What Is Theory of Atonement?

Introduction
Born in 1033, Anselm of Canterbury was a Christian theologian whose most celebrated work was his “ontological argument” for the existence of God. He wrote Cur Deus Homo in 1095-98 and in it he presents his account of Christian atonement theory- a theory that focuses around the concept of God requiring satisfaction for the sins of man. The only way to gain this satisfaction is through the death of Jesus, a theory of atonement known as the ‘substitution theory’. Peter Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm and also a Catholic philosopher and theologian born in 1079, has what appears to be a very different take on atonement theory. He believes Christ’s death on the cross should be used by humanity as a moral example- what is usually called the ‘subjective’ or ‘exemplarist’ theory. On the surface these two theories appear to be almost polar opposites, but by examining them most closely, is it possible to see similarities between the two

Peter Abelard’s theory of atonement in his work entitled Exposition on the Epistle to the Romans, enables man to grow and develop towards a union with God, through seeing Christ’s death as a tool to be used as an example. “…through this righteousness- which is love- we may gain remission of our sins,” the righteousness which Abelard is referring to, is the righteousness “from God, apart from the law, has been made known.” For Abelard, there is no need for God to seek justice over mankind; salvation is achieved through the limitless love of God. The law, in the context of the letter of St Paul, is referring to Jewish Torah and here Paul writes “no-one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin,” observing the law does not render one righteous in the eyes of God, in fact it has quite the opposite effect; Abelard claiming that man should steer clear of any form of self-gratification by law, as through it, humanity has no excuse for their sins. By suffering and dying in the same nature, God is demonstrating his infinite love for humanity. By becoming Christ incarnate, God has united with mankind and in knowing this; the love for God increases throughout humanity, as does their faith in Jesus Christ. But this love is not solely for those who have faith in Christ, it is not exclusively reserved for Christians; “there is no distinction between them in this righteousness of God through faith in Christ as there once was a connection with the works of the law.”All creatures in God’s creation have sinned and so creation universally needs God’s grace, and through the Gospel the grace of God is made manifest. Humanity is therefore obliged to glorify him. In giving up his only son for crucifixion by the Roman authorities, God is demonstrating to his creatures not only how much he loves them, but also how much they in turn should love him. Humanity can only achieve reconciliation through faith in Christ, this reconciliation is only effected by those who have believed and hoped for it. The God of Abelard’s atonement theory does not seek justice for the dishonour that man has cost him through sin, but he benevolently offers them forgiveness as soon they cease from sin.
God for Abelard has freed humanity from the dominion of Satan; he does not require any sort of payment to atone the sins of man. Through the sin in the Garden of Eden, Adam was “the first man [who] had sinned and had yielded himself by voluntary obedience to him,” but mankind did not ‘voluntarily yield’ themselves to the devil, only God has the power to grant man to Satan. Abelard now uses the analogy of a slave and master relationship to illustrate his point; “For if a slave wanted to forsake his lord and put himself under the authority of a new master… his lord could not lawfully…bring him back?Abelard here is wanting to show that although the devil may seduced man into following his command God having the ultimate power will always be able to regain them under his authority. The slave who has seduced the other slave to stray from the path of his master must surely be more guilty than the one he has seduced, man cannot be punished for the seduction of the devil. So what is it that the devil can grant which is so seductive to humanitySatan promises immortality as a reward for transgressing faith in God and Christ. But man has not sinned against Satan; humanity owes its love only to God the Almighty so only he has power over it.
In Abelard’s theory of atonement, God frees humanity from its sins by putting his son, Jesus Christ, to death. In this sense however, it would appear that it is mankind who are responsible for the death of Jesus, it is because of us he has to die. So how can we say we are reconciled to God, if the sins of all creation can only be made obsolete by Christ’s deathIt would appear that the only way to expiate our sins is to shed the blood of an innocent victim, worst still that it should satisfy God to see his own son die on the Roman cross. Abelard explains these difficulties in the next chapter; he believed that the aim of Christ’s death was to leave a legacy by which humanity should follow, by taking on human nature and providing us with an example that he taught through the word. His divine grace given through his death has allowed humanity to more fully unite to Christ and his passion showing us that humanity’s faith and love in him is now realised and no longer hoped for.
