Problems with Theories of the Atonement

[Gorgias]

that’s a tough pill to swallow.

Not really.

Everybody else was out of luck - INCLUDING the descendants of those unlucky people, whose generational lines went on for centuries if not millennia.

Run into any Neanderthals lately? Or Piltdown men? The notion that lines die out is part and parcel of scientific theories of biology. Especially when one line has an evolutionary advantage. That’s a hard pill to swallow?

I am saying we inherited and are guilty of the sin of Adam. This is Church teaching.

Actually, it’s not. Again: READ. THE. CATECHISM.

I’ll help you out. Again.
CCC 404-405:

[O]riginal sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

What is it that we ‘inherit’, then? The fallen state of human nature. Not the ‘sin of Adam’; that’s a personal sin and is on him alone. Nor is Adam guilty for our personal sins.

This discussion is about how the Theory of Evolution implies no original sin, based on Church teaching.

And in that discussion, you’re mistaken.

No Original Sin = no need for the Atonement.

OK… let’s think through your assertion, here. Let’s suppose that you’re right – that, due to evolution, there was no original sin. Tell me… have you committed any sin in your life? And, if so, doesn’t that mean that you need a savior? “No Original Sin = no need for the Atonement” is, on its very face, absurd! (Unless, of course, you think that you (and every human) are sinless. Then maybe you’d have a point… )

If I poke holes in your answers, don’t presume I know the right answer.

The problem is, you’re not poking holes in my answers… although you seem to think you are.

Let me go out on a limb, here. You link to a sedevacantist site, and your quotes are primarily coming from pre-Vatican II sources (Pius XII in particular). Were you raised in a sedevacantist environment? Is it possible that what you’re railing against isn’t really the teachings of the Church, but rather, the teachings of sedevacantists? Just thinking out loud…

 

[opop]

You’ve just selected the second horn of the dilemma. You haven’t created a third choice. God is morality, morality is God.

This shows that you don’t understand the Euthyphro dilemma. Both options of this dilemma suppose that God and moral laws are two different things. The first option says that God depend on moral laws (moral laws above God), and the second option says that moral laws depend on God (God above moral laws). Since I’m not saying that God is above moral laws, I am not choosing the second horn. The correct solution is that God is identitical to moral laws. So if you ask : Is it right because it is commanded by God, or is commanded by God because it is right? Well the answer is: both. Not because God is above and under moral laws at the same time (which would be contradictory) but because God is the moral laws.

God requires an innocent (Jesus) to suffer a horrible death to resolve the affront of sin.

No he doesn’t require it. Most theologians agree that God could have resloved the affront of sin by bloodless means. However, he chose to accept suffering (for himself and not for another, since Jesus is God), because he deemed it was the more useful choice for our salvation. Now, if you want to know why God deemed it the more useful way, you could read saint Thomas Aquinas, who proposes some theories.

And since no one ever agrees on morality, the only choice is to claim is is subjective.

No, it’s just mean that we are not wise enough to know which are the correct rules of morality. It is not because something is difficult to know that it is subjective. Furthermore, humanity generally agree on some points, like the wrongness of incest and murder of the innocent.

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.

If morality is subjective then I can kill all your family for my pleasure and it would not be wrong if it fits with my subjective set of moral rules. You can try to believe that if you want but I’m sure your own conscience tells you it’s not true.

 

[LateCatholic]

Run into any Neanderthals lately? Or Piltdown men? The notion that lines die out is part and parcel of scientific theories of biology. Especially when one line has an evolutionary advantage. That’s a hard pill to swallow?

Where did that come from? Here’s the problem with the Church’s position on original sin and evolution. It originated from one human being. Prior to the theory of evolution, the position was (and many still hold it to be) that at one point in time - said to be 6000 years ago - there was one and only one person (or couple). This person had no parents, no siblings, no ancestors. As the first person, he had an eternal soul. He went against God’s will, committed and affront that was so severe, we inherited the ramifications as his descendants. Nice and tidy.

Along comes evolution. Now, the Church says there is no conflict with the above conceptually. The story of Adam was allegorical. However, the concept of original sin is still valid. One being at some point in the past committed and affront to God that henceforth we all are responsible for and have to answer for. Fortunately for us, Jesus came and saved us.

