OF THE ATONEMENT THEORIES IN HISTORY, ABELARD'S MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY IS THE BIBLICAL ONE (Please do research)

OF THE ATONEMENT THEORIES IN HISTORY, ABELARD'S MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY IS THE BIBLICAL ONE (Please do research)

The following is an excerpt from the book Creed' s in the Making by Alan Richardson, in it he explains the atonement theories that were held in history e.g. the ransom theory, the penal satisfaction theory, the penal substitution theory and the moral influence theory, the moral influence theory though being the one which is biblical.

"The doctrine of the atonement is a key doctrine in Christianity and must be understood according to how the Bible presents it. Many thinkers of old have attempted to present this doctrine in context to the times they lived in. Four main theories of the doctrine of the atonement presented in history are 1) The Ransom Theory 2) The Satisfactory Theory 3) The Penal Theory and 4) The Moral Theory. Investigating these four prominent theories we would see which of these gives a true understanding of the doctrine of the Atonement. The Moral Theory undeniably gives a reasonable account for the Atonement presenting that Christ died so that all men can be forgiven of their sins based on the condition they repent and seek amendment, a new life of service and true happiness is granted to them. 

The Ransom Theory brought forth by Origen in the second century is understood as the following: 

“By the end of the second century A.D. there were current many different attitudes towards the redemptive aspect of Christ’s life. Some Christian thinkers, like Clement of Alexandria (died c. A.D. 214), aiming at Gnosis or Knowledge as the ideal of the good life, paid little regard to the fact of sin and the necessity of redemption. Others like Iranaeus (c. A.D. 180), were interested in developing Paul’s mystical view of summing up of all things in Christ. It was Origen (c. A.D. 183-253), Clement’s distinguished pupil and successor as head of the school of Alexandria, who first gave expression – almost, we may say, accidently – to the Ransom Theory, the view that the death of Christ was a ransom paid by God to the devil.” Creeds in the making: A short introduction to the history of Christian doctrine by Alan Richardson p. 99 

“It is interesting to note that Origen arrived at this theory in the capacity not of a dogmatic or constructive theologian but of an exegete. He was commenting on St. Matthew’s Gospel when he came to the words: “The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” He asked himself, if Christ’s life was a ransom, to whom was the ransom paid? He answered that man by his sin sold his soul to the devil, and God had re-pur-chased man for himself by paying to the devil the ransom of Christ’s life.” Ibid p. 99 

Gregory and Rafinus also played a part later on to clarify what the Ransom Theory is about, we are further told: 

“..over a century later Gregory of Nyssa (died A.D. 395), his follower in this matter, does attempt to answer the objection that the theory is an unworthy one. Gregory of Nyssa and Rafinus (c. A.D. 400) are the classic expositors of the Ransom Theory. What Origen leaves uncertain, Gregory makes quite clear. The devil did not perceive the Deity of Christ because it was veiled in his humanity, “so that, as with greedy fish, the hook of the Deity might be gulped down with the veil of the flesh.” Christ, being divine, could not be conquered by death, and so the deceiver was by an act of strictly poetic justice deceived; in the infinite wisdom of God the devil was paid back in his own coin. Rafinus, in his Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, elaborates the metaphor of the bait and hook: Christ’s flesh is the bait which lured the devil, his divinity is the hook on which he was caught. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604), varies the metaphor, suggesting the idea of a snare of birds. Perhaps the strangest form of the metaphor is found in Augustine, who likens the cross to a mouse-trap baited with the blood of Christ. Thus it happened that Origen’s passing suggestion came to enjoy extensive popularity; the Ransom Theory was the generally accepted view of the Atonement until the time of Anselm (died A.D. 1109). Ibid pp. 100-101

Next in line we have the Satisfactory Theory brought about by Anselm the Archbishop of Canterbury, we are told the following of this theory:

