Problems with Theories of the Atonement

[LateCatholic]

There are at least 8 Theories of the Atonement. This is a big concern of mine and has caused me great doubt in terms of the validity of Christianity (note that I have numerous other scientific, ethical, and theological concerns - but this is the one I want to hear feedback on).

Specifically:

1. Why is there more than just one? By definition, this means that there is no clear answer as to why Jesus was crucified and resurrected. In fact, the theory “most in favor” has changed over the centuries. This means a Christian of today (who, perhaps, subscribes to the Moral Influence theory) is NOT AT ALL following the same religion as say, someone in the Middle Ages that subscribed to the Ransom Theory. If the very foundation of Christian theology can change, how is it possibly the true religion?
2. Even if you pick one of the theories and defend it, there are MANY problems with each. What do most Christians subscribe to today? Is there an official position by specific sects? What should Catholics believe? Every theory I have read about (or thought of myself) has major problems. After 40 years, including 10 years of Catholic education - with parents that were religion teachers - I have not had ONE person answer this question satisfactorily. In fact, I often was branded a troublemaker for even asking it.
3. A BIG concern - and this is backed up by the official Catholic position - is that you can support the Theory of Evolution (which I do, obviously) and still be Catholic. However, once you realize that there was no Adam and Eve, and therefore no Original Sin transferred by one ancestor to all of humanity, there is no justification for the Atonement. This is why the Church STILL refuses to acknowledge fully one of the most verified scientific theories in history.

Like I said - full disclosure - I have a lot of problems with Christianity (sexism, homophobia, bigotry, etc etc etc), but the above is one of a few key theological problems I have. Thoughts?

 

[Matt241]

Could you expand on the “major problems” in point 2, please? Perhaps someone here may provide something for you to consider.

If we still hold on to the belief that Jesus Christ died for our sins, that is, the past, present, and future sins of the world (sin had to come into the world in some way, for it was created “good”), then Christ died to atone for that first sin that entered God’s good creation.

 

[LateCatholic]

The major problems center around the concept that there is something greater than God (such as “Justice”) or something God must bow to (like a debt), or that the Atonement simply makes no sense. Some examples:

In the Ransom Theory, God “owes” Satan a ransom to free humanity, and tricks him by having Jesus die (a trade), and then resurrect him. But why does God owe Satan anything? Are they equals? Is the concept of a debt owed greater than God? There are ‘laws’ that even God must follow? God can be dishonest and trick other supernatural creatures?

In the substitution theory, Jesus suffers in place of us. But Jesus IS one and the same with God. So humanity affronts God, God makes HIMSELF suffer instead of us because he loves us, and thus we are forgiven. First, this is ridiculous - but even if you do subscribe to it, it implies that there is a concept beyond God that is greater (ie, “justice”) that even God must follow.

The Moral Influencer theory is probably the one most people that study the issue gravitate towards. It bypasses all the uncomfortable theological mumbo-jumbo and just declares Jesus lived a life to show us how to live and teach us morality. But in such a theory, there is no reason for the horrible suffering he endured. There is no need for a crucifixion or Resurrection. It stands without those events. In fact, it makes more sense WITHOUT those events (or is God saying that living a just and moral life will result in horrible suffering?).

I could go on with others, but my main line of thought is why are there multiple theories at all??? Even if you pick one over the others as best - clearly someone else will choose differently, certainly in the past.

If one allows for a changing theological foundation, how can we honestly say Christianity is the one true religion?

 

[LateCatholic]

the belief that Jesus Christ died for our sins

Just to continue - WHY? Why must anyone atone for a sin he or she did not commit? Christianity claims that guilt is transferable. I am responsible for the sins of my ancestors, all the way back to Adam.
But Adam did not exist. It’s a myth. There was no single ancestor that could have committed a sin that we all inherited.

Note that in Catholic dogma this is acknowledged and you are not permitted to believe in evolution if you make this leap of reasoning.

 

[Matt241]

Because the sin committed is against God, who is infinite. That is why God had to die (in the representative form of His creation) for our sins. As the theory has it (as I’m sure you will recall), an infinite transgression requires an infinite redemption (as no mere human could possibly repay this debt owed to God for obeying the devil’s suggestion, this has to be God Himself, only the infinite redeemer could die for a sin committed against an infinite creature).

There must have been a “first”, to enable sin to ever enter the world in the first place.

 

[Wesrock]

There are at least 8 Theories of the Atonement. This is a big concern of mine and has caused me great doubt in terms of the validity of Christianity (note that I have numerous other scientific, ethical, and theological concerns - but this is the one I want to hear feedback on).