BUT…there are huge problems. For instance, WHEN did this event happen? God picked one proto-human to have the first soul? Why? Why that person? And this person just happened to also, at that time, commit this affront? What about his parents? What about his relatives and their descendants? Was he given the soul when he was born, or at some point in his life. Did he have children before he was granted the soul? So, according to Church teaching, EVERY other person living at the time of this first soul-granted human was not only soulless, but so were all their descendants. So for generations, perhaps even millennia, there were thousands of soulless people living alongside humans with souls.

This is what the ramifications are if you both follow Church teaching and subscribe to evolution. Look- I respect your attempt to reconcile evolution with religion. I tried too. But it is so messy and ridiculous it just can’t be done. There are many more issues as well. Original sin makes no sense now. Maybe 200 years ago it did - although even then the Enlightenment was questioning it’s validity. Regardless, it makes no sense now whatsoever.

 

[Gorgias]

Here’s the problem with the Church’s position on original sin and evolution. It originated from one human being.

How do evolutionary scientists define “human being”?
How to Catholic theologians define “human being”?

It’s only a ‘problem’ to base a theological position on “one human being” if you use the scientists’ definition, not the theologian’s. And, since we’re discussing a theological argument, you’re making an error of category here.

Prior to the theory of evolution, the position was (and many still hold it to be) that at one point in time - said to be 6000 years ago - there was one and only one person (or couple). This person had no parents, no siblings, no ancestors.

Fine. You said that you don’t hold to that position. (Neither does the Church require it.) Why, then, is it valid to criticize the Church based on a position that it does not hold as dogmatic truth?

BUT…there are huge problems.

Not “huge problems”, just “unanswered questions.”

For instance, WHEN did this event happen?

No one was around with a calendar or iPhone to see it happen. It was a “primeval event”; we can’t place a date on it. Why’s that a problem?

God picked one proto-human to have the first soul? Why? Why that person?

Immaterial to the discussion. He’s God; He gets to make the decisions.

And this person just happened to also, at that time, commit this affront?

At what time? The doctrine makes no assertions as to the timing of the first sin, but rather, only that the first true human committed sin. That makes sense – non-humans are incapable of sin. Humans are.

What about his parents? What about his relatives and their descendants?

What about them?

Was he given the soul when he was born, or at some point in his life.

Immaterial to the theological case.

Did he have children before he was granted the soul?

The Church would assert simply that all humans are descendants of our first true human parents.

So for generations, perhaps even millennia, there were thousands of soulless people living alongside humans with souls.

Who knows. You’re making presumptions out of thin air.

But it is so messy and ridiculous it just can’t be done.

It’s no less messy and ridiculous than to try to dismiss Church teaching based on something it doesn’t teach.

Original sin makes no sense now.

Why not? The first humans committed the first sin. We continue to sin. Period. Full stop.

What’s nonsensical with that?

It only gets difficult if you impose on the teaching a set of constraints that the Church itself doesn’t impose.

 

[ZMystiCat]

atonement can only be properly understood when one reasons from an adequate metaphysical model. The going atonement theories don’t do that.

I think the difficulty is that they are based on reasoning on a matter that we don’t have special insight to and which potentially exists beyond our capabilities to comprehend. We run into the same issue with predestination. We know that it occurs, but we weren’t given much insight into its inner workings.

But even then, there is the added problem that we often approach such topics as a matter of having to pick one theory and stick to it, which is a trap the OP appears to have fallen into. One could reasonably take aspects from many acceptable theories and come to a sort of “hybrid theory” compatible with Catholic teaching. And at least in terms of the major theories, penal substitutionary atonement is the only one that I’m aware of that is incompatible with Church teaching, at least in the ways that it is unique.

 

[LateCatholic]

It only gets difficult if you impose on the teaching a set of constraints that the Church itself doesn’t impose.

You bypass all my comments as if they are irrelevant. I know you personally are able to reconcile evolution with Church teaching. These inconsistencies do not seem to bother you, and that is fine. But every time I bring up a point, if your answer is “So what” then you haven’t resolved anything.

I’ll try to simplify things, since our discussion is branching out.
I am concerned that, according to your reconciliation of evolution and original sin, God chooses some persons to have souls and some not - even though those persons were contemporaries and even possibly family members.

• If I asked this question 200 years ago, your answer would have been that ALL persons have souls because we all are descended from Adam. He had no biological parents, no siblings, no contemporaries.
• I ask this question now, and because you subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, your answer is “Who cares, God can choose whomever he wants”.

