Questions/Challenges to the moral influence atonement theory

[Hatikvah]

I got my inspiration from this thread, and the author of it says that he is open to theological discussion; I just wanted to say that in case someone was in the mood for one, and this thread is not intended to be a companion to that one.

I have some challenges to the theory of moral influence, which has to do with the atonement of Christ. They are posed as questions, the implication being that if they cannot be answered or otherwise countered, then the theory cannot stand on its own.

Please tell me if I’m getting anything wrong so that I’ll know for future posts and comments. I posted this on Non-Catholic Religions because the most dominant theory in Catholicism is not this one, and it’s more common outside of Catholicism. I’ll get right to it:

Where, exactly, does salvation come from with this view? One tract from CA says that “the saving grace won by Jesus is offered as a free gift to us, accessible through repentance, faith, and baptism,” reflecting the Catholic view. But the moral influence theory does not state that grace is given through Christ’s superabundant atonement, and that is not part of God’s plan.

If Christ’s death “wasn’t necessary,” then why didn’t God use other means? Using this theory, Christ’s death meant nothing other than that God intends to bring positive moral change (hence the name). But, as the question asserts, God could certainly (you know, being God and all) have used other means to bring change while also keeping human free will.

What effect, other than being a historical and morally-charged event, did the atonement have? There are many things that the atonement allowed for and did (1 Pet. 2:24, Rev. 5:9, Heb 9:12, many more; CCC 598, 600, esp. 601; CCC 602-605, etc). One could say that moral influence shows God’s hatred of sin, enough that He would use His Son to try for a moral change… but it is already obvious that God despises sin, and God didn’t want people to sin even all the way back in the beginning (Gen. 2:17).

Finally, doesn’t this propose different criteria for salvation? The criteria for salvation in the Catholic faith are found above, but this theory actually does not apply to the criteria for any of the beliefs in mainstream Christianity. Faith would not be a criterion in the moral influence theory (“what is there to have faith in?”), and so it contradicts these criteria. Faith is, again, one such criterion (Eph. 2:8, Rom. 3:22, Rom. 3:24, Rom. 3:26, etc; CCC 1987, 1991, 1992, 1993, 2001, 2005, etc). But, not only does the theory deny one criterion, it denies the very sacrificial work found on Calvary.

So again, as the idea that the questions also serve as challenges would imply, these must be either answered sufficiently or countered. The questioning of doctrine is sanctioned in “A reminder on inter-faith dialogue,” by the way!

 

[grannymh]

I got my inspiration from this thread, and the author of it says that he is open to theological discussion; I just wanted to say that in case someone was in the mood for one, and this thread is not intended to be a companion to that one.

I have some challenges to the theory of moral influence, which has to do with the atonement of Christ. They are posed as questions, the implication being that if they cannot be answered or otherwise countered, then the theory cannot stand on its own.

Please tell me if I’m getting anything wrong so that I’ll know for future posts and comments. I posted this on Non-Catholic Religions because the most dominant theory in Catholicism is not this one, and it’s more common outside of Catholicism. I’ll get right to it:

Where, exactly, does salvation come from with this view? One tract from CA says that “the saving grace won by Jesus is offered as a free gift to us, accessible through repentance, faith, and baptism,” reflecting the Catholic view. But the moral influence theory does not state that grace is given through Christ’s superabundant atonement, and that is not part of God’s plan.

If Christ’s death “wasn’t necessary,” then why didn’t God use other means? Using this theory, Christ’s death meant nothing other than that God intends to bring positive moral change (hence the name). But, as the question asserts, God could certainly (you know, being God and all) have used other means to bring change while also keeping human free will.

What effect, other than being a historical and morally-charged event, did the atonement have? There are many things that the atonement allowed for and did (1 Pet. 2:24, Rev. 5:9, Heb 9:12, many more; CCC 598, 600, esp. 601; CCC 602-605, etc). One could say that moral influence shows God’s hatred of sin, enough that He would use His Son to try for a moral change… but it is already obvious that God despises sin, and God didn’t want people to sin even all the way back in the beginning (Gen. 2:17).

Finally, doesn’t this propose different criteria for salvation? The criteria for salvation in the Catholic faith are found above, but this theory actually does not apply to the criteria for any of the beliefs in mainstream Christianity. Faith would not be a criterion in the moral influence theory (“what is there to have faith in?”), and so it contradicts these criteria. Faith is, again, one such criterion (Eph. 2:8, Rom. 3:22, Rom. 3:24, Rom. 3:26, etc; CCC 1987, 1991, 1992, 1993, 2001, 2005, etc). But, not only does the theory deny one criterion, it denies the very sacrificial work found on Calvary.

