Talk:Satisfaction theory of atonement

Anselm is not Sproul

There is an odd few lines linked to Sproul's website.

"We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was..."

Not sure what this has to do with an outline of Anselm's theology, seems to belong to a general discussion of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.178.217 (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree! And I've removed the paragraph. JFLohr (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Satisfaction vs. Substitution

This article does not seem to realize the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.18.53 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article seems to make "substitution" the central tenant of the article rather than Atonement proper. It seems heavily subjective and strives to push for a theory of "substitution" that was largely not present in generations prior to calvin even in a nascent form. I think the development section needs a dramatic overhaul to reflect the development of Atonement, or the article needs to be subsumed under the Substitution Theory article. We need a distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.245.215 (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Citations

This article has been tagged with needing citation. Could whomever tagged it please be a bit more specific as to where citations are needed? It's a very long article with lots of citations Sharktacos 19:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't place the tag, but in general every section should have at least one, generally two, reference citations, particularly if specific facts are mentioned. Having said that, I think Atonement#Development of the doctrine and Atonement#Further developments are likely the sections thought of as requiring citations. Hope that helps a little. John Carter 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

It's not all that clear, but some of the more modern theologians might have deemed some of the doctrines on atonement to be a tad anti-semitic, since there is a strong emphasis on sacrifice and expiation, a vocabulary that eventually found its way into the language of anti-semites, who demanded retribution for the alleged crimes of the Jews. ADM (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that is far from clear (or a necessary/natural consequence). Sounds more like guilt by association than a genuine connection to me. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculous... that would be like saying that you made an anti-semetic statement just now because your statmenet had "sacrifice" and "expiation" in the sentence. Oh no... I just did it too. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)