T
TimothyH
Guest
Yours is a very wise post, Clem, and clearly born out of experience and prayer. Jesus is the healer. Thanks for posting this.
-Tim-
- Status
-Tim-
T
TMC
Guest
You are referring, I believe, to “penal substitutionary atonement,” which is the idea that Jesus died as a substitute for us sinners - that He was punished in our place. There are several theological atonement/salvation theories, of which this is only one. It is not necessarily inconsistent with Scripture, but it is not compelled by Scripture, either. It is one of the newer atonement theories, having been advanced “only” about 400 years ago.
AFIK, the Catholic Church does not mandate one particular atonement theory, and several have been taught through the centuries. If you simply google “atonement theory” you will find lots of information on line.
I
in_servitude
Guest
Penal Substitution is a problem, in my opinion. I do not think that the Catholic Church endorses or teaches Penal Substitution. “qui est ce” asked the following question:
If Penal Substitution is a reasonable theory, then how would you explain reparations in light of this? The theory totally disconnects us from the cross. And, I haven’t been able to find justification for that kind of thinking in scripture.
Plus, Col 1:24 becomes nonsense:
T
TMC
Guest
I agree that Penal Substitution is a problem, for a number of reasons. I don’t personally subscribe to it. I don’t think the Church condemns it, however. The Church tends more toward a Satisfaction theory, I believe. I am not really on board with that one, either. But the reality is that most Catholics don’t dwell much on any specific theory of atonement.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
That’s my go to quote against sola fide.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
P
pitbull
Guest
The Suffering Servant
53 Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2
For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
3
He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4
Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
7
He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
8
By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
9
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
10
But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
11
As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
12
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.
I
in_servitude
Guest
Thanks be to God.
If this is supposed to advance the discussion, then I have missed the point.
S
sirach2v4
Guest
there’s already a lot of responses to the original post. But, here’s another, in case you need it.
The idea of substitutionary atonement is attributed to a guy by the name of Anselm of Canterbury, around 1090. The striped down idea is that God is wrathful and demands somebody’s blood to avenge all the sins, so, that would be Christ in our collective stead.
But, that is not a biblical idea. According to Borg and Crossan (not a popular duo in Catholic circles) in their book “The First Paul,” they tease out the reason why s/a is bunk. What Paul refers to in his genuine letters about atonement is that Christ’s blood (death) restores us to a spiritually healthy relationship with the Father. I refer you to chapter 5 of that book for the details.
C
cfauster
Guest
I appreciate the discussion.
A concise statement of the penal substitution theory of atonement, including some problems it raises, is at
biologos.org/blog/substitutionary-atonement-and-evolution-part-1
A concise statement of the penal substitution theory of atonement, including some problems it raises, is at
biologos.org/blog/substitutionary-atonement-and-evolution-part-1
G
grannymh
Guest
“Paid the penalty” concept omits the Catholic doctrines which flow from Bible source in the first three chapters of Genesis.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you for this valuable information. Seriously, it brings me up to date on the Christian perspective regarding human origin, human nature pre and post Fall, and God as Creator Almighty – all involved with the penal substitution theory of atonement including some of the problems it raises.
For me, this is a key sentence.
“I hope the Christian church [sic] can learn to embrace those who accept substitutionary atonement as well as those who interpret the cross differently.”
My personal opinion is that this article basically ignored the Catholic position as if it were not related to the Christian church. Thus, this key sentence has me wondering if the Catholic Church is the one which interprets differently, that is, outside the Christian circle. Or is the Catholic Church the one which goes deep into the first three chapters of Genesis and recognizes the position of a real first human person when it comes to the original relationship with God as his Creator.
I do agree with the author that Substitutionary Atonement has its problems. However, when one studies Genesis 1: 26-27 and Genesis 2: 15-17, and the consequences in Genesis chapter 3, the “problems” can be addressed appropriately.