So again, as the idea that the questions also serve as challenges would imply, these must be either answered sufficiently or countered. The questioning of doctrine is sanctioned in “A reminder on inter-faith dialogue,” by the way!

Unfortunately, as evinced on the internet, the theological foundation or source or base for the Incarnation (Christ is one Person with two natures, Divine and the assumed human nature) can be ignored.

Obviously, “salvation” is a hot topic. It is like eating the frosting and throwing away the cake.

It is 4:02 AM and I am not going to check your Scripture references and Carm references until both eyes are open. I did find that the opening sentence of the Carm moral link is an essential piece of the puzzle. Carm begins: “The moral influence theory of the atonement maintains that the death of Christ was not necessary as a means of removing sin” I did appreciate the blue Christ link because I have done a bit of research on this. Personally, I found the blue atonement link and the blue sin link too general. I prefer the specific information in the first three chapters of Genesis.

Because I had never completely read the first three chapters of Genesis until I landed on CAF, I welcome the opportunity for discussion. Practically speaking, before the keyboard becomes my pillow, which sin, as in Carm, are you referring to?

Thank you.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Let’s reflect on these one at a time. But I must be careful lest I be called “heretic”. These are offered in the spirit of speculative theology where we explore things more deeply and unpack the richness compacted in the words and phrases we sometimes throw around to easily. Yes, some people have no need to look deeper, to meditate or contemplate. But for those who do, here goes.

Where, exactly, does salvation come from with this view? One tract from CA says that “the saving grace won by Jesus is offered as a free gift to us, accessible through repentance, faith, and baptism,” reflecting the Catholic view. But the moral influence theory does not state that grace is given through Christ’s superabundant atonement, and that is not part of God’s plan.

First, what is “grace”?

From CCC
1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives usGrace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father,” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

Perhaps I do not know all the technical details of the Moral Influence Theory but I do not see an incompatibility. By following the moral example of Jesus in his life, teaching as well as his death we find favor with God and are given God’s help to sustain our efforts to follow and participate in the life of God through the life of Jesus and not just his death.

Salvation comes from the grace of God through our response to the example of Jesus.

** If Christ’s death “wasn’t necessary,” then why didn’t God use other means?** Using this theory, Christ’s death meant nothing other than that God intends to bring positive moral change (hence the name). But, as the question asserts, God could certainly (you know, being God and all) have used other means to bring change while also keeping human free will.

True, God did not require or need the Death of Jesus. But it provided a poignant opportunity for Jesus to demonstrate true love, commitment and faithfulness. His death was only necessary because it was inevitable. Jesus entered fully into our human situation of sin and darkness. He fearlessly challenged the established powers with his light. Like many of his followers, he was martyred for the Kingdom. Jesus’ obedience was to his mission and the cross was a natural consequence because of our bondage to darkness and sin. Crucuifixion was the human was of dealing with his light.

**What effect, other than being a historical and morally-charged event, did the atonement have? **

The death of Jesus reset our moral compass. It forced a commitment. We must either say “Yes” or “No” to him as our Lord. If we say, “yes” we have the ability through grace to join our sufferings with his w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1984/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris.html

More to come…

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Finally, doesn’t this propose different criteria for salvation? The criteria for salvation in the Catholic faith are found above, but this theory actually does not apply to the criteria for any of the beliefs in mainstream Christianity. Faith would not be a criterion in the moral influence theory (“what is there to have faith in?”), and so it contradicts these criteria. Faith is, again, one such criterion (Eph. 2:8, Rom. 3:22, Rom. 3:24, Rom. 3:26, etc; CCC 1987, 1991, 1992, 1993, 2001, 2005, etc). But, not only does the theory deny one criterion, it denies the very sacrificial work found on Calvary.

There is plenty to have faith in, but is a little different. It is faith that life of Jesus can be our life even beyond death. It is faith in the forgiveness of sins just as even John offered before Jesus died and Jesus offered in his ministry. How many times did he say, “Your sins are forgiven”? It is faith that as followers of Jesus we benefit from his goodness, his love, his divinity and his sacrifice. But it was not a sacrifice as in a payment or a penalty. This is where the penal substitution that pretty mush goes back to Old Testament scapegoat comes in. Paid a price to whom? Who exacted the penalty? If we go that we we have to ask: Why did God require the death of his innocent son in order to forgive us?