‘Why God became man,’ the title of Anselm’s work on atonement theory, goes some way to explaining how humanity comes to achieve salvation, through the essential need for God to become incarnate on the earth, for him to become man. For Anselm, it would appear that sin for humans is unavoidable, they inherited it form Adam, or what is usually called ‘original sin’. Anselm writes; “Every inclination of the rational creature ought to be subject to the will of God…this is the debt which angels and men owe to God.” So to avoid sin, humanity must live in perfect obedience to God, but because of the eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, and the sin inherited consequently, this perfect obedience is unachievable. But Anselm’s God is infinitely good and infinitely powerful, this inherited sin and the punishment which follows are by no means a short fall in his creation, neither is it done for malicious or spiteful reasons. For God to allow himself to be dishonoured by humanity would bring injustice upon him or show him to be utterly powerless to achieve this justice. No part of God’s creation can take away his honour and not repay the debt that is accrued in doing so- because if God were to allow this to happen, it would be a grave injustice, so to maintain the dignity and honour of the creator, he must punish. For Anselm “one who does not render…honour to God takes away from God what belongs to him.”
But what if man decides not to repay God the honour he has taken away from himDoes this mean God loses his honourAnselm answers these questions very simply “As far as God himself is concerned, nothing can be added to his honour or subtracted from it” God’s honour is completely unchangeable. When man wills what it ought to God, man honours God, maintaining his place in grand order of the universe but Anselm writes that when humanity sins, this dishonouring of God disrupts the order and beauty of the entire cosmos and the whole of God’s creation. For this disturbance, God requires satisfaction, but a satisfaction that goes way beyond anything man could ever provide; humanity must give God something of infinite value. This must mean that for Anselm man must present something that is in God’s nature, for only he is of infinite value. Here this theory of atonement reaches paradox; only God can provide something that is God-like in nature, only he can provide what is needed to atone the sins of man, but it is the singular role of humanity to pay off the debt owed to God. The solution to this paradoxGod must become incarnate physically within creation; he must become man on earth- Christ. Anselm states that this God-man exists hypostatically, in which the human nature and the divine nature do not mingle, “For the divine and human natures cannot be changed into each other, so that the divine becomes human and the human divine. Nor can they be so mingled that a third nature, neither fully divine nor fully human, is produced from the two.” In this way, the God-Man, Jesus, can achieve the satisfaction that is required by God and be fully human at the same time.
All Christians are familiar with the story of Easter in which Jesus dies on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. In this story, the Christ whom we see perishing on the cross must be his human nature, his divine nature being incorruptible. Anselm believes mortality to belong to the corrupt rather than the pure nature of man, but no man can be immortal. This however, does not mean that Christ, being fully human should not be immortal, he is still hypostatically human and divine, he is still God. “To make satisfaction for man’s sins he must be able to die if he wills it”His power enables him to lay down his life if he wills and if he permits he will allow himself to be killed. Here Anselm believes God is assuming humanity but is being very wise in how he does it. God in his nature would not perform any undertaking without the application of wisdom, and because of this, God, as Christ will never lack the might and wisdom of the creator. By giving up his life on the cross, Jesus has given something of infinite value, something that an ordinary human being couldn’t give and in doing so, the God-Man has given the satisfaction that is required to cancel out the dishonour done to God by humanity.
We can see from close analysis that Anselm and Abelard’s theories of atonement appear very different. But is it possible to find similaritiesCalling Anselm’s work Cur Deus Homo “unquestionably the major single document in Western atonement” Anthony W. Bartlett obviously believes it to be incredibly influential to church doctrine. The theme in Anselm’s theory, identified by Bartlett, is the question why was it necessary to become manBartlett writes that Anselm intended to solve this mystery “by means of question and answer, and with another monk, Boso”who he writes Anselm found to be “most insistent among the many seeking the answer to this question.” But why conduct this question and answer with a monkBartlett believes that here Anselm is “championing this monastic ideology, seeing it as the only safe means of salvation in a dangerous world.”In the eleventh century Bartlett writes that Anselm’s theory of atonement would have been hard to swallow- this was a completely new way at looking at how humanity should come to achieve salvation. Bartlett writes that Anselm’s analogy of “town, keep and castle”shows the turbulent circumstances of the documents’ composition but also Anselm’s attitude to the idea of feudal honour, especially in relation to God. Bartlett writes “to challenge the honour of the Christian God…was to threaten the capstone and cement of the universe” Anselm in Bartlett’s view is here showing that Christ’s death inevitable and necessary; it required for the satisfaction of God for the dishonour which mankind has caused him. So what does Bartlett see as the biggest success of this documentWhy is Cur Deus Homo one of the most important works on the doctrine of salvationBecause Bartlett believes that in it, Anselm is breaking free of the idea of ‘rights of the devil,’ the traditional view put forward by Gilbert Crispin who believed that the “Christian doctrine of the God-Man was both unnecessary and derogatory to God.”Bartlett further writes that “The judicial ownership of man by the Devil was certainly an idea both men wanted to see over and done with.”Moving away from this view Anselm for Bartlett is “[enshrining] the notion of honour, [creating] a mimetic category par excellence”Put simply, human owe honour to God, not to the Devil.
Bartlett does however identify one problem with Anselm’s theory of atonement; the violent and oppositional relationship between God and Jesus. Jesus in the hypostasis has in violence “melded with the Father, but in a way at once more unchallengeable and dangerous than before because it will always remain in vigour at a supreme level” It does seem unfitting that the benevolent Christian God would be in some way satisfied by the violent execution of his son Jesus, furthermore to then tell his devoted followers that they were the reason he had to die.
Jaroslav Pelikan in his work on the Christian Tradition entitled The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300) also explores Anselm’s theory of atonement in some detail. Like Bartlett, Pelikan also believes that Cur Dues Homo shows a historical leap forward in that Anselm in it “translated the fundamental significance of the biblical and liturgical image of sacrifice”– Mankind’s redemption was in no way directed towards the Devil or to man itself, but always a direct act for God. Pelikan sees two choices; for Anselm God’s disgraced honour must be satisfied, either through eternal punishment or though other means, and this is the problem which Anselm’s theory eloquently addresses. If humanity was to be saved by God from their transgressions, it was up to God to provide this salvation. “God did not need to suffer on the cross, but man needed to be reconciled through such suffering.” Here Pelikan is illustrating Anselm’s theory perfectly, only humans needed to give God satisfaction, but only he was capable of doing so by the death of his son Jesus. Pelikan concludes by stating that “Anselm was above all giving voice to the common conviction that the cross was the redemption of mankind” For God not to require satisfaction from humanity for their sins is for Pelikan impossible- it would be a violation of the justice which God is trying to uphold.
For Bartlett, Abelard’s conclusion is strikingly different to that of Anselm’s; “If Adam’s sin was so great that it could only be expiated by the death of Christ, what expiation can there be for the very murder committed against Christ…?” Abelard himself known for having a forthright and completely different concept of atonement to Anselm, were his theory of ‘absolute reasoning’ collides head on with Abelard’s theory of Christ death having a “contingent affective impact on the individual”But in the midst of this stand off between the two theologians, Bartlett believes it is possible to see a connection between them. The construction of Anselm’s theory is based on “systematic or institutionalized mimesis in the conflictual sense”and Bartlett is venturing that Abelard turns this mimesis on its head, presenting it as “an example of surrender, or a mimesis of open ended giving that has forfeited all exchange”The death of Jesus is now no longer seen as an act of supreme violence, but is understood now as a loss which in itself brings about salvation, the necessary logic is lost. For Abelard it is a deep compassion that brings about humanity’s redemption, not a thrist for Christ’s blood. But here Bartlett spots a problem, what if, after Christ’s passion, the demonstration of God’s love for his creatures that he may lay down his own Son to die for our salvation, the sinner on earth does not show any compassionThere is no guarantee that Christ’s example will work, because some may choose not to follow it, God did after all give mankind free will. Bartlett believes Abelard manages to solve this problem- the flaw which is here identified by Bartlett may also be what makes Abelard’s theory brilliant- “It is only the real possibility of failure that also constitutes that possibility of real change”
Conclusion
Caroline Walker Bynum sees the evoking of the love of humanity through Christ’s death as a connecting feature between Anselm and Abelard’s concepts of atonement. She writes that “There are not two redemption theories in the middle ages, but one” She believes that Anselm in fact agrees with Abelard and that “empathetic participation in Christ’s suffering arouses humankind to a love that is the first step towards return and reconciliation”She believes that like in Anselm’s theory of something needed to be given to God to bridge the rift created by sin which is tearing the universe apart, Christ’s love for Abelard is what is required to fill this hole; “Like…Anselm, Abelard sees both the cross and the mass as sacrifice and satisfaction” She goes on to say that this concept does not just apply to Anselm and Abelard’s thinking, in fact all twelfth century thinkers. It leaves humanity filled with compassion and a need to effect healing, and allows God to stitch together the chasm that was open by Adam and his original sin.
On reflection, can we really reconcile these two theories of atonementI have shown with the help of modern scholarship that there are comparisons to be drawn between the works of Anselm and Abelard and that similarities do occur, but are they just too differentI would venture that they are.
Introduction
Born in 1033, Anselm of Canterbury was a Christian theologian whose most celebrated work was his “ontological argument” for the existence of God[1]. He wrote Cur Deus Homo in 1095-98 and in it he presents his account of Christian atonement theory- a theory that focuses around the concept of God requiring satisfaction for the sins of man. The only way to gain this satisfaction is through the death of Jesus, a theory of atonement known as the ‘substitution theory’. Peter Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm and also a Catholic philosopher and theologian born in 1079, has what appears to be a very different take on atonement theory. He believes Christ’s death on the cross should be used by humanity as a moral example- what is usually called the ‘subjective’ or ‘exemplarist’ theory. On the surface these two theories appear to be almost polar opposites, but by examining them most closely, is it possible to see similarities between the two?
Peter Abelard’s theory of atonement in his work entitled Exposition on the Epistle to the Romans, enables man to grow and develop towards a union with God, through seeing Christ’s death as a tool to be used as an example. “…through this righteousness- which is love- we may gain remission of our sins,”[2] the righteousness which Abelard is referring to, is the righteousness “from God, apart from the law, has been made known.”[3] For Abelard, there is no need for God to seek justice over mankind; salvation is achieved through the limitless love of God. The law, in the context of the letter of St Paul, is referring to Jewish Torah and here Paul writes “no-one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin,”[4] observing the law does not render one righteous in the eyes of God, in fact it has quite the opposite effect; Abelard claiming that man should steer clear of any form of self-gratification by law, as through it, humanity has no excuse for their sins. By suffering and dying in the same nature, God is demonstrating his infinite love for humanity. By becoming Christ incarnate, God has united with mankind and in knowing this; the love for God increases throughout humanity, as does their faith in Jesus Christ. But this love is not solely for those who have faith in Christ, it is not exclusively reserved for Christians; “there is no distinction between them in this righteousness of God through faith in Christ as there once was a connection with the works of the law.”[5] All creatures in God’s creation have sinned and so creation universally needs God’s grace, and through the Gospel the grace of God is made manifest. Humanity is therefore obliged to glorify him. In giving up his only son for crucifixion by the Roman authorities, God is demonstrating to his creatures not only how much he loves them, but also how much they in turn should love him. Humanity can only achieve reconciliation through faith in Christ, this reconciliation is only effected by those who have believed and hoped for it. The God of Abelard’s atonement theory does not seek justice for the dishonour that man has cost him through sin, but he benevolently offers them forgiveness as soon they cease from sin.
