Christendom: A House Divided

[Rushing Jaws]

No, not really, since it was Anselm of Canterbury who popularized the satisfaction theory, which is a welcomed refinement of the penal substitution theory (some people refer to it as the "forensic theory of the atonement", too), and it has held the most sway with Catholics.

The key difference here is that for Anselm, satisfaction is an alternative to punishment, "The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow." By Christ satisfying our debt of honor to God, we avoid punishment. In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the punishment which satisfies the demands of justice.

In any case, Catholics are not exempt from the call to unity within Christendom. However, Catholics regard non-Catholics as having dealt the damage that has led to such a divided house.

## Read Vatican II on the subject. That first sentence echoes it, and the second is falsified by it. The Council blames both sides, not just the Protestants, still less their modern successors.

That is a mistake, historically, because the records show that it was Catholics (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al.) who broke away. Catholics divided themselves, but have lumped the blame squarely on the shoulders of the ones who broke away.

## And a Catholic who breaks away is not a Catholic. Any more than a suicide is a living man; an ex-living man is dead, not living.

Not only does this evade historical responsibility, it also sets up the false precedent that reunification can only be achieved by titular and institutional submission.

## That is set up by one thing - the Church's self-understanding. And the CC's S-U is not caused by the 16th-century break, but by the CC's understanding of its tradition of what the Church is: most of which is shared with other non-Protestants. The tail can't wag the dog, & the Protestants can't tell the vast majority of Christians for the vast majority of the Christian past that the majority is wrong in its understanding of the Church. The Protestants did not convince Rome, or Constantinople, or any other Church.

That is, Christendom can only be re-unified by everybody returning to the Catholic church. This is poor reasoning at best, and utter nonsense at worst. If unity is to take place for Christendom, it has to be with the understanding that differences are not divisions,

## There is a lot of variety in Catholicism; but some "differences" are not good; there is difference between healthy variety, and disorder.

What other way could there be of restoring unity, but by returning to the Church, from heresies & schisms ? The only difference between the pre-Protestant Churches, is over which one. The "nonsense" is that which denies that the Church is to be sought by those wishing to restore Christian unity - for one cannot have unity of all Christians at present not in the Church, & deny the importance of that Church. You might as well expect people to see, provided they ignore "nonsense" such as having eyes.

that the church is whole "in Christ" not "in denomination", and with an eye toward charity moreso than doctrinal absolutes.

## That is a false opposition - & for someone opposed to doctrinal absolutes, you seem to have a few of your own. Sorry, but why should I accept yours, if you decry those of the Church ? Without doctrine to define charity, how could we know what it is ?

Diversity in unity, and unity in diversity. Catholicism, as an institution, does not proffer such a possibility. Nor does any other denomination that presumes it has the proper orthodoxy, including evangelical Protestants.

(Sigh...) I wasn't making a pro-Catholic point. The atonement theories listed, represent Evangelical Protestantism, but ignore those current among non-Evangelicals & also non-Protestants - IOW, among the vast majority of Christians in the world. (I suppose a Lutheran such as Gustaf Aulen could be reckoned a quasi-Evangelical - he it was who come to mind when I saw the "Christus Victor" theory mentioned). Hardly any Christians are Evangelicals, & not that many Christians are Protestants: most are Catholic or Orthodox or something else. Evangelical Protestants may represent a tidy proportion, percentage & number of US Christians, but not worldwide.

[aegis]

## Read Vatican II on the subject. That first sentence echoes it, and the second is falsified by it. The Council blames both sides, not just the Protestants, still less their modern successors.
## And a Catholic who breaks away is not a Catholic. Any more than a suicide is a living man; an ex-living man is dead, not living.

That is, Christendom can only be re-unified by everybody returning to the Catholic church. This is poor reasoning at best, and utter nonsense at worst. If unity is to take place for Christendom, it has to be with the understanding that differences are not divisions,

## There is a lot of variety in Catholicism; but some "differences" are not good; there is difference between healthy variety, and disorder.

