The Atonement According to Peter Abelard

by Greg Robertson, 1988

Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana

1. Introduction

2. Abelard's View of Sin

3. Abelard's Atonement

4. Conclusion

5. Footnotes

6. Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

Before we can understand Abelard's views of sin and salvation, we must understand the world he lived in and the prevalent views of his time. The Lutheran reformation divorced human philosophy and speculative science from divine revelation. Peter Abelard (1079-1142) lived during a time when human philosophy and Christian thought were happily married. True, the Christian Scriptures were foundational in the search for truth -- theology was called the "queen of sciences," but the great philosophers were viewed as a sort of "handmaidens" to aid in understanding Christian truth.

Abelard was well educated, but tended to be a free thinker:

"Abelard's own educational background was characterized by conflicts with his masters. . . . He studied under Roscelin (c. 1050-1120), William of Champeaux (c. 1070-1121), and Anselm of Laon (1040-1117), and read works by Boethius (c. 480-524), Aristotle (383-322 B.C.), Porphyry (c. 200's A.D.), and John Scotus Erigena (c. 800-850)." ⁽¹⁾

Abelard is more well known among historians for his love affair with Heloise, than for his innovative view of atonement. This affair probably affected his emphasis on the persuading example of God's love in Christ:

"No sign of love was omitted by us in our ardor and whatever unusual love could devise, that was added too. And the more such delights were new to us, the more ardently we indulged in them, and the less did we experience satiety. And the more these pleasures engaged me, the less time I had for philosophy and the less attention I gave to my school. . . . I became negligent and indifferent in my lectures so that nothing I said stemmed from my talent but I repeated everything from rote. I came simply to say again what had been said long ago and, if I composed any verses, the theme was of love and not of the secrets of philosophy." ⁽²⁾

His affair with Heloise led to her becoming pregnant and bearing him a son. He married her in secret and then sent her off to a convent. Her uncle became enraged and sent some of his kinsmen after Abelard:

". . . They wrought vengeance upon me in a cruel and shameful manner and one which the world with great astonishment abhorred, namely, they cut off the organs by which I had committed the deed which they deplored. ⁽³⁾

Irenaeus (c. 130-200) view of atonement held sway in the Christian church for almost a thousand years. He saw in Scripture that we are ransomed, bought with a price, and purchased out of slavery. Scripture does not say to whom the ransom was paid, but Origen (c. 185-254) believed the Devil received it. Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389) disagreed with the ransom teaching. Augustine (354-430) spoke in terms of a "satisfaction" having been made to God's justice and introduced terms such as the fall, original sin, and justification. The Greek Fathers viewed Christ as not only Victor and Conqueror, but also as Revealer, Benefactor, Physician, Victim, and Reconciler. ⁽⁴⁾ Although there was not complete agreement, the idea that Satan had received a payment was prevalent.

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), an elder contemporary of Abelard, wrote Cur Deus Homo, showing the necessity of Christ's death for atonement. He understood it was God's honor which had been damaged and, therefore, it was God who received the dues for its reparation. At the same time, Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) held to the view that we are redeemed from the Devil. ⁽⁵⁾

The Council of Sens (1140), incited by St. Bernard, condemned the teaching of Abelard at several points:

• "That Christ did not take the flesh in order to free us from the joke of the Devil.
• "That free will of itself suffices to do some good.
• "That we have not received the guilt of Adam, but only the penalty.
• "That those who crucified Christ did not sin, for they did not know what they were doing, and that there is no guilt in that which is done out of ignorance.
• "That the power to bind and unbind was given only to the apostles, and not to their successors." ⁽⁶⁾

ABELARD'S VIEW OF SIN

Reformed theologian B. B. Warfield cites influences which cause certain views to find favor with some people, and the typical answers they exposit to alleviate the problem of sin:

"The fact is, the views men take of the atonement are largely determined by their fundamental feelings of need--by what men most long to be saved from. And from the beginning three well-marked types of thought on this subject have been traceable, corresponding to three fundamental needs of human nature as it unfolds itself in this world of limitation. Men are oppressed by the ignorance, or by the misery, or by the sin in which they feel themselves sunk; and, looking to Christ to deliver them from the evil under which they particularly labor, they are apt to conceive His work as consisting predominantly in revelation of divine knowledge, or in the inauguration of a reign of happiness, or in deliverance from the curse of sin." ⁽⁷⁾

Due to this fact we must consider Abelard's view of sin. His era was much influenced by the views of Augustine:

"His [Augustine's] neo-Platonist studies had taught him that being and goodness are identical, and therefore that evil has no existence; the will is accordingly good and knows only of evil because it knows the "Summum Bonum," which is God. And so he defined sin as the will to retain or to pursue that which justice forbids. The lusts of the flesh are in themselves neither good nor bad; they only become sinful when our will consents to their incitements. Thus, in a sense, all sin must be regarded as negative; it is the desertion of the good and not the pursuit of evil." ⁽⁸⁾

To Abelard the objective standard is just action and merit. Adam's sin is the sin of the whole human race, the outward form of which is concupiscence, inherited through procreation and loosed through baptism. To Adam's sin we add our own. The possession of reason is necessary because sin must be willed if it is truly sin. But, although we are not guilty for Adam's sin, we still suffer the penalty for it. Weaknesses are not sin. Sin is not doing what God would have us do or doing what God does not want us to do. A pleasurable feeling is only sin if it is overindulged. ⁽⁹⁾

Mortal and venial sins are distinguished in a fashion which excludes them from any cataloging. Mortal sins are committed deliberately, venial sins are committed in forgetfulness and can be excused through daily confession, but not through "large satisfactions" such as exclusion from the church or much abstinence. Venial and mortal sins can only be distinguished when the motive and intent of the sinning person are considered. ⁽¹⁰⁾

According to Abelard, for an act to carry any guilt with it three factors must be present. 1) Weakness of mind (renders us liable to sin). 2) Consent we give to an evil suggestion. 3) The evil deed itself. Devils can make suggestions from outside our minds, but this is not sinful without our consent. ⁽¹¹⁾

Right action is only meritoriously good when it is accompanied by good intention. However, to add good intention to right action is not of double worth. No action is right in and of itself. It is only truly right when proper intention is present. ⁽¹²⁾ From this can also be said that all acts done with right intention are good in the sight of God:

"Thus the Lord, when he distinguished deeds according to a right or not-right intention, carefully called the mind's eye (or intention) "single" and, as it were, pure from uncleanness, so that it could see clearly, or on the contrary he called it "darksome," when he said, "If thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be lightsome." This means that if your intention is right, the whole mass of deeds springing from it, which can be seen in the manner of corporeal things, will be worthy of light (that is, good), and contrariwise." ⁽¹³⁾

He does point out that sin comes in more than one package. Although the stoning of Stephen was a sin, it was not imputed to his executioners as sin because they were of a good, though misinformed, intention. "Properly, however, sin means actual contempt for God or consent to evil. . . . From this little children are exempt, as well as the naturally simple-minded. Since these have no merits, because they lack reason, nothing can be imputed to them for sin, and they are saved by the sacraments alone." ⁽¹⁴⁾ Sin is sometimes synonymous with penalty, as in the case where Christ is said to be "made sin" for us. ⁽¹⁵⁾

According to Abelard sin is only to be found in action accompanied by deliberate, wrong intentions, which a person knows to be wrong. From this, his view of Atonement follows. He fits into Warfield's categories delineated earlier as one who sees our chief need to be deliverance from sin, and the solution to be a change of the intention behind our amoral works.

ABELARD'S ATONEMENT

In his commentary on Romans Abelard says: ". . . Our redemption through Christ's suffering is that deeper affection in us which not only frees us from slavery to sin, but also wins for us the true liberty of sons of God, so that we do all things out of love rather than fear -- love to him who has shown us such grace that no greater can be found. . . . ⁽¹⁶⁾

He denied Satan had any power over mankind which was necessary to deal with in atonement, using the same argument as Anselm in this respect. The devil entices us away from God, but has no power to hold us. The seducer has no rights over the seduced. At the same time he disagreed with Anselm's view:

"Indeed, how cruel and wicked it seems that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything, or that it should in any way please him that an innocent man should be slain--still less that God should consider the death of his Son so agreeable that by it he should be reconciled to the whole world!" ⁽¹⁷⁾

Abelard removed not only the idea of ransom from his view of atonement, but any notion of a propitiatory or vicarious sacrifice was also lost. There was no objective atonement made, in his view. The whole of atonement consisted in the change brought about in man:

"Since the cause of our sin is always subjective, in that our sin is due to the consent we give, repentance must be subjective as well. Fear, especially the spirit of bondage, can never be the pure motive of love." ⁽¹⁸⁾

Atonement has not been made until the change in man takes place, as Abelard sees it. Children which die and are too young to understand and be effected by the persuasive force of God's love, find special provision:

". . . If they die in this childish state, when they begin to leave the body and see the glory prepared for them by God's mercy, at that moment, along with discernment, the love of God is born in them." ⁽¹⁹⁾

Therefore, the same subjective change is demanded of children, only the mechanics are different.

