The Patristic Roots of Satisfaction Atonement Theories: Did the Church Fathers Affirm Only _Christus Victor_?

Abstract

In his work _Christus Victor_, Gustaf Aulén argued that Anselm of Canterbury’s account of the atonement was foreign to ancient Christian belief. In particular, Aulén argued that Anselm diverged from the original understanding of the doctrine as presented by the church fathers. Aulén argued that the Eastern church rightly endorsed a model of the atonement that he called the ‘classic view’, while Anselm in the West later wrongly developed a theory of satisfaction that Aulén called the ‘Latin’ view. This critique, by extension, applies to other ‘Anselmic’ theories of atonement such as penal substitution that, like Anselm’s, also affirm that Christ’s death in some way satisfied God’s requirements in response to human sin. Patristic literature shows, however, that Aulén’s conclusion is more imposition than exposition. Fathers from both East and West commonly advanced theories that comport well with what Aulén called the Latin view alongside _Christus Victor_.