What other way could there be of restoring unity, but by returning to the Church, from heresies & schisms ? The only difference between the pre-Protestant Churches, is over which one. The "nonsense" is that which denies that the Church is to be sought by those wishing to restore Christian unity - for one cannot have unity of all Christians at present not in the Church, & deny the importance of that Church. You might as well expect people to see, provided they ignore "nonsense" such as having eyes.
## That is a false opposition - & for someone opposed to doctrinal absolutes, you seem to have a few of your own. Sorry, but why should I accept yours, if you decry those of the Church ? Without doctrine to define charity, how could we know what it is ?


(Sigh...) I wasn't making a pro-Catholic point. The atonement theories listed, represent Evangelical Protestantism, but ignore those current among non-Evangelicals & also non-Protestants - IOW, among the vast majority of Christians in the world. (I suppose a Lutheran such as Gustaf Aulen could be reckoned a quasi-Evangelical - he it was who come to mind when I saw the "Christus Victor" theory mentioned). Hardly any Christians are Evangelicals, & not that many Christians are Protestants: most are Catholic or Orthodox or something else. Evangelical Protestants may represent a tidy proportion, percentage & number of US Christians, but not worldwide.

hi Rushing Jaws,

so what do Catholics recognize as to the mechanism of atonement? Theory 1, 2 or 3 or all?
Just curious to know,

regards

aegis

[Rushing Jaws]

hi Rushing Jaws,

so what do Catholics recognize as to the mechanism of atonement? Theory 1, 2 or 3 or all?
Just curious to know,

regards

aegis

## Others as well. Substutionary theories are not really popular, at least in RCism. Since Vatican II a more eschatological approach has been common. I suspect substitution owes its lack of favour to Protestant-RC polemic, which if true is a pity, because it reflects a tidy part of the NT evidence. RC exegesis does not go in for Biblical typology in the way that Calvinism does, which may help explain the difference.

[RBerman]

## Others as well. Substutionary theories are not really popular, at least in RCism. Since Vatican II a more eschatological approach has been common. I suspect substitution owes its lack of favour to Protestant-RC polemic, which if true is a pity, because it reflects a tidy part of the NT evidence. RC exegesis does not go in for Biblical typology in the way that Calvinism does, which may help explain the difference.

RC exegesis is heavily typological on some points though, yes? Mary as Eve, Mary as the Ark, etc.

[aegis]

## Others as well. Substutionary theories are not really popular, at least in RCism. Since Vatican II a more eschatological approach has been common. I suspect substitution owes its lack of favour to Protestant-RC polemic, which if true is a pity, because it reflects a tidy part of the NT evidence. RC exegesis does not go in for Biblical typology in the way that Calvinism does, which may help explain the difference.

Hi Rushing, thanks for your reply.
I am still not clear as to what you mean.
I agree with your point that RC does not like to sound like protestant, so anything protestant agreed on will be a bit repulsive for RC.

What do you mean by eschatological approach?
What RC typology likes to be attached to the atonement theory?

One point I think is that RC likes to think of salvation in the same sense as sanctification in Protestanism.

So that atonement of Jesus Christ is really for sanctification of Christians, more closer to the ideas of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. So hence there is no one main theory of atonement as atonement is a long process of sanctification. All three theories would be relevant in the sanctification process.

Would you think that is a fair assessment?

regards

aegis

[donnaj8887]

In Christian theology there are three main theories of the atonement:

• 1. Jesus's crucifixion was to appease the wrath of God. God cannot countenance sin, and in his holiness must obliterate sin. Therefore Jesus, as a representative of the human race, was nailed to the cross as a sacrifice for all of humanity's sins -- past, present, and future. That is, Christ voluntarily assumed the sins of humanity on himself and died in place of the rest of humanity. This theory, crudely summarised as it is, is known as the penal substitutionary atonement.
  2. Christ came to conquer death by dying on the cross. Effectively, Christ acted as 'bait' to draw the devil away from humanity, and in so doing removed the devil's hold on humanity. It's a compliment to the words Christ uttered early in his ministry, "I have called you to be fishers of men." This theory is known as the "Ransom theory", or more recently the Christus Victor atonement.
  3. Jesus acted as the ultimate exemplar, and when we take heed of his sacrificial love our moral intentions are influenced christward. In short, Christ's life and sacrifice inclines our morals godward, thereby sanctifying us to be in his presence. This is known as the moral influence theory of atonement.

