 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 08:28 am |
|
I could not find the thread where we discussed this, but I often return to trying to understand (or avoid misunderstandings) of how the cross atones for our sins. I seem to remember Dave A. trying to clear up that Luther had a false view of this. What was this false view?
I find that I like more an emphasis on a view that the cross was not about Jesus enduring the wrath of God or punishment, but more a satisfying payment of love and obedience. This is a quote I like from an Orthodox theologian that was in my church bulletin from Archimandrite Lev Gillet: "Let us reject the "penal" theory which states that the dath of Christ was a punishment inflicted by the Father to atone for trasngressions. The cros would then be a reprisal, a vengeance. The idea of "expiation" is closer to the truth. All idea of vengeance is eliminated and according to which the reparation is made not by suffering as such but by the generous acceptance of suffering, of sacrifice. The theory of "satisfaction" is a step forward from the previous idea. Jesus makes adequate satisfaction through the love and obedience of His homage to the Father in His passion....Through His incarnation Jesus had healed and sanctified human nature. If our Lird chose the cros as the supreme vehicle of this satisfaction, it is because the cross implied the maximum of generosity and love..."
Yet how does this sqaure with doctor of the church St. Thomas Aquinas saying that: "In order that Christ completely shoulder the entire punishment due to sinners He wished not only to die but to descend into hell as a soul"
Now I thought we had said that it was not true that the cross was Jesus taking on the full punishment of sin which would be eternal separation from God in hell and that this is not the reason for his death. I thought he descended in order to free the Spirits awaiting Him there and not to suffer every punishment possible for sin.
Is it possible that St. Thomas is simply wrong or misleading us in this quote? Or is the cross both a payment and a punishment suffered in our place, or is the first quote not entirely true?
How much do we trust everything that is said by a doctor of the church and how much can we question it. I know a lot of Eastern theologicans do not particularly like all of Augustine or Aquinas.
Brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1795 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 11:59 am |
|
I too like the quote from the Orthodox theologian; it is definitely in line with the Catholic view. Your problem with St. Thomas Aquinas is that you misunderstand his use of the word “punishment.” Like all (western) theologians of his time, he uses this word in the sense of “the consequences of sin,” not of direct punishment for the sin itself. Consequences are a result of sin, but are not themselves sin. This is how Christ remained sinless and why he was not literally consigned to hell (the “hell” of the creed, and in the citation from Aquinas, actually referring to the realm of the dead, hades in Greek and sheol in Hebrew). I believe Martin Luther made the same mistake.
Many of our problems with doctrine and theology (regardless of the tradition we follow) are a question of words. Note how Luther’s doctrines of satisfaction, justification and salvation all dovetail into his misunderstanding of medieval terminology on this simple point of “punishment.” It can also be mentioned that the otherwise excellent modern Catholic theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar apparently had a similar misconception, because at one point he suggested that Christ had to enter literally into hell and experience the torments there in order to pay our debt of sin. Personally, I do not see how this would be possible, given that the person of Christ is one of the Persons of the divine Trinity, and hell is a state of utter and eternal separation from God. Fortunately, one can be forgiven a passing theological speculation, which is not the same as insisting on a false doctrine and becoming a heretic.
David
|
|
|
TotusTuus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 118 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic (thanks Mom and Dad!) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 02:09 pm |
|
Before we dismiss Saint Thomas on this issue, I think we need to keep in mind that Scripture uses a number of images and metaphors to understand the mystery of the redemption. I think the mistake would be to glom onto one of these biblical images as exhausting the full reality. However, it is undeniable that Scripture does, on occasion, employ "penal" metaphors to explain the redemption. The "certificate of debt", for example, is a concept that lies behind Paul's comments in Colossians 2:13-14:And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
In Roman times, this certificate was a list of crimes committed against the state that required "payment," much like an indictment in our legal system today. The Romans gave Jesus a certificate of debt when He was sentenced to die; it was nailed to the cross: "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews" (John 19:19). When the crimes were paid for, the certificate was canceled and was stamped with the word tetelestai, meaning "paid in full."
Paul says that Jesus "canceled out" (paid) our certificate of debt (v14).
It would be a mistake to say that this metaphor expresses the full reality of the redemption (which is ultimately a mystery of love rather than discipline or vengence). However, I don't think we can dismiss the biblical images entirely either ...
Last edited on Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 02:13 pm by TotusTuus
____________________
TTM!
|
|
|
TotusTuus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 118 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic (thanks Mom and Dad!) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 02:24 pm |
|
In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas gives the following five reasons for why the Crucifixion of Jess was the most suitable way for our redemption (III. Q.46, Art. 3). They are worth pondering during this Holy Week:
In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says (Romans 5:8): "God commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us."
