Theory of Atonement?

[thephilosopher6]

Do you reject Vatican II?

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.
   vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

and the Catechism?

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

I’ve been affirming this the entire time. Everything I have been telling you is in total agreement with this because it is from this. Did you fail to read this all the way through? Because what I have been saying is what this is saying.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I’ve been affirming this the entire time. Everything I have been telling you is in total agreement with this because it is from this. Did you fail to read this all the way through? Because what I have been saying is what this is saying.

Of course I read it. But how do you account for 847 Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

IF they are not baptized and Baptism is necessary for salvation?

 

[thephilosopher6]

orthodoxy police

I have devoted my life to fight heresy and correct those who hold to it. I want to help spread the true gospel throughout the earth and so I fight heresy and help people come to the truth of orthodoxy.

 

[Hatikvah]

For me, no theory can entirely and fully encapsulate the atonement of Christ, the moment in which God and mankind reconciled over this event, and a window through which the love of God is still seen today.

But I hold to both Christus Victor and the Satisfaction theory, which can be harmonious, I suppose. The Satisfaction theory was set out by Anselm of Canterbury, yes, but it can be seen through the early Church and up into Anselm’s time. Was it not always implied that the atonement reconciled us with God, making restitution?

 

[thephilosopher6]

Of course I read it. But how do you account for 847 Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

IF they are not baptized and Baptism is necessary for salvation?

I affirm that this is true. Baptism is necessary for salvation though, the Church has affirmed this. God is not restrained by baptism, he can save those outside of it, of course. I’m sure he has saved people outside of baptism too. But that doesn’t mean Baptism is unnecessary for salvation. All those who can attain baptism need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins or face the real possibility of damnation. I have quoted multiple documents, and even what you have quoted affirms the necessity of baptism. Did you not read it? It literally says baptism is necessary. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, it is how one become Christian. Denial of this is heretical. All documents you have quoted are in full agreement with me because I am in full agreement with them.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I affirm that this is true. Baptism is necessary for salvation though, the Church has affirmed this. God is not restrained by baptism, he can save those outside of it, of course. I’m sure he has saved people outside of baptism too. But that doesn’t mean Baptism is unnecessary for salvation. All those who can attain baptism need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins or face the real possibility of damnation. I have quoted multiple documents, and even what you have quoted affirms the necessity of baptism. Did you not read it? It literally says baptism is necessary. Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, it is how one become Christian. Denial of this is heretical. All documents you have quoted are in full agreement with me because I am in full agreement with them.

Ok. It is necessary but for some it is not necessary.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Ok. It is necessary but for some it is not necessary.

It is necessary for all.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It is necessary for all.

What about the Jews and those who “through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience.”?

They also “may achieve eternal salvation” but not baptized.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

What about the Jews and those who “through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience.”?

They also “may achieve eternal salvation” but are not baptized.

 

[grannymh]

I see no contradiction at all. Denying the necesitty of baptism is heresy. Denying the necesitty of any sacrament is heresy as defined by the council of Trent.

Canon 4.If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification,[2] though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema.

And again from the CCC

*The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257). *

It is important to read and understand the last sentence of CCC 1257.

CCC 1257 …God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It is important to read and understand the last sentence of CCC 1257.

CCC 1257 …God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

I also see, "Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

That entire section on Baptism is beautiful.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Thanks, Granny

 

[thephilosopher6]

I also see, "Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

That entire section on Baptism is beautiful.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Thanks, Granny

Indeed, and everything I have said agrees with it.

 

[thephilosopher6]

What about the Jews and those who “through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience.”?

They also “may achieve eternal salvation” but not baptized.

All need baptism, even children. That is why when children without baptism die we can only hope that God will show mercy on their souls. The Catholic Church offers the best chance at salvation. There is no religion equal to us, not even Judaism. God still has a special plan for the Jews though, so that is why the Church typically views them in a good light. But being Catholic is the best hope for salvation. Those outside the Church, while it is a possibility they can be saved, it is not as great as for one who is Catholic. Catholics have baptism. Catholics have the Eucharist. Catholics have confession. Those who die outside of the Church we can only hope that God shows mercy on them. Anyone who dies outside of grace will end up in hell. And grace comes from God, the head of the Church. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

 

[grannymh]

Don’t you hate it. Spend time thinking, writin ,maybe even researching and linking and then somehow it is just gone.