In your earlier question you state,“But, as the question asserts, God could certainly (you know, being God and all) have used other means to bring change while also keeping human free will.” That question is just as valid in other atonement theories. In the Moral Example theory, salvation does not hinge on the death of Jesus but on his life. And Jesus did not come just to undo Adam’s sin. He would have come anyway because he is the fullness of his creation.

Because Jesus is The Mediator he bridges the gap between us and God.He leads the way and mystically transforms our lives if we have faith. Note: Jesus does not take away our pain and suffering, he joins it to his and redeems it, makes it holy and precious in God’s eyes. His death is the climax of his love followed by his resurrection to new life. His moral example includes his acceptance of death… And we also must accept the possibility of death as a consequence of our witness.

 

[grannymh]

True, God did not require or need the Death of Jesus.

The truth is that humanity needed the obedience of a Divine Person to reconcile or restore humanity’s (descendants of Adam and Eve) original friendship relationship with the Creator God.

Jesus entered fully into our human situation of sin and darkness.

The truth is that Jesus, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, assumed human nature. He did not absorb human nature. Therefore, He did not enter fully into our human situation of sin and darkness. By the Holy Spirit, Jesus was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. (Creed professed at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass). Jesus, becoming man, was not via a human father. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary (The Apostles’ Creed)

Catholic teaching is that it would be impossible for Jesus to enter fully into our human situation because neither the Holy Spirit nor the Virgin Mother were born in the State of Original Sin.

Catholic teaching is that Jesus with an assumed human nature could, in a sense, be in the shoes of Adam. At the same time, Jesus Divine could repair a friendship relationship initiated by a Divine Being.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

1. The Necessity of the Incarnation. Scotus believed the Incarnation was the greatest good God had done in the world—perhaps not the most original or controversial position. But the questions this truth raised for him took him to new heights in theological speculation. The Church has long understood the Incarnation at the center of God’s redemptive plan for mankind and all creation, as indeed it was. But what if there had been no need for redemption? What if there had never been a fall from an original state of grace? Would there still have been an Incarnation? For Scotus, it was unthinkable that such a great good was somehow contingent on humanity sinning. He concluded: “To think that God would have given up such a task had Adam not sinned would be quite unreasonable! I say, therefore, that the fall was not the cause of Christ’s predestination and that if no one had fallen, neither the angel nor man in this hypothesis Christ would still have been predestined in the same way.”
   catholicexchange.com/four-things-need-know-john-duns-scotus

 

[spiderweb]

subscribing

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The truth is that humanity needed the obedience of a Divine Person to reconcile or restore humanity’s (descendants of Adam and Eve) original friendship relationship with the Creator God.

The truth is that Jesus, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, assumed human nature. He did not absorb human nature. Therefore, He did not enter fully into our human situation of sin and darkness. By the Holy Spirit, Jesus was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. (Creed professed at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass). Jesus, becoming man, was not via a human father. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary (The Apostles’ Creed)

Catholic teaching is that it would be impossible for Jesus to enter fully into our human situation because neither the Holy Spirit nor the Virgin Mother were born in the State of Original Sin.

Catholic teaching is that Jesus with an assumed human nature could, in a sense, be in the shoes of Adam. At the same time, Jesus Divine could repair a friendship relationship initiated by a Divine Being.

When I said that , “Jesus entered fully into our situation of sin and darkness” I, of course did not mean that he himself was sinful or in darkness but shared the experience of that environment.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I have gone this far I might as well admit that I consider myself in the camp of Catholics like Thomas Merton, Bede Griffiths, even Richard Rohr, and Thomas Berry. Many here consider such Catholics as “dangerous” even though they all remain in good standing with the Church.

 

[grannymh]

I have gone this far I might as well admit that I consider myself in the camp of Catholics like Thomas Merton, Bede Griffiths, even Richard Rohr, and Thomas Berry. Many here consider such Catholics as “dangerous” even though they all remain in good standing with the Church.

Regardless of a person being “in good standing with the Church”, one needs to be totally aware of the bad mixed in with the good. For example, the “fly in the ointment” teaching was posted. Yet, according to other posts, that author was credited with doing good.

All of us need to keep our eyes and ears wide open when it comes to true Catholicism.

 

[spiderweb]

There is nothing that I can see about the Moral Influence Theory (as I understand it) that contradicts Catholic theology or doctrine. Having said that, it could be extremely problematic if it is used alone without taking into account some aspects of the other “theories” as well because they all contain truths that cannot be separated or dismissed.