The great Archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm, completely repudiated the Ransom Theory as unworthy of God; and he went on to build up with logical argument a new theory expressed in the terminology of his own day. In every age man thinks of God and his relation to the world in terms of contemporary social and political organization; and in the Middle Ages God was naturally thought of as the supreme feudal Overlord, to whom all lesser beings owed allegiance and honour. Man owed honour to God as a squire or serf might owe it to his feudal lord, or a knight might owe it to his king. But by his sin man had dishonoured God, and he was powerless to render satisfaction for his disloyalty. In the days of chivalry it was possible to atone for an offence either by receiving the due punishment or by rendering “satisfaction,” that is, by the restitution of the honour which had been outraged. God did not punish mankind because that would have meant the damnation of the whole human race; instead he found for man a way of rendering satisfaction so that the violated divine honour might be repaired. Man himself was unable to render satisfaction to god; therefore God in his mercy sent his Son who assumed manhood, and who, as man, rendered ample satisfaction by his innocent death. That is why god became man – so that man could thus render satisfaction for his disloyalty in the person of Christ. The debt of honour was paid for man by God incarnate in man; and thus God’s violated honour was repaired, and God was able freely to forgive without the punishment of the guilty.” Ibid pp. 101-102 

Thirdly there was the Penal Theory, and it states as follows: 

“We now come to our third type of theory, which is often called the Penal Theory, for reasons which will appear. The Renaissance brought with it a revival of interest in ancient law; and we are consequently not surprised to find that the Reformation divines work out a theory of the Atonement in legal terms. The Penal Theory is grounded upon the new political and legal ideas of the sixteenth century; it starts from the ideas of the inviolability of law and the justice of God. God is perfectly just, and the divine law of punishment can never be set aside. Man by his transgression has earned the dreadful punishment which the inviolable law of God must inflict. God’s justice is such that sin cannot go unpunished. But the extent of man’s sin is infinite: an infinitely severe punishment is its inevitable consequence. However, God is not only just, he is also merciful; and he himself in his infinite nature, should be able to bear the punishment for the sins of the whole world. Thus, Christ came down to offer himself as our substitute; he bore the punishment instead of us; and by so doing he rendered it possible for God to forgive sins, and at the same tine to remain perfect both in his justice and his mercy.” Ibid pp. 103-104

Lastly, there is the Moral Theory associated with the name of Abelard, this theory entails as follows:

“Very few people nowadays feel satisfied with any of the theories of the Atonement which we have so far discussed, and it is a real consolation to reflect that none of these theories can claim to be binding upon Christians. There is another theory, often called the Moral Theory, which makes a greater appeal to the modern mind, although it is by no means a modern invention. It is usually associated with the name of Abelard (1079-1142), who criticized and rejected Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory as well the ransom Theory; but it is a mistake to look upon Abelard as the only champion of the theory until comparatively recent times. The Moral Theory has often been hinted at since the days of the Greek Fathers. The uniqueness of the case of Abelard lies rather in the fact that he is the only outstanding example of a thinker who has been condemned because of his individualistic view of the Atonement. Abelard held that the Cross is the most appealing exhibition of god’s love; the appeal of suffering love – of Jesus crucified by man’s folly, pride and sin – converts the sinner as no other appeal could ever do.” Ibid p.106 

“The Moral Theory thus suggests that men are saved by the appeal of Christ’s self-giving love: in looking upon Christ’s death we see the love of God made manifest, and thus we are ashamed of our own selfishness and blindness, and we come to seek amendment of life and to accept the free gift of God’s love. The Cross, therefor, brings repentance to men, because it shows more clearly than anything else has ever done the suffering inflicted by human callousness and pride upon the father’s love. Calvary is thus the school of penitence of the human race, for there men of all ages and races have learned the depth and power of the love of God. Jesus finally brought home to men by his death what he had never quite succeeded in imparting by his teaching, that the greatest thing in life is self-giving love, and that true greatness consists in the ability to become the servant of all. The Cross has been the most powerful moral influence in history, bringing to men that repentance which renders them able to be forgiven. For God always desires to forgive, but cannot forgive until men repent and seek amendment of life. Thus God in Christ saves the world from sin and its consequences, spiritual death; he makes forgiveness possible and liberates men to a life of service and true happiness. He reconciles the world unto himself.” Ibid p. 107