In the past few years, there has been a re-visitation of these theories. Theologians from different loyalties have bandied about their prefered vision of Christ's soteriological efforts. One book in particular has risen to the top of the academic list, Stricken by God? Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ (2007). The book explores the various reasons for the necessity of certain theories, why the authors believe the theories they do, and how those theories are applied to everyday life.

It's editor and contributing author, Brad Jersak, admits his preference for the penal substitution theory. Nevertheless, in this article, professor and author Hans Boersma cautions against placing all one's philosophical capital in a single theory of the atonement. "The problem, said Boersma, is to take any one of these approaches and insist it is right and the others are wrong." This is sensible because prizing one theory exclusively excludes the beneficial points of the other theories.

The same holds true in other Christian academic applications. The novice theologian will place great import on a certain 'proof' of the existence of God. I had a fondness for the Ontological Argument back in my college days, but turned a snooty nose up at Kalam's version of the Cosmological Argument, for example. It wasn't until a good friend of mine, the late Hugh Hill (1958 - 2007) turned my head to the notion of a cumulative case for God's existence that I recognised it wasn't necessary to remain beholden to this-or-that particular 'proof' for the existence of God.

It's in that respect that I think it inane to cite a particular view of the atonement as the exclusively right view of Christ's death: it is the place of a novice or dilettante to throw one's lot in with a singular theory of the atonement.

To press this point a little further, it is instructive to note Boersma's final contribution to the article noted above:

Therefore, it is important to "bring humility to the table" and try to understand each other. We can "never say we have explained it all," said Boersma, since human language is "always inadequate to fully define the divine mystery."

True: human language cannot adequately define either the 'divine' or 'mystery'. Which is why I think Boersma would've done well to admit more by saying less. If Boersma had said in regards to the atonement that we can "never say we have explained it" and that human language is "always inadequate" we may have had a better rendering of the case. We would also have cause to graduate beyond the useless amateur quibblings of exclusivist atonement theory loyalties.

On a much grander scale, this is the same issue I have with Christian communities as a whole, if I can say that and make any sense. Let me explain. No-one is surprised when presented with the fact that Christianity is divided into many houses: Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, the Emergent Church, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, ad-seemingly-infinitum.

Each grouping considers itself the model of unvarnished and inviolate orthodoxy alive today. I like to call this peculiarity of Christendom "local orthodoxy by attrition". That is, if it's said long enough and loud enough, eventually everyone will concede that "that's what so-and-so thinks about itself, so just let them have their illusions; we know that we're really the true orthodoxy." The same psychology, quite interestingly, holds true for liars, too: if they repeat their falsehoods long enough, they eventually believe them to be true.

Such self-exculpating tactics only reinforce what they're trying to avoid. That is, by denying the notion of orthodoxy to other Christian communities while remaining loyal to another one, a person can only be left with patronising concessions to faith-traditions not their own. This means that one believes their own particular faith-community to be the purest expression of biblical community above and beyond all others. This is a mark of superficiality, specious reasoning, and religious snobbery adopted by most Christians very quickly after conversion. Catholics and Lutherans, especially with their notion that they are the "one true church", are quite masterful at perpetuating such insidious sophistries.

It is much more sensible to regard the Christian communities of the world as part of a cumulative culture for Christ than a "house divided against itself", to borrow Christ's portentous words. But as long as Christians bark and bellow over which atonement theory is better and more right, which 'proof' is more accurate, which faith-tradition is purer, more orthodox, and therefore more fully in the faith -- as long as the house of Christianity remains divided against itself, we can reasonably speculate on Christ's conclusion that that house "will surely fall".

Good post. I appreciate it!

[donnaj8887]

In Christian theology there are three main theories of the atonement:

• 1. Jesus's crucifixion was to appease the wrath of God. God cannot countenance sin, and in his holiness must obliterate sin. Therefore Jesus, as a representative of the human race, was nailed to the cross as a sacrifice for all of humanity's sins -- past, present, and future. That is, Christ voluntarily assumed the sins of humanity on himself and died in place of the rest of humanity. This theory, crudely summarised as it is, is known as the penal substitutionary atonement.
  2. Christ came to conquer death by dying on the cross. Effectively, Christ acted as 'bait' to draw the devil away from humanity, and in so doing removed the devil's hold on humanity. It's a compliment to the words Christ uttered early in his ministry, "I have called you to be fishers of men." This theory is known as the "Ransom theory", or more recently the Christus Victor atonement.
  3. Jesus acted as the ultimate exemplar, and when we take heed of his sacrificial love our moral intentions are influenced christward. In short, Christ's life and sacrifice inclines our morals godward, thereby sanctifying us to be in his presence. This is known as the moral influence theory of atonement.

