Is there any reason a Catholic could NOT sign this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rainyskyes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I couldn’t get past #1. I could not in good conscious sign it.

God bless.
 
Who decides the final interpretation of point 1? Act 8 : 30-31.
 
It looks like they have written their own Creed. I would ask them if they would have any problem signing on to the Nicene Creed and why they just didn’t state it rather than their own.
 
I’ve a question for you Jim.
jimkhong said:
We accept that Jesus died for our sins (but not solely because Scriptures says so) but the term ‘representative and substitutionary sacrifice’ may have different meanings. Catholic teaching is that Jesus died to bring us back to the state of harmony with God (satisfaction view). Evangelical Christianity generally have the view that Jesus accepted punishment* as the demands of justice* so God can justly forgive sins (penal substitution). There could also be differences in view of justification.
Click to expand...
I grew up as a (low-church) Anglican. At university I had close Pentecostal friends and influences. (I did not become a Catholic for about decade and a half after that.)
I have always understood that Jesus died for us as we, not being God, could not pay the price for our sins (including original sin).
Have I misunderstood the Catholic view of salvation for the past 15-odd years? Or am I misunderstanding you? :confused:
 
The_Reginator said:
I’ve a question for you Jim.

I grew up as a (low-church) Anglican. At university I had close Pentecostal friends and influences. (I did not become a Catholic for about decade and a half after that.)
I have always understood that Jesus died for us as we, not being God, could not pay the price for our sins (including original sin).
Have I misunderstood the Catholic view of salvation for the past 15-odd years? Or am I misunderstanding you? :confused:
Click to expand...
Jesus died for us in order to become the perfect sacrifice that was required to destroy sin and death. Indeed, it was necessary for Him to be both fully human and fully divine. My understanding is that, indeed, it WAS necessary for Him to be both God and man so that he could save us. One priest gave this explanation in a homily (I loved this and use it with DSD): “If Jesus is just a man, then just a man died on the cross and we’re not saved. If Jesus is just God, then nobody died on the cross, because God can’t die, and we’re not saved.” Jesus came both out of great love for us AND to save us from sin, because He became the perfect sacrifice that destroyed sin forever. I think Hebrews talks about this.

*Please, someone, correct me if any of this is not in harmony with Catholic teaching. This is my understanding to the best of my knowledge, and it is not my intention to lead anyone away from the faith.
 
rainyskyes said:
I am interested in mission work through an organization that asks if you can accept this statement. Is there anything here that would place me in error if I sign this? I was particularly concerned about statements 1 (“final authority”, does not include the Church) and 5 (“substitutionary”?). I have removed the organization’s name.

________ Doctrinal Statement

1.We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as verbally inspired by God, and inerrant in the original writings, and that they are of supreme and final authority in faith and life.
2.We believe in one God, eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3.We believe that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, and is true God and true man.
4.We believe that man was created in the image of God; that he sinned, and thereby incurred, not only physical death, but also that spiritual death which is separation from God; and that all human beings are born with a sinful nature.
5.We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice; and all that truly repent of their sins and believe in Him are justified on the ground of His shed blood.
6.We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
7.We believe in the resurrection of the crucified body of our Lord, and His ascension into heaven and in His present life there for us, as High Priest and Advocate.
8.We believe in that blessed hope, the personal, bodily return of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut
Click to expand...
This may be nit-picky, but in addition to the objections raised by others, I kind of have an issue with the way #3 is worded. It states “that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit,” whereas the Creed states that Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father and by the power of the Holy Spirit He became man. Maybe it’s just semantics, but I think it is incorrect to say that Jesus was “begotten” by the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
 
rainyskyes said:
I am interested in mission work through an organization that asks if you can accept this statement. Is there anything here that would place me in error if I sign this? I was particularly concerned about statements 1 (“final authority”, does not include the Church) and 5 (“substitutionary”?). I have removed the organization’s name.

