atonement

[dairygirl4u2c]

I have a question I have been asking various Christians and figured I
would ask phatmass. I figure Catholics believe in atonement with the
same rationale. I have a few questions. For a general question, what
is the rationale behind the atonement considering my ideas below?

I believe I am a sinner, and that Jesus is my savior. But I honestly
don't know what that savior bit means completely. For me right now,
it'd seem to mean that Jesus can reach people when no one else can, taught important lessons, can mediate between God and people, and can spiritally guide. The traditional idea of savior in addition to those is that God is both just and loving, but must somehow reconcile justly our sins. The idea is that any sin is infinitely wrong and takes an infinite payment to reconcile. The only way to do that according to most Christians is for Jesus to die as a legal sacrafice and pay that legal debt to God. God decides as judge to make the sentence, but as a father he decides to come down from the bench, and takes the punishment.

With that said, why would God to choose to demonstrate his love in that way? By requiring the death of his son as a legal atonement? I can understand how God might demonstrate his love for us through death, as a consequence of human sin, to reach us and live and be willing to die in truth. But to require it to appease his justice seems somewhat archaic to me.

It'd seem real love could just forgive. Moreover, it'd seem any notions of justice can be satisfied by virtue of sins consequences. When you abuse your sexuality for example, you experience emptiness etc. Every sin has consequenes that could be argued to be equal to the sin. Justice is then per sin, not infinite, and does not require an infinitely legal atonement.

Maybe even God would gladly allow people to think this atonement theory is true when its really not if that's the way they understand love even when it's not true. Atonement seems a carnal human understanding, not divine. Maybe that's why he did it, to reach us, I don't know. But that seems like a cheap way to create truth. Of course, I admit I could very well be blaspheming truth; the bible does support that atonement idea pretty well in four sections (but really only those ones very clearly anyway). (mostly paul, however, and not much from the gosples) Is this what it comes down to? Just because that's what the bible says? Do you believe in that if you were God (not that we are, but we do reflect him etc)?

Just more ideas please. Maybe I'm missing something. Also more versus about the atonement would be appreciated. Right now I got Isiah 53, Romans 3, Ephesians 1 and 1 John. (though really only Romans is THAT clear, though even that could use more explanation)

Edited April 14, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[rkwright]

I would recommend this article on newadvent (its short, took maybe 10 mins to read) [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm"]Doctrine of Atonement[/url]

I'll post some important parts...
First its important to understand the purpose of The Atonement. Its more than just the sins you committ in every day life, its to raise man from that orginal sin that makes us all fallen creatures. The Greek Father's see the atonement more as a restoring of our fallen nature than a court room drama.

St. Anslem's view on the atonement
[quote]Anselm's answer to the question is simply the need of satisfaction of sin. No sin, as he views the matter, can be forgiven without satisfactlon. A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. The suggestion that some innocent man, or angel, might possibly pay the debt incurred by sinners is rejected, on the ground that in any case this would put the sinner under obligation to his deliverer, and he would thus become the servant of a mere creature. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was by the coming of a Redeemer who is both God and man. His death makes full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, for it is something greater than all the sins of all rnankind. Many side questions are incidentally treated in the dialogue between Anselm and Boso. But this is the substance of the answer given to the great question, "Cur Deus Homo?".[/quote]

Now one should be careful not to take the idea of debts, or a legal system too far. It was the protestant reformers that did just that and have ended up portraying the passion as a court room in which Jesus the Son endures the punishment of our sins.

From newadvent again
[quote]And his case was possibly no exception among Protestant religionists. In their general conception on the atonement the Reformers and their followers happily preserved the Catholic doctrine, at least in its main lines. And in their explanation of the merit of Christ's sufferings and death we may see the influence of St. Thomas and the other great Schoolmen. But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.

    * The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. [b]But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.[/b]
    * The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins. [/quote]

[quote]That great doctrine has been faintly set forth in figures taken from man's laws and customs. It is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom, or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt. But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, "making peace through the blood of His Cross".[/quote]

Hope that helps.

