Time for a new theory of atonement?

[simpleas]

FYI
The real Traditional Catholic Church is still following and is still teaching the Divine truths which flow from the first three chapters in Genesis which happen to be in the Old Testament.

Fortunately, the Traditional Catholic Church was not founded on what “some believe.”

Fortunately, Catholicism is not dependent on some theories and some views.

I meant we’d be believing the Jewish religion, because there would be no New Testament.

In part the Church was founded on what some believed from the teaching of Jesus right through to our Pope. I understand that you mean the Church doesn’t depend on what is popular at the time in order for it to teach.

Thanks.

 

[grannymh]

Regarding post 19.

I meant we’d be believing the Jewish religion, because there would be no New Testament.

In part the Church was founded on what some believed from the teaching of Jesus right through to our Pope. I understand that you mean the Church doesn’t depend on what is popular at the time in order for it to teach.

Thanks.

“In part the Church was founded on what some believed from the teaching of Jesus right through to our Pope.”

Who is Jesus Christ? Today, many people believe that Jesus is only a great teacher. Many years ago, the Bible was a top seller because of the teachings of Jesus. Today, there are some, not all, Catholics who pick which “teachings” should be in the Catholic Church. In opposition to Traditional Catholicism, these public speakers/writers want a church minus the less popular teachings.

I do understand that some, not all, famous public speakers/writers no longer accept the reality found in the traditional first three chapters of Genesis. That is sad because Genesis 3: 15 is seen as the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer. (CCC 410-411) The rest of the story is found in the New Testament.

In my humble opinion, today’s confusion about true Catholicism is caused by dissenters with golden tongues.

 

[PJM]

Did Jesus really pay for our sins through his crucifixion or is the real meaning of Jesus’ life more positive and filled with love, and proof of a loving God?

Did Jesus really pay for our sins through his crucifixion or is the real meaning of Jesus’ life more positive and filled with love, and proof of a loving God?

What Jesus actually did was make POSSIBLE our sin forgiveness in a new manner, that followed the OT use of Priest, BUT now in a new, expanded, and even a perfected manner.

Exodus 28:1
Take unto thee also Aaron thy brother with his sons, from among the children of Israel, that they may minister to me in the priest’ s office: Aaron, Nadab, and Abiu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.

Leviticus 5:16
And he shall make good the damage itself which he hath done, and shall add the fifth part besides, delivering it to the priest, who shall pray for him, offering the ram, and it shall be forgiven him.

WHAT Jesus is doing here is taking OT tradition, and perfecting it in the New Covenant in Christ Blood, by choosing His priest

John.15: 16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.”

And empowering them with a portion of His own Godly Power [Mt.10-1-2] ad Jn 17:18; Jn 21:21, slo that HIS Catholic Priest are directed, commanded annd empowered to in HIS name, decide to forgive Confessed sins, or to if conditions warrant it; to refuse to forgive sins. Mt. 16:18-19 & John 20:19-23…

Hence we can have TRULY the inner peace that Christ twice wishes us in the passages of John 20:19-23; threw HIS Sacrament of Known forgiveness of mans sins.

The idea of Christ having ALREADY having done it “all”, for sin- forgiveness is a recent man made inn innovation, based on what Christ COULD have done, BUT did not choose to do.

1John.1 Verses 8 to 10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

1John.5 Verses 16 to 17 "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. [MEANING UNTO SPIRITUAL ETERNAL DEATH] There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

John.20 Verses 20 to 23"On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

As to your’e second question of Christ love for us:

**Rom.5: 8 “But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.”
**

Then Jesus instituted HIS:

Only One TRUE GOD

Only One True FAITH

IN and THROUGH the ONLY Church that He founded, & FULLY guides and guards; today’s RCC {biblically and historically provable}

Mt 16:18-19 " [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock[SINGULAR] I will build MY CHURCH SINGULAR and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give TO THEE the [ALL OF THEM] keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it** shall be bound also in heaven**: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jn 17: 17-20 " [17] Sanctify THEM in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world,I HAVE ALSO SENT THEM into the world. [19] And FOR THEM do I sanctify myself, THAT THEY also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;"

Mt 28: 18-20 "[18] And Jesus coming, spoke TO THEM [DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY], saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world… Amen!