I don’t think there is a an “Obedience Theory” per se but obedience is at the heart of it all. I am on my pad so I can’t cut and paste but we see in 1 Samuel 15:22 and Hosea 6:6 the preference of obedience even more than sacrifice though obedience often involves sacrifice. But again when we disobey once it gets easier and then our ears become even more deaf to instruction. As children born of sinful parents we are raised in darkness and it perpetuates getting deeper and deeper. We become more captive of darkness and sin, truly lost. We assert out individuality and independence from God even to the point of opposition. Jesus showed us what obedience is at a great cost but his obedience alone is not enough to save us. We must obey and follow or else we adopt the Protestant “Faith Alone” view that seem to me almost magical. Just my thoughts.

Sorry, I took so long to get back to this post and likewise for post 51.

I really don’t think there is an “obedience Theory.” Obedience is important which few people pay attention to. In my opinion, future obedience in the Old Testament cannot relate directly to Original Sin because Adam is the single first person on earth.

I cringe at the idea that we are "children born of sinful parents we are raised in darkness and it perpetuates getting deeper and deeper.’’ I worry that I will slip into the error that our human nature has been totally corrupted. Having a wounded nature is bad enough. (CCC 405-406)

 

[grannymh]

In the Catechism we read:

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

What do you interpret as “figurative language”?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 396 refers to the symbolism of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This works for me.
**CCC 396 **God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

For some reason, maybe because I was a blonde in my youth, I have to giggle at the figurative language of a talking snake. (Genesis 3: 1 …) Maybe the serpent was real and really smart at hoodwinking mere humans. Being female, I know I would immediately run if a serpent was winking at me while tempting Adam.

Genesis 2:7 usccb.org/bible/genesis/2
7
then the LORD God formed the man* out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.d

Genesis 2: 7, in my opinion, is amazing figurative language. The author brilliantly chose the earth as representing the material body and God’s own breath as giving the decomposing human anatomy the true gift of the immortal spiritual soul.

I do not consider Genesis 2: 15-17 as figurative language. Please refer to this thread in the Sacred Scripture Forum. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1005088

"Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?"

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Sorry, I took so long to get back to this post and likewise for post 51.

I really don’t think there is an “obedience Theory.” Obedience is important which few people pay attention to. In my opinion, future obedience in the Old Testament cannot relate directly to Original Sin because Adam is the single first person on earth.

I cringe at the idea that we are "children born of sinful parents we are raised in darkness and it perpetuates getting deeper and deeper.’’ I worry that I will slip into the error that our human nature has been totally corrupted. Having a wounded nature is bad enough. (CCC 405-406)

Looking at the world today it is difficult not to wonder about the depths of our corruption. That is why we should always look for the light and celebrate it in others.:clapping::clapping:

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It doesn’t seem that important to me whether the entire story is take figuratively or literally. The indisputable truth is that we have fallen from a closeness to God and thus inclined to seek our own will.

 

[grannymh]

It doesn’t seem that important to me whether the entire story is take figuratively or literally. The indisputable truth is that we have fallen from a closeness to God and thus inclined to seek our own will.

It is extremely important. I realize that only a small handful of CAF members are aware of modern (stealth) Arianism.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It is extremely important. I realize that only a small handful of CAF members are aware of modern (stealth) Arianism.

Please explain. What does the literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve have to do with the of the divinity of Christ? How does a figurative interpretation deny his divinity (Arianism) especially when you have already acknowledged the figurative nature of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil??

 

[Vico]

It is extremely important. I realize that only a small handful of CAF members are aware of modern (stealth) Arianism.

Stealth by lack of study. Nicene Creed of 325 has an appendix to counter the Arian belief that the Son of God is not eternal:

But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

In 381 A.D. the local synod of the eastern Church added more about the Holy Spirit:
the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

Arians believed the Samosatene Doctrine that the Son was a created being. Also, the Holy Spirit is not divine and the Son of God is not of the same essence as the Father.