The Nature and Extent of the Atonement of Jesus

[meltzerboy]

According to Catholic dogma, what is the nature of Jesus’ atonement of sins and what is the extent of the atonement? Is the nature of the atonement in terms of sacrifice or renewal? Is the extent of the atonement with regard to the past only or the future as well? In other words, is the atonement for original sin or also for sins thereafter? If the former, does that mean we are no longer born in original sin? If the latter, why are there still mortal sins that must be confessed to have hope for salvation? How does all this differ from Protestantism’s view on the nature and the extent of Jesus’ atonement? And what does Catholicism say about the concept of “limited atonement”? Finally, is the atonement by virtue of Jesus’ death only, or also his suffering?

 

[Della]

According to Catholic dogma, what is the nature of Jesus’ atonement of sins and what is the extent of the atonement? Is the nature of the atonement in terms of sacrifice or renewal?

We have to break down your questions into manageable bits. First of all, the atonement is, AFAIK not a dogma, but rather a doctrine. The atonement is all encompassing of all humanity. And it is both sacrificial and renewing.

Is the extent of the atonement with regard to the past only or the future as well? In other words, is the atonement for original sin or also for sins thereafter? If the former, does that mean we are no longer born in original sin? If the latter, why are there still mortal sins that must be confessed to have hope for salvation?

The redemption Christ brought about was through his life, death and resurrection. He established baptism as the ordinary means of removing the stain of original sin, but the effects remain, which is why there is still mortal sin–we still have a desire, a weakness in our wills, intellect and nature that cause us to sin.

How does all this differ from Protestantism’s view on the nature and the extent of Jesus’ atonement? And what does Catholicism say about the concept of “limited atonement”? Finally, is the atonement by virtue of Jesus’ death only, or also his suffering?

It depends on the Protestant, so I can’t answer for them all. The Church does not believe in a limited atonement, but salvation is limited to those who live the life of grace as God gives them to understand and live it.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

According to Catholic dogma, what is the nature of Jesus’ atonement of sins and what is the extent of the atonement?

We should note first of all that this subject is a mystery, one of the key mysteries of the Catholic Faith, and so we must expect limits to what is humanly knowable, much less known by any of us who happen to be on CAF. Also, remember that there is also a great deal of Catholic theology which has never been proclaimed doctrine, and therefore some legitimate theological diversity on the subject as well.

I’ll go through the different parts of your question and offer my first thoughts.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Is the nature of the atonement in terms of sacrifice or renewal?

There are elements of both, I suppose. A sacrifice that brings renewal. To atone is “to reconcile by making amends or compensation” (Glossary in The Salvation Controversy by James Akin, which by the way may be of interest to you if you want to learn more about this subject). It is by His sacrifice that Christ atones for the sins of mankind, and it is by this atonement that mankind is renewed, made a new creation.

Is the extent of the atonement with regard to the past only or the future as well? In other words, is the atonement for original sin or also for sins thereafter? If the former, does that mean we are no longer born in original sin? If the latter, why are there still mortal sins that must be confessed to have hope for salvation?

Speaking in terms of efficacy at least (see below), it extends to both the Original Sin and personal sins of the elect. That is, all who will go to heaven will be purified of both Original Sin and personal sin by the sacrifice of Christ.

This ordinarily takes place first at baptism, when both Original Sin and, if the neophyte is an adult or older child, any personal sin is forgiven. Baptism does not, however take away the psychological and physical effects of Original Sin, for which reason we continue to tend to fall into sin even after baptism. These later sins are ordinarily forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance (aka Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession).

In these sacraments, as in the other sacraments in different ways, the Christian is brought into the mysteries of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. They are the ordinary context in which the Atonement earned by Christ is applied to individuals. Of course, God is not bound by the sacraments He has instituted, and so can theoretically work outside of them, but ultimately all salvation will be through Christ and His Church whether the individual realizes it in life or not.

Even though through divine indwelling we no longer “have” Original Sin, our human nature remains fallen and thus the children even of the baptized are still born with Original Sin.

How does all this differ from Protestantism’s view on the nature and the extent of Jesus’ atonement? And what does Catholicism say about the concept of “limited atonement”?