C
cfauster
Guest
Some wisdom on how we are saved through Christ, from the Vatican website:
“One thing above all appears different, seen with the eyes of faith: death! Christ entered death as we enter a dark prison; but he came out of it from the opposite wall. He did not return from whence he came, as Lazarus did who returned to life to die again. He has opened a breach towards life that no one can ever close, and through which everyone can follow him. Death is no longer a wall against which every human hope is shattered; it has become a bridge to eternity. A “bridge of sighs”, perhaps because no one likes to die, but a bridge, no longer a bottomless pit that swallows everything. “Love is strong as death”, says the song of songs (Sgs 8:6). In Christ it was stronger than death!”
vatican.va/liturgical_year/holy-week/2013/documents/holy-week_homily-fr-cantalamessa_20130329_en.html
“Paul always presumes that we are all “one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3: 28), that we died in Baptism (cf. Rm 1) and that we now live with Christ, for Christ, in Christ.
In this union and only in this way we are able to become in him and with him “a living sacrifice”, to offer “true worship”. The sacrificed animals were meant to replace the human being, the gift of self, but they could not. In his gift of himself to the Father and to us, Jesus Christ is not a substitute but truly bears within him the human being, our sins and our desire; he really represents us, he takes us upon himself. In communion with Christ, realized in faith and in the sacraments, despite all our inadequacies we truly become a living sacrifice: “true worship” is achieved.”
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090107.html
"118. Why was the death of Jesus part of God’s plan?
599-605
619
To reconcile to himself all who were destined to die because of sin God took the loving initiative of sending his Son that he might give himself up for sinners. Proclaimed in the Old Testament, especially as the sacrifice of the Suffering Servant, the death of Jesus came about “in accordance with the Scriptures”.
“One thing above all appears different, seen with the eyes of faith: death! Christ entered death as we enter a dark prison; but he came out of it from the opposite wall. He did not return from whence he came, as Lazarus did who returned to life to die again. He has opened a breach towards life that no one can ever close, and through which everyone can follow him. Death is no longer a wall against which every human hope is shattered; it has become a bridge to eternity. A “bridge of sighs”, perhaps because no one likes to die, but a bridge, no longer a bottomless pit that swallows everything. “Love is strong as death”, says the song of songs (Sgs 8:6). In Christ it was stronger than death!”
vatican.va/liturgical_year/holy-week/2013/documents/holy-week_homily-fr-cantalamessa_20130329_en.html
“Paul always presumes that we are all “one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3: 28), that we died in Baptism (cf. Rm 1) and that we now live with Christ, for Christ, in Christ.
In this union and only in this way we are able to become in him and with him “a living sacrifice”, to offer “true worship”. The sacrificed animals were meant to replace the human being, the gift of self, but they could not. In his gift of himself to the Father and to us, Jesus Christ is not a substitute but truly bears within him the human being, our sins and our desire; he really represents us, he takes us upon himself. In communion with Christ, realized in faith and in the sacraments, despite all our inadequacies we truly become a living sacrifice: “true worship” is achieved.”
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090107.html
"118. Why was the death of Jesus part of God’s plan?
599-605
619
To reconcile to himself all who were destined to die because of sin God took the loving initiative of sending his Son that he might give himself up for sinners. Proclaimed in the Old Testament, especially as the sacrifice of the Suffering Servant, the death of Jesus came about “in accordance with the Scriptures”.
- In what way did Christ offer himself to the Father?
606-609
620
The entire life of Christ was a free offering to the Father to carry out his plan of salvation. He gave “his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45) and in this way he reconciled all of humanity with God. His suffering and death showed how his humanity was the free and perfect instrument of that divine love which desires the salvation of all people." - What are the results of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross?
613-617
622-623
Jesus freely offered his life as an expiatory sacrifice, that is, he made reparation for our sins with the full obedience of his love unto death. This love “to the end” (John 13:1) of the Son of God reconciled all of humanity with the Father. The paschal sacrifice of Christ, therefore, redeems humanity in a way that is unique, perfect, and definitive; and it opens up for them communion with God."
- Status