Belief In Atonement

[dairygirl4u2c]

so many prots say an essential requirement of belief is that you believe in atonement in the sense of legal satisfaction. the CC teaches that whether the atonement in the sense of legal satisfaction is true or not, is not defined doctrine and in facts many saints differ on what atonement means. So, the CC teach as optional what others hold as essential.
for prots here are disagree with the CC's silence on what's to you an essential matter, is this what's the killing blow to CC teaching? is it that CC teaches you ahve to earn through God's grace your salvation? which of these is worse in your opinion?

[jesussaves]

These cannot be separated. If the catholic church would properly teach the necessity of atonment, they would not be in err about faith and graced works. That is, if they had the crucial premise that the atonement paid the price, they would not need to worry about getting saved by graced works.

As is, the church does not understand properly, like a christian who believes in Jesus, but really has no substance to their belief and their belief is to no avail even if it's more than mere mental assent. The only substance the church applies in belief to Jesus is the subtle but damnable heresy that Jesus allowed us the possiblity to earn our salvation by graced works.

[Guest T-Bone]

[b][color="#FF0000"][size=7]The Church does not teach salvation through works.[/size]
[/color][/b]

I would really appreciate it if you protestants would stop trying to tell us what the Church teaches.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1256931' date='Apr 26 2007, 01:54 PM']These cannot be separated. If the catholic church would properly teach the necessity of atonment, they would not be in err about faith and graced works. That is, if they had the crucial premise that the atonement paid the price, they would not need to worry about getting saved by graced works.

As is, the church does not understand properly, like a christian who believes in Jesus, but really has no substance to their belief and their belief is to no avail even if it's more than mere mental assent. The only substance the church applies in belief to Jesus is the subtle but damnable heresy that Jesus allowed us the possiblity to earn our salvation by graced works.[/quote]
We believe in atonement: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm[/url]

The Catholic Church does not, at all, teach that Jesus Christ gave us the ability to save ourselves, nor that we have to save ourselves, nor that we do save ourselves. That's false and you know better. We've had this discussion, you and I, and I showed quite clearly that the Church did not teach that.

I know that Protestants are trained to use the Roman Road and such, and that they can come to uncatechized Catholics, tell them falsely what the Church allegedly believes, and in light of that, preach the Roman Road as if it makes far more sense, but that only works when you're dealing with people who don't know the Catholic Church's teachings. The problem, it seems to me, is that you are all so set in your formulas that you cannot think theologically on your own to decide how to debate us outside of the context of those formulas. Well, your formula only works for those who don't know that it's based on false premises. We know that it is. Therefore, your formula will not work on us. I, for one, would appreciate it if you would try to hold an actual discussion with us on the theology behind our beliefs, rather than simply trying to convert us (which you can't do, especially not with your present argument, which doesn't actually attempt to speak to us on our level).

God bless,

Micah

[jesussaves]

Yes we have had the discussion before. I am trying to be fair to your church by saying "graced works". I recognize you do not consider yourself to have earned your salvation. I think it's semantics and when it comes down to it, you do believe it, in as far as you are cooperating with the grace. God does not make us zombies who cooperate with the grace. It's all our free will.

I acknowledge that your church does not believe you can earn your salvation without God, through your own works without grace, or by the works of the law.

EDIT: thinking back to our discussions, maybe i should say you earn your salvation by not sinning. "not sinning mortally by grace" I would call that a "work", but it is significant difference in a theological discussion.
EDIT: I don't think we finalized why Trent says increasing in justification requires increasing in sanctification, equating them. I suppose to make your statement work that you are not saved by works means that we are saved by increasing, to a least some degree however small that may be.

Edited April 27, 2007 by jesussaves

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1257316' date='Apr 26 2007, 06:32 PM']Yes we have had the discussion before. I am trying to be fair to your church by saying "graced works". I recognize you do not consider yourself to have earned your salvation.[/quote]

So if Church Teaching does not claim this, why do you believe we do?

[quote]
I think it's semantics and when it comes down to it, you do believe it, in as far as you are cooperating with the grace.
[/quote]Why do you insist on telling us what we believe?


[quote]
I acknowledge that your church does not believe you can earn your salvation without God, through your own works without grace, or by the works of the law.[/quote]

Then why do you continue the claim that we believe in "works"?

[quote]EDIT: thinking back to our discussions, maybe i should say you earn your salvation by not sinning. "not sinning mortally by grace" I would call that a "work", but it is significant difference in a theological discussion.[/quote]

Once again, this is not Church Teaching.

[jesussaves]

What exactly is not church teaching as per the last quote you responded to? If you commit a mortal sin, you go to hell, in your church. Perhaps I shouldn't say not sinning is a work. Perhaps you think we are zombies. I'm not sure what your beef is exactly.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1257338' date='Apr 26 2007, 07:09 PM']What exactly is not church teaching as per the last quote you responded to?y.[/quote]

Why don't you tell me.

You are the one making false accusations.

[The Joey-O]

This is something I am very interested, and I am just beginning to write my Master's Thesis on comparing various atonement models. There are 5 basic atonement models: The Ransom Model, the Christus Victor Model, the Blood-Sacrifice Model, the Reconciliation/Alienation Model and the Penal-Justification Model.

(This is gunna be a rough-shot, but here goes:)

The Ransom Model basically says that the Devil held our souls hostage and Christ descended into Hell to pay the ransom. This model has been spurratically popular throughout history all the way back to the New Testament.

