Time for a new theory of atonement?

[grannymh]

Briefly–
What is the very first original love action by our Creator? (Genesis, first three chapters) If one first believes in the State of Mortal Sin, then one can understand what expiation, atonement, etc., is actually for and why the Good God is continually loving us. When one gets down to nitty-gritty, then all the posts about the bad God Who does awful things …

Looking forward to tomorrow to read new posts about the discoveries of basic Catholic teachings. For example the last sentence in CCC 389.

 

[Wesrock]

Maybe I’m wrongly gotten the impression that you’re in disagreement with what I’ve said, and that’s why I’m confused.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

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.

I apologize, I meant between penal substitution and satisfaction.

 

[Vico]

I am coming to the conclusion that non-violent theories of atonement are actually the truth and there needs to be a radical change in the teaching and focus of the Church’s message. If we stick with these theories that suppose god requires the death of an innocent as payment before forgiveness is granted, then we are in fact casting humanity as morally superior to God, as we are able and taught by Jesus to forgive without retribution.

Thoughts on this?

The just were saved even before the death and resurrection of Christ (the Old Law or Old Covenant), but were then in the bosom of Abraham.

Catholic Encyclopedia

… in the Old Covenant there was some way of recovering God’s grace once man had sinned. God wills not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezekiel 33:11). This total turning to God corresponds to our idea of perfect contrition; and if under the Old Law love sufficed for the pardon of the sinner, surely the coming of Christ and the institution of the Sacrament of Penance cannot be supposed to have increased the difficulty of obtaining forgiveness. That the earlier Fathers taught the efficacy of sorrow for the remission of sins is very clear (Clement in P.G., I, 341 sqq.; and Hermas in P.G., II, 894 sqq.; Chrysostom in P.G., XLIX, 285 sqq.) and this is particularly noticeable in all the commentaries on Luke 7:47. The Venerable Bede writes (P.L., XCII, 425): “What is love but fire; what is sin but rust? Hence it is said, many sins are forgiven her because she has loved much, as though to say, she hath burned away entirely the rust of sin, because she is inflamed with the fire of love.”

Hanna, E. (1908). Contrition. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm

 

[Gorgias]

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

I didn’t understand your question here until I read your subsequent posts.

Are you saying that, if we understand the ‘Fall of Adam’ narrative in Genesis as an allegorical account of a real event, then we don’t have a reason to make sense of Jesus’ sacrifice? That doesn’t make sense to me. So, if it’s what you’re saying, could you explain why you think it makes sense? And, if it’s not what you’re saying, could you help me understand what you’re trying to say?

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?

I don’t have a copy of the Rohr text, so I can’t really comment on what he was saying.

Yet, perhaps I can comment on the notion of the “Catholic meaning of the debt.” I would disagree that this is a “fly in the ointment”, since that would seem to imply that God didn’t know that sin would enter into the world, and that He would have to create a “plan B” to deal with it. Rather, God knew that He wished us not only to spend eternity with Him, but also, that we would have the free choice to do so; moreover, He knew that not all would make that choice, but that there would be a way be saved even in the face of sin. Does this mean that we’ve lost what we were ‘owed’? No. Does it mean that we have a God who gives freely, even when it’s not owed? Absolutely.

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.

This is true. Yet, it doesn’t mean that the Genesis account cannot be allegorical and still tell this truth.

 

[Vico]

Is there some simple way to understand the difference?

Atonement or satisfaction, is doing a good work which balances the injustice that was done. The Catechism of Trent section on Penance gives a definition:
*Satisfaction is nothing more than compensation for an injury done to another. *

St Thomas Aquinas also, in the Summa Theologica, 3:48:2:
He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race.

 

[grannymh]

Maybe I’m wrongly gotten the impression that you’re in disagreement with what I’ve said, and that’s why I’m confused.

Awake in the middle of the night, I wonder how many Catholics remember God’s phone number.

Another thought. At the time of Anselm of Canterbury, John Duns Scotus, Tom Aquinas and the rest…

At that time in Catholic history, Catholics professed a belief in the reality of Adam in the first three chapters of Genesis. Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22 were basic truths. If one is interested in the impact of the first three chapters of Genesis, one should turn to the Index of Citations, page 689, universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Thus, with the belief in the reality of Adam, the great thinkers could concentrate on the Crucifixion.