While it is true that Jesus did not have to suffer and die for salvation, strictly using the Moral Influence Theory alone could easily lead to a problematic conclusion. Apply that same reasoning to creation, and you would have to conclude that since God did not have to create mankind, our existence has very little value or meaning. Jesus becoming man in the incarnation has very little value, and his death has very little value. From that it would be easy to also conclude that his teaching and example also has very little value which contradicts the Moral Influence Theory since it focuses on the importance of his teachings and example. If our existence has little value, then what would be the purpose of following his teachings. That entire line of reasoning is extremely problematic, but I think it is the obvious inevitable conclusion.

Using this theory, imitating his example is what saves us, and not his blood shed on the cross. We become the primary means for our own salvation through our “works” depending upon how well we imitate his example. His death had no real power, he was just the first Christian Martyr. Jesus’ suffering and death are not as important as his teaching and example and our ability to follow them in this view.

“…Thou was slain and has redeemed us to God by thy blood… (Rev. 5:9)
Sanctified by the blood of the Son of God in the covenant (Hebrews 10:29)
“…being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved… (Romans 5:9)
“he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5)

Redemption, sanctification, justification, and salvation came from his death and not by his teaching example.

Using the Moral Influence Theory alone, there is no participation in Christ, but rather merely an imitation of Christ. We do not become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), nor are we “buried with him” in baptism (Romans 6:4). Rather we simply imitate him kind of like “monkey see, monkey do”. Baptism has no real affect. Rather than being “washed in the blood of the lamb” (Rev. 7:14), there is only a physical washing in the water that is a mere ritual in imitation of Christ’s baptism.

I restate what I said at the beginning. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Moral Influence Theory. We should imitate Christ, obey his teachings, and follow his example, but if this theory alone is used to explain the atonement, it becomes very problematic and even colossally wrong. Which is why I believe that at its origin, the teachers of this theory presupposed other truths emphasized in the other atonement theories, or they were taught in union with this theory.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Thank you, Spiderweb

While it is true that Jesus did not have to suffer and die for salvation, strictly using the Moral Influence Theory alone could easily lead to a problematic conclusion. Apply that same reasoning to creation, and you would have to conclude that since God did not have to create mankind, our existence has very little value or meaning. …That entire line of reasoning is extremely problematic, but I think it is the obvious inevitable conclusion.

I don’t think that is the obvious inevitable conclusion. I do not **have **to give a gift to my wife for it to have value. In fact, the real value is in the freely given expression of love.

Using this theory, imitating his example is what saves us, and not his blood shed on the cross. We become the primary means for our own salvation through our “works” depending upon how well we imitate his example. His death had no real power, he was just the first Christian Martyr. Jesus’ suffering and death are not as important as his teaching and example and our ability to follow them in this view.

His suffering and death are the climax of his life, teaching and example. Far from being unimportant, they have ultimate meaning. Their power is in how they influence us not God.

“…Thou was slain and has redeemed us to God by thy blood… (Rev. 5:9)
Sanctified by the blood of the Son of God in the covenant (Hebrews 10:29)
“…being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved… (Romans 5:9)
“he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah 53:5)

But what do we mean by redeemed by his blood? Sanctified by his blood? Justified and saved by his blood? How and why does his blood and death do all that? In Salvifici Doloris Pope John Paul II speaks of the death of Jesus and our participation:Christ gives the answer to the question about suffering and the meaning of suffering not only by his teaching, that is by the Good News, but most of all by his own suffering, which is integrated with this teaching of the Good News in an organic and indissoluble way. And this is the final, definitive word of this teaching: “the word of the Cross”, as Saint Paul one day will say.

In the Cross of Christ not only is the Redemption accomplished through suffering, but also human suffering itself has been redeemed,. Christ, - without any fault of his own - took on himself “the total evil of sin”. The experience of this evil determined the incomparable extent of Christ’s suffering, which became the price of the Redemption. The Song of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah speaks of this. In later times, the witnesses of the New Covenant, sealed in the Blood of Christ, will speak of this.

The very participation in Christ’s suffering finds, in these apostolic expressions, as it were a twofold dimension. If one becomes a sharer in the sufferings of Christ, this happens because Christ has opened his suffering to man, because he himself in his redemptive suffering has become, in a certain sense, a sharer in all human sufferings. Man, discovering through faith the redemptive suffering of Christ, also discovers in it his own sufferings; he rediscovers them, through faith, enriched with a new content and new meaning.

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1984/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris.html

I need to go back and read that entire document again.

