Why did Christ die on the cross? Athanasius, Anselm, and Aquinas(AAA)

[jimmy]

I have been doing some reading and some thinking lately and I have been wondering about the view of salvation.

If you read Athanasius, you see that he says the death and ressurection of Christ was to vanquish death and to make man immortal.

worldinvisible.com/library/athanasius/incarnation/incarnation.c.htm

Augustine and Chrysostom both seem to hold to this view also that Christ came to vanquish death. Aquinas quotes Athanasius on this for one of his reasons why the Passion of Christ was fitting.

ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP046.html

Are there any fathers who talk about it from the perspective of it being an expiation for our sins?

What is the view of the atonement from the Catholic perspective? How much of Anselms doctrine of the Atonement is Catholic teaching? Is it exactly as Anselm taught?

What did Christ bear on the cross? Did he bear our death, which is the consequence of sins, or did he bear each and every one of our sins? Are these even different?

Was it to satisfy justice? I know that Christ did not have to die inorder to satisfy justice, since there is nothing above God justice is based on what he decides is just. Aquinas says

Even this justice depends on the Divine will, requiring satisfaction for sin from the human race. But if He had willed to free man from sin without any satisfaction, He would not have acted against justice. For a judge, while preserving justice, cannot pardon fault without penalty, if he must visit fault committed against another—for instance, against another man, or against the State, or any Prince in higher authority. But God has no one higher than Himself, for He is the sovereign and common good of the whole universe. Consequently, if He forgive sin, which has the formality of fault in that it is committed against Himself, He wrongs no one: just as anyone else, overlooking a personal trespass, without satisfaction, acts mercifully and not unjustly. And so David exclaimed when he sought mercy: “To Thee only have I sinned” (Ps. 50:6), as if to say: “Thou canst pardon me without injustice.”

Justice seems like a pointless arguement, because everything is subject to the will of God, so what is the justice since it would be just if he said that you are forgiven?

It seems that the answer would be more in line with Athanasius than with Anselm.

What I am trying to do is to get the view of the east and the west in comparison. I know the east follows Athanasius and Chysostom on this but I would like to see how the east and west relate to eachother. Can someone help me with this?

 

[Chesster]

jimmy:

Are there any fathers who talk about it from the perspective of it being an expiation for our sins?

Yes but I don’t have the specifics right now.

What is the view of the atonement from the Catholic perspective?

In a nutshell, the Catholic view of the atonement is that it expiates (removes) our sin and reconciles us back to God.

How much of Anselms doctrine of the Atonement is Catholic teaching? Is it exactly as Anselm taught?

A good part of it is but I don’t think it’s exactly as he taught.

What did Christ bear on the cross? Did he bear our death, which is the consequence of sins, or did he bear each and every one of our sins? Are these even different?

Christ bore the burden of expiating our sins on the cross.

Was it to satisfy justice?

Satisfaction for God is repairing the ruptured relationship between Himself and humanity. It’s not about placating His divine wrath, it’s about removing sin and restoring the union He had with man. IOW, it refers to His saving justice not vindictive justice.

What I am trying to do is to get the view of the east and the west in comparison. I know the east follows Athanasius and Chysostom on this but I would like to see how the east and west relate to eachother. Can someone help me with this?

I don’t think the East and West are far from each other on the atonement.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

I think this issue can be approached from a number of sifferent perspectives, many of which are complimentary, and not contradictory.

In other words, this is a case of both/and, not either/or.

 

[jimmy]

Chesster:

Yes but I don’t have the specifics right now.

In a nutshell, the Catholic view of the atonement is that it expiates (removes) our sin and reconciles us back to God.

A good part of it is but I don’t think it’s exactly as he taught.

Christ bore the burden of expiating our sins on the cross.

Satisfaction for God is repairing the ruptured relationship between Himself and humanity. It’s not about placating His divine wrath, it’s about removing sin and restoring the union He had with man. IOW, it refers to His saving justice not vindictive justice.

I don’t think the East and West are far from each other on the atonement.

Thanks for the response.

Can you explain to me the difference between the saving Justice and the vindictive justice?

DominvsVobiscvm:

I think this issue can be approached from a number of sifferent perspectives, many of which are complimentary, and not contradictory.

In other words, this is a case of both/and, not either/or.

It seems like they do compliment eachother and it seems like they aproach it from opposite angles. I think my main problem is understanding how it satisfies Justice.

 

[Chesster]

jimmy:

Can you explain to me the difference between the saving Justice and the vindictive justice?

God tells us in Proverbs 8:31 (Douay-Rheims) “my delights were to be with the children of men.” God wants to be with His children, He can’t stand being separated from us. He is like a father who wants to hold His children but sin prevents Him from wrapping His arms around us. His desire is to remove the obstacle that separates Him from us so He can hug us. When Adam sinned, he separated himself from God and broke that union. God, like any good father who loves his children, sought to reunify Himself to them by removing the sin that separated them. With this in mind the atonement can be understood as a plea from God that says, “My children, you could not overcome the division between us but fear not, I have removed the obstruction that separates us for you, the only thing stopping you now is you! Come to me and give me the hug I so desire from you and I will be satisfied.” Like St. Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:19-20 “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” This is what it means for God to be “satisfied” and this is saving justice.

Vindictive justice is the justice that God exercises as a just Judge in punishing the guilty. Some see the atonement as God inflicted the punishment we deserved on Christ as a penal substitute to satisfy His wrath thus paying Him the penalty we owed for our sins but this is an improper understanding because it’s not just for God to punish an innocent man for others’ sins.

I hope this helps.