God Bless you

 

[grannymh]

From post 11

A Nonviolent Atonement (At-One-Ment)
Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Jesus’ teachings seem to have been understood rather clearly during the first few hundred years after his death and resurrection. Values like nonparticipation in war, simple living, and love of enemies were common among his early followers. For example, the Didache, written around AD 90, calls readers to “share all things with your brother; and do not say that they are your own. For if you are sharers in what is imperishable, how much more in things which perish.” [1] At this time, Christianity was countercultural, untouched by empire, rationalization, and compromise.

However, when the imperial edict of AD 313 elevated Christianity to a privileged position in the Roman Empire, the church increasingly accepted, and even defended, the dominant social order, especially concerning war, money, and class. Morality became individualized and largely sexual. Formal Christianity slowly lost its free and alternative vantage point, which is probably why what we now call “religious life” began, and flourished, after 313. People went to the edges of the church and took vows of poverty, living in satellites that became “little churches,” without ever formally leaving the big church.

If you look at texts in the hundred years preceding 313, it was unthinkable that a Christian would fight in the army. The army was killing Christians; Christians
In the thirteenth century, the Franciscans and the Dominicans were the Catholic Church’s debating society, as it were. We invariably took opposing positions in the great debates in the universities of Paris, Cologne, Bologna, and Oxford. Both opinions usually passed the tests of orthodoxy, although one was preferred. The Franciscans often ended up presenting the minority position in those days.** I share this bit of history to show that my understanding of the atonement theory is not heretical or new, but has very traditional and orthodox foundations. In the thirteenth century the Catholic Church seemed to be more broad-minded than it became later. Like the United States’ Supreme Court, it could have both a majority and a minority opinion,** and the minority position was not kicked out! It was just not taught in most seminaries. However, the Franciscans and other groups taught the minority position.

Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans agreed with the mainline position that some kind of debt had to be paid for human salvation. Many scriptures and the Jewish temple metaphors of sacrifice, price, propitiation, debt, and atonement do give this impression. But Franciscan teacher, Blessed John Duns Scotus (c. 1266-1308), who founded the theological chair at Oxford, said that Jesus wasn’t solving any problems by coming to earth and dying. Jesus wasn’t changing God’s mind about us; rather, Jesus was changing our minds about God. That, in a word, was our nonviolent at-one-ment theory. God did not need Jesus to die on the cross to decide to love humanity. God’s love was infinite from the first moment of creation; the cross was just Love’s dramatic portrayal in space and time.
Scotus built his argument on the pre-existent Cosmic Christ described in Colossians and Ephesians. Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) who came forward in a moment of time so we could look upon “the One we had pierced” (John 19:37) and see God’s unconditional love for us, in spite of our failings.

The image of the cross was to change humanity, not a necessary transaction to change God—as if God needed changing! Scotus concluded that Jesus’ death was not a “penal substitution” but a divine epiphany for all to see. Jesus was pure gift, and the idea of gift is much more transformative than any idea of necessity, price, or transaction. It shows that God is not violent, but loving.

Duns Scotus firmly believed that God’s perfect freedom had to be maintained at all costs. If God “needed” or demanded a blood sacrifice to love God’s own creation, then God was not freely loving us. Once you say it, its inherent absurdity is obvious! Unfortunately, the mainstream “theory” led many people to dislike and mistrust “God the Father.” This undercut the mystical, transformative journey for most Christians.

Jesus was not changing the Father’s mind about us; he was changing our mind about God—and thus about one another too. If God and Jesus are not violent, punishing, torturing, or vindictive, then our excuse for the same is forever taken away from us. This is no small point! And, of course, if God is punitive and torturing, then we have full modeling and permission to do the same. Does this need much proof at this point in Christian history?

