Doctrine of Atonement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Savo74
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Savo74

Guest
What little I’ve been able to read about the Doctrine of Atonement has been helpful in uniting all that I understand about Christ’s role in our salvation and the work of His church. I know it suggests that different means of atoning are possible. The most appealing to me is that Christ sacrificed himself to make peace between sinful man and the Father so that we may become reconciled. The sacrifice doesn’t pay the total debt we owe to God forever, since some men will still go to Hell, but it does open the door to salvation. Christ’s sacrifice as a perfectly obedient man pleases God and heals the damage to His honor that our sin previously wounded. The sacrifice allows man to please God once again as long as that man believes in His divine Son, accepts His grace, and makes an honest effort to work for the glory of God.

I’m worried that much of what I think about the doctrine could be a misunderstanding, so I may have built my “theory” of Christ’s mission around a misunderstanding of a doctrine that, even when properly understood, isn’t completely dogma in the church.

My question is this: What books can I read that are Pro- and Con- explanations of the Doctrine of Atonement? If this Doctrine is no longer in step with the church’s teachings, what books best explain the reason for man’s distance from God and how His Son was able to reconcile us once again? I’ll start the list with the Bible, of course! Also, I’m not well-read in theology, so a layman’s book would be most appreciated.

Thanks for any responses (including corrections to my brief, vague, disjointed summary) and God Bless!

Pax Out,
Savo
 
Have you read and compared the Ransom and Christus Victor approaches to the Atonement compared to St. Anselm’s Substitutionary Atonement approach? I think I’d read the early Fathers and Augustine, Anselm, all the views, and meditate on them first…
 
The secret of atonement is wrapped up in the principle of sacramentality, which has to do with the interface between the infinite and the finite.

God decreed that without the shedding of blood, sin is not forgiven.

The animal sacrifices of the Old Testament worked as a temporary expedient, but they had to be repeated time and again for further instances of sin.

But Christ is God made flesh, the Sacrament of the Father. He is the infinite and the finite joined in one being. And when his own blood was shed, the decree of divine justice was satisfied once and for all.
*
Hebrews 9:

[24] For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

[25] Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

[26] For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.*
 
I’m glad you asked this question! I’ve read some things about the Ransom, Christus Victor and Substitutionary Atonement views and still feel confused. How could something so central to our faith be so open to interpretation? This bothers me.
 
I think the truth about Christianity is wrapped in the Atonement. I’m puzzled, as you are, that this CRUCIAL topic is so utterly ignored by so many or how people just shrug their shoulders and say “to each his own, no big woop”

I think the Atonement topic touches a nerve with people because Christians have radically divergent views on it. What exactly confuses you about these views, Eugenius?
Eugenius said:
I’m glad you asked this question! I’ve read some things about the Ransom, Christus Victor and Substitutionary Atonement views and still feel confused. How could something so central to our faith be so open to interpretation? This bothers me.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the replies! I’m a little more familiar with the Substitutionary and Ransom elements of Atonement Theories. I’ll admit that I’ve never (knowingly) seen the “Christus Victor” themes. I need to look that up soon and add it to my studies.

In science, the big search for the “theory of everything” must intrigue those men as much as this topic intrigues me. As a revert to the faith, for the longest time I understood Catholic teachings as separate issues, each with it’s own “proof text” or backing of church fathers. I believed, without knowing the phrase, mostly in the idea of Penal Substitution, which just felt like a fact of the faith. I didn’t know it then, but that theory was holding me back from connecting to the Catholic church in my heart. Two or three years ago while looking up reasons for the Eucharist, I stumbled onto Anselm’s Doctrine of Atonement and a door began to open for understanding a large part of what I had learned about our church. Realizing that Christ’s death was a sacrifice of atonement and not a punishment for our sin opened my eyes. Everything (from the Creation and the Fall, to the need for the Incarnation and Crucifixion, to man’s response with personal faith and obedience, and the need for a church to guide us and distribute sacraments) seemed to fall into place.

In my personal journey, I’ve grown much closer to God after glimpsing this “big picture.” I often tear up during Mass and while reading Scripture now, which usually catches me off guard. I’m just worried that I may be putting my faith into a faulty way of thinking and I am trying to weed out any devotion I have to non-Dogmatic teachings. I’ll read up on the information you friends have posted. Thanks again for your time and replies!
 
My understanding is that the atonement (reconciliation) between men and God (men is first, because God does not need us, only we need Him) was done by the Incarnation: The Second Divine Person became one of us, the lost connection was restored.

The shameful death of Christ is only consequence of the sin. God permitted the Incarnation even knowing that it will happen. The shameful death was not necessary. We are not good enough to make God angry with us, so that additional reconciliation (above the Incarnation) would be needed.

St Paul emphasized the death of the cross, because in that culture they were many people claiming that they are the descendants of gods, this was not too much. Accepting the death for others (which was part of the Incarnation) seemed to be more valued.
 
Penal substitution is extremely close to Anselm’s substitutionary atonement view actually. It inspired guys like Calvin and Luther to see Christ’s saving death in that way. This is one reason the Orthodox feel that Catholicism and Protestantism are two sides to one in the same coin, interestingly enough.
Savo74 said:
Thanks for the replies! I’m a little more familiar with the Substitutionary and Ransom elements of Atonement Theories. I’ll admit that I’ve never (knowingly) seen the “Christus Victor” themes. I need to look that up soon and add it to my studies.

In science, the big search for the “theory of everything” must intrigue those men as much as this topic intrigues me. As a revert to the faith, for the longest time I understood Catholic teachings as separate issues, each with it’s own “proof text” or backing of church fathers. I believed, without knowing the phrase, mostly in the idea of Penal Substitution, which just felt like a fact of the faith. I didn’t know it then, but that theory was holding me back from connecting to the Catholic church in my heart. Two or three years ago while looking up reasons for the Eucharist, I stumbled onto Anselm’s Doctrine of Atonement and a door began to open for understanding a large part of what I had learned about our church. Realizing that Christ’s death was a sacrifice of atonement and not a punishment for our sin opened my eyes. Everything (from the Creation and the Fall, to the need for the Incarnation and Crucifixion, to man’s response with personal faith and obedience, and the need for a church to guide us and distribute sacraments) seemed to fall into place.

In my personal journey, I’ve grown much closer to God after glimpsing this “big picture.” I often tear up during Mass and while reading Scripture now, which usually catches me off guard. I’m just worried that I may be putting my faith into a faulty way of thinking and I am trying to weed out any devotion I have to non-Dogmatic teachings. I’ll read up on the information you friends have posted. Thanks again for your time and replies!
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
In the mood to insert artwork without any explanation are we!? 😃
Click to expand...
It’s the Icon of the Harrowing of Hell, the Icon shown at Pascha. Christ is shown raising Adam and Eve from the tomb, symbolizing raising all of Creation from the time of The Fall. Beneath Him are the instruments of His passion, most notably The Cross, upon which He stands as a sign of His conquering them. Though you can’t see it in this one, you normally see an image of satan/death bound in chains beneath The Cross, ultimately conquered.

It’s the visualization of our Paschal Hymn: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!”
 
No need for explanation, Rob ole buddy. I have this icon in my wife and my master bedroom! 😛 I’m totally aware of it as it’s one of my favorite holy icons. I was just razzing Meghan (bluegoat) for putting it up with no verbage accompaniment! 😃
Rawb said:
It’s the Icon of the Harrowing of Hell, the Icon shown at Pascha. Christ is shown raising Adam and Eve from the tomb, symbolizing raising all of Creation from the time of The Fall. Beneath Him are the instruments of His passion, most notably The Cross, upon which He stands as a sign of His conquering them. Though you can’t see it in this one, you normally see an image of satan/death bound in chains beneath The Cross, ultimately conquered.

It’s the visualization of our Paschal Hymn: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!”
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
No need for explanation, Rob ole buddy. I have this icon in my wife and my master bedroom! 😛 I’m totally aware of it as it’s one of my favorite holy icons. I was just razzing Meghan (bluegoat) for putting it up with no verbage accompaniment! 😃
Click to expand...
My bad! I’m jealous - this is my favorite Icon and I don’t have one yet!
 
LOL…I’m more iconic than an Orthodox!? wow! But you have the beard, Rob. Together we make it complete. My icons and your beard and off-the-charts enthusiasm! :p:cool:

I have a few icons. One downstairs is the same one from Haggia Sophia Church in Turkey. I have another one with several small icons around it of the bvm and the Lord. Then my kids each have one by their beds like I told you when we were at Starbucks.

Come to think of it, I’m out of control! If you cut me, do I bleed baklava? :eek:
Rawb said:
My bad! I’m jealous - this is my favorite Icon and I don’t have one yet!
Click to expand...
 
Loved the image from the icon! I read a very small post about “Christus Victor” and I’m eager to read something more in-depth. I’m praying to loosen the knots that I’ve tied around Anselm’s “sacrificial substitution” theory that I’ve been mentally attaching to almost every practice of the church.

I still lean very heavily towards the idea of the perfect sacrifice of Christ pleasing the Father so much that he allowed forgiveness and reconciliation for Christ’s followers. However, with much prayer and study, I hope to at least give myself breathing room so that the mysteries surrounding the “mechanics” of salvation can expose the errors in my understandings.

I’m not sure why, but studying why Christ needed to go through so much suffering to save mankind has brought me closer to Him in the last few years than almost any other study I’ve done. Thanks to everyone who replied. I really needed a nudge from others to find out what theories I’ve been ignorant of.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
No need for explanation, Rob ole buddy. I have this icon in my wife and my master bedroom! 😛 I’m totally aware of it as it’s one of my favorite holy icons. I was just razzing Meghan (bluegoat) for putting it up with no verbage accompaniment! 😃
Click to expand...
What can I say - I’m a visual learner. I thought that is was more eloquent than anything I could say.
 
Obviously! Look at the picture of somebody’s church you have below that takes up 6 billion megapixels! 😃
Bluegoat said:
What can I say - I’m a visual learner. I thought that is was more eloquent than anything I could say.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top