Using the Moral Influence Theory alone, there is no participation in Christ, but rather merely an imitation of Christ. We do not become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), nor are we “buried with him” in baptism (Romans 6:4). Rather we simply imitate him kind of like “monkey see, monkey do”. Baptism has no real affect. Rather than being “washed in the blood of the lamb” (Rev. 7:14), there is only a physical washing in the water that is a mere ritual in imitation of Christ’s baptism.

But why does imitation preclude participation? I don’t agree that it does. In fact, without that imitation a proclamation of faith is empty.

But thanks for responding. This is something I have frequently struggled with. It does not make much sense unless The Father wanted an innocent sacrifice. And if we answer that God Himself became that sacrifice, it still makes little sense because God is the injured party to begin with. So, yes, Jesus is both God and man. He mediates the ruptured relationship. But he is* innocent *in his human nature. Again, that is simply not just.

I think something much deeper than penal substitution is going on. Again from Salvific Doloris
The answer which comes through this sharing, by way of the interior encounter with the Master, is in itself something more than the mere abstract answer to the question about the meaning of suffering. For it is above all a call. It is a vocation. Christ does not explain in the abstract the reasons for suffering, but before all else he says: “Follow me!”. Come! Take part through your suffering in this work of saving the world, a salvation achieved through my suffering! Through my Cross. Gradually, as the individual takes up his cross, spiritually uniting himself to the Cross of Christ, the salvific meaning of suffering is revealed before him. He does not discover this meaning at his own human level, but at the level of the suffering of Christ. .

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Let’s reflect on the Catechism starting at #606

III. CHRIST OFFERED HIMSELF TO HIS FATHER FOR OUR SINS

Christ’s whole life is an offering to the Father

606 The Son of God, who came down “from heaven, not to do (his) own will, but the will of him who sent (him)”,said on coming into the world, “Lo, I have come to do your will, O God.” “and by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” From the first moment of his Incarnation the Son embraces the Father’s plan of divine salvation in his redemptive mission: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.” The sacrifice of Jesus “for the sins of the whole world” expresses his loving communion with the Father. “The Father loves me, because I lay down my life”, said the Lord, “(for) I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father.”

Our participation in Christ’s sacrifice

618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”. But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow (him)”, for “Christ also suffered for (us), leaving (us) an example so that (we) should follow in his steps.” In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries. This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering. Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM

 

[spiderweb]

Just to first quote from Wikipedia on Moral Influence view of Atonement.

Wikipedia:

The moral influence view does not focus primarily on the death of Jesus in the same way that penal substitution does. Instead, it focuses on the wider story of Christ’s teachings, example, and the church movement he founded. His death is seen as inspirational within that context, but his death was not the whole goal in the way that penal substitution depicts it. The moral influence view depicts Jesus’ death as a martyrdom, in which he was killed because of his teaching and leadership of a controversial movement. Jesus death is thus understood as a consequence of his activity, and it gains its significance as part of the larger story of his life, death, and resurrection.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

This is a major problem. Jesus’ death was not JUST a martyrdom, it was a sacrificial offering. At least three times that I can think of they tried to kill him and he just walked away (example Luke 4:29-30). Jesus’ own words tell us that his death is not a consequence of his teaching and activity when he states in John 10:18 that “No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” While it is true that his teachings caused people to want to take his life, they were unable to do so unless he willingly offered himself. Therefore, his death is not just a martyrdom as a consequence as described in the Moral Influence view, but it is primarily the willing sacrifice of the Lamb of God and only secondarily a martydom.

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo:

I don’t think that is the obvious inevitable conclusion. I do not have to give a gift to my wife for it to have value. In fact, the real value is in the freely given expression of love.

Which has more value, Jesus dying as an example of how to die as an expression of love (martyrdom)… or…Jesus dying so that I may have eternal life as an expression of love (sacrifice)? They both have value, but one is infinitely greater than the other.

The moral influence view minimizes Jesus’ expression of love. In doing so, this also minimizes my value as a human person. Viewed from the Old Testament, the value of the human person was greater than the value of animals. But, the blood of Jesus shows the value of humanity is a far greater value than we can know (see Hebrews 9:13-14). Thus when Jesus’ death is not viewed as a sacrifice for each individual person, at least a likely conclusion is that my life has little value in the eyes of God, only somewhat more than animals. Something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. My life is of infinite value because it was “purchased” by the blood of the infinite God the Son, Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo:

His suffering and death are the climax of his life, teaching and example. Far from being unimportant, they have ultimate meaning. Their power is in how they influence us not God.

What do we mean by redeemed by his blood? Sanctified by his blood? Justified and saved by his blood? How and why does his blood and death do all that?