God for Abelard has freed humanity from the dominion of Satan; he does not require any sort of payment to atone the sins of man. Through the sin in the Garden of Eden, Adam was “the first man [who] had sinned and had yielded himself by voluntary obedience to him,”[6] but mankind did not ‘voluntarily yield’ themselves to the devil, only God has the power to grant man to Satan. Abelard now uses the analogy of a slave and master relationship to illustrate his point; “For if a slave wanted to forsake his lord and put himself under the authority of a new master… his lord could not lawfully…bring him back?[7] Abelard here is wanting to show that although the devil may seduced man into following his command God having the ultimate power will always be able to regain them under his authority. The slave who has seduced the other slave to stray from the path of his master must surely be more guilty than the one he has seduced, man cannot be punished for the seduction of the devil. So what is it that the devil can grant which is so seductive to humanitySatan promises immortality as a reward for transgressing faith in God and Christ. But man has not sinned against Satan; humanity owes its love only to God the Almighty so only he has power over it.
In Abelard’s theory of atonement, God frees humanity from its sins by putting his son, Jesus Christ, to death. In this sense however, it would appear that it is mankind who are responsible for the death of Jesus, it is because of us he has to die. So how can we say we are reconciled to God, if the sins of all creation can only be made obsolete by Christ’s deathIt would appear that the only way to expiate our sins is to shed the blood of an innocent victim, worst still that it should satisfy God to see his own son die on the Roman cross. Abelard explains these difficulties in the next chapter; he believed that the aim of Christ’s death was to leave a legacy by which humanity should follow, by taking on human nature and providing us with an example that he taught through the word. His divine grace given through his death has allowed humanity to more fully unite to Christ and his passion showing us that humanity’s faith and love in him is now realised and no longer hoped for.
‘Why God became man,’ the title of Anselm’s work on atonement theory, goes some way to explaining how humanity comes to achieve salvation, through the essential need for God to become incarnate on the earth, for him to become man. For Anselm, it would appear that sin for humans is unavoidable, they inherited it form Adam, or what is usually called ‘original sin’. Anselm writes; “Every inclination of the rational creature ought to be subject to the will of God…this is the debt which angels and men owe to God.”[8] So to avoid sin, humanity must live in perfect obedience to God, but because of the eating of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, and the sin inherited consequently, this perfect obedience is unachievable. But Anselm’s God is infinitely good and infinitely powerful, this inherited sin and the punishment which follows are by no means a short fall in his creation, neither is it done for malicious or spiteful reasons. For God to allow himself to be dishonoured by humanity would bring injustice upon him or show him to be utterly powerless to achieve this justice. No part of God’s creation can take away his honour and not repay the debt that is accrued in doing so- because if God were to allow this to happen, it would be a grave injustice, so to maintain the dignity and honour of the creator, he must punish. For Anselm “one who does not render…honour to God takes away from God what belongs to him.”[9]
But what if man decides not to repay God the honour he has taken away from himDoes this mean God loses his honourAnselm answers these questions very simply “As far as God himself is concerned, nothing can be added to his honour or subtracted from it”[10] God’s honour is completely unchangeable. When man wills what it ought to God, man honours God, maintaining his place in grand order of the universe but Anselm writes that when humanity sins, this dishonouring of God disrupts the order and beauty of the entire cosmos and the whole of God’s creation. For this disturbance, God requires satisfaction, but a satisfaction that goes way beyond anything man could ever provide; humanity must give God something of infinite value. This must mean that for Anselm man must present something that is in God’s nature, for only he is of infinite value. Here this theory of atonement reaches paradox; only God can provide something that is God-like in nature, only he can provide what is needed to atone the sins of man, but it is the singular role of humanity to pay off the debt owed to God. The solution to this paradoxGod must become incarnate physically within creation; he must become man on earth- Christ. Anselm states that this God-man exists hypostatically, in which the human nature and the divine nature do not mingle, “For the divine and human natures cannot be changed into each other, so that the divine becomes human and the human divine. Nor can they be so mingled that a third nature, neither fully divine nor fully human, is produced from the two.”[11] In this way, the God-Man, Jesus, can achieve the satisfaction that is required by God and be fully human at the same time.
