No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
The Interpretation of Anselm’s Teaching on Christ’s Satisfaction for Sin in the Franciscan Tradition from Alexander of Hales to Duns Scotus Andrew Rosato (bio) Anselm’s Cur Deus homo [CDH hereafter] covers a number of topics related to the doctrine of redemption, but its main contribution to that doctrine is its account of how Christ’s death makes satisfaction for human sin. Anselm’s concept of satisfaction is correlated with his understanding of sin. According to Anselm, sin incurs a debt that one pays by making satisfaction. Anselm’s satisfaction theory of the Atonement came to dominate soteriology in the scholastic period. Despite numerous quotations from and references to CDH among thirteenth- and fourteenth-century authors, we find that scholastics differ in how they interpret Anselm’s teaching on Christ’s satisfaction. This study will contribute to our understanding of how Anselm’s teaching on Christ’s satisfaction for sin was understood in the scholastic period by examining the writings of Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, Matthew of Aquasparta, Peter of John Olivi, Richard of Middleton, and Duns Scotus.1 We will examine [End Page 411] the interpretation of Anselm’s concept of satisfaction in the writings of these Franciscan theologians by looking at how their writings answer one or both of the following questions: Must whatever good act that Christ offers to God as satisfaction necessarily involve voluntarily undergoing suffering? Does satisfaction require offering to God only a substitute good for the good that was damaged by sin, or does it also require making possible the repair of the very good that sin damages so that, as it were, this good could be offered back to God in its renewed form as part of the recompense for sin? By looking at how the aforementioned Franciscans answered the first question, we will see that some of them came to assimilate Anselm’s concept of satisfaction to the understanding of satisfaction operative in sacramental theology. The result of this was to interpret Anselm as maintaining that satisfaction necessarily involved undergoing punishment. It must be kept in mind, however, that the scholastic theologians discussed below who adhere to this view of satisfaction hold that Christ voluntarily accepts punishment and, therefore, undergoes punishment in a different sense from those punished against their will who suffer punishment properly speaking. In looking at answers to the second question, we will see that it was common among Franciscan theologians to hold that making satisfaction required offering both a substitute good (namely, the freely chosen Passion and death of Christ), but also required making it possible that the good damaged by sin (namely, the human race) is healed from the effects of sin. It is for this reason that many Franciscans identify satisfaction as a type of merit since it is by participating in the graces merited by Christ that members of the human race are healed from the damaging effects of their sins. [End Page 412] The writings of Duns Scotus will be our point of departure for examining this second question since his emphasis on Christ’s redemptive merit has been interpreted as a denial that Christ makes satisfaction for sin. By examining Scotus’s writings in light of how some of his Franciscan predecessors understood the connection between satisfaction and merit we will see that Scotus does hold that Christ makes satisfaction for sin. I. Anselm’s account of Satisfaction Anselm articulates his definition of satisfaction in conjunction with his understanding of sin. According to Anselm, “sin is nothing else than not paying back what is owed to God.”2 Anselm has a variety of ways of characterizing the debt that we owe to God. Sometimes he describes our debt as consisting in obedience to God or as a matter of preserving the rectitude (or justice) of one’s will. He also characterizes it as giving God the honor that is his due.3 Whether the debt we owe to God is characterized as that of obedience, rectitude of will, or honor, sin is the failure to pay this debt. After one fails to pay this debt, justice obligates him to make satisfaction before he can be reconciled with God. When explaining what...
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 62 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.