basis founded peace between God and men. This tie secured the divine benevolence toward them.?

It has been said that Anselm regarded Christ?s death not as a vicarious punishment, but as a voluntary sacrifice in compensation for which the guilty were released and justified. So Neander, Hist. Christ. Dogmas

( Bohn), 2:517, understands Anselm to teach ?the necessity of a satisfactio vicaria activa,? and says: ?We do not find in his writings the doctrine of a satisfactio passiva; he nowhere says that Christ had endured the punishment of men.? Shedd, Hist. Christ. Doctrine, 2:282, thinks this a misunderstanding of Anselm. The Encyclopedia Britannica takes the view of Shedd, when it speaks of Christ?s sufferings as penalty: ?The justice of man demands satisfaction, and as an insult to infinite honor is itself infinite, the satisfaction must be infinite, i e., it must outweigh all that is not God. Such a penalty can only be paid by God himself and, as a penalty for man, must be paid under the form of man. Satisfaction is only possible through the God-man. Now this God-man, as sinless, is exempt from the punishment of sin; his passion is therefore voluntary, not given as due. The merit of it is therefore infinite; God?s justice is thus appeased, and his mercy may extend to man.? The truth then appears to be that Anselm held Christ?s obedience to be passive, in that he satisfied God?s justice by enduring punishment, which the sinner deserved. He held this same obedience of Christ to be active, in that he endured this penalty voluntarily, when there was no obligation upon him so to do.

Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:431, 461, 462 ? ?Christ not only suffered the penalty, but obeyed the precept, of the law. In this case law and justice get their whole dues. But when lost man only suffers the penalty, but does not obey the precept, the law is defrauded of a part of its dues. No law is completely obeyed, if only its penalty is endured. Consequently, a sinner can never completely and exhaustively satisfy the divine law, however much or long he may suffer, because he cannot at one and the same time endure the penalty and obey the precept. He owes ?ten thousand talents? and has not wherewith to pay? ( <401824>Matthew 18:24, 25). But Christ did both and therefore he ?magnified the law and made it honorable?

( <234221>Isaiah 42:21), in an infinitely higher degree than the whole human family would have done, had they all personally suffered for their sins.? Cf. Edwards, Works, 1:406.

(c) It allows disproportionate weight to those passages of Scripture which represent the atonement under commercial analogies, as the payment of a debt or ransom, to the exclusion of those which describe it as an ethical fact whose value is to be estimated not quantitatively, but qualitatively.

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment