A Common Assumption Among Catholicism & Protestants

[The Liturgist]

Isn't it the idea, going back particularly to Anselm, that God must be appeased, satisfaction made? It's like God is a feudal lord. What we owe God is more than we can give, so God satisfies God's self.

That’s right.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Isn't it the idea, going back particularly to Anselm, that God must be appeased, satisfaction made? It's like God is a feudal lord. What we owe God is more than we can give, so God satisfies God's self.

I guess. I just don't follow her writing.

 

[public hermit]

I guess. I just don't follow her writing.

Anselm was brilliant, imo. His theory of atonement lacks, but no theory can capture the fullness of what's happening on the cross, again imo.

ETA: I think it's a mistake to prioritize one theory of atonement. The Cappadocian apophatic tendency would be appropriate here by saying all candidates for atonement theories say something, but the essence of what's happening transcends whatever shape we might give it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Anselm was brilliant, imo. His theory of atonement lacks, but no theory can capture the fullness of what's happening on the cross, again imo.

Was he though? To me it seems like a characteristically High Medieval cultural reinterpretation of the Gospel along the artificial concept of “honor”, which sounds nice to our Western ears, but this is somewhat of a trap; I myself find Anselmianism offensive as I regard it as inclining one to ascribe the pettiest of human vice and passions to God. It also strikes me as a pessimistic view, lacking the eschatological hope for human theosis we find in the Patristic model, which survived only in the three Eastern churches, which had minimal contact with Anselm and generally rejected his ideas utterly.

From Anselm we progress to Aquinas, who is better, and his concepts more advanced, and the Summa becomes a model for the later impressive innovations in systemic theology that we see in Calvin and Barth, for example, but I would rather spend a minute reading St. John of Damascus, who the Roman Catholics interestingly had historically regarded as the last pre-Scholastic, Patristic theologian (since to them, subsequent theologians in the Patristic tradition like St. Symeon the New or St. Gregory Palamas were at the time regarded as schismatic heretics), than many hours reqding Barth, despite the intelllectual excellence of Church Dogmatica.

ETA: I think it's a mistake to prioritize one theory of atonement. The Cappadocian apophatic tendency would be appropriate here by saying all candidates for atonement theories say something, but the essence of what's happening transcends whatever shape we might give it.

I agree with this, up to a point, because anything that can be described as Cappadocian and apophatic is my cup of tea; I would qualify such a view by excluding from consideration any soteriological model that the Cappodacians and later Eastern Christians would themselves have excluded via, for example, the Ecumenical Councils, for example, anything that is inherently monergistic.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As Protestants, we criticize Roman Catholic beliefs such a prayer to Mary and the Saints, and Purgatory, also their view of Justification.

Our contention is that Christ has made satisfaction for our sins, once for all, completely. Asking God therefore, to be propitious toward us because of the merits and prayers of the saints, especially Mary is unfounded. Also, we cannot nor we need not think that by our own merits, we can alleviate temporal punishment or increase in virtue.

My question to you is, for this is one of my own personal struggles with Lutheranism: Why are we making the same assumption as Rome?

We come to a different conclusion, ie Jesus Alone, but we are still operating under the same premise about God, namely, that he has to be appeased because justice demands it.

While Christ Alone is more comforting, I struggle with the very baseline that Lutherans, Catholics, Calvinists, Arminianism and many others seem to suppose.

Help.

I think it is helpful to couch Luther and the Lutheran Confessions in the context of their time: Language needed to address particular ideas, and thus to engage with those ideas.

Anselm's ideas of Satisfaction became a major theme in the development of Western Scholasticism, especially under Thomas Aquinas. And thus that is the theological context and history which Luther and the Lutheran Confessions find themselves in, and addressing, and reforming.

However, I think it is also important to highlight that the Scholastic and Lutheran Confessional ideas of Satisfaction aren't quite yet the more fully developed Penal Substitution view that came to dominate the Reformed tradition.

I agree with you that, on some level, why maintain any of the Scholastic language? And I'd argue that it is less to do with Scholasticism itself, but rather it's part of a very long history of Western theology. To engage with Augustine and the other Western fathers means to engage, to some extent, with this language.

Both East and West took trajectories in theological language that are deeply rooted in Scripture; but different points of emphasis exist, that result in large level differences. Changing the way we talk about things in very important, and in some cases, very drastic ways.

I personally maintain that neither East nor West is completely correct, both the Western and Eastern approaches provide necessary and vital ways of talking about our faith.

As far as judicial language is concerned, I think the language of Satisfaction is important. Not in the sense of an angry God needing to be appeased, but rather in that Christ is fully righteous. Where we were unrighteous, and thus the Law condemned us as sinners; Christ is righteousness, and is vindicated in His righteousness. That is what Satisfaction means. Christ fills up the righteousness that the Law demands, and bestows upon us that righteousness, so that the condemnation of the Law no longer destroys us.