Abelard says the power of keys was only given to the apostles and not their successors, and is not the power of the priest to forgive sins, but only to recognize when someone is worthy to have their sins forgiven. They can prescribe penance, based not so much on the offense as on the intent, because it is the intent which grades the seriousness of the offence. Contrition alone removes guilt. Those who die without performing their necessary penance will do so in purgatory. ⁽²⁰⁾

What is necessary for our salvation? Abelard makes it clear:

"Now it seems to us that we have been justified by the blood of Christ and reconciled to God in this way: through this unique act of grace manifested to us--in that his Son has taken upon himself our nature and preserved therein in teaching us by word and example even unto death--he has more fully bound us to himself by love; with the result that our hearts should be enkindled by such a gift of divine grace, and true charity should not now shrink from enduring anything for him." ⁽²¹⁾

CONCLUSION

In Abelard's view no real atonement has been made at all. Christ is the divine persuader, who was sent as an example, a necessary force which creates love in our hearts. It is the love which is created in our hearts that commends us to God and justifies us. Within Abelard's view it is not inherently necessary that Christ be God. He did hold to the deity of Christ, however. The Epitome of the Formula of Concord, article III, rejects the idea "that faith saves because by faith there is begun in us the renewal which consists in love toward God and our fellowman," as contrary to the pure doctrine of the Christian church. ⁽²²⁾ Dr. Francis Pieper shows that Abelard's view of atonement does not even fit within the confines of the Christian faith:

"And if the objective reconciliation of all men with God, effected by the vicarious life, suffering, and death of Christ, is denied, the foundation of the Christian doctrine is destroyed. Whatever form and name may be given to any particular theory, man's efforts take the place, either in whole or in part, of Christ's work. There is then once and for all an end of salvation by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith. Christ's glory as Redeemer is sacrificed, and the assurance of grace and salvation is lost." ⁽²³⁾

Abelard's view of atonement is faulty, not so much because he believes Christ's work is to produce a response of love in us, but because with Abelard the response becomes the ground of our justification.

Footnotes

1. Kathleen M. Starnes, Peter Abelard: His Place in History, p. 37

2. Peter Abelard, The Story of Abelard's Adversities, p. 28-29.

3. Abelard, p. 38.

4. Everett F. Harrison, Editor, Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 71-78.

5. St. Bernard and Abelard were bitter enemies. See A. Victor Murray's Abelard and St. Bernard for a detailed account of this conflict.

6. Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation, p.174.

7. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ, p. 373.

8. J. G. Sikes, Peter Abailard, pp. 180-181.

9. Sikes, pp. 182-184.

10. Sikes, p. 188.

11. Sikes, p. 189.

12. Eugene R. Fairweather, editor, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 10, A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham, p. 289. Abelard's commentary on Romans is the best source for his view of atonement, and his book on ethics called Know Thyself is the best source for his definition of sin.

13. Fairweather, p. 290.

14. Fairweather, pp. 291-292.

15. Fairweather, p. 292.

16. Fairweather, p. 284.

17. Fairweather, p. 283.

18. Sikes, p. 194.

19. Fairweather, p. 287.

20. Sikes, pp. 196-197.

21. Fairweather, p. 283.

22. Theodore G. Tappert, translator, The Book of Concord, p. 475.

23. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol. II, p. 360.

Bibliography

• "Peter Abelard on the Atonement,"
• by Gregory L. Robertson.
• December 11, 1988

Abelard, Peter. Abailard's Ethics. Translated by J. Ramsay McCallum. New York: Richwood Publishing Co., 1976.

________. A Dialogue of a Philosopher with a Jew, and a Christian. Translated by Pierre J. Payer. Toronto: The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1979.

_______. The Story of Abelard's Adversities. Translated by J. T. Muckle. Toronto: The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1964.

Beonio, Maria Teresa, and Fumagalli, Brocchieri. The Logic of Abelard. Translated by Simon Pleasance. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1970.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W. Historical Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.

Fairweather, Eugene R., ed. Library of Christian Classics. Vol. 10: A Scholastic Miscellany: Anselm to Ockham. Translated by Eugene Fairweather. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956.

Gonzalez, Justo L. A History of Christian Thought. Vol. 2: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation. 2nd English ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987.

Luscombe, D. E. Peter Abelard's "Ethics". Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.

________. The School of Peter Abelard: The Influence of Abelard's Thought in the Early Scholastic Period. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

McCabe, Joseph. Peter Abelard. London: Duckworth and Co., 1901.

McCallum, Ramsay J. Abelard's Christian Theology. New York: Richwood Publishing Co., 1976.Murray, A. Victor. Abelard and St Benard: A Study in Twelfth Century 'Modernism'. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1967.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981. Vol. 5: The Middle Ages, by David S. Schaff.

Sikes, J. G. Peter Abailard. Cambridge University Press, 1932; reprint ed., New York: Russell & Russell, 1965.

Starnes, Kathleen M. Peter Abelard: His Place in History. Washington, DC: University Press of America, Inc., 1981.

Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1986.