Cardinal Ratzinger v. Catholic Encyclopedia: Did humanity owe a debt?

[OneSheep]

Yes, we owe God and each other, for justice sake,*** love.*** We should be able to experience, here on earth, the *need *for this justice due to the severe *lack *of it that results from our many failures to love, which in turn results from our many desires which conflict with love, which in turn resulted from humanity having turning away from (disobeyed) the very source of justice, the very Source of love. Once out of communion with Him, we cannot maintain moral integrity. We cannot love as we need without grace.

Good morning, fhansen!

I am looking at the bold specifically as possibly part of the “debt” view, depending on definitions. If God (the source of justice, love) took offense at man’s disobedience and God reacted by taking something away, then this would be part of the “debt” view. Instead, if man’s desires that conflict with love are all freely given to man with God’s knowledge that man would sort it all out (with God’s guidance), then this would fall more into a “no offense/no debt” view.

The rest, I think, is held by both views.

Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning, Granny!

In the “debt” view, Jesus pays a ransom to satisfy a debt created when man offends God. It is a debt to be satisfied on the “claim” that God has against man, and for which man must pay (expiation, Anselm). Man offends God, and God is not satisfied until payment is made. I am using “creditor” as “One who seeks (demands) payment”. It’s like, “once this is paid (and you stay in my favor), I can let you into heaven, I can favor you completely, I can forgive you, etc.” You may find that I lumped too many things together there, feel free to ask for more clarification!

On the human part, when man sees that God disfavors him when he exhibits certain behaviors, he is motivated to do justice, do the minimum.

I think you are getting at a very important point here. Even if I think a view is false, I am not being called by Pope Benedict’s words to eliminate it. I am called to go deeply into the view, understand it’s legitimacy, and seek to find harmony. I can say “that view is different from my understanding” without labeling it as “false”.

I held the “debt” view for a good while, Granny, and that view had plenty of support in scripture and standard theology. For a while, I labelled it as “false”, (as did Cardinal Ratzinger) but I can no longer. It seems to me (tentative theory) that God wills that we have the “debt” view for part(s) of our lives.

Have a great day. Hope you are still well!

I am doing well, thank you.

From your post 391: “When we see that God is a creditor, we are motivated to do this minimum, which is a good thing.”

*** But why is a Divine God seen as a human creditor? ***

Please kindly refer to my post 394.

 

[OneSheep]

I am doing well, thank you.

From your post 391: “When we see that God is a creditor, we are motivated to do this minimum, which is a good thing.”

*** But why is a Divine God seen as a human creditor? ***

Please kindly refer to my post 394.

Hi Granny,

I think it depends on the projection and imagination of the observer. Does a person with a “debt” view see God as anything other than Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent?

I think that the 3 O’s are an aspect of both views, concerning God. Is there a human out there that claims any of these aspects can be said to be human? Well, probably not.

What do you think on this question: does omniscience preclude sense of debt, preclude the incurring of debt from sin?

Take a look at the question from the perspective of forgiveness. Forgiveness, at its deepest level, involves understanding the person who has offended us to the point that we can say “I now see that I could have done that, given their scope of the situation and their blindness and motives.” And “I can forgive myself for doing such a thing because I now see my own blindness and ignorance, and I am reconciled with my appetites.” God doesn’t have to go through the process of understanding, because He already knows. He knew not only that I was going to sin, but He knew why I was going to sin, and He observes with infinite understanding,infinite patience, and infinite love.

Does offense even occur to God? If the answer is yes, that would fall into the debt view, the expiation view. If the answer is no, that would fall into the other view. If God takes offense but immediately forgives on His own without any expiation, that idea would somewhat harmonize the two views, but then the omniscience aspect is perhaps compromised, and the idea of expiation by Jesus “for our sins” is somewhat diminished.

This is only one way of looking at the two views, I am sure that there are other ways.

Thoughts?

 

[grannymh]

Hi Granny,
Does a person with a “debt” view see God as anything other than Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent?

I have no clue.

I think that the 3 O’s are an aspect of both views, concerning God. Is there a human out there that claims any of these aspects can be said to be human? Well, probably not.

“Probably not” sounds good to me.

What do you think on this question: does omniscience preclude sense of debt, preclude the incurring of debt from sin?

I have no clue.

Does offense even occur to God?

The Who? How? What? offense is beyond me.

Thoughts?

I will respectfully wait a bit in case there is someone who can directly, not beat around the bush, answer my simple question
*** But why is a Divine God seen as a human creditor? ***

If no one can answer this question, then it can be assumed that the creditor/debt approach to understanding Jesus hanging bloody on His cross will fail as a legitimate view.

Please refer to posts 394 & 399.

 

[wmw]

I have no clue.

If no one can answer this question, then it can be assumed that the creditor/debt approach to understanding Jesus hanging bloody on His cross will fail as a legitimate view.

Please refer to posts 394 & 399.

Alleluia, Amen to the end of the creditor s/he was a false god, but there is a proper way to have a debt view just as these Biblical quotes proclaim:

Romans 3:25 “…whom God set forth as a propitiation” for our sins. “Propitiation” literally means “something that appeases a deity.” However, it can mean to “accept hurt”, to “forgive”, or to “show mercy.”

Rom. 3:25, 1 John 2:2; 4:10 - tells that Jesus did not pay a propitiation, but that He is a propitiation for our sins.

Romans 5:10 - “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life”

Romans 8:32 - “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?”

Rev. 12:10, 5:9, 12. - The end of the accusations of Satan.

Galatians 3:13 - "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, “Cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree”

Matthew 26:38 - “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death”

Romans 5:17-21 – “For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. 18 In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. 19 For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. 20 The law entered in so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through justification for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

John 3:13-15 – “No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.i14And just as Moses lifted up* the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,j15* so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

Mark 10: 45 - " For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

John 10:17-18 - “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.
So just as sin ruled over all people and brought them to death, now God’s wonderful kindness rules instead, giving us right standing with God and resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Peter 1:18-19 -
For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. He paid for you with the precious lifeblood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God.

Hebrews 2:14-17 - Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

2 Corinthians 5:21 - God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Corinthians 1:30 - It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Galatians 4:4&5 - till the appointed time came. Then God sent out his Son on a mission to us. He took birth from a woman, took birth as a subject of the law, 5 so as to ransom those who were subject to the law, and make us sons by adoption.

 

[OneSheep]

The Who? How? What? offense is beyond me.

I will respectfully wait a bit in case there is someone who can directly, not beat around the bush, answer my simple question
*** But why is a Divine God seen as a human creditor? ***
.

I haven’t a clue what you are referring to, Granny. There hasn’t been anyone on this thread referring to God as human. If you look at the OP, and read the links, you will see reference made to expiation. If there is a debt owed to God, payment for offense, then God is a creditor, one who seeks payment. “Jesus dies for our sins” as payment. Not a human creditor, but a divine creditor.

Cardinal Ratzinger referred to this approach as giving a false image, and presents a “no strings attached” alternative, an alternative that totally flips things around.

A creditor is a party owed a debt. It can be an institution, person, any noun. “Debt to society” etc. If you dislike the word in reference to God, I understand. Please find a different word for someone owed a debt, and we can use it here.

I looked up some synonyms.

“acceptor” sounds too much like “receiver”. It does not communicate a desire for payment to be made.

"beneficiary"sounds like humans give to God, which is what Anselm and others were trying to communicate, but beneficiary sounds more like a person receiving an inheritance, which is not what we ordinarily think of when we think of God. Aren’t we the beneficiaries of God’s sacrifice?

I’m stumped. “Creditor” will have to do until you or someone else comes up with a better description, I guess. “Loving Creditor?” “Loving owner of debt?” Arrgh. None of them sound right. “Father”, of course is what works for me, but Father is what everyone calls Him. I am trying to find the words that make the distinction between the two views, not to make one of them sound bad or wrong.

Thanks again.

 

[wmw]

According to the CCC:

1364 In the New Testament, the memorial takes on new meaning. When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, she commemorates Christ’s Passover, and it is made present: the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present.185 “As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”186 (611, 1085)
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.”187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”188 (2100, 1846)
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: (613)
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

I put Bold to the only naming of the Father as one who receives the sacrifice a redemption from the Christ the redeemer and from this the role of the Father is the one who forgives.

What is Forgiveness?:

…as we forgive those who trespass against us
2842 This “as” is not unique in Jesus’ teaching: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”; “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful”; “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”139 It is impossible to keep the Lord’s commandment by imitating the divine model from outside; there has to be a vital participation, coming from the depths of the heart, in the holiness and the mercy and the love of our God. Only the Spirit by whom we live can make “ours” the same mind that was in Christ Jesus.140 Then the unity of forgiveness becomes possible and we find ourselves **“forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave” us.**141 (521)
2843 Thus the Lord’s words on forgiveness, the love that loves to the end,142 become a living reality. The parable of the merciless servant, which crowns the Lord’s teaching on ecclesial communion, ends with these words: “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”143 **It is there, in fact, “in the depths of the heart,” that everything is bound and loosed. It is not in our power not to feel or to forget an offense; but the heart that offers itself to the Holy Spirit turns injury into compassion and purifies the memory in transforming the hurt into intercession. **(368)

Here God forgives in the unity of Love made possible by Christ. He does not bind or loose the power, but our own hearts are the ones that choose. We are made able to choose through the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[grannymh]

I haven’t a clue what you are referring to, Granny. There hasn’t been anyone on this thread referring to God as human. If you look at the OP, and read the links, you will see reference made to expiation. If there is a debt owed to God, payment for offense, then God is a creditor, one who seeks payment. “Jesus dies for our sins” as payment. Not a human creditor, but a divine creditor.

Cardinal Ratzinger referred to this approach as giving a false image, and presents a “no strings attached” alternative, an alternative that totally flips things around.

A creditor is a party owed a debt. It can be an institution, person, any noun. “Debt to society” etc. If you dislike the word in reference to God, I understand. Please find a different word for someone owed a debt, and we can use it here.

I looked up some synonyms.

“acceptor” sounds too much like “receiver”. It does not communicate a desire for payment to be made.

"beneficiary"sounds like humans give to God, which is what Anselm and others were trying to communicate, but beneficiary sounds more like a person receiving an inheritance, which is not what we ordinarily think of when we think of God. Aren’t we the beneficiaries of God’s sacrifice?

I’m stumped. “Creditor” will have to do until you or someone else comes up with a better description, I guess. “Loving Creditor?” “Loving owner of debt?” Arrgh. None of them sound right. “Father”, of course is what works for me, but Father is what everyone calls Him. I am trying to find the words that make the distinction between the two views, not to make one of them sound bad or wrong.

Thanks again.

I do think it would make more sense to mention that the real issue is Original Sin. However, that would entail a real Adam. Starting with the real existence of Adam can be a problem for some, not all, people.

 

[grannymh]

I haven’t a clue what you are referring to, Granny. There hasn’t been anyone on this thread referring to God as human.

May I respectfully clarify. My question is not about anyone on this thread referring to God as a human. What I have been asking is:

*** But why is a Divine God seen as a human creditor? ***

May I should have asked
But why is a Divine God described like a human creditor?

Both questions involve the issue of applying a human condition to Divinity.
Could it be possible that no one, besides myself, really cares how God is being described? If one does not want to go public, a PM could be sent.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

Yes, this is along the lines of what I am thinking. Until we learn to love everyone (love begins with those near us, and then extends and extends, and stops, naturally, with those we take offense) genuine fear of God has its place, fear of God throwing us into hell, fear of God’s wrath. Our conscience, our beautifully functional conscience, is there to keep us in line with its rulebook, holding us to do the “minimum.”

We will fear God until we know Love well enough to know that we have nothing to fear. And, at that point, the point of knowing Love that well, the “minimum” rules of justice are no longer needed. The fear is not needed for us to do the will of God.

So, in the theory I proposed, God wills that we take offense, even express our anger (for even our anger has its place in modifying the behaviors of those around us), until we have forgiven the offender and then want to help him. We are automatically angry at terrorists until we forgive them. Then, once we forgive, we will want to help them (work for their well-being, not their cause, of course). Both the anger and the forgiveness are God’s will.

Anger is triggered by our conscience when we view something unconscionable taking place. We are angered by injustice. This working of the conscience is God-given, and must be developed in children. My wife works with plenty of kindergartners who have undeveloped consciences! With patience, the kids eventually learn what hurts others, and they come to appreciate the well-being of their classmates, even get angry when others behave hurtfully. We cannot separate our capacity to anger from “God’s will” I think.

So, it is God’s will that we experience the anger until we have forgiven. And God invites us to forgive! It’s like the words:

“Okay, kids, you know that “offense” capacity I programmed into you? It’s really, really, useful, but please move beyond it now, for my kingdom is a place where we love unconditionally, where we forgive all offenses and love without bound.”