All Christians are familiar with the story of Easter in which Jesus dies on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. In this story, the Christ whom we see perishing on the cross must be his human nature, his divine nature being incorruptible. Anselm believes mortality to belong to the corrupt rather than the pure nature of man, but no man can be immortal. This however, does not mean that Christ, being fully human should not be immortal, he is still hypostatically human and divine, he is still God. “To make satisfaction for man’s sins he must be able to die if he wills it”[12] His power enables him to lay down his life if he wills and if he permits he will allow himself to be killed. Here Anselm believes God is assuming humanity but is being very wise in how he does it. God in his nature would not perform any undertaking without the application of wisdom, and because of this, God, as Christ will never lack the might and wisdom of the creator. By giving up his life on the cross, Jesus has given something of infinite value, something that an ordinary human being couldn’t give and in doing so, the God-Man has given the satisfaction that is required to cancel out the dishonour done to God by humanity.
We can see from close analysis that Anselm and Abelard’s theories of atonement appear very different. But is it possible to find similaritiesCalling Anselm’s work Cur Deus Homo “unquestionably the major single document in Western atonement”[13] Anthony W. Bartlett obviously believes it to be incredibly influential to church doctrine. The theme in Anselm’s theory, identified by Bartlett, is the question why was it necessary to become manBartlett writes that Anselm intended to solve this mystery “by means of question and answer, and with another monk, Boso”[14] who he writes Anselm found to be “most insistent among the many seeking the answer to this question.”[15] But why conduct this question and answer with a monkBartlett believes that here Anselm is “championing this monastic ideology, seeing it as the only safe means of salvation in a dangerous world.”[16] In the eleventh century Bartlett writes that Anselm’s theory of atonement would have been hard to swallow- this was a completely new way at looking at how humanity should come to achieve salvation. Bartlett writes that Anselm’s analogy of “town, keep and castle”[17] shows the turbulent circumstances of the documents’ composition but also Anselm’s attitude to the idea of feudal honour, especially in relation to God. Bartlett writes “to challenge the honour of the Christian God…was to threaten the capstone and cement of the universe”[18] Anselm in Bartlett’s view is here showing that Christ’s death inevitable and necessary; it required for the satisfaction of God for the dishonour which mankind has caused him. So what does Bartlett see as the biggest success of this documentWhy is Cur Deus Homo one of the most important works on the doctrine of salvationBecause Bartlett believes that in it, Anselm is breaking free of the idea of ‘rights of the devil,’ the traditional view put forward by Gilbert Crispin who believed that the “Christian doctrine of the God-Man was both unnecessary and derogatory to God.”[19] Bartlett further writes that “The judicial ownership of man by the Devil was certainly an idea both men wanted to see over and done with.”[20] Moving away from this view Anselm for Bartlett is “[enshrining] the notion of honour, [creating] a mimetic category par excellence”[21] Put simply, human owe honour to God, not to the Devil.
Bartlett does however identify one problem with Anselm’s theory of atonement; the violent and oppositional relationship between God and Jesus. Jesus in the hypostasis has in violence “melded with the Father, but in a way at once more unchallengeable and dangerous than before because it will always remain in vigour at a supreme level”[22] It does seem unfitting that the benevolent Christian God would be in some way satisfied by the violent execution of his son Jesus, furthermore to then tell his devoted followers that they were the reason he had to die.
