Another "Why would God do this..." question

[OneSheep]

Could you explain this more? How exactly is that quote wrong? What was Pope Benedict’s rebuttal to it?

The Truth Will Make You Free: Joseph Ratzinger Re-Thinks Anselm's Theology of Redemption

 

[ShowersofRoses]

Thanks for the link!! I just read it through. I grew up hearing many variations of Anselm’s theology, so it’s great to hear the Catholic Truth about it.

 

[OneSheep]

You’re welcome! I think that the Cardinal did not go far enough, as the God I know does not carry debts at all, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. OTOH, the Anselmian approach is to be totally respected also. I’m not looking at this as zero-sum.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

Yes, perhaps in some ways it depends on the perspective? As in, we owed a debt we could never pay. But in His great love for us, God stepped down and poured out His life for us, to bring us to Him and reconcile us to Him forever. He would not see us left helpless. It’s not about satisfying His wrath…it’s about Him desiring to heal us and bring us back into right relationship with Him, about Him wanting that relationship more than anything else.

I prefer focusing on His love and sacrifice rather than views that seem to only focus on his penal substitution and the appeasement of God’s wrath. That seems to lessen His voluntary sacrifice because of His love. We love Him because He first loved us.

 

[Gab123]

The spectacle of the crucifixion show us the horror of sin, as well as proof of God’s love for us. Jesus is God. Sin is what separates us from God. We sin through our bodies, we sin with our mind; the crown of thorns in reparation for all of man’s evil thoughts and pride; we sin wit our hands, we sin with our feet, walking down paths we ought not go; we sin with our flesh, we sin with our heart; we sin with our mind, sin separates us from God, whereas Jesus’ sacrifice makes us one with God again; at-one-ment. ‘an could not pay a debt against aan infinite being; thus the infinite being becomes man and pays it for us. Thus no matter what we do sinfully, if we repent and turn to Jesus, we are forgiven through Jesus.

 

[Gorgias]

This was refuted by Pope Benedict.

The Truth Will Make You Free: Joseph Ratzinger Re-Thinks Anselm's Theology of Redemption

A couple of notes, though:

• Ratzinger doesn’t dispute that “the degree of the offense against God is infinite.” Rather, he rejects the idea that the sacrifice of Christ is a ‘payment’ against the debt. In other words, Ratzinger is holding a normative Catholic position, which is that while “substitutionary atonement” is a reasonable explanation, nevertheless the particular type of substitutionary atonement known as “penal substitution” is in error.
• Anselm isn’t the only Catholic thinker to have embraced substitutionary atonement. In fact, long after Anselm’s death, St Thomas Aquinas addressed Anselm’s ideas, and came up an explanation along the lines of what Ratzinger discussed – the notion of the “satisfaction theory of atonement”, in which it’s not payment, but propitiation that characterizes Christ’s actions.

So, it’s not so much that “Benedict refutes the need for infinite substitutionary atonement” as it is that he discusses the Catholic response to the Calvinist assertion of penal substitution.

 

[OneSheep]

Ratzinger doesn’t dispute that “the degree of the offense against God is infinite.

I don’t remember one way or the other on reading his work. Would you mind defining the word “offense” in that sentence? I heard an interesting definition on Catholic Radio the other day, but I cannot paraphrase it accurately.

What is it, and what isn’t it?

it’s not payment , but propitiation that characterizes Christ’s actions.

How would you characterize God’s position towards us before propitiation occurs?

 

[Gorgias]

Would you mind defining the word “offense” in that sentence?

Well, I think the answer is in the page you cited, isn’t it?

His argument may be roughly summarized like this: by man’s sin, which was aimed against God, the order of justice was infinitely damaged and God infinitely offended. Behind this is the idea that the measure of the offence is determined by the status of the offended party; if I offend a beggar the consequences are not the same as they would be if I offended a head of state. The importance of the offence varies according to the addressee. Since God is infinite the offence to him implicit in humanity’s sin is also infinitely important.

Since humanity’s sin is “aimed at God”, it’s “the order of justice” that is damaged (not God Himself, per se). So, the offense is against justice, but aimed at God.

Does that help?

How would you characterize God’s position towards us before propitiation occurs?

I don’t know that I would characterize God in temporal terms.

We could talk about humanity’s position, vis-a-vis God, prior to Christ’s sacrifice, but I don’t think that’s what you’re asking…

 

[OneSheep]

Well, I think the answer is in the page you cited, isn’t it?

Not really. I think that he was truly contrasting the image he was presenting as different than Anselm. Specifically, he wrote of Anselm’s demonstration of God as wrathful.

Since humanity’s sin is “aimed at God”, it’s “the order of justice” that is damaged (not God Himself, per se). So, the offense is against justice, but aimed at God.

Would you say that when someone defies what you ask of them, that it is really easy to “take it personally”, that the defiance was aimed at you personally, rather than seeing that the person was making a choice that they saw was good, but did not really want to hurt or offend anyone (most of the time)?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

when all He would have had to do was simply forgive them? .

Agreed - but…

God has asked us to forgive others, that would be easy for God to say, why would we take any notice?

If on the other hand, Jesus suffered a cruel death, and he asked God to forgive them. Would this be a reason why we should follow the example of Jesus and forgive our enemies too.

 

[Gorgias]

Not really. I think that he was truly contrasting the image he was presenting as different than Anselm. Specifically, he wrote of Anselm’s demonstration of God as wrathful.

What I took from the quotation in the article was that Ratzinger wasn’t disputing Anselm’s premise, but rather, his solution.