That is precisely the main problem with the Moral Influence Theory. For the purpose of this discussion, I don’t think it really matters what the definitions are for sanctification, justification, etc. Using the Moral Influence Theory alone, Jesus’ death was a martyrdom and NOT a sacrifice. Therefore, there is no redemption by his blood, no sanctification by his blood, no salvation by his blood, because there was no sacrifice of his blood. It was just a martyrdom.

St. Maximilian Kolbe was a martyr in a Nazi death camp. But he was a willing martyr who sacrificially offered his life so that another man could live. His blood bought the life of one other man. Jesus’ blood bought eternal life for every man. His redemption of mankind, through his death, is the most important aspect of his life. It is only with redemption in place first that our imitation and participation in him can then lead to sanctification, justification, and ultimately eternal salvation. But those are dependent upon the ultimate importance of redemption first, by his blood, which the Moral Influence Theory minimizes.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo:

But why does imitation preclude participation? I don’t agree that it does. In fact, without that imitation a proclamation of faith is empty.

It does not make much sense unless the Father wanted an innocent sacrifice. And if we answer that God Himself became that sacrifice, it still makes little sense because God is the injured party to begin with. So, yes, Jesus is both God and man. He mediates the ruptured relationship. But he is innocent in his human nature. Again, that is simply not just.

Imitation does not necessarily preclude participation, but it can definitely minimize it. No disrespect is intended towards anyone with this example: Many non-Catholics imitate Jesus with their communion service which is good. Catholics imitate and participate with Jesus in the Eucharist on a completely different level. Imitating Jesus may or may not be an actual participation with him. The Moral Influence Theory stresses the imitation of Jesus, but there is no aspect (at least that I can see) that brings it together into a supernatural imitation and participation with him.

True, Jesus is an innocent sacrifice. But he is also infinitely good, infinitely holy, and infinitely loving. Jesus loves the Father infinitely as well. His sacrifice is not only to redeem mankind out of love for us, but also to repair the offences committed against the infinitely good, holy, and loving Father. Because the Father also infinitely loves the Son and mankind, he accepts the offering of Jesus on our behalf. Note: Not because it was an offering of his blood, although that was fitting it was not strictly required, but because it was a spotless offering from the Son, whom the Father infinitely loves. This is not the penal substitution method of atonement. Penal substitution roughly amounts to the Father punishing the innocent Jesus instead of the guilty person. That would not be justice. Jesus’ death is not a punishment by the Father in any way shape or form. It is a willing sacrificial offering, offered by Jesus to the Father, on behalf of mankind (as a man) and of infinite and eternal value (as God). This area of the discussion is probably going off topic, so I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Just to first quote from Wikipedia on Moral Influence view of Atonement.

This is a major problem. Jesus’ death was not JUST a martyrdom, it was a sacrificial offering.

“JUST” martyrdom? Why minimize martyrdom of anybody?

Sacrificial to whom? The Father? Why would such a sacrifice be necessary and effective?

Which has more value, Jesus dying as an example of how to die as an expression of love (martyrdom)… or…Jesus dying so that I may have eternal life as an expression of love (sacrifice)? They both have value, but one is infinitely greater than the other.

In what way does his blood and sacrificial death provide you with eternal life?

The moral influence view minimizes Jesus’ expression of love.

I disagree.

In doing so, this also minimizes my value as a human person.

I don’t think so at all.

Viewed from the Old Testament, the value of the human person was greater than the value of animals. But, the blood of Jesus shows the value of humanity is a far greater value than we can know (see Hebrews 9:13-14). Thus when Jesus’ death is not viewed as a sacrifice for each individual person, at least a likely conclusion is that my life has little value in the eyes of God, only somewhat more than animals. Something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. My life is of infinite value because it was “purchased” by the blood of the infinite God the Son, Jesus Christ.

Purchased from whom?

Therefore, there is no redemption by his blood, no sanctification by his blood, no salvation by his blood, because there was no sacrifice of his blood. It was just a martyrdom.

How does his sacrifice accomplish this?

Imitation does not necessarily preclude participation, but it can definitely minimize it. No disrespect is intended towards anyone with this example: Many non-Catholics imitate Jesus with their communion service which is good. Catholics imitate and participate with Jesus in the Eucharist on a completely different level. Imitating Jesus may or may not be an actual participation with him. The Moral Influence Theory stresses the imitation of Jesus, but there is no aspect (at least that I can see) that brings it together into a supernatural imitation and participation with him.

What is participation if not imitation? How do you participate without imitation?

The heart of Christian spirituality is sharing in his suffering, cross, resurrection and glory. It is not a passive call.