Jesus sheds offense as he views the unrepentant, from the cross, and forgives. This is the example He sets.

Does that sound like what you are thinking too?

Thanks!

Yes. Jesus calls us to do the same as he did. The Divine came as a human and taught us to go beyond ourselves.

 

[ynotzap]

Good morning, Ynotzap!

So, if God takes no offense from sin, then the only “debt” left is the gap that we are compelled to fill by being inspired to love God back in gratitude. In this case, we are not viewing God as “creditor” but as one who gives freely and gratefully accepts, not demands, our love in return.

In the other view, God does take offense, and demands some kind of payment for our sins, “expiation” as Cardinal Ratzinger describes Anselm’s view.

answer: In the other view we give God offense, but He still does not take offense, for how can God expect from us what we can’t give in the state of original sin and it’s effects. We are totally incapable of repairing the damage caused by Adam’s sin of disobedience and pride. Expiation was only capable by God himself, this is why God, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity became man, to reconcile man with God. A creature by the fact he was created is in a state that he belongs at the feet of his Creator, not as some kind of slave, but as the fulfillment of his own well-being and happiness To adore, to acknowledge, to enjoy God, to obey is were he rightly belongs Strictly from a human perspective we, to do the right thing for our own happiness, owe God all our love. Does He demand our love, love is freely given from God, and freely given to God, and this can only be accomplished in man by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Love.

 

[ynotzap]

Good morning, Ynotzap!

If ignorance is the consequence of original sin, then Adam was truly omniscient beforehand. If he was omniscient beforehand, he would have known that his acts would compromise the well-being of billions of people. However, if he was omniscient he would have loved, appreciated, and had empathy for, all those people, and would have refrained from disobedience.

I think that the Adam story is meant to show a God who takes offense and punishes Adam. This reflects our first image of God, a God who takes offense. The offense does not change God, but changes God’s view of Adam, He feels some anger toward Adam when Adam disobeys. He loves Adam, but now holds something against Adam, a debt. Jesus comes to pay the debt, not only for Adam’s sins but for all of our sins. This is the way that it all falls into place in the God-as-Creditor view, right? And I am saying that this view is legitimate.

Answer:

Adam could never be omniscient, but he was gifted by the Holy Spirit and was knowledgeable of what God meant when God informed him Its true ignorance is the one of the consequences of original sin, in the state of sanctifying grace he was sufficiently enlightened to know what God meant without being omniscient. No creature is capable of that. We are finite, limited, and dependent, and always will be

I think the story of Adam shows that Adam through pride,ingratitude, disobedience placed himself in a offending position. He gave up the Holy Spirit, (sanctifying grace) and as a result lost all the blessings he had, not as a punishment, but as a result of what he gave up. God’s view never changed towards Adam, He always loved him and understood him completely. It is hard to describe God in His actions towards man other than using limited human terms When we use terms like anger, changing views towards man, do not really do a good job at describing God in His actions. God is not subjected to human qualities, although in Jesus he does share in human qualities.

In the natural fallen state of man, God could never expect man to pay Him the homage that he should for man’s own sake.not God’s We were created to do this, and in doing this we fulfill the purpose of our existence, adoring, enjoy, and being united to God for all eternity. But in the super-natural state of grace made possible by Jesus, and grace that is freely given (gratuitous) that man is now capable of giving God the love he was meant to give, not as a debt owed but one that is freely given in return for a love that was freely given by God We love God, because God has loved us first.

 

[ynotzap]

Good morning, Ynotzap!

So, what you are saying there, seems to pivot on “If God takes offense”.

In one view, God takes offense at the child’s “I don’t want to”. He expresses some disfavor in order that the child be “exhorted” to behave and obey. The child sees God’s disfavor (disapproval, displeasure, “less favor”) and feels guilty. When the child repents and obeys, the debt is paid. Legitimate.

In the other view, God does not take offense at the child’s “I don’t want to”. He created the child with the desire for freedom, autonomy, and He knew that the child would lack the awareness to immediately see that obedience is oneness, and that oneness (wholeness, holiness) is an even deeper “want” than autonomy. He sees that the child will suffer consequences from trying to be self-sufficient and from trying to find meaning in his fulfillment of appetites. In addition, God has given the child a conscience to keep the child from misbehaving greatly, which will hopefully keep him from doing hurtful things to others. He sees that the child will eventually come back, and He will welcome the child with open arms, as His arms have been open and beckoning the whole time, without interruption.
Legitimate. (Do you see the prodigal son story here?)

