Atonement

[jimmy]

Gene C.,

I agree with both posts completely.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Jimmy and Maria,

What do you think of the first point in Dr. Ott’s work under God the Creator: “Through sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God.” It was their disobedience, their sin, that “provoked the anger and the indignation of God.” So if our Lord Jesus came as the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice of atonement, wouldn’t that involve turning away that anger and indignation by His sacrifice of Himself on the Cross? And, if so, wouldn’t that involve, in some measure, taking that anger and indignation on Himself?

The apologist Jimmy Akin has some excellent articles on his Web site, jimmyakin.org. Type in the word atonement in the search box and then click on the first article in the results. This is an essay on the Greek word hilasterion and its meaning. In the article, he also links to some points made by Aquinas.

Gene

 

[MariaG]

Hi guys:wave:

I went to jimmyakin.org/2004/03/and_speaking_of.html the jimmy Akin site.

There I read this.

When people sin, God is not literally burning with anger, because his infinite beatitude cannot be diminished by what creatures do. Instead, as Aquinas and Catholic theology in general points out (see Ott’s discussion of this), Scripture and the Magisterium are using language with a figurative component when they speak in this way.

I was taught (again while in the Protestant circles) that God does feel the same things we do only that since He is Holy, so are His emotions. Truly righteous anger. Is this then wrong? How large of a figurative component is this? What is a figurative anger?

posted by Gene C.

What do you think of the first point in Dr. Ott’s work under God the Creator: “Through sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God.” It was their disobedience, their sin, that “provoked the anger and the indignation of God.” So if our Lord Jesus came as the Lamb of God, the ultimate sacrifice of atonement, wouldn’t that involve turning away that anger and indignation by His sacrifice of Himself on the Cross? **And, if so, wouldn’t that involve, in some measure, taking that anger and indignation on Himself? **

So that would mean that the “anger and indignation” were figurative and not literal.

What is a figurative anger?

posted by **Jimmy **

What do you mean when you say he poured his wrath out on Christ?

They were the words you originally used. By that I would mean anger. But as I posted above, it would apparently mean it would be a figurative anger.

I can’t even wrap my brain around this.

What exactly does that mean? What does it mean by "infinite beatitude? What is the “figurative component”?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Maria,

I copied these dogmas from the Web site called theworkofgod (.org). It is from Dr. Ott’s book. I will make my comments in an immediately following post.

· God is absolutely perfect.

· God is actually infinite in every perfection.

· God is absolutely simple.

· There is only one God.

· The one God is, in the ontological sense, the true God.

· God possesses an infinite power of cognition.

· God is absolute veracity.

· God is absolutely faithful.

· God is absolute ontological goodness in Himself and in relation to others.

· God is absolute moral goodness or holiness.

· God is absolute benignity.

· God is absolutely immutable.

· God is eternal.

· God is immense or absolutely immeasurable.

· God is everywhere present in created space.

· God’s knowledge is infinite.

· God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.

· God’s knowledge is subsistent.

· God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence.

· God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future.

· By the knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of rational creatures with infallible certainty.

· God’s Divine Will is infinite.

· God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-divine things, on the other hand, with freedom.

· God is almighty.

· God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth.

· God is infinitely just.

· God is infinitely merciful.

 

[Gene_C]

Maria,

I deleted some of the points in the previous post to decrease the length, mainly those having to do with the Triune nature of God since we’re not talking about those.

Here is what I think Jimmy Akin is saying. God is immutable; He cannot change. God being angry implies that there is a change in Him…He wasn’t angry, the Israelites sinned, then He became angry and punished them, then His anger subsides. But to describe God in this way is to imply that He changed. But we know that God is immutable. So why does Scripture use such language? Words cannot really describe the Nature and Essence of God but since we use words to understand and communicate, God the Holy Spirit used words in the formation of Scripture. The Bible uses anthropomorphic language to describe God even though God is a Spirit.