We don't need to talk about God dangling us over hellfire like a sociopathic child holding a spider over a lit match. Heaven forbid! But rather part of the way the New Testament talks about our salvation is Christ being the righteous second Adam who fixes what the first Adam did. Thus the first man's disobedience brought death and condemnation to all men, so the second Man's righteous obedience brings justification to all men; a justification which we receive by grace through faith.

It's not about an angry God desiring to dump us all into hell. It's about a loving God who refuses to let us damn ourselves. He went to bat for us, and He won.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Michie]

See my response to Mark. Catholics seem to believe that God doesn't just cover our sins because he loves us but he does so in order to appease his own wrath which demands satisfaction or punishment. And that we participate in covering our own sins and the sins of others for the same reason.

Isn't Mary reported as saying, 'I can no longer hold back the arm of my Son?'

Isn’t that what the Crucifixion was? Opening a path to be reconciled with God? We can still grieve God.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

So, if I follow you here, this is the baseline of protestantism? I thought you were saying Protestantism at it's baseline is the same as Rome.

The baseline is this: God is wrathful or dishonored and someone needs to pay for it.

Sin is a crime against God, and therefore also, cosmic treason, against all that is his.

How can we sin against God? He's immutable.

Justice is more than mere forgiveness. Justice balances the scales.

I think of forgiveness in a holistic way, so Christ forgiving me means that he has taken away the sin inside of me.

Sets wrong back right. Sin is an infinite wrong, against infinite God. The cost is death, not mere earthly (temporal) punishment.

How is punishing another setting things right?

There's a certain truth to the idea of sin being a 'mode of being'. But it is also deeds, thoughts and intents.

These are the expressions/manifestations of our sinful way of being.

Sin is against GOD. By comparison, what we do to each other (anthropological) doesn't even compute. David said, after all the horrible things he did, "Against you only have I sinned."

He said too, that if God had desired sacrifice, he would have brought it. But what God wanted was David's contrite heart.

True that; punishing, done here in this temporal existence, or later, in the Lake of Fire —neither one removes the sin. Only Christ's substitution does that. He bore our penalty.

Christ isn't punished in our stead?

The 'balance' to the universe has to do with the sin being killed, thrown into the Lake of Fire. This involves the sinner, or the substitute.

Now, you seem to be saying that punishment does remove sin (restores the balance). I'm confused.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Isn’t that what the Crucifixion was? Opening a path to be reconciled with God? We can still grieve God.

How do you grieve immutable and unchanging persons?

 

[Michie]

How do you grieve immutable and unchanging persons?

Scripture says we absolutely can grieve God and the Holy Spirit. So much that that the Holy Spirit will depart.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I have a hymn I wish to show you. I'll find it in a bit.

I think it is helpful to couch Luther and the Lutheran Confessions in the context of their time: Language needed to address particular ideas, and thus to engage with those ideas.

Anselm's ideas of Satisfaction became a major theme in the development of Western Scholasticism, especially under Thomas Aquinas. And thus that is the theological context and history which Luther and the Lutheran Confessions find themselves in, and addressing, and reforming.

However, I think it is also important to highlight that the Scholastic and Lutheran Confessional ideas of Satisfaction aren't quite yet the more fully developed Penal Substitution view that came to dominate the Reformed tradition.

I agree with you that, on some level, why maintain any of the Scholastic language? And I'd argue that it is less to do with Scholasticism itself, but rather it's part of a very long history of Western theology. To engage with Augustine and the other Western fathers means to engage, to some extent, with this language.

Both East and West took trajectories in theological language that are deeply rooted in Scripture; but different points of emphasis exist, that result in large level differences. Changing the way we talk about things in very important, and in some cases, very drastic ways.

I personally maintain that neither East nor West is completely correct, both the Western and Eastern approaches provide necessary and vital ways of talking about our faith.

As far as judicial language is concerned, I think the language of Satisfaction is important. Not in the sense of an angry God needing to be appeased, but rather in that Christ is fully righteous. Where we were unrighteous, and thus the Law condemned us as sinners; Christ is righteousness, and is vindicated in His righteousness. That is what Satisfaction means. Christ fills up the righteousness that the Law demands, and bestows upon us that righteousness, so that the condemnation of the Law no longer destroys us.

We don't need to talk about God dangling us over hellfire like a sociopathic child holding a spider over a lit match. Heaven forbid! But rather part of the way the New Testament talks about our salvation is Christ being the righteous second Adam who fixes what the first Adam did. Thus the first man's disobedience brought death and condemnation to all men, so the second Man's righteous obedience brings justification to all men; a justification which we receive by grace through faith.