Of course, these brief explanations are lacking in much detail, but these are the views that I am looking to “harmonize” in this thread.

You are making a great effort, Ynotzap, at what seems to be trying to meld the two views so that there is a God who both takes offense and does not, and I like the attempt! Of course we want the God we love and trust in to have a certain face, a certain, unchanging being. Well, God does have a certain, unchanging Love, and I know you agree. However, there are some details about offense or lack of offense, debt or lack of debt, that will depend on where the individual is in their journey, and these differences in perception cannot be eliminated, but are to be respected.

What I am suggesting (tentatively) is that these differences in the way that we see God are God’s will. God knows, and even wills, that we will see Him as taking offense until we have forgiven everyone, including ourselves, that we hold something against. This is forgiveness at the deepest level we can, including forgiveness of our own drives and appetites, forgiveness of our “shadow”

Thanks again, Ynotzap!

Answer:
I used the word “if” for two reasons a) I’m not infallible, b) if God takes offense it would be for man’s sake, and not His. If God takes offense, in my mind, is to reduce God to a human level. His omniscience is such that He understands man completely, all of his problems, and knows why man is acting offendingly.man in so doing is not offending God but offending himself unknowingly. I agree with you on your tentative proposal that God wills that we see Him as taking offense, after all we are human and do see things in a human way, and it gets the job done. Thank you for your response

 

[simpleas]

I came across the words “it is finished” while surfing another website, and of course remembered these words of Jesus just before he gives up his spirit. Had a quick search and came across this explaination =

*It was common to the Jews and Romans of that time because it was the word they wrote on a debt that someone had, once it was paid. So this victory cry of Jesus would have also meant to His hearers "Paid in full!’ *

Here is the link to the question :

jesusplusnothing.com/questions/ItIsFinished.htm

 

[grannymh]

I came across the words “it is finished” while surfing another website, and of course remembered these words of Jesus just before he gives up his spirit. Had a quick search and came across this explaination =

*It was common to the Jews and Romans of that time because it was the word they wrote on a debt that someone had, once it was paid. So this victory cry of Jesus would have also meant to His hearers "Paid in full!’ *

Here is the link to the question :

jesusplusnothing.com/questions/ItIsFinished.htm

This is an excellent source of interesting information regarding John 19: 28-30.

From Simpleas, post 411. jesusplusnothing.com/questions/ItIsFinished.htm
"It is interesting in this regard that the single word that Jesus spoke (which we translate as ‘It is finished’) was ‘*tetelestai’. *This certainly has the meaning of completion (which is what it primarily means in the context of John 19:30) but it can also mean ‘discharge a debt’ or ‘paid in full’. It was common to the Jews and Romans of that time because it was the word they wrote on a debt that someone had, once it was paid. So this victory cry of Jesus would have also meant to His hearers "Paid in full!’ I like that! "
St. Paul writes about the “victory cry of Jesus.” 1 Corinthians 15: 51-55.
“Death is swallowed up in victory.
Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”

 

[OneSheep]

May I respectfully clarify. My question is not about anyone on this thread referring to God as a human. What I have been asking is:

*** But why is a Divine God seen as a human creditor? ***

May I should have asked
But why is a Divine God described like a human creditor?

Both questions involve the issue of applying a human condition to Divinity.
Could it be possible that no one, besides myself, really cares how God is being described? If one does not want to go public, a PM could be sent.

Good Morning, Granny.

Thanks for clarifying the question. We learn from Genesis that man is created in God’s image. You raise a great question! How much of “human image” can we extrapolate to God? Pope Benedict, in the section I linked, and in other places also, addresses this question as a human evaluator. He looks on the Anselmian view and finds that it presents a “false image” of God, a sinister God. He is comparing what he knows about Love with what is presented by Anselm, and says that something is amiss in Anselm’s description.