Jesus’ full journey revealed two major things: that salvation could have a positive and optimistic storyline, neither beginning nor ending with a cosmic problem; and even more that God was far different and far better than the whole history of violent religion had up to then demonstrated. Jesus did not just give us textbook and transactional answers, but personally walked through the full human journey of both failure and rejection—while still forgiving his enemies—and then said, “Follow me” and do likewise (see John 12:26; Matthew 10:38). This is the crucial message of nonviolence that most of Christianity has yet to hear. Without it, the future of humanity is in grave peril.

Gateway to Silence:

Be peace.

Reference:
Adapted from Richard Rohr, Dancing Standing Still: Healing the World from a Place of Prayer (Paulist Press: 2014), 70-73.

We should seriously study what I put in bold. Comments?

 

[simpleas]

From post 11

A Nonviolent Atonement (At-One-Ment)
Wednesday, October 12, 2016

We should seriously study what I put in bold. Comments?

**

I share this bit of history to show that my understanding of the atonement theory is not heretical or new, but has very traditional and orthodox foundations. In the thirteenth century the Catholic Church seemed to be more broad-minded than it became later. Like the United States’ Supreme Court, it could have both a majority and a minority opinion, and the minority position was not kicked out! It was just not taught in most seminaries. However, the Franciscans and other groups taught the minority position.

 

[Gorgias]

What you don’t address in this post, is that the current Catholic teaching on atonement is based on the reasoning that God requires the murderous, torturous death of an innocent in order to forgive the sins of humanity.

This isn’t what the Catholic Church teaches.

You’re describing penal substitution, which is a hallmark of Reformation theology. Catholics believe that Jesus did make a sacrifice; that God did recognize that act of selfless love as far greater than anything that might have been perceived as ‘owed’; that the gates of heaven were opened by virtue of Jesus’ selfless act. However, we don’t believe the tenets of penal substitution, which turn God from a loving father into a bookkeeper who merely accepted payment for a debt owed.

This is at odds with what Jesus teaches about forgiveness, that we must forgive freely and without retribution and therefore casts humanity as morally superior to God. Can you explain this dichotomy?

No dichotomy. Do you require your children to wash their hands before eating a meal? Do you require your adult guests to do so (or do you simply trust that they’ll do the right thing)? There’s a difference, based on the audience, but not a dichotomy.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

You’re describing penal substitution, which is a hallmark of Reformation theology.

Is there some simple way to understand the difference?

 

[Chesster]

the current Catholic teaching on atonement is based on the reasoning that God requires the murderous, torturous death of an innocent in order to forgive the sins of humanity.

No, the Catholic Church does not teach this. It is true that scripture calls Jesus’ sacrifice a ransom but it never says to whom the ransom is paid and Catholicism rejects the notion that the ransom was paid to God. Ransoms are paid to captors and God did not hold us captive and God is not paid to forgive sin.

 

[Wesrock]

Is there some simple way to understand the difference?

Penal substitution is God demanding that someone accept punishment that was due, that redemption could not be given to man until that punishment was dispensed, that his wrath had to be satisfied, and that Jesus accepted it for us, became so full of sin that God could only look upon him on the cross with wrath. Ransom theory, or Christi’s Victor, is the theory that humanity needed to be bought or won back. Some say that the devil was tricked into accepting Jesus’ death as ransom for man after man had sold himself into the slavery of sin (think Aslan in Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe) but the CC doesn’t define exactly who the ransom was paid to (or even necessarily that it was paid to a person). And this should not be taken separately from recapitulation theory, which I find most profound. They complement each other and are not mutually exclusive.

 

[grannymh]

This is a serious sad question. Why is it that there are hundreds of words about “atonement theory” when we should be sharing every Catholic truth regarding the exact reason or the exact purpose for Jesus to hang bloody on His cross?

It is true that in the thirteenth century, “the Franciscans and the Dominicans were the Catholic Church’s debating society, as it were.” (from article in post 24) We need to remember that the winning explanations of Divine Revelation were submitted to a Major Ecumenical Church Council according to the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth. This process is guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. (chapter 14, Gospel of John) Consequently, in this century, we have the proper teachings of the Catholic Church in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

In no way is the Council’s properly defined and duly declared doctrines like the “United States’ Supreme Court” (section in bold, post 24) The Catholic Church does not teach both a majority doctrine and a minority doctrine based on the same Divine Revelation. The post 24 article’s “majority/minority” Divine Revelation concept is then reinforced by a misleading explanation – “and the minority position was not kicked out! It was just not taught in most seminaries. However, the Franciscans and other groups taught the minority position.”

