Problems with Theories of the Atonement

[LateCatholic]

The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory, that is to say, a pictorial story to teach a truth, so we must know what are the truths, and what are the images when we read an allegory.
The Church teaches us that one truth is that Adam and Eve actually existed, and that they sinned and therefore inherited a fallen nature!

I’m still confused. Are you saying Adam and Eve were real beings that lived on Earth or not?
Saying they were “allegorically real” means that they did NOT exist.

Or are you saying that Adam and Eve were real beings but the talking snake and forbidden fruit were not?
Or perhaps, like some others in this thread, saying Adam and Eve were NOT real but the concept of original sin as the first turning from God is still valid?

I don’t think your comment is helping clarify things.

 

[LateCatholic]

in Genesis it is written that God created Adam from the earth, so we can at least remember that Adam was not created from nothing as you say, but that he has was made from created elements that already existed …

I’m ok with that variation - but this does seem to imply you believe Adam and Eve were REAL beings that lived on Earth despite the (massive) scientific evidence against.

 

[TULIPed]

I think a good place to start on atonement is Leviticus 16 - at least from a biblical perspective.

I’m curious though - you said you have a lot of problems with Christianity.

How do you feel about the whole “raised from the dead” thing? I mean - you seem to be very smart and know a lot about philosophy and theology - way more than I do. But if you’re looking for holes in the doughnut, there are way, way easier ones to find me thinks, no?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

But this is what bothers me. There MUST be an answer.

I’m different from you in that respect. I tend to see most questions as eventually ending up in an area beyond human knowledge or human certainty, since we can’t know exactly what’s on the mind of God.

Stuff like “theories of the atonement” seems to me to be an attempt to create a model that humans can understand of what Jesus/ God actually did for us, and I always figure the model will get us only so far, then we will fall short.

I understand you feel differently and see this sort of thinking as a cop-out. I see it as a wise man knowing his limitations.

 

[LateCatholic]

Evolution doesn’t say anything of the sort that you think it does. When we talk about our “first human parents” in the context of theology, we’re talking about persons with eternal souls . Does science talk about souls? (Of course not.) Then, of course, science – including evolution – cannot address questions about our first human parents.

You can certainly define our “first human parents” as the first persons with eternal souls. That’s you definition, so I’ll go with it. But I don’t think the Church would agree with you. Further, not that you are by definition saying that at one point in time, there existed people whose parents were had no souls. I can’t accept this. I know the Church can’t either, which is why they don’t accept your definition.

So, if Ratzinger says “one of our ancestors”, he means our first truly human ancestor . There were other ancestors – apes, at the very least – who were ancestors but not human . You seem to be blind to this nuance.

I’ve lost track of where we disagree. You seem to subscribe to evolution. I certainly do. I have now found citations where Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II address the issue, effectively punting on declaring Adam as a real being, but affirms: “a primeval event, a
deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. … Although set by God in a state
of rectitude, man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He
lifted himself up against God and sought to attain his goal apart from him”.

So, it appears the Church is attempting to distance itself from the historical Adam. However, Pope Pius XII seemed to address this earlier, as it was brought up by several scholars. He said: “Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the
sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose
with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual
Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

To be honest, I don’t think the Church has this figured out. It’s a a problem.

See:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/heyj.12237

"Cardinal" Ratzinger denies Original Sin

novusordowatch.org

 

[LateCatholic]

Continued:

Again, you’re making the invalid presumption that science is talking about ensouled humans. It isn’t.

I said earlier I am fine with your distinction. Certainly things get a lot easier if you declare Christian theology ONLY starts once human beings have “souls”. But as I said before, that’s a tough pill to swallow. It implies that at some point in pre-history, God picked a special person (we’ll call him “Adam”) to receive the first “soul” - even though that person had parents, probably siblings, lived in a society, etc. Everybody else was out of luck - INCLUDING the descendants of those unlucky people, whose generational lines went on for centuries if not millennia. Clearly the Church won’t go with this line of reasoning, but I agree it definitely helps reconciling evolution and scientific fact with your beliefs.

False. Our first human parent (call him ‘Adam’ if that makes you happy) does not bear the fault for our personal sins.

I am saying we inherited and are guilty of the sin of Adam. This is Church teaching. The world was in a “state of rectitude” before Adam sinned. I’m not implying anything else. This is Church teaching, not my opinion. Again, quoted above, from Pope Pius XII:

“original sin … proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual
Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”

You can perhaps say that original sin exists regardless of whether Adam did or not.

I’m not saying this. Others could say this. This discussion is about how the Theory of Evolution implies no original sin, based on Church teaching. No Original Sin = no need for the Atonement. I don’t know what you are defending or arguing here. The Church has many times stated that there must have been one individual from which original sin extends, which we all inherited, which is why Jesus has to die. Evolution really throws a monkey wrench into this. The Church knows this. Read what I referenced.
You can try to resolve it (which you have) - and you can make progress - but it’s clearly a tough road.

Don’t stop asking questions – but don’t presume you have all the answers.

Wow. Everything about my posts is how the answers provided by Church teaching are not satisfying. Specifically, the fact that there have been no less than EIGHT theories of the Atonement is a concern. I’m not trying to answer anything myself. If I poke holes in your answers, don’t presume I know the right answer. But perhaps, just perhaps, there isn’t a right answer - and we are all wrong.

 

[Devout2Him]

To Late Catholic: I have an impeccable higher education from a renowned institution and for all that equips me I find happiness and spiritual contentment in my childlike faith. I have no need to waste time with mere human speculation of salvation theories. I believe as Jesus would have us believe. I use my intellect on admiring the beauty of God creation and that most certainly includes His Church. My childlike faith gives me peace and I am thankful God may have gifted me this grace of faith. I would suggest praying for childlike faith if anyone is torn or perplexed by such distractions. Also as my very learned bible scholar brother opines, how dare we are to try to substitute our thinking for the Lord’s. I for one liken such actions as akin to Eve wnting what the Tree of Knowledge had,+

 

[LateCatholic]

To Late Catholic: I have an impeccable higher education from a renowned institution and for all that equips me I find happiness and spiritual contentment in my childlike faith. I have no need to waste time with mere human speculation of salvation theories. I believe as Jesus would have us believe. I use my intellect on admiring the beauty of God creation and that most certainly includes His Church. My childlike faith gives me peace and I am thankful God may have gifted me this grace of faith. I would suggest praying for childlike faith if anyone is torn or perplexed by such distractions. Also as my very learned bible scholar brother opines, how dare we are to try to substitute our thinking for the Lord’s. I for one liken such actions as akin to Eve wnting what the Tree of Knowledge had,+

It is your right to give up on answering this question. If you still find comfort, that’s wonderful. But I cannot accept a flawed theology. I find much of Christian thinking lacking. I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings, or make them question their faith. But if that is the effect of these discussions, so be it.

As I mentioned previously, as a student, the end result of posing these questions always resulted in me either being branded a troublemaker or to stop asking them. Not surprising someone suggesting the latter would eventually appear. I’m happy your child-like faith allows you to ignore the contradictions of our faith and the world around us. I cannot.

 

[Devout2Him]

I did not “give up on answering the question” rather I rely on faith in God not in humans who rely on coming up with contradictory theories (and I’m a scientist by education). I think anyone could easily get frustrated if one was to rely on competing explanations. Trust that our Lord knew what we He was doing for the best reasons spiritually possible afterall He is God.

 

[Devout2Him]

You see I don’t rely on Christian thinking I rely what is in my heart that stems from my childlike faith. Complete acceptance of God. I oftentimes think it is wrong to ask why (such as these theories do) when we should give God our answer, blind faith. I thank God gives that grace to many and all if they would ask. Sometimes it might take perseverance tho, but even Mother Teresa allegedly did not hear God when she prayed yet all would agree she had profound faith (a deep abiding faith in the face of many difficulties0. God Bless You and I wish you peace.

 

[LateCatholic]

Trust that our Lord knew what we He was doing for the best reasons spiritually possible afterall He is God.

But you do not trust God. You trust his messengers and translators that claim to be speaking for God.

For example, you read the gospels. You notice inconsistencies. Your response, based on the above posts, is to ignore those and assume God knows what He is doing. After all, He is God.

But the Gospels were not written by God. The explanation for Jesus’ suffering is not written by God. It is all conveyed to us by humans. Yeah - they say they were “divinely inspired”. If you say so. If you read the history of the Church, you won’t be so quick to assume God is speaking through these men.

Maybe you speak directly to God - but I don’t. He doesn’t speak to me, at least not directly. I read the Gospels, Paul’s letters, Pope’s letters, Church teachings and Catechism. I listen to homilies, I discuss it with others. I went to Catholic school. If God spoke to me directly and said to not worry my little head, the Atonement is beyond my understanding - I’d shut up about it.

But until that happens, I can only assume all this theology comes from other people. Not from God. And, I’m sorry, but so much of it makes NO SENSE at all. It just doesn’t. If it did, there just wouldn’t be so many darn ways to think about it. I don’t accept the answer that “it’s a mystery”. To me, that’s a cop out because you know it’s wrong or you can’t answer the question.

So I am happy for you. You can look past the problems. I can’t.

 

[Devout2Him]

I forgot to add I think as a student I understand you asking questions and I don’t think you should be viewed as a troublemaker. However I take issue with your phrase “contradictions of our faith” I hope you meant people’s opinions on theories but please don’t denigrate the faith of others “our”. My faith and everyone else’s faith is valuable to God as long as it is in Him. At 66 and the vast life experiences I’ve had I certainly had my share of being in the world and not ignoring it.

 

[Roguish]

Interesting post. I don’t have time for a long answer, but a short one with respect to your point 1 would be that atonement can only be properly understood when one reasons from an adequate metaphysical model. The going atonement theories don’t do that. They reason from temporal models only, and that can never fully satisfy. As you said, these explanations leave many questions, and usually just don’t “feel” right.

And briefly on your point 3: the theory of evolution is hardly “one of the most verified theories in history”. Just about any other mainstream theory is better verified.

 

[opop]

It has not been resolved and has been the source of consternation among apologist for centuries

I don’t know what you are talking about. It has been resolved and answered tons of times. It really is not that difficult.

The point is (and the endgame of the Euthyphro Dilemma) is that you MUST choose one of these two. Either:

1. God is not all-powerful because there are higher order laws that even he must answer to.
2. God is cruel and not all-loving because his morality and resolution thereof involves torture, pain,and horrible suffering of innocents.

Precisely no. You must not choose one of those. The first option is that moral laws are above God. The second option is that moral laws depend on God’s decision. None of those are true. The truth as I said, is that God is identical to moral laws. So yes, he must answer to moral laws, but not because they are above him, but because they are himself. He must answer to himself. And since he’s a necessary being that cannot change, he cannot change moral rules by a decision. Moral rules are necessarily what they are because God is necessarily what he is.
Also, catholic theology always said that the fact that God is all-poweful doesn’t mean that he can do contradictory things (like a squared circle). God is bound to the rules of logic because those rules are the rules of being, and he is the Being itself. He is those rules.

 

[opop]

I definitely like this reasoning a lot more than denying the evidence. However, I don’t think the Church has formally embraced this thinking. My understanding is that the formal teaching of the Church remains that Adam and Eve were real beings, had no parents

No, it’s not the formal teaching of the Church. Many catholics do believe in that, but you can be catholic and believe in polygenism. If you don’t believe me, here are extracts of the Church document called Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, published in 2004:
“While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage” (no. 63)

“Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention” (no. 70, my emphasis)

Here is the whole document: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

This may interest you as well : http://www.thomisticevolution.org/d...city-of-adam-and-eve-part-i-theological-data/

And it still is not satisfying. Why must I be responsible for sins of my ancestors? This transferal of guilt that is a foundation of Judeo-Christian theology is something I do not agree with (some in the thread have said no such foundation exists - but it is right in the ten commandments).

Catholic theology clearly says that we are not personaly guilty of our ancestors sins. However. this doesn’t mean we can’t have some debt toward God (there’s a difference between guilt and a debt). For example, if a son inherits the property of his father, then he inherits his father’s debts too. And if the father wasted all his money and has tons of debts, the son must still pay them. It doesn’t mean that the son is personally guilty of his father’s wastful behaviour.

 

[LateCatholic]

The truth as I said, is that God is identical to moral laws. So yes, he must answer to moral laws, but not because they are above him, but because they are himself. He must answer to himself. And since he’s a necessary being that cannot change, he cannot change moral rules by a decision. Moral rules are necessarily what they are because God is necessarily what he is.

You’ve just selected the second horn of the dilemma. You haven’t created a third choice. God is morality, morality is God. God requires an innocent (Jesus) to suffer a horrible death to resolve the affront of sin. This means that part of His nature requires cruelty, suffering, and torture. Most Christian theologians select the first horn, agreeing that there are standards even God must follow. Those that select the second acknowledge that God’s behavior may appear cruel and evil at times, but our understanding is flawed, because - by definition - he MUST be executing the correct moral choice. Your thoughts appear to be along these lines - but note that you have NOT resolved anything.

There are actually a third and fourth choice, both DO resolve the dilemma. The third is, of course, that there is no God. Obviously, with no God, there is no dilemma.

The fourth is similar but does not necessitate no God. The fourth choice simply states that there is no absolute moral foundation. Morality is dynamic and subjective. In this case, there is no dilemma, because there is no such thing as absolute morality. This tends to throw religious people into a tizzy, but it is the correct view in my opinion. The reason I say this is because God NEVER communicates directly to us. He uses proxies and intermediaries. Whether it is through prophets, “divinely” inspired writers, Popes and Bishops, or what have you - we do not DIRECTLY know what God’s true nature is. Thus, you cannot choose the second horn even if you want to. Everything about morality is communicated by MEN, NOT GOD. And since no one ever agrees on morality, the only choice is to claim is is subjective. There is NO ABSOLUTE MORALITY - whether defined “above God”, like the first horn claims, or “by God”, as the second horn does. No absolute morality = no dilemma. That is the only, and correct choice.

 

[Gorgias]

I will define “Adam and Eve” as those two beings created from effectively nothing by God as fully developed, evolved, functional and conscious human beings that had no parents approximately 6000 years ago. If you are saying, given the above definition, that “Adam and Eve” were real persons

Ahh… thank you for that! Now, I think, I can see where the disconnect is!

It’s in your definition, I’m afraid.

On one hand, you’re claiming that the Church allows for an acceptance of certain forms of evolution. (Which, of course, she does!) On the other hand, though – in your definition – you’re defining things purely in terms of a fundamentalist, literalist hermeneutic for Genesis 1-3. And that’s your problem right there. You see, if we look at evolution as a possibility, then we are implicitly saying that a literalist, fundamentalist interpretation of the creation epics is incorrect. So, if you want to rail against an interpretation, then you need to argue against the interpretation which allows for evolution.

Essentially, you’re saying “well, the Church allows me to believe in heliocentrism”, and then turning around and saying “the Church is wrong, since it says that the universe rotates around the earth!” See what I mean?

So… your definition of ‘Adam and Eve’ is in error. Again, I strongly recommend that you read the Catechism. In there, you’ll find what the Church really teaches. And, you know what the Church doesn’t teach? Much of your ‘definition.’ You’ll not find, in those pages, the following assertions:

• created from nothing
  • in fact, Adam and Eve are depicted as being created from pre-existing matter
• No parents
  • in fact, the Catechism doesn’t make this claim.
• Approximately 6000 years ago
  • The Catechism doesn’t make this claim, either.

So, in fact, what you’ve actually been doing here is setting up a straw man. Has it been fun knocking it down? Maybe it’s time to see what the Church actually teaches, and begin working with that information…

We all know Adam and eve is a myth.

Allegory? Sure. Symbolic language? Yep. But not a ‘myth’, if by that term you mean “something that’s untrue.”

 

[Gorgias]

Science improves based on experiment and theory, but religion does not.

For a guy who gets a lot about religion wrong, you certainly are amazingly sure of yourself. Please familiarize yourself with Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Yes, doctrine develops. It does not lay stagnant.

For instance, it is generally agreed upon by scholars that the virgin birth is also a myth.

Yes, perhaps a separate discussion on this topic would be enlightening. Would you like to start the thread (in the Sacred Scripture forum, I’d guess), or shall I?

Why won’t the Church acknowledge this?

We’d have to assent to the veracity of modern scholars over the Word of God, wouldn’t we?

Case in point, I was very upset when as a child I was told that I could believe in Limbo (where unbaptized babies go) “if I wanted to”. This was a big eye opener. I looked at it this way - there IS an answer. Either Limbo is real or not. Either unbaptized children go to Limbo or they go to Hell. Which is it? The point is not to argue Limbo or not.

The point is that there MUST BE an answer.

So, what you were being told was, “the Church doesn’t have an official teaching on this matter, so – as a Catholic – you’re free to engage your powers of reason and decide for yourself.” That’s a bad thing? Seriously? You’re the one who just railed at religion not allowing for free thought and development – and now you’re railing at religion for allowing it? You can see how you’re contradicting your own position… right?

(BTW – in case you’re still wondering… the Church has, subsequently, put out a teaching on the question of the “Limbo of Infants”, which was never formally taught as the doctrine of the Universal Church. If you’d like to read what the Church really teaches, you can find it here: The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized.

The point is that there MUST BE an answer. Correspondingly, there MUST BE a reason for the Atonement.

Agreed. But, that doesn’t mean that the Church MUST have an official teaching on the matter.

If we can disagree on why Jesus died on the cross, something is very wrong with our religion.

The thing is… we don’t disagree on why Jesus died on the cross. The discussion of the atonement only answers the question how it worked.

 

[Gorgias]

You can certainly define our “first human parents” as the first persons with eternal souls.

Boy, I sure hope so, since that’s what the Church teaches!

That’s you definition, so I’ll go with it. But I don’t think the Church would agree with you.

Are you sure of that…?
CCC 364:

The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit

Note carefully the implication there: without a spiritual soul – made in the image of God, which is not a physical image (cf CCC 370) – we do not have a ‘human.’ The human soul is what makes a human body. So, our “first human parents” had eternal souls. It follows logically.

Further, not that you are by definition saying that at one point in time, there existed people whose parents were had no souls. I can’t accept this. I know the Church can’t either, which is why they don’t accept your definition.

If they didn’t have human souls, then they weren’t people. Hominins, maybe, but not people.

If you “know the Church can’t accept” this thought, then I’m sure you have a magisterial teaching that you can cite that proves this claim?

Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II address the issue, effectively punting on declaring Adam as a real being, but affirms: “a primeval event, a
deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. … Although set by God in a state
of rectitude, man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He
lifted himself up against God and sought to attain his goal apart from him”.

OK… stop again, take another deep breath, and think about what you’ve just written. If Benedict and JP II write that there was an actual primeval event that took place… how could ‘Adam’ not be a real being? If it’s an “actual event”, it required actual participants. Seriously… how can you suggest that this isn’t the implication here?

So, it appears the Church is attempting to distance itself from the historical Adam.

Close. The Church is distancing itself from saying more about the historical Adam than it has competency to discuss.

However, Pope Pius XII seemed to address this earlier, as it was brought up by several scholars. He said: “Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled

Wow. Proof-text much?

Pius is saying that there are two options which cannot be held by Christians:

• There were no true men who lived after Adam who did not descend from him. (Emphasis mine.)
• Adam is merely representative of a population of ‘parents’.

This doesn’t mean that other theories are unacceptable; just that these two are.

 

[LateCatholic]

OK… stop again, take another deep breath, and think about what you’ve just written. If Benedict and JP II write that there was an actual primeval event that took place… how could ‘Adam’ not be a real being? If it’s an “actual event”, it required actual participants . Seriously… how can you suggest that this isn’t the implication here?

Again, not sure what you are disagreeing with. But here is the point I am making. The Church SPECIFICALLY says that every human being alive today DESCENDED from this person you call “Adam”. All other people alive at that time, including their descendants that certainly must have lived for millennia afterwards, did NOT have souls. AND - their genetic lines have all died. This does not make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. But this is what the Church teaches. Frankly, rationalizing evolution with Church teaching leads to ridiculous conclusions.