Is that really what your final answer is? That’s how you reconcile that we all are descended from this one person, all other genetic lines died out, that this man’s parents, brothers, sisters, friends, and even possible children were soulless. I don’t see how you can be so dismissive about something that is so completely contrary to what the Church taught less than 100 years ago.

I of course, am being somewhat hypocritical, as I resolve evolution and Church teaching by rejecting original sin altogether, at least from a biological foundation. And I’m torn arguing with you, because I’m heartened that there are some Christians willing to accept Evolution. Many in this forum would respond to my comments as saying Adam was literally the first human, evolution is false, Creationism true.

Nevertheless, I don’t find your explanation at all satisfying.

 

[TULIPed]

Looking at the problem scientifically, i.e. through the lens of observation, I see this:

1. There are more human beings alive now then there were when I was born.
2. My guess is that if you pick an 50 year period in recorded history, there are more human beings alive at the end of the 50 year period than at the beginning. Maybe during the plague years this isn’t true?
3. Looking at this from the other way around, as we go back in time, there are fewer and fewer human beings. Presumably, if we go back far enough, there are very few. (One source I’ve seen estimates that in 8000 BC there were less than 5 million humans on the planet - today there are over 7 Billion!)
4. Every human that I have ever met sins. I don’t know of anything in history that points to anyone being perfect at anything (except of course for our King).

My deduction from the observation: if I wind the clock back far enough, I will reach a point with very few humans and, since there are no sinless human beings, all human beings ever created are sinful.

I should think your question is (and maybe it is) - were there ever any human beings who didn’t sin? Said another way - do human beings sin at all? After all, there are no sinful dogs, cats, or giraffes.

Am I going the right way on this?

 

[Gorgias]

You bypass all my comments as if they are irrelevant.

That’s why I’ve written multi-post responses to your posts, right?

LateCatholic:

I am concerned that, according to your reconciliation of evolution and original sin, God chooses some persons to have souls and some not - even though those persons were contemporaries and even possibly family members.

I would describe it a different way: God doesn’t choose “some persons to have souls and others to not have”. In fact, until there is a human with a soul, there are not “persons”. So, at some point in time, God ensouls two persons, and then, from that point on, all their descendants have souls. No “picking and choosing”; just a genesis, as it were, of ensouled humans.

LateCatholic:

If I asked this question 200 years ago, your answer would have been that ALL persons have souls because we all are descended from Adam. He had no biological parents, no siblings, no contemporaries.

That would be an answer given in the absence of scientific knowledge, attempting to glean a scientific narrative from a non-scientific narrative. I think we both would agree that this would be an inaccurate answer. It shouldn’t bother us if it were wrong. (After all, if you had asked me about ‘spontaneous generation’ in the same time frame, I’d talk to you about flies appearing from thin air. You wouldn’t rail against current science due to the fact that it proposed spontaneous generation a couple hundred years ago, would you? Then why rail against archaic descriptions of the beginnings of humanity?)

LateCatholic:

because you subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, your answer is “Who cares, God can choose whomever he wants”.

Again, you seem to be angry that progress has been made, and seem to want to invalidate it simply due to the fact that it’s ‘new’.

this man’s parents, brothers, sisters, friends, and even possible children were soulless.

You keep saying “children”. Why are you throwing out that red herring? I subscribe to the theological teachings held by the Church: all the children of our first human parents were ensouled.

LateCatholic:

I don’t see how you can be so dismissive about something that is so completely contrary to what the Church taught less than 100 years ago.

Let’s suppose we lived in the time when the Copernican / Galilean theories of heliocentrism were finally able to be proven. Would you have complained “I don’t see how you can be so dismissive of geocentrism and accepting of heliocentrism – something that is so completely contrary to what people taught less than 100 years ago!”…?

LateCatholic:

Nevertheless, I don’t find your explanation at all satisfying.

You don’t have to. On the other hand, what’s dismaying is that you are willing – even in your present situation, in which you aren’t certain what you believe – to dismiss the Church’s teachings out of hand. That seems somewhat presumptuous.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Actually it is more difficult to hold two different positions simultaneously (or none at all) even if they do not necessarily contradict one another or cause dissonance. In Judaism, we are raised doing this: that is, we are taught that not every question must have an answer or only one answer. I think it may be more difficult, although not impossible, for Catholics, who are raised believing that virtually every question must have only one correct answer. And yet, as I noted before, part of Catholic teaching lies in the mystery of faith, which means we humans must recognize that we do not have all the answers and trust in Gd despite this.

