Program / Course 9: Christology and Pneumatology / Lesson 5.3
What you will learn
- Explain Anselm’s argument in Cur Deus Homo in plain language.
- Distinguish satisfaction from penal substitution and name the Reformation figures who developed the second.
- State the biblical texts used for each and the main objections.
- Describe how Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant writers evaluate these models.
The big idea
In the eleventh century Anselm of Canterbury argued that sin is a failure to give God what is due, that this creates a debt of honor which humans cannot pay, and that only a God-man can make the payment, which Christ does by freely giving his life. This is the satisfaction view. Reformation theologians, above all Calvin, developed it into penal substitution: Christ takes the place of sinners and bears the penalty their sins deserve. Many Christians hold this view as central. Others, including most Orthodox writers and many modern theologians, question it. Each side has serious arguments.
Key terms
- Satisfaction
- In Anselm, the making good of an offense to God’s honor. It restores what sin took away.
- Penal substitution
- The teaching that Christ in his death took the place of sinners and bore the punishment their sins deserved, so that they can be forgiven.
- Imputation
- A word for crediting. In Reformed teaching, human sin is credited to Christ and Christ’s righteousness is credited to believers.
- Governmental theory
- A view associated with Hugo Grotius that Christ’s suffering upholds God’s moral order and shows how seriously God takes sin, without being a strict payment of the penalty.
- Wrath of God
- In Scripture, God’s settled opposition to evil and injustice. How far it is personal anger and how far it is the consequence of sin is debated.
- Cur Deus Homo
- Latin for Why God Became Man. Anselm’s work of about 1098 on the reason for the incarnation.
- Limited atonement
- A Reformed doctrine that Christ died effectively for the elect. Others hold that he died for all. The debate affects how penal substitution is stated.
Background
Anselm wrote in a feudal world in which an offense against a lord’s honor required repair. Whatever one thinks of this setting, he was trying to answer a serious question: why did God become man and die, when God could simply forgive? His answer shaped Western thought for a thousand years.
The Reformers worked in a world of courts and criminal law, and they spoke in terms of guilt and punishment. They also read Isaiah 53 and Paul closely. The two models are related but not the same, and a student should keep them apart.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Anselm’s argument
Anselm began from the idea that every rational creature owes God complete obedience. Sin is failing to give this, and so robs God of honor. It is not enough to repay what was taken. Something more must be added, in proportion to the offense. But humans, who already owe everything, have nothing extra to give.
So the satisfaction must be made by a man, since man owes it, and must be greater than all creation, so it must be made by God. The solution is the God-man. Because Christ is sinless he does not have to die, so when he freely gives his life, the gift has infinite value and earns a reward. He needs nothing, so the reward passes to humanity. Anselm rejected the idea that the devil had rights over humans.
Step 2: Strengths and limits of satisfaction
The argument links the incarnation to the cross, takes sin seriously, and rejects the tricking of the devil. It was received in the West and shaped the medieval doctrine of merit and penance. Thomas Aquinas adopted much of it but argued that God could have forgiven without satisfaction, and that the satisfaction was fitting, not necessary.
Critics say that Anselm’s picture of God as a lord needing honor is too feudal, that it separates justice from mercy, and that it puts too little weight on the resurrection. Defenders reply that Anselm is describing the order of love and justice and that the idea of honor can be understood as right relationship.
Step 3: The Reformation and penal substitution
The Reformers, above all Calvin, shifted the emphasis from honor to penalty. The law of God is broken, and its penalty is death. Christ, standing in the place of sinners, bears the penalty so that those who trust in him are forgiven and counted righteous. Calvin in the Institutes and later the Westminster Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism teach this, and Charles Hodge defended it in the nineteenth century.
Lutherans teach a similar doctrine, often joined with the happy exchange: Christ takes the sinner’s sin and gives his righteousness. Anglican and Methodist formularies also use the language. Many evangelical Christians regard penal substitution as the heart of the gospel.
Step 4: The biblical texts and the objections
Supporters cite Isaiah 53:5-6 (“the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all”), Galatians 3:13 (Christ became a curse for us), 2 Corinthians 5:21 (made sin for us), Romans 3:25-26 and 1 Peter 2:24 (bore our sins in his own body on the tree). They argue that these speak of substitution and of divine justice.
Objections are of several kinds. Some say the texts can be read otherwise, as Christ sharing in human condition and not taking punishment. Some say the model divides the Trinity, with a Father punishing a Son. A strong form of the charge, made by some feminist and evangelical critics, calls it cosmic child abuse. Defenders reply that Father and Son act together in one will, that the Son gives himself freely and that God himself bears the cost. Others argue that the model neglects the resurrection and the life of Jesus.
Step 5: Alternatives and mixed views
Grotius, an Arminian, taught that Christ’s sufferings uphold the moral order by showing that sin is serious, without being a strict payment. Many Methodists and others follow this governmental view. Some Reformed writers insist that substitution does not stand alone and that it is joined with union with Christ, victory and example.
The Catholic Church uses the language of satisfaction and sacrifice. The Council of Trent teaches that Christ merited justification and made satisfaction for us, and the Catechism calls his death an offering of expiation. It does not teach penal substitution in the Reformed form. The Orthodox generally reject legal models in favor of healing and victory, though some Orthodox writers allow a limited place for substitution.
