justification by faith in the Lutheran Reformation would not have been needed . . . . But the soteriology of Anselm, though exerting no little influence through his immediate pupils, did not pass into the church at large.3

This was because Britain and Normandy , where Anselm served, were then on the perimeter of christendom. The city clergymen of Europe and the Roman bureaucrats were neither very pious nor interested in thoroughgoing theological reflection.

Neve says, “Anselm is gifted with genius.”4 Shedd remarks of Cur Deus Homo? “It is remarkable . . . bursting forth of a new spirit of inquiry, the dawning of a new era after five hundred years of stagnation and darkness.”You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe