The doctrine of the atonement, classically formulated by Anselm of Canterbury in Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Man, c. 1098), that Christ's death satisfies the demands of God's justice violated by human sin. Anselm's argument, set against the backdrop of the medieval feudal framework: human sin is an infinite offense against the infinite honor and justice of God; this offense demands either satisfaction (the rendering of what is due, restoring God's honor) or punishment; man owes the satisfaction but cannot pay it (being finite and already owing all his obedience to God), while God alone could pay it but does not owe it; therefore the satisfaction can be made only by one who is both God and man — the God-man (hence Cur Deus Homo, why God became man); Christ, the God-man, by His death (which He did not owe, being sinless) renders to God a satisfaction of infinite worth, sufficient to cover the infinite offense of human sin. Anselm's satisfaction theory marked a decisive advance over earlier atonement models (especially the ransom-to-Satan theory) by locating the atonement in the demands of God's own justice/honor rather than in a transaction with the devil. The Reformation developed Anselm's satisfaction framework into the doctrine of penal substitution: where Anselm framed the satisfaction in terms of God's honor (the feudal category) and as an alternative to punishment (satisfaction OR punishment), the Reformers framed it more precisely in terms of God's justice and the law's penalty, holding that Christ's death was itself the bearing of the penal satisfaction (satisfaction THROUGH the bearing of the penalty — Christ satisfies justice by bearing the punishment due to sin). Penal substitution is thus the developed Reformation form of the satisfaction theory: Christ satisfies divine justice by bearing, in the place of His people, the penalty their sin deserved. The patriarchal-Reformed reader holds the substantive satisfaction framework (the atonement satisfies the demands of God's justice) in its developed penal-substitutionary form (Christ satisfies justice by bearing the penalty of sin in the place of His people); he appreciates Anselm's decisive contribution (locating the atonement in God's justice and establishing the necessity of the God-man) while holding the Reformation's more precise penal framing; and he holds the satisfaction/penal-substitution doctrine against the theories that deny the satisfaction of divine justice (the moral influence and exemplarist theories).