We should be able to assume that both the majority opinion and the minority opinion refer to the one Person, Jesus Christ, the one original Adam, and the one Original Sin. Consequently, we can assume that there is some good stuff in both opinions. The idea of equal value of different opinions is often presented in articles or meditations like that in post 24. The goal is to get Catholics used to the idea that a minority position is probably true. Once that occurs, then Catholics can find it easy to lessen the full value of God’s unconditional love. (Genesis1: 27; Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 15; CCC 355-357; CCC 1730-1732)

 

[Gorgias]

Is there some simple way to understand the difference?

Both are examples of “substitutionary atonement”, in which atonement for sin isn’t made by those who sinned. Penal substitution asserts that God demanded that the debt be paid, and so Christ’s sacrifice was merely the payment in full of a debt that could not be satisfied in any other way.

The Catholic approach is that Jesus freely made a sacrifice, and – witnessing it – God affirmed that Jesus’ sacrifice was so pure, so filled with love, and so unequaled, that God forgave the debt.

That’s a pretty big difference! In the former case, God simply declares a debt paid; he becomes a bean counter, and He affirms that all the beans have been accounted for. In the latter case, God forgives a debt owed Him; He manifests Himself as a loving father, and responds to one act of sacrificial love with an act of love of His own.

 

[grannymh]

Both are examples of “substitutionary atonement”, in which atonement for sin isn’t made by those who sinned. Penal substitution asserts that God demanded that the debt be paid, and so Christ’s sacrifice was merely the payment in full of a debt that could not be satisfied in any other way.

The Catholic approach is that Jesus freely made a sacrifice, and – witnessing it – God affirmed that Jesus’ sacrifice was so pure, so filled with love, and so unequaled, that God forgave the debt.

That’s a pretty big difference! In the former case, God simply declares a debt paid; he becomes a bean counter, and He affirms that all the beans have been accounted for. In the latter case, God forgives a debt owed Him; He manifests Himself as a loving father, and responds to one act of sacrificial love with an act of love of His own.

May I respectfully ask – What exactly is this "famous debt’ in real words?

Hint:
The author of the article linked in post 24, in one of his internet meditations, referred to the “famous debt” as a “fly in the ointment” which interfered with all the original blessings owed to humanity. Do you agree that this is the Catholic meaning of the debt? Why? or Why not?

This popular speaker/writer presents this solution: “We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin.” The irony of this is that yes, faith-filled Catholics do start with a foundation of original goodness which is the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-17. The difference between Catholic teachings and this writer’s teachings is that Catholics accept the truth that the real individual first human on earth deliberately shattered the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. The reason that this particular truth is important is that it directly affirms the real true Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[grannymh]

Continuation of post 32

The popular speaker/writer from post 24 presents this solution for the “fly in the ointment”:
“We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin.”
The irony of his statement is that yes, faith-filled Catholics do start with a foundation of original goodness which is the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27. (corrected Bible citation from post 32) The difference between Catholic teachings and this writer’s teachings is that Catholics accept the truth that the real individual original first human on earth deliberately shattered the original relationship between humanity and Divinity. The reason that this particular truth is important is that it directly affirms the real true Divinity of Jesus Christ. This truth was opposed by the ancient heresy of Arianism.
CCC 389
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

As far as I can tell, there are only a few CAF members who can post on the modern heresy of Stealth Arianism. Actually, I wonder if the writer linked in post 24 has taken time to review the Arian heresy. On the other hand, maybe he has already learned how to use this modern heresy to get to the Progressive Christianity goal of a Big Tent church where no one needs to worry about borders between this or that.

 

[Wesrock]

Hi, grannymh. I’m having trouble following your argument. Are you a proponent of penal substitution then? Are you opposed to ideas such as recapitulation theories of atonement?

 

[grannymh]

Hi, grannymh. I’m having trouble following your argument. Are you a proponent of penal substitution then? Are you opposed to ideas such as recapitulation theories of atonement?