There is no single Protestant view on Jesus’ atonement. The idea of “limited atonement” is popular, though not universal, among Calvinists, and essentially says that Christ died only for the elect, not for the whole of humanity.

Catholics would take a more nuanced view. On the one hand, God in some sense wills the salvation of everyone, and Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for the salvation of all human beings; indeed it was supersuficient. He therefore grants grace sufficient to receive this salvation to all human beings -none will be damned except by their own choice in rejecting this salvation. On the other hand, God has always known that a limited number of human beings (called the predestined or the elect) would actually accept the offer of salvation, and in His Divinity Christ knew who these would be and that these alone would actually be saved by His sacrifice. Thus the atonement is limited in its efficacy but not limited in its sufficiency.

This two-layered sense of who Christ died for fits well with Paul’s description of Christ as "the Savior of all men, especially those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:10). In terms of God’s universal salvific will and the sufficiency of the sacrifice, Christ is the Savior of all men (men and women). In terms of predestination and the actual working of grace in the individual soul, Christ the savior only of those who freely cooperate with that grace.

Finally, is the atonement by virtue of Jesus’ death only, or also his suffering?

The atonement is due to the entire eternal sacrifice of the incarnate Son to the Father. The nature of that sacrifice from the point of view of Christ’s Divinity is very interesting but very difficult. In terms of His humanity, I have seen the Last Supper and the Agony in the Garden alternatively cited as the starting point of the redemptive sacrifice. I could also easily imagine someone taking the position that it began with His allowing Himself to be taken into custody in the garden. In any event the sacrifice did not cease to be offered with the death of Christ, but continues in an “unbloody” manner unendingly in heaven. It is this unbloody sacrifice, which is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross in that it has the same priest, the same victim, the same purpose, and a sort of continuity with the Cross, that is made present (“re-presented”) at the Mass. Christ’s death is of course a crucially important part of this atoning sacrifice, but the act of sacrifice is not confined to that one moment in time.

As to whether Jesus’ physical and emotional sufferings were an integral part of this atoning sacrifice and are in some way themselves redemptive, certainly the popular piety of Catholics would suggest to me that they are. I’ve honestly never before thought of separating the fact of Christ’s death from the sufferings He endured on the way to that death. In His human nature the actual, historical, finite sufferings Jesus endured were a real part of His total offering of Himself to the Father, so I would view them as very much a part of the atonement.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

what is the nature of Jesus’ atonement of sins and what is the extent of the atonement?

When man first sinned, he brought a curse upon himself: death. God did not create man to die, or the spirit to leave the body, but because of sin man must die. No creature, no angel, no man no matter how great he is could cross the divide that separated man from his Creator. Only God, who loves his creation, could do that. This is the nature of Jesus’ atonement: that He was God, and that He died for us. He died for us because God is without sin. The wage of sin is death. Therefore, he paid the wage of sin for us by dying. He did this out of love, not forsaking the world and leaving us to die in our sin. The extent of the atonement is universal; the atonement is extended to all mankind. See Psalm 22 (in some translations it is Psalm 21)

Is the nature of the atonement in terms of sacrifice or renewal?

Both. He sent out His Spirit, and renewed the face of the earth (Psalm 104 - 103 in some translations).

Is the extent of the atonement with regard to the past only or the future as well? In other words, is the atonement for original sin or also for sins thereafter? If the former, does that mean we are no longer born in original sin?

The atonement is for the sin of the world (original sin). We are still born into sin, but through baptism we are reborn so that we are no longer subject to sin. We must still confess our personal sins, because those sins separate us from God.

How does all this differ from Protestantism’s view on the nature and the extent of Jesus’ atonement?

There are many different Protestant denominations and they differ in their beliefs and concepts of the nature and extent of Jesus’ atonement. Some say that Jesus died for all sins both past present and future. They say that you should confess your sin as a way of being aware that you are a sinner and that those sins are between you and God, which God automatically forgives (it was all take care of when Jesus died on the cross). The Catholic Church does not agree with that view.

And what does Catholicism say about the concept of “limited atonement”? Finally, is the atonement by virtue of Jesus’ death only, or also his suffering?

By its very nature, the Catholic Church rejects “limited atonement”; the concept is incompatible with Church doctrine. The Church, as its name implies, is a universal Church. Grace is not limited to certain people that God chooses. Salvation comes by sanctifying grace, which is freely given to all willing to accept it. For this reason, it is by our deeds that we are judged worthy of sanctifying grace which saves us. Limited atonement basically teaches that it is by fate that we are saved and nothing we do can change our fate, but all one has to do is read Psalm 1 and you will see that this is not true- we can choose to be wicked or good and our fate depends on what we choose.

 

[razredge]

According to Catholic dogma, what is the nature of Jesus’ atonement of sins and what is the extent of the atonement? Is the nature of the atonement in terms of sacrifice or renewal? Is the extent of the atonement with regard to the past only or the future as well? In other words, is the atonement for original sin or also for sins thereafter? If the former, does that mean we are no longer born in original sin? If the latter, why are there still mortal sins that must be confessed to have hope for salvation? How does all this differ from Protestantism’s view on the nature and the extent of Jesus’ atonement? And what does Catholicism say about the concept of “limited atonement”? Finally, is the atonement by virtue of Jesus’ death only, or also his suffering?

Meltzerboy, as a Jew it is important to note that the doctrine of substitutionary atonement which is so popular among the Evangelicals and most Catholics is not the only way of looking at the death of Christ.

Also popular among the early Church Fathers and many theologians since was the idea that Christ rather than being some sort of blood sacrifice to appease the wrath of God instead came to bring about positive moral change and enlightenment to humanity thus ‘saving’ them from sin and death.

I prefer that view as it avoids some of the problems with the substitutionary atonement theory.

 

[fhansen]

In Catholic teaching, a rift occurred between man and God at the fall-a rift that neither sacrifices nor external obedience to the law could reconcile. Sacrifices were a band aid, the recognition of a problem but not, by themselves, capable of rectifying it. Striving to obey a set of laws actually only served to prove man was sinful; there’d be no need for such striving, for such conscious observance, if a breech was not present to begin with. To observe the law as a means of salvation was only to pretend that no such breech existed-or at least to mis-identify the nature of the breech.

Man seemed incapable, made evident by his own trials and failures demonstrated through Jewish history as recorded in the OT, to be truly, consistently obedient, especially when we consider that obedience is really summed up by the greatest commandments, to love God above all else and one’s neighbor as oneself. The bottom line with the Atonement, to speak in general terms, is that man needs God. And not by some merely religious nod to his existence and right to our worship and obedience but rather that man needs God directly, personally, individually, to fill the place that was left empty since the rift occurred. And for that to happen, for man to be rescued from the pit, God must take the initiative-IOW only God can save man. No sacrifices will do, no human attempts at perfection or holiness will do.

Only when man turns in faith and love to God, recognizing in Him His goodness, His trustworthiness, mercy, kindness of heart, and even His own humility-recognizing His love-only when man gives up his own wrath and vengefulness-can God become his God again, and can God begin to write His laws on man’s heart and in his mind. And this writing involves a change in man-a new heart being installed-and Gods spirit indwelling man again-so that he can love as he really was intended to. And this is why Jesus said in Matt 9:13, quoting Hosea 6, which concerns Israel’s’ unrepentance, ‘“But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’” It’s worth reading the whole chapter in Hosea.

And the writer of Hebrews 10 follows along these same lines, quoting from Psalm 40.
1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a]
8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”
17 Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.”
18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

Jesus, by His sacrifice, repents *for *man, the righteous dying for the unrighteous: God alone can save man, which is essentially the meaning given to the name Jesus: “God saves”, similar in significance to another name used for Him, Emmanuel, “God is with us.”

Man is now permanently reconciled with God and man now knows that God is love-He forgives man’s sins, which, after all, stem from the original sin of not loving Him above all else, of not valuing Love above all else, to put it another way.