His sacrifice is not only to redeem mankind out of love for us, but also to repair the offences committed against the infinitely good, holy, and loving Father. Because the Father also infinitely loves the Son and mankind, he accepts the offering of Jesus on our behalf.

How does his freely offered sacrifice repair the offenses?

This is not the penal substitution method of atonement. Penal substitution roughly amounts to the Father punishing the innocent Jesus instead of the guilty person. That would not be justice. Jesus’ death is not a punishment by the Father in any way shape or form. It is a willing sacrificial offering, offered by Jesus to the Father, on behalf of mankind (as a man) and of infinite and eternal value (as God). This area of the discussion is probably going off topic, so I’ll leave it at that.

I don’t think it is off topic at all. If the suffering and death of Jesus is not a punishment but only an offering which relieves us of punishment how is it not penal substitution?

But I came across something helpful in Salvifici Doloris in section 23

**In him God has confirmed his desire to act especially through suffering, which is man’s weakness and emptying of self, and he wishes to make his power known precisely in this weakness and emptying of self. **

And that is not just Jesus. That is all of us. But Jesus is the perfect example. Why does God choose suffering, weakness and self emptying to work out our redemption? That remains a mystery. But we cannot deny our participation and that starts with picking up our crosses and following.

 

[Matthew_Light]

True, God did not require or need the Death of Jesus. But it provided a poignant opportunity for Jesus to demonstrate true love, commitment and faithfulness. His death was only necessary because it was inevitable. Jesus entered fully into our human situation of sin and darkness. He fearlessly challenged the established powers with his light. Like many of his followers, he was martyred for the Kingdom. Jesus’ obedience was to his mission and the cross was a natural consequence because of our bondage to darkness and sin. Crucuifixion was the human was of dealing with his light.

Beautifully written, and ringing ever-so-true to my ears!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Beautifully written, and ringing ever-so-true to my ears!

Thank you. Have you read Salvifici Doloris? Please do. Not because parts of it can be read to support Moral Influence but because it is the best thing I have ever read dealing with suffering, especially innocence suffering. Share it with non-Catholic friends because I don’t think they are even familiar with this view even though it is scripture based.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo:

“JUST” martyrdom? Why minimize martyrdom of anybody?

The Moral Influence Theory of Atonement views Jesus death “just” as a martyrdom. His death is a “consequence” brought about by his teaching to try and change the morals of the people. I believe that this aspect is true, but they also wanted to put him to death for the “blasphemy” of claiming to be God. Christ did not die only as a consequence of sin and trying to turn people away from sin. Most importantly, Jesus died in atonement for our sins as a sacrifice. * “For Christ our paschal lamb has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:6). ”…Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). “…we are now justified by his blood…through whom we have now received our reconciliation (atonement)” (Romans 5:9, 5:11). “…This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins (Matt 26:28)*. Jesus died for our sins (atonement), not just because of our sins (consequence).

To view it strictly as a martyrdom, as the moral influence theory does, then Jesus’ death is a Roman execution of a martyr, but not a sacrificial atonement for sin by that martyr. This is a contradiction with the scriptures. As I said previously, there is nothing inherently wrong with the moral influence theory as far as it goes, but it omits the most crucial part. Where is the “atonement” in the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement?

Sacrificial to whom? The Father? Why would such a sacrifice be necessary and effective?

Yes, it is a sacrifice to the Father on behalf of mankind. With the Original Sin of Adam and Eve, mankind’s relationship with God was broken. A crime was committed against an infinite and an infinitely Holy God. While man can try to atone for this crime, it is not possible because man is not infinite and any attempt at atonement is stained both with the Original Sin and by personal sin. Thus the crime committed against a holy and infinite being (God) cannot be atoned for by a finite and unholy creature (man due to sin). Regardless of the sacrifice offered, it is always with blemish and stained and it is not infinite.

An analogy which is not great, but might help to make the point. A person is killed by a drunk driver. The court says the guilty driver must pay 2 million dollars in restitution to the family. The guilty person probably can’t pay that amount, but even if he could, no price can be put on the life of the victim. It is a crime which cannot be atoned for or rectified by the guilty person even though he is repentant.

It is therefore “necessary” for a mediator between God and man because man cannot bridge the gap on his own. Enter Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man. He offers a sacrifice to the Father both as man (but without blemish or stain of sin), and as God (an infinite perfect sacrifice, once for all). Thus His sacrifice is “effective” because it both appeases the Father and redeems mankind through his mediation and bridges the gap between God and man.