________ Doctrinal Statement

1.We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as verbally inspired by God, and inerrant in the original writings, and that they are of supreme and final authority in faith and life.
2.We believe in one God, eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3.We believe that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, and is true God and true man.
4.We believe that man was created in the image of God; that he sinned, and thereby incurred, not only physical death, but also that spiritual death which is separation from God; and that all human beings are born with a sinful nature.
5.We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice; and all that truly repent of their sins and believe in Him are justified on the ground of His shed blood.
6.We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
7.We believe in the resurrection of the crucified body of our Lord, and His ascension into heaven and in His present life there for us, as High Priest and Advocate.
8.We believe in that blessed hope, the personal, bodily return of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut
Click to expand...
I couldn’t sign it. I have a problem with bith 2 & 4. I certainly can’t say I believe these two points. Why not find a Cathoilc charity or mission.

Peace:thumbsup:
 
rainyskyes said:
Thanks to everyone for all the replies. My “gut” feeling was the same as the replies I received, but I wanted confirmation. I wasnt sure if I should list the organization (I dont want to make it on to the Forum banned list on my first post.) It is CRISTA and they are the umbrella group under which Christian Veterinary Mission falls. I was interested in using my professional skills in missons work and don’t know of any specifically Catholic groups where I could do this. I know this is probably an extremely small subset of forum members, but are there any veterinarians out there with information on CVM or any other places that do similar work? When you fill out the application for CVM you can check yes or no to the question’ “do you accept this statement?” I will answer “no”, tell them why, and see what happens!
Click to expand...
Welcome to CAF! 👋

Really, you did not need to tell us the name of the organization just to satiate our idle curiosity. It has no bearing on the statement of faith you presented nor our ability to assess it in light of Catholic teaching. It’s obviously too late now, but in the future, don’t feel like you have to divulge such information just because others want to know. 😉

It is an odd sort of imitation of the Apostle’s Creed with Sola Scriptura tacked up top. It’s kind of sad to me because the Creed deliberately follows a certain order and they go and place Scripture in the preeminent position above God the Father.

If it were me, I would offer to sign off on the Apostle’s Creed instead.
 
The_Reginator said:
I’ve a question for you Jim.

I grew up as a (low-church) Anglican. At university I had close Pentecostal friends and influences. (I did not become a Catholic for about decade and a half after that.)
I have always understood that Jesus died for us as we, not being God, could not pay the price for our sins (including original sin).
Have I misunderstood the Catholic view of salvation for the past 15-odd years? Or am I misunderstanding you? :confused:
Click to expand...
Sorry, I actually did a post last night but it seem like it didn’t go through. But I did misread your post earlier. So, let me try again.

Just to warn that this is not an easy subject as there are many nuances of language and thought so beloved by early and medieval Catholic theologians.

To start of with
I have always understood that Jesus died for us as we, not being God, could not pay the price for our sins (including original sin).
Click to expand...
Yes, that is quite true. This is known as the subsitutory atonement. There are however differences (even within Catholicism) as to the reason why such a substitution is required and what the effect of it is.

The early Church Fathers subscribe to the ransom theory, where due to the Fall, we are in bondage to Satan and Jesus’ death was the ransom paid to release us. Which is why the BIble said that Jesus came to be ransom for many. Today, most Christian churches do not follow this view (but I believe the Orthodox still hold onto a variation of this) because Satan as an outlaw couldn’t have been enforcing a just claim (per Anselm) and that God could not be in debt & in need to pay a ransom.

This fell a little out of favour with Anselm, whose view is known as the satisfaction theory. In this view, our sins (and original sin) has cuased us to owe an infinite debt of honour to God and only the infinite goodness of the sacrifice of an infinite being was sufficient to pay off that debt. So, the debt was paid to God and not Satan.

Pentecostal view: first a caution that, in not having a central authority, Pentecostals do not have a fixed doctrine on this issue. Still, they tend to follow (I may be wrong and overgeneralising here) the penal substitution theory first advanced by Calvin. In this view, Jesus was punished (in our place) to satisfy God’s need for justice against sins of mankind.

Aquinas has a slightly different view (which sounds like but must be differentiated from penal subtitution theory above) where he states that Jesus was punished but in a good way in that the punishment removed man’s impediment with God (a bit like finishing a prison sentence removes an inmate’s impediment to live in society again).

So, here we have a few different ideas why Jesus needed to atone for our sins and the consequences of that atonement. I am not aware of any requirement within the Church to subscribe to any particular model but generally, Catholics hold to Anselm or Aquinas views, or slight variation of them in description and language. For me, penal subsitution sounds too negative and I prefer Anslem’s view.

