Doctrine of the Atonement

[at0m1c]

What is the difference between the Catholic and Protestant view?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='at0m1c' post='1015404' date='Jun 30 2006, 11:02 PM']
What is the difference between the Catholic and Protestant view?
[/quote]
well, its hard to ever speak of [b][i]the[/i][/b] "protestant view" b/c their is no unified belief among protestantism, but there are at least two differences that i see alot:

[b]1.[/b] alot of times, they'll say "God atoned for our sin, therefore we don't have to do anything." they don't understand that appropriation of the merits of Christ's work on the cross requires action on our part. we have to choose Christ, and we have to receive his grace in the manner in which he has chosen to grant it to us (through love, suffering, penance, the sacraments, etc.). protestants tend to be "Pelagianophobic" (i just made up that word). in other words, they are fearful of attributing any merit to the work of man, even when it is a work motivated by the grace of God. in their zeal to give all glory to God they turn man into a robot.
[b]2.[/b] they also tend to think that from the atonement righteousness is [i]imputed[/i] to us. this means that God merely declares us righteous, even tho we remain filthy. this differs from the catholic view of [b][i]infused[/i][/b] righteousness, in which God's grace penetrates deep into the very marrow of our being and changes us, transforms us, makes us [b][i]truly clean[/i][/b].

of course, there are probably many other differences as well. perhaps a convert can list some more.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[jswranch]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jun 30 2006, 11:26 PM' post='1015616']of course, there are probably many other differences as well. perhaps a convert can list some more[quote]

That pretty much sums the beliefs. Others are closer to the Catholic version (Anglican/Episcopal).

Some other items:
Cloak of judgemental invisibility (my term)- Chistians are justified by the sacrifice of christ, who was innocent of any crime. As they are covered in the blood of Jesus, no gavel of judgement will come down upon any christian for any sin. After conversion, no repentance is necessary. All lessons and practices of the OT are non-binding and obsolete (Heb 8-13).

[jswranch]

Atonement can also refer to who/how Jesus' sacrifice covers. Here is a quote from [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp"]Jimmy Akin's 'Tiptoe Through Tulip' in comparing predstination doctrines[/url] and 5 point Calvinism, which includes Limited Atonement:

[quote]Limited atonement

Calvinists believe the atonement is limited, that Christ offered it for some men but not for all. They claim Christ died only for the elect. To prove this they cite verses which say Christ died for his sheep (John 10:11), for his friends (John 15:13-14a), and for the Church (Acts 20:28, Eph. 5:25). [Calvinists view these groups as identical with the elect. This assumption is false. Not all who are at one time Christ's sheep or Christ's friends remain so (see below on perseverance of the saints). Similarly, not all who are in the Church are among the elect].

One cannot use these verses to prove Christ died only for the elect. A person may be said to have given himself for one person or group without denying that he gave himself for others as well. [Suppose a father sacrifices his life in order to save an endangered group of people that includes his family plus two friends. He might be said to have given himself for his family, even though the group he saved also included other people]. Biblical proof of this principle is found in Galatians 2:20, where Paul says that Christ "loved me and gave himself for me," not at all implying that Christ did not also give himself for other people. That Christ is said to have given himself in a special way for his sheep, his friends, or the Church cannot be used to prove Christ did not also give himself for all men in a different way.

The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for all men. John 4:42 describes Christ as "the Savior of the world," and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." These passages, as well as the official teaching of the Church, [See Ott, 188f], require the Catholic to affirm that Christ died to atone for all men.

Aquinas stated, "Christ's passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, 'He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.'" [ST III:48:2].

This is not to say there is no sense in which limitation may be ascribed to the atonement. While the grace it provided is sufficient to pay for the sins of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put into effect) in the case of everyone. One may say that although the sufficiency of the atonement is not limited, its efficiency is limited. This is something everyone who believes in hell must acknowledge because, if the atonement was made efficacious for everyone, then no one would end up in hell.

The difference between the atonement's sufficiency and its efficiency accounts for Paul's statement that God is "the Savior of all men, especially those who believe." [1 Timothy 4:10]. God is the Savior of all men because he arranged a sacrifice sufficient for all men. He is the Savior of those who believe in a special and superior sense because these have the sacrifice made efficacious for them. According to Aquinas, "[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect." [Commentary on Titus, I, 2:6.].

A Catholic also may say that, in going to the cross, Christ intended to make salvation possible for all men, but he did not intend to make salvation actual for all men--otherwise we would have to say that Christ went to the cross intending that all men would end up in heaven. This is clearly not the case. [Matthew 18:7-9, 22:13, 24:40f, 51, 25:30, Mark 9:48, Luke 3:17, 16:19-31, and especially Matthew 7:13f, 26:24, Luke 13:23ff, and Acts 1:25.]. A Catholic therefore may say that the atonement is limited in efficacy, if not in sufficiency, and that God intended it to be this way. [Although one must be sure to maintain that God desires the salvation of all men, as the Catholic Church teaches. 1 Timothy 2:4 states God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." See also Ezekiel 33:11. This does not conflict with God's intent to save only some, since a person may desire one thing but intend another. A father may desire to not punish his son, but he may intend to do so nonetheless]. While a Catholic could not say that the atonement was limited in that it was made only for the elect, he could say that the atonement was limited in that God only intended it to be efficacious for the elect (although he intended it to be sufficient for all). [Some Calvinists are unhappy with the statement that the atonement is limited. They prefer saying that Christ made a "particular redemption" rather than a "limited atonement." These mean the same thing, but the former destroys the TULIP acrostic, so the latter is normally used].[/quote]

[Justified Saint]

Views on the atonement often refer to the exent that one subscribes to the "satisfaction theory" as first introduced by St. Anselm. The basic premise is well understood: Christ took the place of mankind on the cross, effecting the perfect sacrifice. In an interesting passage of Ratzinger's [i]Introduction to Christianity[/i] he challenges Anselm's theory both in its classical and "vulgarized" form. While accepting the basic thinking behind the atonement, as it is well represented by the Christian tradition, he finds that it can easily reduce salvation history to a rigid legal determinism that "looks cruelly mechanical and less and less feasible."