The Christus Victor Model basically says that Christ conquored the Devil on the Cross. This model is especially popular with the Greek Orthodox (or so I've been told).

The Blood-Sacrifice Model basically says that Christ's sacrificial act on the Cross was in the line of and the ultimate fulfillment of the Jewish atonement sacrifices. This is based strongly on Jewish understandings of sacrifice. It is prominant in the Roman Catholic Mass.

The Reconciliation/Alienation Model basically says that Christ became man and died on the Cross to bring us back to God. We were alienated by our own actions, Christ reconciled us. This is currently popular just about everywhere.

The Penal-Justification Model basically says that Christ stepped in and bore the wrath of God that humanity deserved. This model is popular with Protestants in general and very popular with Fundamentalist Protestants. Many people have all manner of problems with this model, ranging from accusations of "Divine-Child-Abuse" and not accounting for the human will.

From my understanding, there are dogmatic and doctrinal definitions that Roman Catholic Church supports about atonement, but the Church doesn't give explicite favoritism to a specific model.

[dairygirl4u2c]

which do you belive joey?
it's interesting there's not a whole lot in the bible on it.

there's isaiah 53. there's "gave his life as a ransom for man" and a couple others. and a few references to blood in hte letters of paul and the others apostles.

and here is this, thought it's not that complete.
[url="http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html"]http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html[/url]

Edited April 27, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1258071' date='Apr 27 2007, 02:55 PM']which do you belive joey?
it's interesting there's not a whole lot in the bible on it.

there's isaiah 53. there's "gave his life as a ransom for man" and a couple others. and a few references to blood in hte letters of paul and the others apostles.

and here is this, thought it's not that complete.
[url="http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html"]http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html[/url][/quote]

I briefly reviewed the article and it is indeed a very fair, balanced introduction to atonement theology. I would add that an investigation into the various accounts of the Fall is needed in order to understand why Christ did what He did. Also, it wasn't explicitely stated (but was indeed implied) that you cannot have a good understanding of atonement without an account of why and how the Incarnation, the Death and the Resurrection contribute to our atonement.

Personally, I don't believe one atonement model need be glorified. I think it's wise to only make dogmatic/doctrinal definitions (like the ones at the conclusion of the article) to describe how Christ atones. I believe the article was a bit too hard on the Ransom model. I believe that we gave up something to the Devil in the Fall. I believed part of Christ dying and descending into Hell was to recover that. The alienation/reconciliation model, which I spoke of being in vogue is the best critique of the Penal-substitution/justification model. The alienation model says that Christ was Incarnated to reconcile Man to God, Man to Man, Man to the universe, etc. Christ indeed lived as a perfect example of justice, but God is more than justice and so is the Law. Christ fulfilling the law fulfilled far more than justice (not to in any way diminish justice). Christ lived perfectly how and what Man was supposed to live this served as an example and a reclamation of the full dignity of Man. Christ's life was marked with victory after victory over the dominion that Satan had imposed over us (and indeed that we had imposed on ourselves). Christ followed this through all the way through death, the final dominion that we had released to Satan. There he made even death a gateway to Life through His Resurrection which we will one day follow. This is a pretty rough break down, but you get my point. To understand our alienation, one must understand the state we left ourselves in. We didn't just "offend" God, we exiled ourselves from God. Humanity was left with a permanent mark and, like Cain, is forced to live outside of the blessings of God. I like the Christus Victor model, popularized by the Orthodox, as well, but that's just because of the imagery. It's very inspiring to think of Christ as the Divine Warrior, leading God's army, the Church, into battle against the Devil and his minions. It can be theologically problematic, but, as I understand it, even the Orthodox will say its only a metaphore.

Well, there you go. That's a summary of my position. It may sound like I'm heavy on the Renonciliation/alienation model, but that's only because I add other aspects of other models to it.

JoeyO.

[N/A Gone]

an aprophatic sense of the mystery is important. I am sure that this is one of those things that we just do not have enough revealed to know for certain. although, I echo the concern of numerous theologians that the dependency of the protestant penal model has hurt the christian message in general.

Joey, I didnt know you were doing your masters thesis on that. THATS AWESOME..let me help. I have a ton of christus Victor stuff from boyd.

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1258715' date='Apr 28 2007, 11:43 AM']an aprophatic sense of the mystery is important. I am sure that this is one of those things that we just do not have enough revealed to know for certain. although, I echo the concern of numerous theologians that the dependency of the protestant penal model has hurt the christian message in general.

Joey, I didnt know you were doing your masters thesis on that. THATS AWESOME..let me help. I have a ton of christus Victor stuff from boyd.[/quote]

The problem with keeping atonement theology apophatic (I'm pretty sure this isn't the proper use of this word, but I think I know what you mean.) is that it is an intensely personal aspect of theology. I agree that whenever we to making a dogmatic definition, there should be centuries of consideration, especially on this subject. But, I think allowing individuals to speculate within set parameters is benificial to spirituality.

[N/A Gone]

I agree..

[Budge]

[quote]The Church does not teach salvation through works.[/quote]You sure about that?


[quote]
At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the declarations of which are still in force, the Roman Catholic Church formally condemned the biblical doctrine of faith alone and grace alone. Consider the following declarations of Trent:

"If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).
[b]
"If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, [u]but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA[/u]" (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).[/quote][/b]

[url="http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/howrome.htm"]LINK[/url]