I tried looking for simple explanations online but unable to find anything easy on the mind. So, I hope my summary is clear. If your brains can take it, try this discussion on Anselms’ theory. Otherwise, the only other place is on wikipedia (look for “Atonement (satisfaction view)”.)
 
His_helpmeet said:
Jesus died for us in order to become the perfect sacrifice that was required to destroy sin and death. Indeed, it was necessary for Him to be both fully human and fully divine. My understanding is that, indeed, it WAS necessary for Him to be both God and man so that he could save us. One priest gave this explanation in a homily (I loved this and use it with DSD): “If Jesus is just a man, then just a man died on the cross and we’re not saved. If Jesus is just God, then nobody died on the cross, because God can’t die, and we’re not saved.” Jesus came both out of great love for us AND to save us from sin, because He became the perfect sacrifice that destroyed sin forever. I think Hebrews talks about this.

*Please, someone, correct me if any of this is not in harmony with Catholic teaching. This is my understanding to the best of my knowledge, and it is not my intention to lead anyone away from the faith.
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me.

I am not aware of the Church having a formal view of the reasons behind the atonement of Jesus other than the wordings already in the Catechism. So, if it helps with your Christian living, why not? Still there is a wealth of Catholic writing on that subject but some requires a degree in soteriology to understand them.
 
jimkhong said:
Sorry, I actually did a post last night but it seem like it didn’t go through. But I did misread your post earlier. So, let me try again.

Just to warn that this is not an easy subject as there are many nuances of language and thought so beloved by early and medieval Catholic theologians.

To start of with

Yes, that is quite true. This is known as the subsitutory atonement. There are however differences (even within Catholicism) as to the reason why such a substitution is required and what the effect of it is.

The early Church Fathers subscribe to the ransom theory, where due to the Fall, we are in bondage to Satan and Jesus’ death was the ransom paid to release us. Which is why the BIble said that Jesus came to be ransom for many. Today, most Christian churches do not follow this view (but I believe the Orthodox still hold onto a variation of this) because Satan as an outlaw couldn’t have been enforcing a just claim (per Anselm) and that God could not be in debt & in need to pay a ransom.

This fell a little out of favour with Anselm, whose view is known as the satisfaction theory. In this view, our sins (and original sin) has cuased us to owe an infinite debt of honour to God and only the infinite goodness of the sacrifice of an infinite being was sufficient to pay off that debt. So, the debt was paid to God and not Satan.

Pentecostal view: first a caution that, in not having a central authority, Pentecostals do not have a fixed doctrine on this issue. Still, they tend to follow (I may be wrong and overgeneralising here) the penal substitution theory first advanced by Calvin. In this view, Jesus was punished (in our place) to satisfy God’s need for justice against sins of mankind.

Aquinas has a slightly different view (which sounds like but must be differentiated from penal subtitution theory above) where he states that Jesus was punished but in a good way in that the punishment removed man’s impediment with God (a bit like finishing a prison sentence removes an inmate’s impediment to live in society again).

So, here we have a few different ideas why Jesus needed to atone for our sins and the consequences of that atonement. I am not aware of any requirement within the Church to subscribe to any particular model but generally, Catholics hold to Anselm or Aquinas views, or slight variation of them in description and language. For me, penal subsitution sounds too negative and I prefer Anslem’s view.

I tried looking for simple explanations online but unable to find anything easy on the mind. So, I hope my summary is clear. If your brains can take it, try this discussion on Anselms’ theory. Otherwise, the only other place is on wikipedia (look for “Atonement (satisfaction view)”.)
Click to expand...
Ever try reading a great post like that when it’s late and you’re really getting sleepy?:hypno:
Thanks for the clarification/explanation!!
 
The_Reginator said:
Ever try reading a great post like that when it’s late and you’re really getting sleepy?:hypno:
Thanks for the clarification/explanation!!
Click to expand...
Yes, it is true. And honestly, I think I sounded clearer to myself the second time round, after a good nights sleep. Still it is quite interesting if you approach it the right way but not something we need to worry about as (unless someone could correct me) there is no specific model of the atonement a Catholic need to subscribe to except for the words in the CCC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top