 

[LateCatholic]

And yet, as I noted before, part of Catholic teaching lies in the mystery of faith, which means we humans must recognize that we do not have all the answers and trust in Gd despite this.

As I’ve said before, if the discussion ends with “it’s a mystery” or “accept that there is no answer”, something is clearly wrong.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I am concerned that, according to your reconciliation of evolution and original sin, God chooses some persons to have souls and some not - even though those persons were contemporaries and even possibly family members

You’re making an assumption, then saying that that assumption concerns you. But I’m not exactly sure what you’re concerned about. Is it that God chose not to ensoul others, or that some of the non-ensouled people may have had a close relationship to Adam?

But I think it is possible that God choose Adam from a small group. Adam didn’t necessarily have to have living parents, siblings or any contemporaries. He may have been a loner who wandered off. There may have been a woman he was faithful to. God may have ensouled these two, and their lineage is present in everyone by the time Christ came to earth??

 

[TULIPed]

Like the resurrection for example.

 

[ZMystiCat]

As I’ve said before, if the discussion ends with “it’s a mystery” or “accept that there is no answer”, something is clearly wrong.

Why is something clearly wrong?

 

[LateCatholic]

Like the resurrection for example.

Exactly. Or is that sarcasm?

 

[LateCatholic]

But I think it is possible that God choose Adam from a small group. Adam didn’t necessarily have to have living parents, siblings or any contemporaries. He may have been a loner who wandered off. There may have been a woman he was faithful to. God may have ensouled these two, and their lineage is present in everyone by the time Christ came to earth??

So this is at least a rational attempt to resolve my concerns. Yes, it could be the case that out of the several thousand humans beings (may not have been homo sapiens at that time) that lived at least 200,000 years ago (the time estimated for a common ancestor), a man and a woman separated themselves from all others, God decided that they would become the “virtual Adam and Eve”, gave them souls, and all other human beings died out in time.

This is at least an explanation that fits. The point I am making is that in order to resolve evolution with Christian thinking, something like the above MUST have happened. Your explanation is the best so far.

 

[TULIPed]

No sarcasm at all. You said earlier you had many problems with Christianity. And as I said earlier, I think there are easier targets with Christianity than the theory of atonement or original sin (or homophobia or any of the other issues you mentioned). As Paul said, “and if Christ had not been raised, our preaching is worthless and so is your faith.”

You seem very smart and write very well. You know way more about atonement and original sin than I do. I have enjoyed reading this thread. But if you don’t believe the man was raised from the grave, I must admit that I’m struggling to find the plot.

Now, on the other hand, if you believe he was raised from the dead (which can only be a mystery), I’m struggling to see how you could have any really big issues with original sin and atonement.

If all we’re doing is chewing the fat and batting around big theological concepts - then by all means carry on. I’m learning a lot from this discussion

 

[mcq72]

The major problems center around the concept that there is something greater than God (such as “Justice

Interesting…somethings God can not do therefore He is not Almighty, like He can not lie ( or be unjust)…strange line of thought that not being able to err is weakness, that one’s own nature not to err makes it subserviant to perfection (non-error)…like an attribute being greater than a thing or person that has it.

I have heard of above only in jest…free will comes into play…God could be unjust, unloving, untruthful but chooses not to.

 

[mcq72]

As I’ve said before, if the discussion ends with “it’s a mystery” or “accept that there is no answer”, something is clearly wrong.

Not any more wrong than a bad guess

 

[Usagi]

Sure, there must be an answer (though that answer could be a combination of more than one proposed theory). But that we still argue over the exact mechanism of something doesn’t mean that thing isn’t true. Even in science and medicine, there are drugs that we know work, but we still don’t fully understand the mechanism by which they work, and there may be different theories over time. They still work. And that’s in a field where it’s possible to come to the objectively right answer without supernatural revelation.

 

[LateCatholic]

As I’ve said before, if the discussion ends with “it’s a mystery” or “accept that there is no answer”, something is clearly wrong.

No - it’s much worse than a bad guess. Only religion justifies lack of answers as acceptable. If you accept these final “answers”, then there literally is nothing to challenge your faith. You always will fall back on the “it’s a mystery” cop-out. Faith without doubt is not faith, it’s knowledge. And no one has knowledge of God. I think we need to continue to challenge our religious leaders, not blindly accept their decrees.