We come back to the question, did humanity owe a debt to God? Does God require appeasement or satisfaction in order to accept and fully embrace man? Is there some kind of payment to be made to God in order for man to be “back in grace”? Did man, in his disobedience, create a rift in the sense that God held something against us? Is this “holding of debt” seen as a means of motivating man to behave, to do the “minimum” as someone in this thread quoted JPII? These seem to be all of the same question. If the answer is “yes” to all of the above, and Jesus came to expiate, to pay for the injustice in order to satisfy the debt, then this is what appears to be the Anselmian view, the “debt” view. Anselm’s view, I think, was legitimate.

On the other hand, allow me to present something I read yesterday:

If we know that God is love and love is forgiveness, we know that God has forgiven “before always” all there ever was to forgive.

Brother David Steindl-Rast Deeper than Words: Living the Apostles’ Creed

That quote would fall under the “no debt” view, which is also legitimate.

Did you notice the word “If”? Holding onto a debt is not forgiveness, but holding onto debt is human, and humanity was created by God. How could man do anything other than believe that God holds a debt just as he does? It (the belief) will be what makes sense to man, it is fairness, it involves punishing wrongful behavior. The belief also creates a diversion for our own compulsion to vindicate. “God will vindicate, it is not up to me.” The word “if” allows for someone not seeing that God has not forgiven “before always” all there ever was to forgive. Humans tend to believe that forgiveness is conditional, that it is limited, especially if the sinner is unrepentant.

What Jesus did from the Cross, forgiving unrepentant man, was supernatural. Was the act human, or was it divine? Just “thinking aloud” here: to me, it was both. Jesus made it “both”.

There is much more I could share about this section, “the forgiveness of sins”, of Stendl-Rast’s book (he covers the creed) that made everything even more simple and beautiful in terms of spirituality. Let me know if you want me to share this. In some ways, it was the most clear explanation I have ever read on the topic of sin and forgiveness.

So, Granny, do you see the legitimacy of both views? If you do, how do we harmonize them?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, ynotzap!
"ynotzap:

answer: In the other view we give God offense, but He still does not take offense, for how can God expect from us what we can’t give in the state of original sin and it’s effects. We are totally incapable of repairing the damage caused by Adam’s sin of disobedience and pride. Expiation was only capable by God himself, this is why God, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity became man, to reconcile man with God.

So, in my reading of the above, simply subtract the word “expiation”, and then you have the no-debt view. There was not a “payment” necessary, but a “reconciliation” necessary. There was (is) a gap created, man is separated from his own love of God. In and through Jesus, God gives us the means to unite with our “true selves”, with Love.

A creature by the fact he was created is in a state that he belongs at the feet of his Creator, not as some kind of slave, but as the fulfillment of his own well-being and happiness To adore, to acknowledge, to enjoy God, to obey is were he rightly belongs Strictly from a human perspective we, to do the right thing for our own happiness, owe God all our love. Does He demand our love, love is freely given from God, and freely given to God, and this can only be accomplished in man by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Love.

This is all more of the no-debt view, in my reading. Love with no strings attached, forgiveness unconditional.

Adam could never be omniscient, but he was gifted by the Holy Spirit and was knowledgeable of what God meant when God informed him Its true ignorance is the one of the consequences of original sin, in the state of sanctifying grace he was sufficiently enlightened to know what God meant without being omniscient. No creature is capable of that. We are finite, limited, and dependent, and always will be.

Yes, I think the story intends to show that Adam “knew what God meant”. The intent is that the reader blames Adam, and the story is meant to point out the sin of disobedience and also that it offends God, who punishes Adam and Eve. Not only are they banished, but Eve’s birthpains are increased, etc. The story is meant to explain many “unusual” things about humanity, as other creatures do not have the same sense of good and evil, nor do they have near the birth pains. The doctrine of Original Sin, though not shared by Judaism, in some respects and analyses continues the theme of punishment and debt, that man needs to “pay”. It makes sense that we believe that all of the ills we suffer, death, birth pains, toil, etc. are to be blamed on man himself, because this belief in itself reflects man’s sense of “guilt before God”, as Cardinal Ratzinger puts it. All of this I am explaining falls under the “debt” view, which is the predominant view in the OT.

However, in reality, we are finite, limited, etc., and we do not know what God “means”, and we do not realize the true consequences of our sin when we sin. We do not know what we are doing, as Jesus stated from the cross. We do not appreciate the divine in the “other”.

