Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 71:2 (NA 2020)
Article: The Patristic Roots Of Satisfaction Atonement Theories Did The Church Fathers Affirm Only "Christus Victor"?
Author: James David Meyer

TynBull 71:2 (2020) p. 293

The Patristic Roots Of Satisfaction Atonement Theories
Did The Church Fathers Affirm Only Christus Victor?

James David Meyer

([email protected])

Summary

In his work Christus Victor, Gustaf Aulén argued that Anselm of Canterbury’s account of the atonement was foreign to ancient Christian belief. In particular, Aulén argued that Anselm diverged from the original understanding of the doctrine as presented by the church fathers. Aulén argued that the Eastern church rightly endorsed a model of the atonement that he called the ‘classic view’, while Anselm in the West later wrongly developed a theory of satisfaction that Aulén called the ‘Latin’ view. This critique, by extension, applies to other ‘Anselmic’ theories of atonement such as penal substitution that, like Anselm’s, also affirm that Christ’s death in some way satisfied God’s requirements in response to human sin. Patristic literature shows, however, that Aulén’s conclusion is more imposition than exposition. Fathers from both East and West commonly advanced theories that comport well with what Aulén called the Latin view alongside Christus Victor.

1. Introduction

The ‘satisfaction’ theory of the atonement provides a specific explanation of why Christ had to die and what his death accomplished. Scholars often associate this view with Anselm of Canterbury because his Cur Deus Homo provides one of the most systematic presentations of this view. In its essence, satisfaction theory holds that Jesus’s innocent death on behalf of sinful human beings presented something to God as atonement for human sin; it satisfied God’s just requirement of

TynBull 71:2 (2020) p. 294

judgement in response to sin. In other words, Christ accomplished as a man something that sinful men and women could not accomplish for themselves and without which reconciliation to God was impossible.

Those who adhere to this broad ‘Anselmic’ tradition express Christ’s accomplishments using a variety of terms – substitution, propitiation, representation, payment of debt, and others. One version of this tradition of interpretation is known as ‘penal substitutionary atonement’. It advances a particular understanding of how Christ made restitution for sin – namely, that he bore the punishment for sin that God required.1

Increasingly, this type of atonement theory, including penal substitution, is under attack. A common argument against it challenges its pedigree in the early history of the church. In particular, critics claim that Anselm’s view, and that of others who hold that Christ atoned for sin by pre...