In long-distant conversation with a cousin, I have been making my way through Louis Berkhof's The History of Christian Doctrines this year. It's not that long actually, but we (or, at least, I) have not been in a hurry. Today, I came across this passage regarding Anselm's understanding of the doctrine of atonement. In line with my study of the Bible on the topic of honor and shame over the last several years, I found it quite interesting that Anselm "finds the ultimate ground for [the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ] in the honour of God." (Berkhof, 174-175) Berkhof then summarizes Anselm's position very helpful as follows.
As a creature of God man was under obligation to subject his will absolutely and entirely to the divine will, and when he refused this in a spirit of revolution, he dishonoured God and thus contracted a debt. God was robbed of His honour and this must be restored in some way. His mercy could not simply overlook sin, for this would be an irregularity and an injustice. There were two and only two ways in which the divine honour could be vindicated, namely by punishment or by satisfaction. God did not pursue the way of punishment, since this would have spelled ruin for the human race and would have defeated His very purpose. He chose the way of satisfaction, which included two things: (a) that man should now render to God the willing obedience which he owed Him; and (b) that he should make amends for the insult to God’s honour by paying something over and above the actual debt. But since even the smallest sin, as committed against an infinite God, outweighs the whole world and all that is not God, and the amends must be proportionate, it follows that these are beyond the power of man. A gift - and Anselm looks upon satisfaction as a gift rather than as a punishment - surpassing all that is not God can only be God. God only could make true reparation, and His mercy prompted Him to make it through the gift of His Son. It was not sufficient that the one rendering satisfaction should be God; He had to be man as well, one of the human race that contracted the debt of sin, but a man without sin, who was not himself burdened with debt. Only the God-man could satisfy these requirements and thus do justice to the honour of God.
It was necessary for the God-man to render the obedience which man failed to render to God. But this was not sufficient to maintain the honour of God, for in doing this He did nothing more than His duty as man, and this could not constitute merit on His part. However, as a sinless being He was not under obligation to suffer and die. This was entirely voluntary on His part, and by submitting to bitter sufferings and a shameful death in the faithful discharge of His duty to His Father, He brought infinite glory to God. This was a work of supererogation, which could accrue to the benefit of mankind, and which more than counter-balanced the demerits of sin. Justice required that such a free gift should be rewarded. But there is nothing which the Father can give the Son, for He needs nothing. Therefore the reward accrues to the benefit of man and assumes the form of the forgiveness of sins and of future blessedness for all those who live according to the commandments of the Gospel.
(Berkhof, Louis. THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES.)
Berkhof also presents several areas where Anselm's formulation is insufficient or incomplete, logically or theologically.