In the past few years, there has been a re-visitation of these theories. Theologians from different loyalties have bandied about their prefered vision of Christ's soteriological efforts. One book in particular has risen to the top of the academic list, Stricken by God? Nonviolent Identification and the Victory of Christ (2007). The book explores the various reasons for the necessity of certain theories, why the authors believe the theories they do, and how those theories are applied to everyday life.

It's editor and contributing author, Brad Jersak, admits his preference for the penal substitution theory. Nevertheless, in this article, professor and author Hans Boersma cautions against placing all one's philosophical capital in a single theory of the atonement. "The problem, said Boersma, is to take any one of these approaches and insist it is right and the others are wrong." This is sensible because prizing one theory exclusively excludes the beneficial points of the other theories.

The same holds true in other Christian academic applications. The novice theologian will place great import on a certain 'proof' of the existence of God. I had a fondness for the Ontological Argument back in my college days, but turned a snooty nose up at Kalam's version of the Cosmological Argument, for example. It wasn't until a good friend of mine, the late Hugh Hill (1958 - 2007) turned my head to the notion of a cumulative case for God's existence that I recognised it wasn't necessary to remain beholden to this-or-that particular 'proof' for the existence of God.

It's in that respect that I think it inane to cite a particular view of the atonement as the exclusively right view of Christ's death: it is the place of a novice or dilettante to throw one's lot in with a singular theory of the atonement.

To press this point a little further, it is instructive to note Boersma's final contribution to the article noted above:

Therefore, it is important to "bring humility to the table" and try to understand each other. We can "never say we have explained it all," said Boersma, since human language is "always inadequate to fully define the divine mystery."

True: human language cannot adequately define either the 'divine' or 'mystery'. Which is why I think Boersma would've done well to admit more by saying less. If Boersma had said in regards to the atonement that we can "never say we have explained it" and that human language is "always inadequate" we may have had a better rendering of the case. We would also have cause to graduate beyond the useless amateur quibblings of exclusivist atonement theory loyalties.

On a much grander scale, this is the same issue I have with Christian communities as a whole, if I can say that and make any sense. Let me explain. No-one is surprised when presented with the fact that Christianity is divided into many houses: Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Congregationalists, Pentecostals, Anglicans, the Emergent Church, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, ad-seemingly-infinitum.

Each grouping considers itself the model of unvarnished and inviolate orthodoxy alive today. I like to call this peculiarity of Christendom "local orthodoxy by attrition". That is, if it's said long enough and loud enough, eventually everyone will concede that "that's what so-and-so thinks about itself, so just let them have their illusions; we know that we're really the true orthodoxy." The same psychology, quite interestingly, holds true for liars, too: if they repeat their falsehoods long enough, they eventually believe them to be true.

Such self-exculpating tactics only reinforce what they're trying to avoid. That is, by denying the notion of orthodoxy to other Christian communities while remaining loyal to another one, a person can only be left with patronising concessions to faith-traditions not their own. This means that one believes their own particular faith-community to be the purest expression of biblical community above and beyond all others. This is a mark of superficiality, specious reasoning, and religious snobbery adopted by most Christians very quickly after conversion. Catholics and Lutherans, especially with their notion that they are the "one true church", are quite masterful at perpetuating such insidious sophistries.

It is much more sensible to regard the Christian communities of the world as part of a cumulative culture for Christ than a "house divided against itself", to borrow Christ's portentous words. But as long as Christians bark and bellow over which atonement theory is better and more right, which 'proof' is more accurate, which faith-tradition is purer, more orthodox, and therefore more fully in the faith -- as long as the house of Christianity remains divided against itself, we can reasonably speculate on Christ's conclusion that that house "will surely fall".

Good post. I appreciate it!


__________________
watch free movies online

[Kane]

Good post. I appreciate it!

Thank you very much, donna.