I am a proponent of the scary idea that the real Catholic issue regarding the Crucifixion is not expressed in penal substitution or in any theories of atonement which I have seen on CAF. I do not recall seeing “recapitulation theories of atonement.” If I missed the real issue in a post, my sincere apology to the brave soul who posted it.

One of the difficulties on modern CAF is that some, definitely not all, members lean toward the allegories of the first three chapters of Genesis. In addition, those who accept the truths of allegory or of figurative language can run into the “problems” which appear in discussions about the mean father figure.

Stop the Press! I did that once in St. Louis.

Old journalism habits never die. I checked with my new informer friend Google and found this interesting information about recapitulation theories. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory_of_atonement

As everyone here knows-- Not every word or thought of the Church Fathers or theologians automatically becomes a doctrine. The protocol of the visible Catholic Church has to be considered.

The ending of the Recapitulation Theory link really interests me and I would love it if you discussed it with me and of course discuss your sources. My on the job training included the dictum to always look for the missing information.

A more contemporary, slightly differing expression of the recapitulation view can be seen in D. E. H. Whiteley’s reading of Paul the Apostle’s theology. Whiteley favourably quotes[19] Irenaeus’ notion that Christ ‘became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself’,[17] although he never describes Paul’s view of the atonement as a recapitulation; rather, he uses the word ‘participation’:

…if St. Paul can be said to hold a theory of the modus operandi [of the atonement], it is best described as one of salvation through participation: Christ shared all our experience, sin alone excepted, including death, in order that we, by virtue of our solidarity with him, might share his life.
​

 

[Wesrock]

This deserves a longer treatment, as any issue does, but for a quick phone-post-from-work, let me quote the Catechism:

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

Recapitulation is a doctrine of the Church. You see it more emphasized in the eastern traditions as theosis, but divinization/deification is a western tradition as well, if less talked about, which is a shame, in my opinion. And I would say this is as much seated in the historical nature of the first three chapters of Genesis as anything else. God made us for participation in His divine life, which we forfeited, wanting to live our own lives and become like gods on our own merit (an absurd notion).

CCC 457-460 all speak to reasons the Word became flesh.

 

[grannymh]

This deserves a longer treatment, as any issue does, but for a quick phone-post-from-work, let me quote the Catechism:

**460 **The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

Recapitulation is a doctrine of the Church. You see it more emphasized in the eastern traditions as theosis, but divinization/deification is a western tradition as well, if less talked about, which is a shame, in my opinion. And I would say this is as much seated in the historical nature of the first three chapters of Genesis as anything else. God made us for participation in His divine life, which we forfeited, wanting to live our own lives.

This is the question I would like to discuss. What is originally seated in the historical nature of the first three chapters of Genesis? “God made us for participation in His divine life,” is a good start. Genesis 1: 27. Now keep going to see the historical events such as Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 2:18 and the famous debt, if one insists on the term debt, Genesis 3:11 and Genesis 3:15.

Please take your time since I need to leave the computer.

 

[Wesrock]

I am not against the idea of a ransom. It’s complementary to and not in opposition to the reasons laid out for Christ becoming flesh in CCC 457-460.

 

[grannymh]

I am not against the idea of a ransom. It’s complementary to and not in opposition to the reasons laid out for Christ becoming flesh in CCC 457-460.

I have only time to scan CCC 457-460. My first reaction is that it is assumed that the reader read and understands CCC 356-357 and the Original Sin teachings starting with CCC 396. Notice the important CCC 1730 which is a cross reference for CCC 396.

For me, the discussion proposed in post 37 will have to wait until tomorrow.

 

[Vico]

Did Jesus really pay for our sins through his crucifixion or is the real meaning of Jesus’ life more positive and filled with love, and proof of a loving God?

Catholic Catechism

Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross

616 It is love “to the end” 446 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. 447 Now “the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.” 448 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.

446 Jn 13:1.
447 Cf. Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25.
448 2 Cor 5:14.

620 Our salvation flows from God’s initiative of love for us, because “he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (I Jn 4:10). “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5:19).​