I think the story of Adam shows that Adam through pride,ingratitude, disobedience placed himself in a offending position. He gave up the Holy Spirit, (sanctifying grace) and as a result lost all the blessings he had, not as a punishment, but as a result of what he gave up. God’s view never changed towards Adam, He always loved him and understood him completely. It is hard to describe God in His actions towards man other than using limited human terms When we use terms like anger, changing views towards man, do not really do a good job at describing God in His actions. God is not subjected to human qualities, although in Jesus he does share in human qualities.

Hmmm. Now I think that you are doing a bit of modification of the story to have it make sense in light of a no-debt view. Yes, this is what I do also, but when I had a “debt” view, I would wholeheartedly disagree. Adam disobeyed, and God expressed His wrath. Revelations, too, talks about a day of wrath, right? To me, the creation story intends to communicate a debt. God gets mad at Adam and punishes him.

In the natural fallen state of man, God could never expect man to pay Him the homage that he should for man’s own sake.not God’s We were created to do this, and in doing this we fulfill the purpose of our existence, adoring, enjoy, and being united to God for all eternity. But in the super-natural state of grace made possible by Jesus, and grace that is freely given (gratuitous) that man is now capable of giving God the love he was meant to give, not as a debt owed but one that is freely given in return for a love that was freely given by God We love God, because God has loved us first.

This, to me, is similar to your first statement on this post. This time, the key words are “should” and “pay HIm the homage”. Homage is a payment of respect or reverence, and the words once again indicate a debt view. However, this can easily be reworded to be more descriptive of a no-debt view, if that is what you are trying to communicate:

"God knew that man would fall, and never expected a payment for the fall, as God forgave man “before always”. Man should give respect and reverence to God, not as a means of appeasing God, for God does not need appeasing. Man should give respect and reverence to God as these will unify what is not unified, it will unify man with his own love of God.

To me, the above wording takes some of the ambiguity out of it, but that is my opinion only. Everyone loves to edit stuff to their own liking, right?

Thanks, ynotzap.

 

[ynotzap]

One Sheep:
As I see it: Quote, What Jesus did from the cross, forgiving unrepentant man was supernatural. Was the act human or divine?(thinking out loud), or both, Jesus made it both.

An act is attributed to a person, in this case Jesus. Jesus’ human nature was united to His divine nature. According to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, Jesus was a Divine Person
not a human person even though He had human nature, so His acts were divine, not human.

Reminiscing: If I recall right: To err is human, to forgive is divine.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

It looks like you have both views covered:

Could this be a way of thinking about it, that until we can love everyone we would fear God because our conscience reminds us that we haven’t quite got it right yet?
If we can love without taking offence, without getting angry, without needing the person/s to be punished, but instead want to help the “offender” we are more near doing God’s will.

Yes, to love without taking offense, that is the no-debt view.

I came across the words “it is finished” while surfing another website, and of course remembered these words of Jesus just before he gives up his spirit. Had a quick search and came across this explaination =

*It was common to the Jews and Romans of that time because it was the word they wrote on a debt that someone had, once it was paid. So this victory cry of Jesus would have also meant to His hearers "Paid in full!’ *

Here is the link to the question :

jesusplusnothing.com/questions/ItIsFinished.htm

This view shows Jesus as paying a debt for an offense. “Paid in full” means that Jesus’ debt was a payment, and payments are incurred when there is an offense, in this case an offense against God. This is the debt view.

In the no-debt view, Jesus came not to pay a debt, but to unify.

Do you see how these views are so completely different?

If we love without taking offense, then we love like God, there is no debt. That is the no-debt view. Jesus came to unify us with God and with our own love of God.

In the debt view, God is offended by injustice, and this created a debt. Jesus paid until the debt was “finished”.

Do you see the difference? Of course, Jesus suffered in both views he “gave something up”, and “giving something up” itself is sometimes referred to as* payment*. However, once we start referring to such “giving” as payment, we are knowingly or unknowingly indicating that there is a creditor involved.

Thanks, and have a great day.

 

[grannymh]

However, in reality, we are finite, limited, etc., and we do not know what God “means”, and we do not realize the true consequences of our sin when we sin. We do not know what we are doing, as Jesus stated from the cross. We do not appreciate the divine in the “other”.

How can we choose Mortal Sin and then commit it, if we do not know what we are doing?

Adam, who is a real historical person, certainly knew what God “means”. What happened to our brains?

And another funny thought. None of us are old enough to be standing at the foot of the Crucifixion.