Specifically:

1. Why is there more than just one? By definition, this means that there is no clear answer as to why Jesus was crucified and resurrected. In fact, the theory “most in favor” has changed over the centuries. This means a Christian of today (who, perhaps, subscribes to the Moral Influence theory) is NOT AT ALL following the same religion as say, someone in the Middle Ages that subscribed to the Ransom Theory. If the very foundation of Christian theology can change, how is it possibly the true religion?
2. Even if you pick one of the theories and defend it, there are MANY problems with each. What do most Christians subscribe to today? Is there an official position by specific sects? What should Catholics believe? Every theory I have read about (or thought of myself) has major problems. After 40 years, including 10 years of Catholic education - with parents that were religion teachers - I have not had ONE person answer this question satisfactorily. In fact, I often was branded a troublemaker for even asking it.
3. A BIG concern - and this is backed up by the official Catholic position - is that you can support the Theory of Evolution (which I do, obviously) and still be Catholic. However, once you realize that there was no Adam and Eve, and therefore no Original Sin transferred by one ancestor to all of humanity, there is no justification for the Atonement. This is why the Church STILL refuses to acknowledge fully one of the most verified scientific theories in history.

Like I said - full disclosure - I have a lot of problems with Christianity (sexism, homophobia, bigotry, etc etc etc), but the above is one of a few key theological problems I have. Thoughts?

Most of the theories of atonement are not mutually exclusive. Multiple are listed in the Catechism itself. What is the issue with there being multiple?

Who says we have to reject a historical Adam and Eve by accepting evolution?

 

[Wesrock]

Matt241:

the belief that Jesus Christ died for our sins

Just to continue - WHY? Why must anyone atone for a sin he or she did not commit? Christianity claims that guilt is transferable. I am responsible for the sins of my ancestors, all the way back to Adam.
But Adam did not exist. It’s a myth. There was no single ancestor that could have committed a sin that we all inherited.

Note that in Catholic dogma this is acknowledged and you are not permitted to believe in evolution if you make this leap of reasoning.

Original sin is not personal sin or actual sin. Insofar as we participate in Adam’s nature, we lack the original justice and holiness that Adam was given. We don’t have are gifts that allow us to transcend the our unassisted human nature because of original sin.

 

[Matt241]

Which is why original sin had so much more gravity than any of our personal (actual) sins and requires an infinite redeemer to atone.

 

[Wesrock]

The major problems center around the concept that there is something greater than God (such as “Justice”) or something God must bow to (like a debt), or that the Atonement simply makes no sense. Some examples:

In the Ransom Theory, God “owes” Satan a ransom to free humanity, and tricks him by having Jesus die (a trade), and then resurrect him. But why does God owe Satan anything? Are they equals? Is the concept of a debt owed greater than God? There are ‘laws’ that even God must follow? God can be dishonest and trick other supernatural creatures?

In the substitution theory, Jesus suffers in place of us. But Jesus IS one and the same with God. So humanity affronts God, God makes HIMSELF suffer instead of us because he loves us, and thus we are forgiven. First, this is ridiculous - but even if you do subscribe to it, it implies that there is a concept beyond God that is greater (ie, “justice”) that even God must follow.

The Moral Influencer theory is probably the one most people that study the issue gravitate towards. It bypasses all the uncomfortable theological mumbo-jumbo and just declares Jesus lived a life to show us how to live and teach us morality. But in such a theory, there is no reason for the horrible suffering he endured. There is no need for a crucifixion or Resurrection. It stands without those events. In fact, it makes more sense WITHOUT those events (or is God saying that living a just and moral life will result in horrible suffering?).

I could go on with others, but my main line of thought is why are there multiple theories at all??? Even if you pick one over the others as best - clearly someone else will choose differently, certainly in the past.

If one allows for a changing theological foundation, how can we honestly say Christianity is the one true religion?

The basis of the ransom theory of atonement is that a debt was paid. Some theologians have stated it was paid to Satan, others to the Father. The Church doesn’t specify either. Certainly God did not owe Satan anything. Humanity was in bondage to sin, and Satan is the chief deceiver and tempter and first to sin against God. It was not a stretch to understand humanity’s bondage to sin as a sort of bondage to Satan. This doesn’t necessarily mean Satan had to be “bought off,” though.

In your complaint about substitution theory, you leave out that Jesus had two natures, one of them human, and a human (non-divine) will that submitted itself to God.

Even in the moral influencer theory, when not taken alone, Jesus demonstrates the ultimate love in total obedience to God and in self sacrifice, laying down one’s life for a friend.

 

[Gorgias]

1. A BIG concern - and this is backed up by the official Catholic position - is that you can support the Theory of Evolution (which I do, obviously) and still be Catholic. However, once you realize that there was no Adam and Eve, and therefore no Original Sin transferred by one ancestor to all of humanity, there is no justification for the Atonement. This is why the Church STILL refuses to acknowledge fully one of the most verified scientific theories in history.

Hang on a second. “There was no Adam and Eve”? “After 40 years, including 10 years of Catholic education – with parents who were religion teachers”… and you’re still getting something this fundamental wrong? If so, then I don’t have much faith in your other assertions.

(Just for the sake of being perfectly clear: evolution doesn’t require “no Adam and Eve”. The Church certainly doesn’t teach “no Adam and Eve”. To assert otherwise… well, it completely misses the point. However, I can see how that conclusion would lead you to doubt Church doctrine.)

To your other questions, though:

• Why more than one? Because that’s how theology gets ‘done’. Ideas are floated, debated, and if & when it becomes necessary for an official Church pronouncement, then the Church declares which idea is correct. Until then, we’re free to discuss and debate.
• This doesn’t mean that “there is no clear answer as to why Jesus was crucified and resurrected.” At worst, it just means that we haven’t found the answer with certainty. That’s not a death-knell for our faith.
  • In fact, I think you’ve misidentified the problem: it’s not “why Jesus was crucified and resurrected”, it’s “how did that ‘work’, from God’s perspective.” We already know why: in order to offer humanity the possibility of salvation.
• Why should the metric “what most Christians subscribe to today” matter? Is this an election? Even if it were (which it isn’t), why do only living humans get a voice?
• I disagree that “a Christian of today is NOT AT ALL following the same religion as someone in the Middle Ages.” We might have different understandings of how salvation works – but we follow the same Christ, who makes the offer of salvation to us.

If there are problems with certain theories, how does that mean that there is no answer? It just means that some of the answers work less well than others. Not sure how that means that Christianity itself is invalid.

my main line of thought is why are there multiple theories at all???

Because there are multiple people thinking about the question. Why is that so troubling?

If one allows for a changing theological foundation, how can we honestly say Christianity is the one true religion?

Christ is the foundation, not any particular theory of atonement.

More to the point, there is no ‘changing’ official doctrine of the atonement, along the lines you’re asserting.

 

[Gorgias]

Just to continue - WHY? Why must anyone atone for a sin he or she did not commit? Christianity claims that guilt is transferable. I am responsible for the sins of my ancestors, all the way back to Adam.

No. You’re mistaken. You misunderstand what ‘original sin’ means. It is not guilt for sins committed, and certainly not guilt for sins committed by your ancestors.

But Adam did not exist. It’s a myth.

Our first two human parents did exist. They might not have had the literal names ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’, but they existed. Evolution doesn’t contradict this teaching.

Note that in Catholic dogma this is acknowledged and you are not permitted to believe in evolution if you make this leap of reasoning.

Note that you are incorrect here.

 

[LateCatholic]

Who says we have to reject a historical Adam and Eve by accepting evolution?

I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but is this a serious question? Adam and Eve (depending on which story of creation you subscribe to) were created out dust (or Adam’s rib) as fully-formed. conscious and functional beings. This is clearly not what is predicted by the Theory of Evolution.

Perhaps you are referring to Mitochondrial Eve, or Y-Chromosome Adam? I’ve seen many people post about this in this forum. These are dynamic genetic tree designations. They change. For example, if a plague wipes out every human being on earth except you, your siblings, and your first cousins, your grandmother is now “Mitochondrial Eve”. The same goes for Y-Adam. But, most importantly, Y-Adam and M-Eve are separated by possibly tens of thousands of years. They are not contemporaries, and certainly not a “couple”. Lastly, even if you believe Y-Adam serves as the source of all of human sin (this is what Cardinal Ratzinger said but it is NOT what the Church teaches), it does not explain how Y-Adam’s ancestors, wife/mate, siblings and indirect descendants (such as his nieces and nephews, for example) fit into the Christian theology. And, finally, M-Eve is believable to have lived 140,000 years ago. Y-Adam perhaps 500,000 years ago. These creatures in no way come close to representing contemporary humans. In fact, Y-Adam may not have even been the same SPECIES as modern humans.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but is this a serious question? Adam and Eve (depending on which story of creation you subscribe to) were created out dust (or Adam’s rib) as fully-formed. conscious and functional beings. This is clearly not what is predicted by the Theory of Evolution.

It is absolutely a serious question! You seem to be laboring under the misunderstanding that, if the Genesis creation narrative isn’t literally and historically true, then the theological teaching is untrue. That’s not what the Church teaches.

And no, this question isn’t about “Mitochondrial Eve” or “Y-Chromosome Adam”, which are not measures of our first human parents.

