Substitutionary Atonement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mfaustina1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mfaustina1

Guest
How does a Catholic respond to a person who believes that Jesus Christ died on the cross, went to hell, etc. in our place thus freeing us from culpability of sin (meaning eternal death, a.k.a. hell.)??? I need some help in this area. Thanks. - Mfaustina1
 
Where does scripture say that Jesus Christ died on the cross, went to hell, etc. – in our place?
 
40.png
Mfaustina1:
How does a Catholic respond to a person who believes that Jesus Christ died on the cross, went to hell, etc. in our place thus freeing us from culpability of sin (meaning eternal death, a.k.a. hell.)??? I need some help in this area. Thanks. - Mfaustina1
That is not what substitutionary atonement means. It does means Christ died on the Cross bearing the penalty for our sins on the Cross, not in Hell, in our place. This is a Catholic doctrine. One that orthodox Protestants share with Catholics. Interstingly, the Orthodox do not share this view.

Mel
 
There seems to be a great deal of confusion when people hear the words of the Apostle’s Creed that says, “He was crucified, died, and was buried. He decended into Hell, He arose again on the third day…” They seem to take this as Christ went to suffer torment after his death, and that is the place where the atonement was completed. This is the current view of the Word of Faith Pentacostal movement. However, St. Peter says that after Christ died, he went to preach to the spirits in prison, also thought to be the “Limbo of the Fathers”. Since Heaven was closed until Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, those who had died in the grace of God basically were held in status until the coming of Christ. After His death, he went to this “Limbo” to preach his message of victory and lead those deserving to the beatific vision. To think that God would submit Himself to the whims of Satan to be tortured is an outrage against the Gospel.
 
M:

Here’s the question: did Christ obey so we don’t have to (which seems to be the paradigm you’re asking about), or did He obey to gain for us the grace to enable us to obey? The substitution paradigm focusses almost exclusively on the cross - the resurrection plays no real role in our salvation. The key verse I’ve used to address this idea is Romans 5:10,

“For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.”

The cross reconciles us, but it is His life lived in us by which we are saved. This is the Holy Spirit working within us to sanctify us and fit us for heaven, as we submit to Him and allow Him to do this work in us and through us. This leads to the “golden chain” of Romans 6:

"Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (v16)
"I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. (v19)
“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.” (v22)

Obedience leads to righteousness, righteousness to sanctification, and the end of sanctification is eternal life. It is impossible to hold the “Christ obeyed so I don’t have to” theology in light of Paul’s clear teaching on the importance of obedience in our salvation.

Hope that helps.
 
My thought was that in order to replace someone else’s deserved eternal damnation, then they themself would have to be damned eternally.

Jesus was in the tomb for 3 days. In order for God to be just, and our places to be reversed, Jesus would still have to be there. He is not.

Jesus’ sacrifice was propitiary. God’s WRATH was appeased, leaving the door open for us to present ourselves to Him, repentant. God can THEN bestow his mercy on us and still be just.

That same propitiatory sacrifice is perfect and can be used for the sins that I just committed today. When is that done? In the Mass of course! God is appeased for new sins via the priest who stands in for Christ (who is in heaven interceding as high priest on our behalf).
 
Thank you all for your replies. I am very greatful. The reason I posted this question wasn’t for me in particular, but for my parents who follow the “Word of Faith” heresy. I was looking for some information especially out of the Bible that would refute the idea that Jesus paid the price of our death in hell. I knew that wasn’t right, but needed some help. So, thanks again espcially to you Steve. - God bless! - Mfaustina1 👍
 
40.png
Melchior:
That is not what substitutionary atonement means. It does means Christ died on the Cross bearing the penalty for our sins on the Cross, not in Hell, in our place. This is a Catholic doctrine. One that orthodox Protestants share with Catholics. Interstingly, the Orthodox do not share this view.
Mel
Melchior hath spoken truly.

The doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement is basic for both Catholics and Protestants. It was given dogmatic formulation by Anselm of Canterbury in the late 11th century.

Doctrine of the Atonement
newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

Anselm, Doctor of the Church
newadvent.org/cathen/01546a.htm

The Orthodox have, generally speaking, never heard of it.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Melchior hath spoken truly.

The doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement is basic for both Catholics and Protestants. It was given dogmatic formulation by Anselm of Canterbury in the late 11th century.

Doctrine of the Atonement
newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

Anselm, Doctor of the Church
newadvent.org/cathen/01546a.htm

The Orthodox have, generally speaking, never heard of it.
Father Bless,

I would only quibble with one point:

It was given dogmatic formulation by Anselm of Canterbury in the late 11th century.