But this in no way means that man can continue to sin-he must now “go, and sin no more”
That’s the offer, the New Covenant that God, Himself, promises to help man fulfill, that God must help man fulfill, because God is the missing ingredient to begin with ever since He was effectively rejected by man at the Fall. He must commune with man-He must become the God of man once again,* internally, indwelling*, a condition man was created for.

 

[razredge]

In Catholic teaching, a rift occurred between man and God at the fall-a rift that neither sacrifices nor external obedience to the law could reconcile. Sacrifices were a band aid, the recognition of a problem but not, by themselves, capable of rectifying it. Striving to obey a set of laws actually only served to prove man was sinful; there’d be no need for such striving, for such conscious observance, if a breech was not present to begin with. To observe the law as a means of salvation was only to pretend that no such breech existed-or at least to mis-identify the nature of the breech.

Man seemed incapable, made evident by his own trials and failures demonstrated through Jewish history as recorded in the OT, to be truly, consistently obedient, especially when we consider that obedience is really summed up by the greatest commandments, to love God above all else and one’s neighbor as oneself. The bottom line with the Atonement, to speak in general terms, is that man needs God. And not by some merely religious nod to his existence and right to our worship and obedience but rather that man needs God directly, personally, individually, to fill the place that was left empty since the rift occurred. And for that to happen, for man to be rescued from the pit, God must take the initiative-IOW only God can save man. No sacrifices will do, no human attempts at perfection or holiness will do.
Jesus, by His sacrifice, repents *for *man, the righteous dying for the unrighteous: God alone can save man, which is essentially the meaning given to the name Jesus: “God saves”, similar in significance to another name used for Him, Emmanuel, “God is with us.”

Man is now permanently reconciled with God and man now knows that God is love-He forgives man’s sins, which, after all, stem from the original sin of not loving Him above all else, of not valuing Love above all else, to put it another way.

But this in no way means that man can continue to sin-he must now “go, and sin no more”
That’s the offer, the New Covenant that God, Himself, promises to help man fulfill, that God must help man fulfill, because God is the missing ingredient to begin with ever since He was effectively rejected by man at the Fall. He must commune with man-He must become the God of man once again,* internally, indwelling*, a condition man was created for.

The issue with all of this, is while it certainly makes for a nice story - is that it isn’t backed by fact and even some basic reflection on the doctrine brings up issues.

For example after Jesus’ death & sacrifice and hence our reconciliation with God, has the amount of sin present in the world decreased? Have the effects of the Fall gone away? No, so then there are no observable effects of the Atonement and the only outcome of Christ’s sacrifice seems to be some nebulous concept of ‘man now being permanently reconciled to God’ - Now how exactly do we know that? Besides what the Church Fathers came up with which was then enshrined by the Church as fact over the past centuries.
It’s simple, we don’t - so what might have been the best explanation of the life and death of Jesus back in the 2nd and 3rd century, is not necessarily so today given modern science has completely undermined the understanding of Adam & Eve as actual historic persons.

 

[meltzerboy]

Thank you all for your most stimulating and informative comments. I think this is one of the most basic issues in Christianity and there are evidently diverse views, to say the least.

 

[fhansen]

For example after Jesus’ death & sacrifice and hence our reconciliation with God, has the amount of sin present in the world decreased?

We have no way of knowing how the world is different after 2000 years of Jesus’ light having entered it. Certainly there’d be no Notre Dame. But maybe that’s the point. We take for granted so many of the ways our world is now. Do you really think that human rights would be such a central issues as they are today without the influence of Christianity, whether or not the particular proponents of a particular right even have a particular clue about that relationship-of that influence? Do you think that altruism would’ve become the authentic human value it is now? All the hours/years/centuries of giving, of feeding the poor, caring for the sick, clothing the naked, striving and sometimes dying for social justice issues? The relief work and the hospitals and orphanages and schools and universities and pursuits of truth and excellence in general?

Have the effects of the Fall gone away? No, so then there are no observable effects of the Atonement and the only outcome of Christ’s sacrifice seems to be some nebulous concept of ‘man now being permanently reconciled to God’ - Now how exactly do we know that?

