How to confront liberal theology that rejects the Atonement

[njlisa]

I can’t understand how liberal theologians (including Catholics) reject the Atonement although it is a central doctrine of the Church. These ideas make my head spin. How can we understand and refute these heresies?

Catechism 615

Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin ", when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities.” Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.

Here are some modernist views.

This article, republished by Catholic Ireland, comes from the Redemptorists.

Here are some quotes from the article.

• Atonement means simply ‘at-one-ment’: coming together, or reconciliation, of ourselves with God. So, the problem of atonement is to understand how Jesus’ passion and death brings us and God together.
• Dean Andrew Furlong of the Church of Ireland admits that he cannot accept any of the classical theories of atonement – one of his reasons for rejecting Jesus’ divinity.
• The ordinary person finds it very difficult to square God’s infinite justice with God’s infinite mercy, but tends to believe that an infinite God could manage to do so – sparing his own son.
• Traumatised by the persecutions of early Christians by Rome, the bishops of the church made an unfortunate pact with another military adventurer in the fourth century – the Emperor Constantine. This was the beginning of the process by which the church became itself a privileged and powerful – and victimising – institution in the medieval period. This was why St Anselm could not see the crucifixion as a protest against all violence for Constantine too was supposedly the benefactor of the church.

 

[Stephen_says]

I think they’re objections are pretty easy to understand. Our society has developed to the point where punishment is incomprehensible, therefore there is nothing you can do to justify any kind of punishment, therefore there is no sin, therefore Christ didn’t have to die. But he did die. Was it a product of the world he was living in? Was that the highest form of justice in the ancient world, so that is the way it had to happen? What if Jesus postponed his coming for 2000 more years, would he still have to die .

And what does “Bore the sins of many” actually mean? Does it mean that he was killed as if he was a sinner, or does it mean that he was killed BY the sins of many who rejected him, and he forgave them anyway as a sacrament of the Father’s forgiveness? Put another way, was it his DEATH that redeemed the world, or was it his FORGIVENESS of his death that redeemed the world?

If you ask me, I think this is good, because it forces apologists to come up with better ways to explain our faith. Of course it leads to some crazy theories, but some craziness is necessary for good development.

homoousios would have never taken hold without homoiousios challenging it first.

 

[njlisa]

@Stephen_says

Put another way, was it his DEATH that redeemed the world, or was it his FORGIVENESS of his death that redeemed the world?

Let me break this down. As I understand it, through his Passion, he willingly gave his life to to redeem us of our sins. In rising, he destroyed death. Am I correct?

Isaiah 53:

5 But he was pierced for our sins,
crushed for our iniquity.
He bore the punishment that makes us whole,
by his wounds we were healed.

6 We had all gone astray like sheep,
all following our own way;
But the Lord laid upon him
the guilt of us all.

 

[Stephen_says]

You’re correct, but HOW? I think that’s a question that is up for debate. My biggest question is was his death specifically a sacrifice, or was it something different? The Church identifies Christ with the Pascal Lamb, but that lamb wasn’t really SACRIFICED to God, it was slain and eaten, but it wasn’t burnt as an offering, so i wonder how that jives with the classical theories of the Atonement.