It was actually given dogmatic formulation by Saint Paul in the 1st century. 😉

Mel
 
40.png
Melchior:
Father Bless,

I would only quibble with one point:

It was given dogmatic formulation by Anselm of Canterbury in the late 11th century.

It was actually given dogmatic formulation by Saint Paul in the 1st century. 😉

Mel
A common misconception of Western Christians and an understandable one since they have been living with it for a thousand years now and cannot imagine a time when it was not.

But the fact is that the Church Fathers of the first millennium and the Ecumenical Councils knew nothing of it. It’s difficult to believe that they would have been ignorant of something so fundamental which had been given dogmatic formulation by Saint Paul. Those who want to say that this is Pauline doctrine are faced with a huge question: how come it was unknown in the Church for the first 1,000 years?:confused:
 
Anselm’s theory of atonement is one of the pet peeves (to put it mildly!!) of the Eastern Churches. The bottom line is that it was unknown in the Church for the first thousand years, and for this reason it is a doctrine found only in the Catholic and Protestant Churches.

Just to say a few things in explanation of why the Orthodox will have no truck with Anselm and the atonement theology which he developed. I am reluctant to get into it too deeply - past experience has shown that there can be a negative reaction from Western Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, because they feel that the Orthodox are attacking one of the bedrock beliefs of the faith.

Anselm’s writing of Cur Deus Homo was a significant development in the West (we even had to study it at Catholic high school), but it did not affect the East at all. It profoundly changed the Western theology of the
atonement. For hundreds of years afterwards Western theology, Protestant as well as Catholic, traced its soteriology (the understanding of salvation and how we are saved) back to Anselm. Because of the split between East and West, Anselm’s theology had little or no influence in the East.

For this reason, Orthodox Christians tend to see Catholics and
Protestants as having far more in common with each other than either
does with Orthodoxy.

Anselm developed what has been called the “judicial” theory of the
atonement. In his book he sought to answer the question “Why did God become man?” He found the answer in a concept in the mediaeval law of his time - the concept of satisfaction. If one person wronged another, it harmed the other person’s honour, and so the wronged person demanded compensation, or “satisfaction”. Man’s sin had offended God, and because God is infinite, and God’s honour is infinite, the insult man’s sin causes to God’s honour demands infinite satisfaction. But man is in no position to provide this satisfaction, so God sent his Son to offer the satisfaction on behalf of man. By dying on the cross he appeased God’s wounded honour, and made the full and adequate satisfaction for man’s sin.

Of course you know all that already, and it is a very much oversimplified (but accurate) account of Anselm’s theology, as it has developed in the West, but Orthodox theology knew little of this. The Western theological development stressed salvation from an angry God, whereas Orthodox theology stressed, as it always had, salvation from sin, evil, death and the devil.

Anselm’s problem is that he could not escape being a prisoner of his own times and he developed his theology out of the current ideas of justice and satisfaction which he then read back into verses of the New
Testament which he found sympathetic to his own thoughts. In other
words, he allowed himself to overbalance, and he lost the precious
balance which is the hallmark of true patristic theology. To create his
system he made the additional and gross mistake of relying too much on his own human reason, which in his work he speaks of as “infallible reason.” Human reason is never infallible, and especially when it is being applied to the deep mysteries of God’s work of our salvation.

Since salvation is one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, this
difference means that Eastern and Western Christians have moved quite far apart in their culture and ethos and understanding what the
Christian faith is about. Though the Roman teaching about the double
procession of the Holy Spirit (filioque) brought about the parting of
the ways, it is the countryside which those ways have traversed since the parting that makes us strangers to each other. The arguments between Catholics and Protestants took place, for the most part, out of sight and out of earshot of the Orthodox.

So Orthodoxy is neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. It’s a whole
'nother ball game, as the saying goes.
 
Mel,

There has been a discussion on another thread about Substitutionary Atonement, so it is easier to provide a link than to copy it into this thread.

Here is a piece from someone who could be considered a popular theologian for contemporary Orthodox, Frederica Matthewes-Green who is an American and married to an Orthodox priest.

"Many of my correspondents don’t know this history and insist instead that the Blood Atonement theory is the earliest. It just isn’t so. They believe this because they find evidence for it in the Scriptures, but as I’ve said, this is a matter of your favorite Scriptures lighting up for you, in accord with how you’ve been taught.