The effects of the fall and the reconciling work of the Atonement exist side by side in this world-and in us. We may prefer that it would be easier-but it’s not-at least in Catholic theology-it’s a work, sometimes grueling, because our very wills are involved. And our wills, beginning with Adam & Eves’ wills, are the problem to begin with-they’re the “prize”- in need of molding, of being formed and informed. God’s patient with us-but He wants our participation-He draws but won’t force us. In this world we can choose-moment by moment-which way we’re heading- towards the light or towards the darkness. The reconciliation stands as an offer-it’s a done deal on Gods part-and a process of recognition/acceptance/participation on our part.

Besides what the Church Fathers came up with which was then enshrined by the Church as fact over the past centuries.

We trust that the HS leads the Church-and so she gleans whatever is true from her tradition and uses it to grow in understanding of the gospel. This is why not everything Church Fathers-even Aquinas-say is taken as fact.

It’s simple, we don’t - so what might have been the best explanation of the life and death of Jesus back in the 2nd and 3rd century, is not necessarily so today given modern science has completely undermined the understanding of Adam & Eve as actual historic persons.

I’m not sure how the life and death of Jesus has-or can-be explained any differently now. And science has not undermined the teaching that all human life today descended from a first set of parents. If it does, then, yes, the Catholic faith would proven wrong IMO.

 

[Della]

The issue with all of this, is while it certainly makes for a nice story - is that it isn’t backed by fact

What “facts”? Please be specific.

and even some basic reflection on the doctrine brings up issues.

And scientific assumptions don’t? As if science were in the business of determining anything as true–it’s not, you know. It investigates phenomena and makes predictions about future phenomena based on observeable testing. It doesn’t tell us anything for certain–especially about the nature of God and man.

For example after Jesus’ death & sacrifice and hence our reconciliation with God, has the amount of sin present in the world decreased? Have the effects of the Fall gone away?

Jesus never claimed (and so the Church never claimed) that the amount of sin present in the world would go away due to Christ’s atoning death, so this is a non-issue. Indeed, Jesus predicted that the world would get worse and worse. Why? Because in spite of all God has done for us, including giving us his own Son to redeem us, man would reject him. What St. Paul wrote is that “where sin abounded, grace abounded the more”. What that means is that sin can be overcome through God’s grace. All who accept that teaching by submitting to baptism and after that availing themselves of the other sacraments of the Church, which impart God’s grace, sin can be defeated. And that has been proved true over and over again in the lives of the saints, both great and small, known and unkown, and the good works they have done in the world.

No, so then there are no observable effects of the Atonement

This is just plain not true. It is easy to focus only on what is wrong with the world, but that’s not the whole story. A prime example is the fall of communism in Eastern Europe without a shot being fired. It was brought about by men of profound faith who believed in the teachings of Christ instead of those of Marx.

and the only outcome of Christ’s sacrifice seems to be some nebulous concept of ‘man now being permanently reconciled to God’ - Now how exactly do we know that? Besides what the Church Fathers came up with which was then enshrined by the Church as fact over the past centuries.

We know this because it has been shown to be true. There are so many examples of people whose lives were turned from bad to good, from disastrous to happiness, from selfishness to lives of service that they are far too numerous to list here. You seem to be dwelling so much on the negative that you are negating the positive. Besides, you have a basic misunderstanding of what the redemption was meant to accomplish, as I explained above.

It’s simple, we don’t - so what might have been the best explanation of the life and death of Jesus back in the 2nd and 3rd century, is not necessarily so today given modern science has completely undermined the understanding of Adam & Eve as actual historic persons.

Again, simply not true. Science has not proved anything. The theory of macro evolution has been accepted as a kind of dogma by many scientists, but it’s not a dogma, only a working theory–an assumption based on what many scientists believe may have happened. What many do not understand is that assumptions based on speculations are often wrong, and there is always more than one way to interpret data. To reject the teachings of the Church based on that is to give it too much credit–credit even scientists would not claim if they would only stick to their own prime principle of following where the data leads instead of jumping to conclusions about things that cannot be proved. All humans beings are related. That has been demonstrated through DNA testing. We are all the same species and always have been. The Church teaches the same thing. There is no conflict between good science and Church teaching. None whatsoever. I hope that helps you and gives you some good food for thought.