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1017498' date='Jul 5 2006, 09:45 AM']
Views on the atonement often refer to the exent that one subscribes to the "satisfaction theory" as first introduced by St. Anselm. The basic premise is well understood: Christ took the place of mankind on the cross, effecting the perfect sacrifice. In an interesting passage of Ratzinger's [i]Introduction to Christianity[/i] he challenges Anselm's theory both in its classical and "vulgarized" form. While accepting the basic thinking behind the atonement, as it is well represented by the Christian tradition, he finds that it can easily reduce salvation history to a rigid legal determinism that "looks cruelly mechanical and less and less feasible."
[/quote]

Actually, the above is either a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of St. Anselm's theory of atonement, which can be found in his [i]Cur Deus Homo[/i]. In matter of fact, Anselm's doctrine of atonement does not immediately concern the [i]death[/i] of Christ, but rather, his [i]life[/i]. In St. Anselm's understanding, it is the Incarnation that effects our salvation by offering to God what was due to him, namely, Man living out his ultimate vocation via an upright will. The Crucifixion and death is significant, not because a blood-debt was paid to God, but rather, because Christ lived an upright life that was [i]obedient, even unto death, death on a Cross[/i]. Thus, even in dealing with the Crucifixion, St. Anselm's emphasis turns us always towards the [i]life[/i] of Christ.

Now it is true that many after Anselm have appropriated or misinterpreted his theory, laying the emphasis on the death of Christ as being the principle act of atonement for our sins, but this is not how the good Doctor of the Church intended his theory to be understood. This reinterpretation of atonement theory does indeed lead to an overly legalistic view, but it is a view that Anselm would have rejected.

Given that the author of the above post has simply paraphrased the Holy Father, rather than actually quoting his book, I cannot respond to the comment made regarding the supposed rejection of the "classical" form of Anselm's theory. However, if the Holy Father does, in actual fact, criticise St. Anselm himself, I must submit that I think he has either misunderstood Anselm's argument, or he is criticizing what he believes to be Anselm's position, but is in fact not. Either way, I cannot adequately respond without the actual quote.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1017601' date='Jul 5 2006, 11:14 AM']
Actually, the above is either a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of St. Anselm's theory of atonement, which can be found in his [i]Cur Deus Homo[/i]. In matter of fact, Anselm's doctrine of atonement does not immediately concern the [i]death[/i] of Christ, but rather, his [i]life[/i]. In St. Anselm's understanding, it is the Incarnation that effects our salvation by offering to God what was due to him, namely, Man living out his ultimate vocation via an upright will. The Crucifixion and death is significant, not because a blood-debt was paid to God, but rather, because Christ lived an upright life that was [i]obedient, even unto death, death on a Cross[/i]. Thus, even in dealing with the Crucifixion, St. Anselm's emphasis turns us always towards the [i]life[/i] of Christ.

Now it is true that many after Anselm have appropriated or misinterpreted his theory, laying the emphasis on the death of Christ as being the principle act of atonement for our sins, but this is not how the good Doctor of the Church intended his theory to be understood. This reinterpretation of atonement theory does indeed lead to an overly legalistic view, but it is a view that Anselm would have rejected.

Given that the author of the above post has simply paraphrased the Holy Father, rather than actually quoting his book, I cannot respond to the comment made regarding the supposed rejection of the "classical" form of Anselm's theory. However, if the Holy Father does, in actual fact, criticise St. Anselm himself, I must submit that I think he has either misunderstood Anselm's argument, or he is criticizing what he believes to be Anselm's position, but is in fact not. Either way, I cannot adequately respond without the actual quote.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[/quote]


The final phrase of my post is in quotes and comes from the pope's summary of Anselm's theory in the book. Ratzinger engages in an extended discussion of the theory that is a few pages long so I tried my best to give a concise summary of his critique. I'll see about getting some more substantial passages later when I have time.

Perhaps we could work this out since it seems rather unbecoming for a future pope to so misread Anselm. That said, once again I claim no expertise on Anselm since I have not read his work in question. Speaking of which, could you recommend any editions of Anselm's that contains his most important works in one volume? What can I say, you have piqued my interest, which is of course a good thing.

[phatcatholic]

what are the page numbers where he says this? i have the book and i would like to look it up and read it for myself.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='1017777' date='Jul 5 2006, 03:24 PM']
what are the page numbers where he says this? i have the book and i would like to look it up and read it for myself.
[/quote]

If you are reading from the new edition, the relevant passages can be found on pages 230-234. I am hoping to post some select passages and a general outline of Ratzinger's critique later tonight (a summary which is essentially the same as my earlier post). However, I suspect after posting the passages, Jeff's earlier response would more or less stand the same as it is.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1017802' date='Jul 5 2006, 07:22 PM']
If you are reading from the new edition, the relevant passages can be found on pages 230-234. I am hoping to post some select passages and a general outline of Ratzinger's critique later tonight (a summary which is essentially the same as my earlier post). However, I suspect after posting the passages, Jeff's earlier response would more or less stand the same as it is.
[/quote]
thanks bro