BTW – where are you getting the idea that “Cardinal Ratzinger said [that] Y-Adam serves as the source of all human sin”? That’s absurd. Do you have a citation for that claim?

 

[BartholomewB]

In fact, I often was branded a troublemaker for even asking it.

I’m not surprised! In the hope of finding an answer to this question, I bought Martin Hengel’s book a few years ago. I have read it twice (it’s very short, barely 100 pages), but it would be an exaggeration to say I now know the answer.

https://www.amazon.com/Atonement-Or...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1535813241&sr=1-1

 

[LateCatholic]

Note that in Catholic dogma this is acknowledged and you are not permitted to believe in evolution if you make this leap of reasoning.

I disagree with you on this. I can only speak for Catholics. Although a Catholic can believe in evolution, he or she MUST also believe that all sin is the result of a single event by a single human ancestor. Every descendant from this bloodline is guilty by association, from that point forward. But evolutionary theory indicates that this individual had parents, probably siblings, possibly nieces and nephews. Catholic dogma requires that the first human committed sin. I guess you can twist and contort your views so that you are satisfied, but the fact remains for thousands of years - even to this day - the foundation of Christian theology was that 6000 years ago there was one man, and one man only, that had no biological parents, that committed a sin that was with us henceforth. Evolution clearly says that did not happen. I certainly respect you for trying to reconcile evolution with Christian dogma - I was there once - but eventually you realize it is a losing battle. At least I did.

 

[LateCatholic]

BTW – where are you getting the idea that “Cardinal Ratzinger said [that] Y-Adam serves as the source of all human sin”? That’s absurd. Do you have a citation for that claim?

I’ll try to find the citation. Cardinal Ratzinger did not believe in literally reading of Genesis. He wrote extensively about evolution and - for the most - part, said it was true. When asked about how can one reconcile the Atonement if there was no “Original Sin” (no Adam = no original Sin), he said (and I paraphrase) that at some point in human evolution one of our ancestors realized that the universe was bigger than he or she was, that there was a being greater than us (“God”), that this God loved us and had an ethical framework for us to follow (sense of morality). Yet this person sinned ANYWAY. This was the single event that henceforth became the “Fall”, and why we must be saved.

The above can certainly be reconciled with evolution. It doesn’t resolve theological Atonement issues, but it does take a big step forward rationalizing Christianity with science. I’m no fan of Ratzinger, but I do like the line of thought and attempt as reason. I was quite disappointed when the Church effectively rejected this stating it was not official dogma. MY understanding continues to be that Church teaching states that there was ONE and only ONE INITIAL (no parents) human ancestor, and he committed sin despite God’s warning. There were no humans that lived without sin. This does not jive with evolution. I tried for years and was often on your side of these forum discussions. But I’ve come to think this theological foundation is obviously wrong.

 

[BartholomewB]

Cardinal Ratzenberger

You’re joking, aren’t you?

 

[LateCatholic]

Cardinal Ratzenberger

I’m no fan of Ratzinger. Not in the slightest.
But he did talk a lot about evolution and he was vocally not a Creationist. I’m not sure of your angle here. I guess my point is that even the highest level clerics in the Catholic Church acknowledge the MAJOR problems with evolution and the Atonement, both scientifically and theologically.

 

[BartholomewB]

I’m not sure of your angle here.

My “angle” here, as you call it, is that there is not now, and never has been, a Cardinal by the name of Ratzenberger.

 

[LateCatholic]

No. You’re mistaken. You misunderstand what ‘original sin’ means. It is not guilt for sins committed, and certainly not guilt for sins committed by your ancestors.

From wikipedia:
Original Sin: the tendency to sin innate in all human beings, held to be INHERITED FROM ADAM in consequence of the Fall.

How is my understanding incorrect? According to Christian teaching, we sin because Adam did. It is HIS fault. You can perhaps say that original sin exists regardless of whether Adam did or not. That’s fine. But that is NOT Catholic teaching.

This is one of my problems with modern Christianity. No one takes it seriously. I’m not kidding here. No one is a TRUE Catholic. I mean this sincerely. People either shrug their shoulders and ignore problems, rationalize them some way, or otherwise deflect. I can not tell you how many times my discussions with Catholics eventually resolve to “yeah, you’re right, but no one actually believes THAT.”

It is a major challenge reconciling the Atonement with Evolution.
It is a major challenge reconciling the Atonement with a loving God.
It is a major challenge reconciling the Atonement with an all-powerful God.
etc etc.

I am not a sheep. I am a seeker of truth. I reject those that tell me ‘smarter’ people have already figured it out, and to stop asking these questions.
There are MAJOR theological issues with Christianity.
You can either hide your head in the sand, or address them.