Secondly, because thereby He set us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are requisite for man's salvation. Hence it is written (1 Peter 2:21): "Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps."
Thirdly, because Christ by His Passion not only delivered man from sin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss, as shall be shown later (48, 1; 49, 1, 5).
Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to 1 Corinthians 6:20: "You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body."
Fifthly, because it redounded to man's greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 15:57): "Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." It was accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ's Passion than simply by God's good-will.
As St. Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): "There was no other more suitable way of healing our misery" than by the Passion of Christ.
____________________
TTM!
|
|
|
TotusTuus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 31st, 2006 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 118 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic (thanks Mom and Dad!) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 02:35 pm |
|
Father John Hardon, SJ offers the following reflection of St. Thomas' full vision of the redemption:
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Christology/Christology_025.htm
If the Incarnation was determined by God because of man's sin, so the sufferings and death of Christ were chosen because they are so effective in redeeming from sin. Absolutely speaking, God might have saved man without the Passion, but then we should have been deprived of innumerable benefits.
Seeing God suffering in His humanity proves as nothing else how much He loves us, since the willingness to endure pain is a perfect index to measure the depth of one's love. In the same way, Christ's suffering reflected a host of virtues-‑obedience, humility, constancy and justice--all lucid examples for us to follow. But most important is the ontological relation between Christ's death and our redemption. It was through His pains that we were redeemed.Christ's Passion is the cause of our salvation in various ways-- efficient cause when to His Godhead (as God He is the creator of divine grace); the meritorious cause when related to His human will (He freely chose to suffer death in His body); the satisfying cause in that it liberates us from the debt of punishment (Christ vicariously suffered that we might be relieved of pain that was due to our sins); the redemptive cause in that it frees us from the bondage of sin (guilt is remitted and the estrangement caused by sin is removed); and the sacrificial cause in that it reconciles us with God (from enemies of God, we become once more His friends). (59) Christ's role in our redemption was that of mediator between God and His people. As the name implies, the office of mediator is to join opposing parties, where both extremes meet in a middle. To achieve our union with God is Christ's work: "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself." (60) He alone is the perfect mediator between God and men, since the human race was brought into agreement with God through His death: "There is one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ," says St. Paul, and then adds, "who gave Himself as a ransom for all." (61)
A closer scrutiny of Christ's function as mediator reveals that Aquinas developed Soteriology at this point quite beyond those who preceded him, even St. Anselm.
As originally conceived, satisfaction meant the compensation for a debt to be paid or an offense to be expiated. St. Anselm (1033-1109 A.D.) first gave the term theological currency in reference to the Atonement, by interpreting Christ's death as a sufficient vicarious satisfaction for the sins of the world. Prior to Anselm, the mainstream of patristic tradition stressed the negative side of the Redemption, namely, the ransoming from the slavery of sin and the devil. Anselm shifted the emphasis to the contemplation of the guilt of sin. Sin is an insult offered to God, and therefore infinite because an offense to the Infinite. It demands an infinite expiation which only a divine Person can achieve.
Aquinas went along with Anselm in accepting his satisfactional view of the Redemption. But he was unwilling to say that the method of satisfaction was imperative. No matter how "suitable" (conveniens) the method was, it had no intrinsic necessity, because God might have redeemed us without requiring full satisfaction.
In the circumstances, though, Christ's satisfaction was more than adequate. Whereas the offense against God was perpetrated by a finite being, it was only morally infinite (directed against God). Satisfaction on Christ's part, however, was objectively and morally infinite; it was done by a Divine Person suffering in the humanity He assumed.
In Thomistic theology, three elements concur to make satisfaction effective: love, justice and pain. Justice was required on the premise that God was offended and therefore God must repair; pain was required because where sin had been committed through seeking pleasure, its expiation must involve the infliction of pain. But love is what most constitutes satisfaction and, with Christ, was such that its merits far exceed the malice (or opposite of divine love) which called for reparation.Strict satisfaction is rendered when the person offended is given what he loves as much as, or more than, he hated the offense. By suffering from charity, Christ offered to God more than what was demanded as recompense for the sin of the entire human race. First, from the greatness of his charity. Secondly, from the preciousness of the life he laid down, the life of a man who was God. Thirdly, by the extent and depth of what was accepted. Christ's Passion was more than sufficient, it was superabundant. "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (62) Head and members make up, as it were, one mystical body. Therefore the amends made by Christ are made also by all his members. For when two persons live in friendship, one may make satisfaction for the other. It is true that one cannot act as a substitute for the other's contrition and confession. Satisfaction, however, is an external deed, for which we adopt auxiliaries, among which are reckoned our friends. (63)
____________________
TTM!