Aquinas also says that anger or wrath comes from our passions which is from our physical nature and God is a Spirit, therefore, He does not have these sensible passions…I hope I’m saying this correctly!

By the way, Father Groeschel has several tape series of the Good Friday sermons that he was preached over the years. Two in particular caught my eye at his book table: “God the Father and Good Friday” and “What Jesus Accomplished for us by His Death on the Cross.” (He preaches once a month at a church in Manhattan.) I will get them and pass them on to you when I’m done listening. Father Corapi also preached on Isaiah 53 this morning on Relevant Radio. I thought I was listening to Billy Graham at one point.

Anyway, that’s enough out of me,
Gene

 

[Gene_C]

Maria,

I forgot to mention something. Jimmy Akin wrote about the Greek word for propitiation which is hilasterion. This word is used a number of times in the New Testament. It implies an appeasement that turns away wrath. He wasn’t buying into the standard evangelical interpretation but he was sure that this idea of turning away wrath by a sacrifice of atonement is implicit.

Gene

 

[MariaG]

Thanks Gene,

When put that way, it makes sense that God cannot have anger because that implies change.

Aquinas also says that anger or wrath comes from our passions which is from our physical nature and God is a Spirit, therefore, He does not have these sensible passions…I hope I’m saying this correctly!

God does not have sensible passions.

I am trying to define the nature of God but realize what you say is true.

Words cannot really describe the Nature and Essence of God

but since we use words to understand and communicate, God the Holy Spirit used words in the formation of Scripture. The Bible uses anthropomorphic language to describe God even though God is a Spirit.

I forgot to mention something. Jimmy Akin wrote about the Greek word for** propitiation**

which is hilasterion. This word is used a number of times in the New Testament. It implies an appeasement that turns away wrath. He wasn’t buying into the standard evangelical interpretation but he was sure that this idea of turning away wrath by a sacrifice of atonement is implicit

Yeah. I read that too. But then we get back to a figurative wrath?

Wow. I have alot to process. I am not even sure if there any answers I need, but can’t figure out the question!

God Bless,
Maria

 

[JPrejean]

Hopes this helps, rather than confuses, the issue.

MariaG:

And received my punishment for me? Would you agree with that?

It’s probably easiest to think of punishment as a debt to divine justice. In that respect, it’s not necessary that someone be punished, but that the price be paid to correct the debt. It goes back to the Jewish tradition of the kinsman redeemer, who could pay a fine on behalf of his relative so that the relative would not suffer the punishment due. Jesus’s sacrifice was in the nature of this voluntary offering; he paid a price voluntarily so that we would not have to suffer the punishment due to our sins. The coin of His offering was not gold or silver, but His infinitely Precious Blood.

Edit – Incidentally, it might help to view the wrath itself as a figure of the divine justice being upset. God’s anger is a metaphor for the offense to God’s righteousness that should fittingly be corrected so that justice is satisfied.

 

[JPrejean]

also, i don’t think the idea of the Father turning His eyes from the Son is far-fetched. yes, they are one in the same but all things are possible with God and we can’t put it past Him unless He has said He didn’t do it.

I’d be careful about saying things like that. It can lead you into absurdities, like the ability of God to be evil. His revelation, as guarded in the deposit of faith by the Church, tells us that Christ is one in being with the Father, fully God and fully man. The Father turning His eyes from the Son is not only far-fetched; it’s impossible according to what He has revealed to us. The Trinity is God’s nature, and in the Trinitarian nature, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all love each other from all eternity and for all time. For that to change, even for an instant, would mean that the Son was not God, which is absurd.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi JPrejean,

Thanks for the insightful! I think we’re getting closer to the correct interpretation of the Atonement.

Thanks,
Gene

 

[JPrejean]

My pleasure, Gene. There’s always a chance with the complicated stuff that you’ll make it more confusing by trying to explain it, so I’m glad it was useful to somebody!