My disagreement is based on what is not being said when one is trying to understand the evils of atonement as expressed today in attacks on Catholicism.

Apparently, I am the rare individual who was shocked when I learned on CAF that Adam and Eve did not exist. My apparently outdated Catholic education included the fact that a real Original Sin is necessary for the Divinity of Jesus.
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.

 

[grannymh]

I didn’t understand your question here until I read your subsequent posts.

Are you saying that, if we understand the ‘Fall of Adam’ narrative in Genesis as an allegorical account of a real event, then we don’t have a reason to make sense of Jesus’ sacrifice?

Yes with the following qualifications.

Currently, making sense of Jesus’ sacrifice needs more information than what an atonement theory provides. Making sense of Jesus’s sacrifice means that we have to discern between what Catholics say about the first three chapters of Genesis and what other Catholics say about the first three chapters of Genesis.

Currently, there are wolves in sheep’s clothing who are updating Divine Revelation from inside the Catholic Church. These other Catholics have proposed their own allegories to replace some annoying Catholic doctrines. In a free speech world, other Catholics have the right to present their own allegories in order to lead Catholics away from difficult truths like the reality of two sole founders of humankind and the reality that it is possible for a human to intellectively freely choose the State of Mortal Sin. The impossibility of rejecting God has already been discussed in other threads.

Currently, one can no longer refer to a simple “an allegorical account of a real event” and expect that everyone agrees what that real event is. There are other Catholics who accept other versions of the human origin event. Skipping the reality of Adam’s original relationship with his Creator God opens the door to an atonement theory that attacks the goodness of God. That “attack Catholicism” possibility has already been discussed in other threads.

Currently, we need to go back to the basic truths in the first three chapters of Genesis in order to find a good modern atonement theory or theories.

 

[grannymh]

Maybe I’m wrongly gotten the impression that you’re in disagreement with what I’ve said, and that’s why I’m confused.

My apology for everyone’s confusion.

I have done my best to point out the necessity of understanding the numerous Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis – doctrines which normally impact some modern theories. In my humble opinion, readers should do their own research in the first three chapters of Genesis. There is nothing more that I can do here.

My sincere thank you for this interesting discussion thread. It has added to my Catholic knowledge.

Blessings,
granny

 

[Gorgias]

At that time in Catholic history, Catholics professed a belief in the reality of Adam in the first three chapters of Genesis.

We still do; but, we recognize that this reality is expressed figuratively in Genesis.

Apparently, I am the rare individual who was shocked when I learned on CAF that Adam and Eve did not exist.

Depends on what you mean, I suppose. Was there a literal ‘Adam’ and a literal ‘Eve’? Or, was there a first human couple who first sinned and broke the relationship with God? In both cases, we have an ‘Adam and Eve’ who actually ‘existed’.

My apparently outdated Catholic education included the fact that a real Original Sin is necessary for the Divinity of Jesus.

The ‘original sin’ isn’t figurative; rather, the Scriptural account of the original sin is figurative. Did humanity sin by eating a fruit… or is this an allegory? That’s all that the Church says.

If others say different things, then it’s fair game to say “that’s not what the Church teaches.”

 

[Wesrock]

I feel that if Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did not hold to a strictly literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis, I’m at least in good company. Allegorical readings are hardly new, nor were people who disagreed with literal readings also rejected by the Church.

There was an Adam and an Eve. They were tempted by Satan. They disobeyed God. They broke man’s relationship with God. They “fell.” That is history. Was it 6,000 years ago? Was it in a literal garden? We’re their names really Adam and Eve (or their Hebrew equivalents)? Did they sin by literally eating a fruit from a literal tree that God forbade? These are details surrounding the real, historical event that I see as allegory. I don’t say that the Creation and Fallaccount is simply a good, moral story to draw a lesson from (that would be against Church teaching) but that the eating of the forbidden fruit may stand for some other act, or that man walking in the garden with God is a description of man’s relationship with God.

 

[grannymh]

I feel that if Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did not hold to a strictly literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis, I’m at least in good company. Allegorical readings are hardly new, nor were people who disagreed with literal readings also rejected by the Church.