[dairygirl4u2c]

any other ideas?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1384876' date='Sep 13 2007, 01:49 PM']any other ideas?[/quote]Yeah, but we'd have to be kicked back in comfortable chairs or outside under some trees drinking beer or fresh squeezed lemonade.

[CatherineM]

I view it from the prospective of a parent. I taught my boys that it was important to say that they were sorry, but making amends was even more important. That showed the person that you harmed that you felt sorry enough to try to make it right. Plus, if they really didn't feel sorry, having to do something for the person they wronged, might put them in the other person's shoes long enough for some empathy to kick in.

When it comes to God the Father sending his son for our atonement, my Christology professor this summer said that if God didn't require some kind of atonement, it is like a parent forgiving a child without a consequence. The child learns nothing. If nothing else, hopefully we learned something from Christ's sacrifice.

I have always personally believed (and have no theology to back this up) that the one thing an omnipotent being can't know is how it feels to not know everything, to be afraid, or to be lonely, or hopeless. I've always viewed Christ's biggest sacrifice was to temporarily give up being totally omnipotent to become human. In a way, his coming allowed him to understand why we humans have so much trouble staying out of sin. That sacrifice allowed the Father to forgive us.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the sacrafice of becoming human i can see saving us. but that doesn't explain why a death secrafice is legally amending.
i can seeing making amends as per your kids. but that doesn't explain how jesus dying makes amends. if i break a lamp, i fix the lamp. i don't kill my kid.
but then, sins are such many times of having no way to amend like you can fix a lamp. you can't fix adultery or pride other than to stop, it's been done. so a more metaphysical sacrafice and symbolic might be better. i think that's why it gets into the infinte v finite wrongs that i had mentioned. and i still don't know why we'd assume they are infinite wrongs necessarily.

the fact the sin has been done lends itself to being something infiite. but the sacrafice doesn't make the sin as if it didn't happen, cause it did. so i still don't know.

Edited September 14, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

plus you get into the ideas that the thing that has been done cant be undone, and so is infinitely wrong on the good God. so if you make that argument, which is somewhat reasonable, then you'd need to talk about how jesus fixes it.

it can't be fixed as per a lamp we established. but something needs to be done. if jesus died though, and didn't die forever, is that really an infinite fix? perhaps, even though it wasn't permanent, it was from the infinite God who died, and can so fix an infinite wrong even though not "fixing a lamp" or undoing anything or being permanent death.

perhaps that's why this life exists. mortal life was created so that jesus could die to cover our sins. if it was purely infinte life to begin with, jesus would have to die being dead forever, and that just causes way too mnay theological difficulties to get into.
this does reconcile with how christians always seem to blindly talk about how this whole life is about the death of jesus. perhaps they don't know the reasons, but they do know it's true and it is perhaps. the fact so many think that helps me accept my theory of atonement here, maybe it's true. even if my ideas are flawed, if i can explain it to make sense to me, then that's enough...
maybe.

other probelms related is why the punishment of sin is death though....

Edited September 14, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Hirsap]

Here I hope to outline briefly Church teaching on the matter.

Firstly, let's consider the [b]necessity[/b] of the Atonement. If God's Justice is to be satisfied (remembering, that mortal sin is an 'infinite' offence against God), then it is [b]impossible except through the Incarnation.[/b]. That is, only Jesus Christ can perform acts of infinite merit (being a Divine Person), hence properly satisfy the justice of God. Whereas any creature cannot, obviously. Jesus Christ, being both God and man, can act on 'behalf' of man - as a Mediator, paying the debt of man - but must be God in order to be able to perform actions of infinite merit, hence satisfying the justice of God. However, whilst this may be the case, the Incarnation was not necessary to effect pardon of man's sins. God could have pardoned man's sins without a satisfactory atonement. But in reality, a satisfactory atonement has occured.

Secondly, the nature of the Atonement. Was it necessary for Christ to suffer in the way He did to satisfy the justice of God? No. Since any action of Christ is of an infinite merit, in theory, any action he performs is sufficient to satisfy the justice of God. ([i]I'm pretty sure this is correct; correct my if I'm wrong anyone[/i]) He did suffer in the way He did to impress upon the true evil of sin, not to mention His Love for us.