- Why did Anselm think that God’s simply forgiving would not be fitting?
- What does satisfaction add to the idea of a ransom?
- How does penal substitution differ from satisfaction?
- Which texts seem to you strongest for substitution, and which can be read otherwise?
- How would you answer the charge that penal substitution divides the Trinity?
- What does the governmental view keep and what does it drop from the Reformed model?
Examples
The debtor and the judge
A common illustration for penal substitution is a judge who finds a person guilty and then steps down from the bench to pay the fine himself. Critics say the picture is troubling since it treats guilt as transferable. Defenders say it conveys how the judge and the one who pays are one God. (A familiar teaching illustration.)
Anselm’s two questions
Anselm’s dialogue is built around two questions asked by his friend Boso: why did God become man, and why was this the only way. The book is an attempt to answer both by reason, in a society where unbelievers also asked them.
The Heidelberg Catechism
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) asks why Christ had to suffer death and answers that God’s justice requires payment and that only the God-man could make it. It was written for ordinary believers, and shows how the doctrine was taught in Reformed churches.
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic teaching affirms that Christ made satisfaction and offered a sacrifice of expiation, using Anselm and Aquinas. It does not make penal substitution in the Calvinist sense a dogma, and Catholic writers vary on how to state it.
Orthodox
Orthodox theologians usually hold that legal models, whether Anselm’s or Calvin’s, entered the West from Roman law and reduce salvation to a transaction. They prefer healing, victory and participation, though they use sacrificial language and accept that Christ died for sinners.
Reformed and evangelical Protestant
Reformed and many evangelical Protestants hold penal substitution as central, citing Isaiah 53 and Paul. They stress that it is Trinitarian: God provides the sacrifice and bears the cost in the person of the Son.
Lutheran, Anglican and Methodist
These traditions teach substitution as part of a broader account, with strong emphasis on exchange, victory and grace. Methodists have often favored the governmental view or an emphasis on Christ’s love.
Critics
Feminist, liberation and some evangelical critics argue that penal substitution can sanctify violence or suggest that God requires suffering. Defenders reply that the model concerns God bearing the consequences of sin himself. The debate continues within every tradition.
Why it matters
Penal substitution is among the most debated doctrines of the day, and many Christians meet it as if it were the only view. Seeing its roots in Anselm and the Reformers, and the objections to both, allows a student to weigh the claims fairly.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Anselm taught penal substitution.
Correction: He taught satisfaction as honor repaid, not punishment borne. The step to penalty came with the Reformers. The two are often confused.
Misunderstanding: Penal substitution means an angry Father punishes an innocent Son.
Correction: That is how critics sometimes state it. Its defenders say that Father and Son act with one will, and that God bears the cost himself. Whether this answers the objection is debated.
Misunderstanding: Only Protestants believe in substitution.
Correction: Some form of Christ dying in the place of sinners appears in Catholic and Orthodox liturgy as well. The dispute is about whether it is the central model and about the idea of penalty.
Knowledge check
Summarize Anselm’s argument in Cur Deus Homo.
Sin robs God of the honor owed him, creating a debt that cannot be ignored. Humans owe everything already, so they cannot repay it, yet only humans should. So a God-man must pay. Christ, being sinless, freely gives his life, which has infinite worth, and the reward benefits humanity. The devil has no rights in the matter.
How does penal substitution differ from satisfaction?
Satisfaction in Anselm repairs an offense to God’s honor. Penal substitution, developed by Calvin and others, says Christ took the punishment sinners deserved under the law so that they could be forgiven. Both involve a God-man giving himself, but the second adds the idea of penalty and imputation.
Name two biblical texts used for penal substitution and one objection.
Isaiah 53:5-6 and 2 Corinthians 5:21 are commonly cited, as are Galatians 3:13 and 1 Peter 2:24. An objection is that the texts can be read as Christ sharing the human condition and not receiving punishment, and another is that it divides the Trinity. Defenders reply with the unity of Father and Son.
How do Orthodox writers usually assess these models?
They generally hold that legal or penal models come from Roman law and treat salvation as a transaction. They prefer healing, victory and participation in God, though they accept sacrificial language and that Christ died for sinners. Some allow a limited role for substitution.
Think it through
- Why might feudal or courtroom images have felt natural in some times and not in others?
- Is justice without penalty possible, and what would it mean?
- How do you weigh a doctrine that many find comforting and others find troubling?
- Which part of Anselm’s argument do you find hardest to accept?
Independent assignment
Satisfaction and substitution compared
In your own notebook, write 500 to 700 words. Write a paragraph on Anselm’s argument and one on Calvin’s or the Heidelberg Catechism’s version. Then list two points of difference and two of agreement. Finish with the strongest objection to each and the best reply. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man) Read Book 1, chapters 11 to 15, and Book 2, chapters 6 to 7.
- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion Read the section on how Christ fulfilled the office of Redeemer.
- Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus, The Heidelberg Catechism Read the questions on Christ’s suffering and death.
- Council of Trent (1545-1563), Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent Read the decree on justification for the Catholic account of Christ’s merit.
- Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology A nineteenth-century defense of substitution. Read selectively.
- Isaiah 53:6 The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.
- Galatians 3:13 Christ became a curse for us.
- 2 Corinthians 5:21 He was made sin for us.