There was an Adam and an Eve. They were tempted by Satan. They disobeyed God. They broke man’s relationship with God. They “fell.” That is history. Was it 6,000 years ago? Was it in a literal garden? We’re their names really Adam and Eve (or their Hebrew equivalents)? Did they sin by literally eating a fruit from a literal tree that God forbade? These are details surrounding the real, historical event that I see as allegory. I don’t say that the Creation and Fallaccount is simply a good, moral story to draw a lesson from (that would be against Church teaching) but that the eating of the forbidden fruit may stand for some other act, or that man walking in the garden with God is a description of man’s relationship with God.

My last thought on this thread regarding post 51. Adam and Eve – “They broke man’s relationship with God.” They ??? (refer to CCC 404-405)
The Person Jesus is not a they. My last comment on this thread is that sometimes an allegory sidesteps.

 

[Wesrock]

Both Adam and Eve disobeyed. There is nothing incorrect there. That Adam is the head of the human family and that the ultimate responsibility for the fall is on him and therefore restoration fell to the new Adam is not incongruous with anything I’ve said.

An interesting parallel while on that point: as Woman’s “Yes” to Satan set humanity’s fall through Adam in motion (though was not itself the Fall), so Woman’s “Yes” to God was given to set humanity’s salvation through Christ Jesus in motion (though was not itself our salvation).

 

[Vico]

I feel that if Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did not hold to a strictly literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis, I’m at least in good company. Allegorical readings are hardly new, nor were people who disagreed with literal readings also rejected by the Church.

There was an Adam and an Eve. They were tempted by Satan. They disobeyed God. They broke man’s relationship with God. They “fell.” That is history. Was it 6,000 years ago? Was it in a literal garden? We’re their names really Adam and Eve (or their Hebrew equivalents)? Did they sin by literally eating a fruit from a literal tree that God forbade? These are details surrounding the real, historical event that I see as allegory. I don’t say that the Creation and Fallaccount is simply a good, moral story to draw a lesson from (that would be against Church teaching) but that the eating of the forbidden fruit may stand for some other act, or that man walking in the garden with God is a description of man’s relationship with God.

The Catechism expresses the first sin in a general manner, but shows it was to “chose himself over and against God”:

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. 278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

278 Cf. Gen 3:1-11; Rom 5:19.
398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”. 279
279 St. Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua: PG 91,1156C; cf. Gen 3:5.
​

 

[grannymh]

New Thought

From the intelligent internet.

Famous author reports.
"Anselm’s infamous Cur Deus Homo has been called ‘the most unfortunately successful piece of theology ever written.’ "

An additional reference is to the Temple language of debt, atonement, or blood sacrifice as being used in the New Testament may be why some horror drama is appealing to those who are not satisfied with the current Catholic Church.
An horror drama is a sure tool for implying that God cannot be a good God, etc., etc.

 

[Gorgias]

From the intelligent internet.

Or, more to the point, from Richard Rohr.

Let’s look at what he says – not just in soundbites, but in context – in his “A Lever and a Place to Stand”:

St Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans were being true to the Scriptures… (b)ut our Franciscan teacher Blessed John Duns Scotus… said that Jesus wasn’t solving any problems with God. Jesus wasn’t changing God’s mind about us but, rather, he was changing our mind about God.

… The image of the cross was to change us, not to change God, and so Scotus concluded that Jesus’ incarnation and death were not at all necessary… We were not saved because of any problem whatsoever. … As usual, the Franciscans were right, but unfortunately we lost the debate.

Well… that’s chock-full of Franciscan humility!

Someone called it “the most unfortunately successful piece of Christian theology ever written,” because it implied that God was not naturally and unconditionally in love with what God created.

Hmm… so let’s look at this particular piece of calculus: when someone sins, and God allows it but requires them to atone for their sin, that’s proof that God doesn’t “naturally and unconditionally love” them? Well, that’s surprising… since that’s precisely Jesus set up in the sacrament of Reconciliation! Maybe Rohr thinks that this is what Duns Scotus thought, too?

 

[grannymh]

Hmm… so let’s look at this particular piece of calculus: when someone sins, and God allows it but requires them to atone for their sin, that’s proof that God doesn’t “naturally and unconditionally love” them? Well, that’s surprising…

It is not surprising to me because I learned something similar. What I fail to understand is a modern reference to “our sin-drenched humanity” as if there were never an Original Sin by the Original Human. Our many sins are not equal to the Original Sin freely committed by our original ancestor. Interestingly, as far as I can tell, the absence of the real Original Sin is not implied by this reasoning – Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity. Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God – or words to that effect. Thus, I wonder what it really means today.

