|
The satisfaction theory of atonement is a theory in Christian theology that Jesus Christ suffered the Crucifixion as a substitute for human sin, satisfying God due to Christ's infinite merit. The theory draws primarily from the works of Anselm of Canterbury. It has been traditionally taught in the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed traditions of Western Christianity. Theologically and historically, the word "satisfaction" does not mean gratification as in common usage, but rather "to make restitution": mending what has been broken, or paying back what was taken. Since one of God's characteristics is justice, affronts to that justice must be atoned for. It is thus connected with the legal concept of balancing out an injustice. Anselm regarded his satisfaction view of the atonement as a distinct improvement over the older ransom theory of atonement, which he saw as inadequate. Anselm's theory was a precursor to the refinements of Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, which introduced the idea of punishment to meet the demands of divine justice. == Development of the theory == The classic Anselmian formulation of the satisfaction view should be distinguished from penal substitution. Both are forms of satisfaction theory in that they speak of how Christ's death was ''satisfactory'', but penal substitution and Anselmian satisfaction offer different understandings of how Christ's death was satisfactory. Anselm speaks of human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ's death, the ultimate act of obedience, brings God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ's surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Hence Christ's death is ''substitutionary''; he pays the honour to the Father ''instead'' of us paying. Penal substitution differs in that it sees Christ's death not as repaying God for lost ''honour'' but rather paying the ''penalty'' of death that had always been the moral consequence for sin (e.g., ; ). The key difference here is that for Anselm, satisfaction is an ''alternative'' to punishment, "The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow."〔''Cur Deus Homo'' Bk 1 Ch 8〕 By Christ satisfying our debt of honor to God, we avoid punishment. In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the ''punishment'' which satisfies the demands of justice. Another distinction must be made between penal substitution (Christ ''punished'' instead of us) and substitutionary atonement (Christ suffers ''for'' us). Both affirm the substitutionary and vicarious nature of the atonement, but penal substitution offers a specific explanation as to what the suffering is for: ''punishment''. Augustine teaches substitutionary atonement. However, the specific interpretation differed as to what this suffering for sinners meant. The early Church Fathers, including Athanasius and Augustine, taught that through Christ's suffering in humanity's place, he overcame and liberated us from death and the devil. Thus while the idea of substitutionary atonement is present in nearly all atonement theories, the specific idea of satisfaction and penal substitution are later developments in the Latin church. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「satisfaction theory of atonement」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|