Would you say that when someone defies what you ask of them, that it is really easy to “take it personally”, that the defiance was aimed at you personally, rather than seeing that the person was making a choice that they saw was good, but did not really want to hurt or offend anyone (most of the time)?

Hmm… I think I have two reactions to that question:

• First, in terms of “taking it personally”, I think that you’re asking this question about God. So, my reaction is that you’re anthropomorphizing God. No… He doesn’t take it personally – by which, it seems, you’re saying that He shouldn’t “take it personally”, but He does.
• Second, in terms of the intent of the “offense”, the idea that Anselm presents (and Ratzinger doesn’t dispute) is that the offense is to justice itself, rather than the person of God. However, inasmuch as God is justice, then the offense is directed toward Him. I see it much as I would see the question of treason or sedition. These are directed against a country, but that’s also seen as being directed precisely at the leader of the country. In an analogous way, I suspect that’s what’s going on here.

 

[OneSheep]

What I took from the quotation in the article was that Ratzinger wasn’t disputing Anselm’s premise , but rather, his solution .

From the article:

But even if all this is admitted it cannot be denied on the other hand that the perfectly logical divine-cum-human legal system erected by Anselm distorts the perspectives and with its rigid logic can make the image of God appear in a sinister light

Do you agree (with Cardinal Ratzinger) that Anselm’s premise begins with a God who is wrathful, angry or resentful, even “sinister”?

by which, it seems, you’re saying that He shouldn’t “take it personally”, but He does.

Would you agree that it is our human limitation, though, that we project on God what we ourselves feel in given circumstances? You are saying that God takes it personally, and that conclusion comes from your own valid experience of what it is like to be defied. We naturally take offense, the offense is unconscionable in our eyes, and condemnation is triggered in us.

inasmuch as God is justice, then the offense is directed toward Him

Are you thinking that Eve and Adam intended to direct an offense toward God?

For example, are you a parent? If so, has one of your own children defied your rules for the purpose of offending you?

Also, have you heard the words “God’s justice is mercy?”.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you agree (with Cardinal Ratzinger) that Anselm’s premise begins with a God who is wrathful, angry or resentful, even “sinister”?

Neither Ratzinger, Anselm, nor I are starting with that premise. Rather, the premise which Anselm proposes and to which Ratzinger assents is one of “infinite offense.”

Ratzinger proceeds to point out what Aquinas had proposed: it’s not about wrath and repayment; it’s about loving sacrifice and loving satisfaction.

Would you agree that it is our human limitation, though, that we project on God what we ourselves feel in given circumstances?

I think that often, that’s precisely the case. However, that’s not what’s in play here.

You are saying that God takes it personally

No – and that subtle distinction is critical, in order to understand Aquinas’ and Ratzinger’s argument. It’s not about God taking personal umbrage; it’s about an infinite offense to justice.

Are you thinking that Eve and Adam intended to direct an offense toward God?

Doesn’t matter. What matters is that they intended to defy God’s command to them. What they thought the consequences would be, isn’t in play.

For example, are you a parent? If so, has one of your own children defied your rules for the purpose of offending you?

And yet, that’s not what we’re asserting here. (And, for the sake of the question, I can answer it in an even more personal and poignant way: I know that I myself defied my parents as a teen, particularly for the goal of causing them offense!) But, even if that were true of God, then what we’re asserting isn’t that He is mad because of our rejection of Him through sin. That’s not the argument being made – in fact, it’s the argument being rebutted!

 

[po18guy]

Truth cannot penetrate the wall of self which some have erected surrounding them.

As long as one prefers the world to God, re-defines God into a sub-human, and imposes personal morality and judgment upon God, the truth will not prevail.

Only the self.

Innumerable cases demonstrate there is little or no satisfaction in that. Quite the opposite.

If God humbled Himself out of love of all creation, is it too much to ask that, in our search for love, truth and beauty - the transcendent - we do the same?

 

[OneSheep]

Neither Ratzinger, Anselm, nor I are starting with that premise. Rather, the premise which Anselm proposes and to which Ratzinger assents is one of “infinite offense.”

So, what do these mean then?:

In the Bible the cross does not appear as part of a mechanism of injured right…
The New Testament does not say that men conciliate God

No – and that subtle distinction is critical , in order to understand Aquinas’ and Ratzinger’s argument. It’s not about God taking personal umbrage; it’s about an infinite offense to justice.

He doesn’t take it personally – by which, it seems, you’re saying that He shouldn’t “take it personally”, but He does.

Can you understand my confusion? You are saying God is justice, so it is reasonable and consistent with your statement that God takes these things as offenses against Himself.

Can you clarify?

Doesn’t matter. What matters is that they intended to defy God’s command to them.

Are you thinking that the intent to defy was the guiding factor? For example, is it possible that their main intent was to eat what they saw was good, and as what happens to all of us, their conscience was blinded, that want blinds us to the weight of the conscience, want blinds us to the conscience itself? After all, it takes a bit of wisdom and discipline to come to the point of knowing that want itself creates a distortion in the mind.

I myself defied my parents as a teen, particularly for the goal of causing them offense!

I think this is very common for teens. The underlying goal is usually the desire for autonomy, correct? And, of course, the impulse to punish wrongdoing is being exercised; we see our parents’ protection (or something else) as wrong.

Is it possible that the human desire for autonomy is a factor that plays in A&E’s defiance also? After all, cooperation with any authority means giving up a little of one’s autonomy. There is a surface lesson to the story of A&E, correct? The lesson is: “Behave!” and “Submit!” It is a story that in part demands us to keep our desire for autonomy in check, to comply with authority.