To the substance of your post, I agree that there are several scripturally possible views. I am surprised you do not mention the clean Unlimited Atonement, which says that Christ died for all without exception, but the salvation he offers is efficacious to certain people, and not those who reject His grace.
However, I do not see any basis for advancing any particular theory based on the discourse presented in this installment. Specifically, I do not see why God owes anything to the devil, and you do not clarify what exactly is your disagreement with my summary or, more importantly, with St. Anselm himself.
It is always my fear that I will summarize incorrectly, and I invite comments on that. At the same time, this is a large book by FR thread measure, and perhaps it would we wiser if we limited our comments to what is actually said in the chapters here presented. For an overview of the theories of atonement a good source is Doctrine of the Atonement. Now, if you disagree with the statement you outlined, what are the contractual rights of the devil?
RM, if you feel that my post #6 is a detriment to this limited caucus thread, please remove it. My mention of other confessions in it was comparative and not meant to invite their input. Thank you.
I am surprised you do not mention the clean Unlimited Atonement, which says that Christ died for all without exception, but the salvation he offers is efficacious to certain people, and not those who reject His grace
Alex, the term "efficacy" is not used by the Orthodox. We always have a choice between God and no-God, so the possibility of our rejection of His grace is always there.
The ransom doctrine only specifies how Christ atoned for our sins and not whether we are under any obligation or guarantee to be saved. Our cooperation with God's grace is always a requirement for "efficacy."
If you don't mind, provide NT references for easier comparison.
Specifically, I do not see why God owes anything to the devil, and you do not clarify what exactly is your disagreement with my summary or, more importantly, with St. Anselm himself
God doesn't owe devil anything. The NT (Mat, Mar, John, 1 John, 2 Tim, Heb) tells us, among other things, that God used this approach (offering Himself as ransom for us), not that He was obliged to do so. St. Anselm's objection to this doctrine suggests that God was somehow obligated to the devil. Rather, it seems God used this approach to trick the devil and destroy his hold on us. Everything is on God's terms and His choosing.
The "efficacy" of God's method is deemed unlimited, i.e. "for all," in some of these NT books (John, 1 John, 2 Tim) and in others as pro multis, "for many" (Mat, Mar, Heb), the former reflecting God's desire, and the latter the reality of our freedom which many use to reject His grace.
Speaking of obligations, with regard to St. Anslem's comment that "there is no contract that God had to honor with respect to the devil" (probably because it "weaknes" God in St. Anslem's eyes), I ask what should we conclude about the idea that He died as "propitiation" (appeasement), which, by the way, is suggested only outside the Gospels? (Rom 3:25, Heb 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 4:10, NAB)
I agree that no one should conclude that God was under any obligation. Rather God, chose the "sting" ransom approach, saying to the devil "Take Me and let My people go," and the devil fell for it and was rendered powerless because now He had God, over Whom he has no power, instead of men.
I see nothing in that doctrine that would oblige God "legalistically" or otherwise, as some suggest.