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1795 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 2nd, 2008 06:29 pm |
|
Terrific research, Mark. It fills out my quick sketch nicely.
Paul says that Jesus "canceled out" (paid) our certificate of debt (v14).
It would be a mistake to say that this metaphor expresses the full reality of the redemption (which is ultimately a mystery of love rather than discipline or vengence). However, I don't think we can dismiss the biblical images entirely either.
Correct. This biblical image is why St. Thomas used the word “punishment.” We just need to remember that in spite of being divinely inspired, scripture is not a theological tract.
Head and members make up, as it were, one mystical body. Therefore the amends made by Christ are made also by all his members. For when two persons live in friendship, one may make satisfaction for the other. It is true that one cannot act as a substitute for the other's contrition and confession. Satisfaction, however, is an external deed, for which we adopt auxiliaries, among which are reckoned our friends.
This is one of the major differences between Lutheran and Catholic thought on the redemption: The “exterior deed” of the redemption is not just something done for an undeserving friend. It is that, but it is also the friend’s deed, insofar as he is one with the other, as the members of the Church are members of Christ himself. This is why Catholics believe that the Christian is actually made holy by partaking in the sacrifice of Christ.
|
|
|
Catholic Dude
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| First Name: | Nick | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 3rd, 2008 08:57 pm |
|
brian wrote: I could not find the thread where we discussed this, but I often return to trying to understand (or avoid misunderstandings) of how the cross atones for our sins. I seem to remember Dave A. trying to clear up that Luther had a false view of this. What was this false view?
I find that I like more an emphasis on a view that the cross was not about Jesus enduring the wrath of God or punishment, but more a satisfying payment of love and obedience. This is a quote I like from an Orthodox theologian that was in my church bulletin from Archimandrite Lev Gillet: "Let us reject the "penal" theory which states that the dath of Christ was a punishment inflicted by the Father to atone for trasngressions. The cros would then be a reprisal, a vengeance. The idea of "expiation" is closer to the truth. All idea of vengeance is eliminated and according to which the reparation is made not by suffering as such but by the generous acceptance of suffering, of sacrifice. The theory of "satisfaction" is a step forward from the previous idea. Jesus makes adequate satisfaction through the love and obedience of His homage to the Father in His passion....Through His incarnation Jesus had healed and sanctified human nature. If our Lird chose the cros as the supreme vehicle of this satisfaction, it is because the cross implied the maximum of generosity and love..."
Yet how does this sqaure with doctor of the church St. Thomas Aquinas saying that: "In order that Christ completely shoulder the entire punishment due to sinners He wished not only to die but to descend into hell as a soul"
Now I thought we had said that it was not true that the cross was Jesus taking on the full punishment of sin which would be eternal separation from God in hell and that this is not the reason for his death. I thought he descended in order to free the Spirits awaiting Him there and not to suffer every punishment possible for sin.
Is it possible that St. Thomas is simply wrong or misleading us in this quote? Or is the cross both a payment and a punishment suffered in our place, or is the first quote not entirely true?
How much do we trust everything that is said by a doctor of the church and how much can we question it. I know a lot of Eastern theologicans do not particularly like all of Augustine or Aquinas.
Brian
Brian,
I am very interested in this topic. I am not a theolgian by any means, but I have looked into the issue. You are correct that Catholics have a very different view of the Atonement than Protestants.
Read my apologetics article chapter 2 for my take on it, I have a quote from St Thomas there too:
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/article.htm
About YOUR quote above from St Thomas, I have never read or heard of it, I also could not find it on a google search. I suspect it either doesnt exist or was misquoted. If it is genuine I would like to see some context.
I highly doubt St Thomas was talking about Christ entering "hell" as in hellfire, that is heretical (and in fact an error which some Protestants embrace). The Apostle's Creed "He decended into 'hell' " means he preached to the Spirits in Prison (1 Pt 3:19 + 4:6), not hellfire.
I believe it is nothing short of a Christological heresy to say God the Father unleashed His Wrath on God the Son. It is not Catholic at all. Im thinking about writing an article on this issue.
Last edited on Thu Apr 3rd, 2008 08:59 pm by Catholic Dude
____________________
Abraham was first justified in Gen 12:
Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham:"All nations will be blessed through you. [Gen 12:3]"
-Gal 3:8 (Heb 11:8)
|
|
|
Current time is 11:23 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