My gut instinct is that some popular Catholic writers may be changing what the early theologians were explaining in order to comport with emerging progressive Christianity. An example of a change – “Our sin could not possibly be the motive for Divine Incarnation…” Notice “our sin”. Apparently, this Catholic writer ignores some basic fundamental Divine truths which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. He does enjoy the company of a few other Catholics. :sad_yes:

 

[Gorgias]

It is not surprising to me because I learned something similar.

I’m confused. You’re saying that you learned that the necessity of forgiveness for sin is a sign that God doesn’t love us? :dts:

What I fail to understand is a modern reference to “our sin-drenched humanity” as if there were never an Original Sin by the Original Human.

Our many sins are not equal to the Original Sin freely committed by our original ancestor.

So… Adam is more culpable than any of us? Than each of us? That’s not what the Church teaches.

It’s not a question of “whose sin is worse”; rather, the situation is that Original Sin represents who we all are: sinners. If I were Adam and you were Eve, we would’ve sinned, too. The lesson of Original Sin isn’t to point at someone else… it’s that we should recognize a simple truth: I need to point my finger at myself. Period.

Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity. Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God

If God had needed to have His mind changed, He wouldn’t have become incarnate and lived among us; you’re asserting a dichotomy that doesn’t hold up to logic. The dynamic of “changing the mind of humanity about God” only happens by God demonstrating that He still hadn’t given up on us. He does it by freely giving of himself. That’s the Catholic position; that’s what substitutionary atonement really is. It ain’t penal substitution.

 

[Vico]

New Thought

From the intelligent internet.

Famous author reports.
"Anselm’s infamous Cur Deus Homo has been called ‘the most unfortunately successful piece of theology ever written.’ "

An additional reference is to the Temple language of debt, atonement, or blood sacrifice as being used in the New Testament may be why some horror drama is appealing to those who are not satisfied with the current Catholic Church.
An horror drama is a sure tool for implying that God cannot be a good God, etc., etc.

Anselm does not present Penal Substitution.

Penal Substitution: Christ bore the penalty for sin in place of sinners united to him in faith.

Satisfaction View (Anselm): Christ’s death honors God restoring the dishonor of human sin which death being beyond the call of duty for Christ, is superabundant honor by which. Christ’s surplus can repay our deficit.

 

[grannymh]

I’m confused. You’re saying that you learned that the necessity of forgiveness for sin is a sign that God doesn’t love us? :dts:

Yes, that is what I learned from other Catholics.

So… Adam is more culpable than any of us? Than each of us? That’s not what the Church teaches.

Culpable for what?

It’s not a question of “whose sin is worse”; rather, the situation is that Original Sin represents who we all are: sinners. If I were Adam and you were Eve, we would’ve sinned, too. The lesson of Original Sin isn’t to point at someone else… it’s that we should recognize a simple truth: I need to point my finger at myself. Period.

Original Sin is not a representation of we sinners, at least not in the first three chapters of Genesis.

If God had needed to have His mind changed, He wouldn’t have become incarnate and lived among us; you’re asserting a dichotomy that doesn’t hold up to logic. The dynamic of “changing the mind of humanity about God” only happens by God demonstrating that He still hadn’t given up on us. He does it by freely giving of himself. That’s the Catholic position; that’s what substitutionary atonement really is. It ain’t penal substitution.

From post 57. “Interestingly, as far as I can tell, the absence of the real Original Sin is not implied by this reasoning – Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity. Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God – or words to that effect. Thus, I wonder what it really means today.”

As far as I can tell, today’s Catholic teaching is that Jesus came to repair or restore the original friendship relationship between Adam the creature and God the Divine Creator. Jesus put on the sandals of Adam. Is that what you mean by substitutionary atonement? It seems to me that atonement(s) is being used without discussing Genesis 2: 15-17 or discussing the difference between human nature and Divinity when it comes to Original Sin. Come to think of it, how is Original Sin explained in atonement theories? Original Sin is real–even when it is referred to as a fly in the ointment causing havoc with original blessings.