"The appearance in history of the Blood Atonement, or Substitutionary,theory can actually be located pretty precisely, in the work “Cur Deus Homo?” (“Why Did God Become Man?”) by Anselm, Bishop of Canterbury, in the 11th century. Anselm’s idea is foreshadowed in some earlier writers, like Tertullian, but it was not the general view.

"The general view of the early church was not as crisp, as thorough, as Anselm’s. And this is why Catholic and Protestant theologians have seen Anselm’s theory as a great advance. Henry Bettenson, in his anthology “Documents of the Christian Church,” calls “Cur Deus Homo,” “one of the few books that can truly be called epoch-making.”

More here

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=173594&postcount=168
and
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=173596&postcount=169
 
Can we discuss some legalities? Adam was in charge. So by the Sin of Adam sin and death came into the world, the whole world, as he had divinely-granted rulership over the whole world. When King David sinned with his census, death visited the whole land until he repented and offered sacrifice on what became the site of the Temple. By one man, Adam, sin came into the world, and by one perfectly humble, obedient and sinless Man reparation was made, reversing the Sin of Adam. That’s one element of substitutionary atonement: one man acting for all.

Another element is the Kinsman-Redeemer. One’s kinsman could offer his life for another as ransom or atonement. This relationship aspect is inherent in the Spouse offering His life for His Bride, the Church. So we have a corporate atonement in the Second Adam as the “how,” and the Kinsman-Redeemer stepping forward to repair that Sin of Adam as the “why.” We’re family.

This familial familiarity shows we are adopted into God’s family, well revealed in Chapter 12 of John’s Apocalypse with the Woman, Blessed Mary; her Seed, Jesus Christ; and her other seed who are persecuted–that’s us, please God. And to become part of God’s family, hear and obey Jesus Christ as did Mary and the Apostles.

This is no genetic slam-dunk as in forged Gnostic geneologies of rulers alleged to be in “Christ’s” lineage who will rule in his name as the Sons of God, replacing “Christ’s” Second Coming with his spirit-filled genetic kids. The genetic elite replace God’s elect in this lie, with salvation being for the well-born, not those who hear and obey.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Melchior hath spoken truly.

The doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement is basic for both Catholics and Protestants. It was given dogmatic formulation by Anselm of Canterbury in the late 11th century.

Doctrine of the Atonement
newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

Anselm, Doctor of the Church
newadvent.org/cathen/01546a.htm

The Orthodox have, generally speaking, never heard of it.
I woould like to know how it is possible that Anselm could create a dogma of the Catholic church. He does not have the authority.
 
40.png
jimmy:
I woould like to know how it is possible that Anselm could create a dogma of the Catholic church. He does not have the authority.
Well, he pulled it off. And in fact you’ll find that even the word Atonement is basically unknown in the Church. It is the only English word to ever come into theology.

Anyway, this topic always causes ill feeling when it is debated. The Catholics believe it and it is now embedded in Catholic theology. The Orthodox have never heard of it and it has no place in their theology. I know that this is almost unbelievable to Catholics but it’s a fact.

Take a quick look at the article of Frederica Matthewes-Green. She wrote it at the time when Mel Gibson’s Passion came out. In the article she gives a brief overview of the Atonement doctrine and its history (from an Orthodox viewpoint. She is married to an Orthodox priest.)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…4&postcount=168
and
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…6&postcount=169
 
Fr Ambrose:
Well, he pulled it off. And in fact you’ll find that even the word Atonement is basically unknown in the Church. It is the only English word to ever come into theology.

Anyway, this topic always causes ill feeling when it is debated. The Catholics believe it and it is now embedded in Catholic theology. The Orthodox have never heard of it and it has no place in their theology. I know that this is almost unbelievable to Catholics but it’s a fact.

Take a quick look at the article of Frederica Matthewes-Green. She wrote it at the time when Mel Gibson’s Passion came out. In the article she gives a brief overview of the Atonement doctrine and its history (from an Orthodox viewpoint. She is married to an Orthodox priest.)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…4&postcount=168
and
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…6&postcount=169
Is it a doctrine or a dogma? I don’t think Anselm could just declare dogmas of the church.
 
40.png
jimmy:
Is it a doctrine or a dogma? I don’t think Anselm could just declare dogmas of the church.
I forgot about this Catholic distinction. In the East we don’t have such a distinction.

But I do remember that when a friend of mine, a Catholic school teacher, asked one of the local priests about it he told her that she could not deny it and remain a Catholic. So I guess it is de fide.

The Orthodox have a quite wholistic approach to the Faith.