Jaroslav Pelikan in his work on the Christian Tradition entitled The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300) also explores Anselm’s theory of atonement in some detail. Like Bartlett, Pelikan also believes that Cur Dues Homo shows a historical leap forward in that Anselm in it “translated the fundamental significance of the biblical and liturgical image of sacrifice”[23]– Mankind’s redemption was in no way directed towards the Devil or to man itself, but always a direct act for God. Pelikan sees two choices; for Anselm God’s disgraced honour must be satisfied, either through eternal punishment or though other means, and this is the problem which Anselm’s theory eloquently addresses. If humanity was to be saved by God from their transgressions, it was up to God to provide this salvation. “God did not need to suffer on the cross, but man needed to be reconciled through such suffering.”[24] Here Pelikan is illustrating Anselm’s theory perfectly, only humans needed to give God satisfaction, but only he was capable of doing so by the death of his son Jesus. Pelikan concludes by stating that “Anselm was above all giving voice to the common conviction that the cross was the redemption of mankind”[25] For God not to require satisfaction from humanity for their sins is for Pelikan impossible- it would be a violation of the justice which God is trying to uphold.
For Bartlett, Abelard’s conclusion is strikingly different to that of Anselm’s; “If Adam’s sin was so great that it could only be expiated by the death of Christ, what expiation can there be for the very murder committed against Christ…?”[26] Abelard himself known for having a forthright and completely different concept of atonement to Anselm, were his theory of ‘absolute reasoning’ collides head on with Abelard’s theory of Christ death having a “contingent affective impact on the individual”[27]But in the midst of this stand off between the two theologians, Bartlett believes it is possible to see a connection between them. The construction of Anselm’s theory is based on “systematic or institutionalized mimesis in the conflictual sense”[28] and Bartlett is venturing that Abelard turns this mimesis on its head, presenting it as “an example of surrender, or a mimesis of open ended giving that has forfeited all exchange”[29] The death of Jesus is now no longer seen as an act of supreme violence, but is understood now as a loss which in itself brings about salvation, the necessary logic is lost. For Abelard it is a deep compassion that brings about humanity’s redemption, not a thrist for Christ’s blood. But here Bartlett spots a problem, what if, after Christ’s passion, the demonstration of God’s love for his creatures that he may lay down his own Son to die for our salvation, the sinner on earth does not show any compassionThere is no guarantee that Christ’s example will work, because some may choose not to follow it, God did after all give mankind free will. Bartlett believes Abelard manages to solve this problem- the flaw which is here identified by Bartlett may also be what makes Abelard’s theory brilliant- “It is only the real possibility of failure that also constitutes that possibility of real change”[30]
Caroline Walker Bynum sees the evoking of the love of humanity through Christ’s death as a connecting feature between Anselm and Abelard’s concepts of atonement. She writes that “There are not two redemption theories in the middle ages, but one”[31] She believes that Anselm in fact agrees with Abelard and that “empathetic participation in Christ’s suffering arouses humankind to a love that is the first step towards return and reconciliation”[32] She believes that like in Anselm’s theory of something needed to be given to God to bridge the rift created by sin which is tearing the universe apart, Christ’s love for Abelard is what is required to fill this hole; “Like…Anselm, Abelard sees both the cross and the mass as sacrifice and satisfaction”[33] She goes on to say that this concept does not just apply to Anselm and Abelard’s thinking, in fact all twelfth century thinkers. It leaves humanity filled with compassion and a need to effect healing, and allows God to stitch together the chasm that was open by Adam and his original sin.
On reflection, can we really reconcile these two theories of atonementI have shown with the help of modern scholarship that there are comparisons to be drawn between the works of Anselm and Abelard and that similarities do occur, but are they just too differentI would venture that they are.