Was Jesus’ suffering and death necessary? No, his offering to the Father on behalf of man could have been anything. As God and man, anything and everything that Jesus offered from the moment he became man was perfect and an offering from man. But his death was the chosen, definitive offering that Jesus willingly underwent specifically for the atonement of mankind. “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (John 10:18). “This is my body which is given for you” (Luke 22:19). It is a demonstration of love both to the Father and to mankind that he offered everything that he had to offer and held nothing back. Agape Love demonstrated to the fullest extent to man by God, and to God by man both through Jesus Christ.

In what way does his blood and sacrificial death provide you with eternal life?

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). From the original sin, natural death and spiritual death is the consequence of sin. Mankind had no way to atone not only for the sin of Adam but also for our own personal sin. There is no salvation from death either physical death or spiritual death prior to Jesus. Jesus’ atonement with his blood provides a way for mankind to overcome death. He counteracts the original sin of Adam. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men” (Romans 5:18). Jesus becomes the mediator through which we can now approach the Father and unite our “blemished” sacrifices with his “unblemished” sacrifice and thereby not only receive forgiveness, but also atone for our offences by uniting our finite offerings to the infinite perfect offering of Jesus. In Christ, our offerings become acceptable and pleasing to God. Ultimately through Christ, that leads to eternal life.

 

[spiderweb]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo:

Purchased from whom?

Not purchased from “Whom”, rather purchased from “What”? “Whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin” (John 8:33-34 also Galatians 4:3).

We are purchased from the bondage of sin and death which mankind cannot overcome on our own.

What is participation if not imitation? How do you participate without imitation?

I don’t think you can participate without imitating, but you can imitate without participating. I can imitate a man eating a meal in a restaurant by sitting down and eating a meal at the same restaurant. I imitate and participate by sitting down with the man at his table and eating a meal with him.

Many Christians understand that they will suffer for Christ in imitation of him. However many do not understand the principal of “redemptive suffering” that in uniting their own suffering to his, they are actually imitating and participating in his sacrificial offering and that they can do so on behalf of others which adds a whole new element.

The heart of Christian spirituality is sharing in his suffering, cross, resurrection and glory. It is not a passive call.

I agree with you 100% with the addition of love of God and neighbor in all its forms.

If the suffering and death of Jesus is not a punishment but only an offering which relieves us of punishment how is it not penal substitution?

Penal substitution basically says Jesus takes my sins and receives the punishment for my sins. In return I receive his righteousness and am thereby justified in the eyes of God. When the Father looks at me, he doesn’t see my sins, he only sees the righteousness of Jesus. My personal view of that is that that is a bigger lie than the serpent in the Garden of Eden. It makes God the author of a lie. “You are not righteous, but I’m going to declare that you are. Jesus is not guilty, but I’m going to declare that he is and punish him.” In my opinion, the logical questions to ask in regards to penal substitution are: “If Jesus took my punishment, then why will I still die physical death?” “If Jesus took my punishment, then shouldn’t he be in hell for all eternity due to the spiritual death from the sins of all mankind?” Since we still die and Jesus is not in hell, the conclusion must be that Jesus did not take my punishment for sin. If we are “relieved of punishment” (such as in the case of baptism CCC #978) it is only due to the mercy of God and not because Christ took our punishment as a substitution. The only substitution that takes place is the perfect offering of Jesus in place of our own flawed offerings (CCC #615).

This is where the Moral Influence theory really shines. Jesus bridged the gap between mankind and God by overcoming the original sin of Adam. We are still responsible for our own sins. The guilt is our own. The punishment is our own. By uniting our prayers, offerings, and sacrifices with those of Christ, restitution for our sins against God is now possible. Forgiveness is now possible. Supernatural grace is now possible through the sacraments. By means of the grace merited by Jesus’ sacrificial offering it is possible for us to actually become righteous and justified to thereby receive the inheritance as true sons of God. How do we become righteous? Through imitation and participation in Jesus’ own sonship. Receiving baptism where any and all sins are washed away and we are infused with grace because we are “born again” in Christ. Remaining in that grace by obeying him and keeping the commandments and especially by frequent confession when we fall short, and of course by receiving the Eucharist which supernaturally strengthens us. I Recommend 1 John 1:5-10 and 1 John 2:1-6 which demonstrates that “If we walk in the light… If we keep his commandments, etc. It is God’s work within us, but it requires our imitation and participation in cooperation with Christ through our free will.

I agree 100% with the excerpt from Salvifici Doloris and your comments on it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 606-623 may be helpful for Jesus’ sacrifice.