Orthodoxy looks on the faith as a united and organic whole. Speaking of the Anglo Russian Theological Conference at Moscow in 1956, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Michael Ramsey, expressed the Orthodox viewpoint exactly:
The Orthodox said in effect: " … The ‘tradition is a concrete fact. There it is, in its totality. Do you Anglicans accept it, or do you reject it?’ The Tradition is for the Orthodox one indivisible whole: the entire life of the Church in its fullness of belief and custom down the ages, including Mariology and the veneration of icons.

Faced with this challenge, the typically Anglican reply is: ‘We would not regard veneration of icons or Mariology as inadmissible, provided that in determining what is necessary to salvation, we confine ourselves to Holy Scripture.’

But this reply only throws into relief the contrast between the Anglican appeal to what is deemed necessary to salvation and the Orthodox appeal to the one indivisible organism of Tradition, to tamper with any part of which is to spoil the whole, in the sort of way that a single splodge on a picture can mar its beauty."

‘The Moscow Conference in Retrospect’, in Sobornost, series 3, no. 23, 1958, pp. 562-3.]
In the words of another Anglican writer: "It has been said that the faith is like a network rather than an assemblage of discrete dogmas; cut one strand and the whole pattern loses its meaning.’
 
Fr. Ambrose,

Thank you for all the information. I appreciate the time you took.

I must say though, that I have seen almost all of them, including Khoria Matthews-Greene’s writings. What I have found is that many fathers, while not going into the detail of Anselm, did in fact use a great deal of substitutionary language, even if it was not necessary at that particular times to get more detailed. So the fact that the Orthodox choose certain fathers opinions over others does not mean it was the only view. Several years of study have shown me it is not. It is inherent in Augustine for example and some Eastern fathers as well. And the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, which predate the fathers, and so are a valid and better early witness, are full of substitutionary language. The Pentateuch, the book of Hebrew, the Psalms, Isaiah etc. are chock full of the Hebraic understanding. It has nothing to do with a Roman Legal court. It has everything to do with the Biblical Hebraic view. From the scapegoat to the animal sacrifices to the Passover.

Indeed the very language of judgment at the last day is a courtroom model. Judgment requires laws and penalties etc. The real issue is why later fathers were so thoroughly Hellenized that they rejected the Hebrew context of the scriptures and poured a foreign worldview into them? The Scriptures were written by Hebrews with a Hebraic worldview, not a Greek one. The fact that Anselm recovered that when it was needed (as with all doctrinal definitions) does not make it unique to Anselm.

The problem with the prejudicial view of the East towards the West is that the East can only see the Eastern view and therefore finds ways to undermine the Western view. The West on the other hand can accept both views and therefore be more balanced. The idea that the issue is one of polluted Western thinking over pristine Eastern thinking is very weak. All assertion, no hard facts.

Trying to understand concepts God introduced through the Hebrew culture through purely Hellenistic categories is akin to trying to understand Shakespeare through an Islamic Sufi literary model. No cultural context means at best an anemic understanding.

I am not saying that God has not used Hellenic language and concepts in the Church age. He certainly has. But to make it the only prism to look through is bad theology. As evidenced by the really shaky criticisms of Anselm that are pretty easy to refute. It starts with blanket statements like, “No on believed this until…” and, “Well he took his view from the Roman justice system.” Or, “You just don’t get it because of your Western thinking.” (My personal favorite since it is always from those who were raised in the West). Interestingly, I never hear that one from my Greek relatives, from Greece, which is as culturally Western as the USA. These are all too easy. But the more often one repeats them the truer they sound.

Mel
 
40.png
Mfaustina1:
Thank you all for your replies. I am very greatful. The reason I posted this question wasn’t for me in particular, but for my parents who follow the “Word of Faith” heresy. I was looking for some information especially out of the Bible that would refute the idea that Jesus paid the price of our death in hell. I knew that wasn’t right, but needed some help. So, thanks again espcially to you Steve. - God bless! - Mfaustina1 👍
Faustina, if your parents are influenced by the Word of Faith, they might more readily be convinced by a non-Catholic than by Catholics. Check out the rather anti-Catholic Hank Hannegraaf “the Bible Answer Man.” He has strong things to say about why the Word of Faith is just plain dead wrong – not to mention bizarre.
 
40.png
Melchior:
Christ died on the Cross bearing the penalty for our sins on the Cross. . . This is a Catholic doctrine. One that orthodox Protestants share with Catholics. Interstingly, the Orthodox do not share this view.
Mel
I didn’t know that. What is the Orthodox belief as to why Christ went through is Passion and Death on the Cross if not to save us? Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top