Substitutionary Atonement

[DustinsDad]

…What I am asking here is not how individual posters here feel and think about it but is this particular idea of “Penal Substitution” a concept a Catholic can believe and still be “orthodox”

Of course. As it is often said, “He came to pay a debt He did not owe because we owed a debt we could not pay.”

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…What I am asking here is not how individual posters here feel and think about it but is this particular idea of “Penal Substitution” a concept a Catholic can believe and still be “orthodox”

Of course. As it is often said, “He came to pay a debt He did not owe because we owed a debt we could not pay.”

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Let’s take this in pieces…

…The Catholic denial of Christ’s death on the cross as substitutionary is the core disconnect between Catholics and Protestants…

St. Anselm, Doctor of Catholicism, taught that “man cannot be saved without satisfaction for sin” (Cur Deus Homo, Bk I, ch. XIX); “satisfaction ought to be proportionate to guilt; and that man is of himself unable to accomplish this.” (ibid., Bk I, ch. XX); and “no being, except the God-man, can make the atonement by which man is saved.” (ibid., Bk II, ch. VI).

This is the Catholic doctrine of “vicarious satisfaction.” That is, Jesus Christ, by his life, death, and resurrection, merited for us the rewards of eternal life. That’s what we mean when we affirm in our Creed, “For our sake he was crucified…”

In other words, "fallen man could not be restored through powers of nature or through the Mosaic law" (Denzinger H., *Enchiridion Symbolorum, *thirtieth ed., systematic index, VIII g), “but only through the merits of Christ…Christ was made man for our salvation…and died that He might repair the nature lost through Adam…through the death of the Cross…which was a true sacrifice…He redeemed us from sin and reconciled us to the Father…which satisfaction is infinite…and superabundant” (ibid.)

The antagonist would have to better explain how this is a “core disconnect” from what he intends by stating the “cross as substitutionary.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

It is love “to the end” that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life… No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all." (CCC 616)

I guess I don’t see the work of the Cross as a a “necessary punishment,” but as a superabundant sacrifice, and act of love. “Love covers a multitude of sins.” (Pr 10:12; 1 Pet 4:8).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…and why Catholics cannot accept the Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace (not graces) through faith alone. And what Paul means when he says in 1 Cor. 1:23-24 that Christ crucified is the power and wisdom of God for salvation.

“Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit.” (CCC 154).

Furthermore, Catholics do accept the Biblical doctrine of salvation. We affirm most firmly with Scripture, contrary to heretical claims to the contrary, that “man is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE.” (Jam 2:24).

1 Cor 1:23-24:

we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."

Amen!

Don’t see how Catholicism rejects the teaching of St. Paul at all.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Catholics look to salvation as a “process” by which works (other than Christ’s on the cross) must be added, and therefore salvation is completed only at the end of one’s life here on earth.

“Salvation: The forgiveness of sins and restoration of friendship with God, which can be done by God alone.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, glossary)

Is salvation a one-time event, or a process?

Heb 11:8 tells us that Abraham had “faith” in Gen 12. "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place…not knowing where he was to go. " (Heb 11:8; cf. Gen 12:1-4; Acts 7:2-4).

Since we are “justified by faith” (Rom 5:1), it follows then that Abraham was therefore justified by faith in Gen 12.

Furthermore, Gen 15:6 tells us that Abraham was justified by God because he believed God. “Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.” (Gen 15:6) So, having already been justified by faith in Gen 12, Abraham was further justified in Gen 15.

Furthermore, St. James tells us that Abraham was justified in Gen 22, “by works.” “Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac…” (James 2:21; cf. Gen 22:9-18).

It follows that by works, those who are just may be justified further. In fact, Rev. 22:11 says precisely that, “he that is just (Gk “dikaios”), let him be justified still (Gk "dikaioo*** eti”)***" (Rev 22:11).

Therefore, justification–and by necessity salvation–is not a one-time event but a process which takes place over one’s entire lifetime and involves both faith and works, like it was with Abraham as shown above.

So Catholicism does indeed teach, along with Scripture, that those who are just can be “justified still.”