It's not about an angry God desiring to dump us all into hell. It's about a loving God who refuses to let us damn ourselves. He went to bat for us, and He won.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Scripture says we absolutely can grieve God and the Holy Spirit. So much that that the Holy Spirit will depart.

I'm not sure that answers my question. Yes, I know that Scripture makes anthropological claims about God. My question is, how can these things be anything more than pictorial, as in real? How can we actually cause an immutable being to grieve?

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Exactly. What does this teach Christians? Aren't we suppose to forgive even though a payment to us hasn't been made or are we suppose to look upon Christ as that payment to us?

I do think the Reformation carried Anselm's substitutionary theory to it's full expression in the West. I also agree that it's about useless, especially when the emphasis is on punishment or appeasement. There's nothing left for an angry God to forgive. The spiritual life is not really necessary since God has been appeased. It's not a very helpful theory, imo.

 

[Michie]

I'm not sure that answers my question. Yes, I know that Scripture makes anthropology claims about God. My question is, how can these things be anything more than pictorial, as in real? How can we actually cause an immutable being to grieve?

You don’t believe there are 3 persons in the Holy Trinity?

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Protestants disagree with Rome in that for Protestants, Christ alone has made satisfaction. For Catholics, it seems that we can also make satisfaction. But someone must make satisfaction.

I understand that. What I'm asking is WHAT 'thatgirl...' was referring to, that you try to explain to her. At one point she is saying Protestants disagree with Rome and in the next she says it is the same as Rome.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

You don’t believe there are 3 persons in the Holy Trinity?

Yes I do. Why?

 

[Michie]

From Jimmy Akin-
But for someone who makes an unbiased reading of the Scriptures, references to the Holy Spirit’s Personhood leap off the page. For example, Paul speaks of it being possible to grieve the Holy Spirit: “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30). Of course, it is not possible to offend or displease impersonal forces.


Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit as knowing the thoughts of God-indicating that the Spirit has an intellect: “For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 2:11).

He also speaks of the Holy Spirit exercising the faculty of will, as in the distribution of spiritual gifts: “All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor. 12:11).

Scripture also teaches that the Holy Spirit serves as a Paraclete (Greek parakletos) on our behalf. This term, often translated as “Comforter,” “Counselor,” “Advocate,” or “Helper,” refers to a person who is called or summoned to aid one, especially in legal settings, where he serves as an advisor, or advocate for the accused.

Jesus repeatedly speaks of the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete whom he will send to help us: “The Advocate [parakletos], the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name-he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you” (John 14:26; cf. 15:26, 16:7-8).

A facet of the Greek text not obvious in translation is that in the three verses just mentioned (and others), Jesus applies the masculine pronoun ekeinos to the Holy Spirit. The personal character of a paraclete is further illustrated by the fact that Jesus also serves as our Paraclete before the Father: “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an Advocate [parakletos] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1)

There are also many passages in Scripture that refer to the Holy Spirit communicating with us-again, something an impersonal force cannot do. For example, when testifying before the Sanhedrin, the apostles refer to the Holy Spirit as their co-witness: “And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him” (Acts 5:32). Later in Acts, Paul states that the Holy Spirit testifies: “The Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me” (Acts 20:23).

This testimony sometimes came from the mouths of New Testament prophets who attributed the words directly to the Holy Spirit: “And coming to us he took Paul’s girdle and bound his own feet and hands, and said, ‘Thus says the Holy Spirit, “So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this girdle and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles”‘” (Acts 21:11; cf. 1 Tim. 4:1). Note the formula “Thus says the Holy Spirit” is modeled on the frequent prophetic formula “Thus says the Lord”-indicating not only the Spirit’s Personhood but also directly equating him with Yahweh.

Sometimes even the biblical books’ narrative directly quotes the Holy Spirit. In Revelation we read, “And I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.’ ‘Blessed indeed,’ says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!'” (Rev. 14:13).

If it were objected that this quotation is found in a book of prophecy, which often uses figurative language, the topper is Acts 13:2:”While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'”

The doctrinal force of this passage is unavoidable. Here we have a direct quotation of the Holy Spirit-not in a prophetic book, not in the mouth of a prophet, not in a parable, not told by a character in a historical book. We have the Holy Spirit directly quoted by the narrative of a historical book-just like the other real persons who speak in the book. And the same thing happens in Acts 8:29 and 10:19.

Even if one tried to explain away all of Scripture’s other personal references to the Holy Spirit as somehow being symbols or figures of speech, the direct quotation of an individual in the narrative of a historical book unmistakably shows that the individual in question is a real, literal person, not just a force or symbol.

Third Person of the Trinity

Permission to post in full.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Thank you. I'll read it in a bit and get back to you.

The General aspect of conceiving things Justification in terms of forensics / legal terms. That comes from the Latin heritage that is very legal minded. Even though saint Paul uses those kind of terms in certain epistles etc. Eastern Orthodox theologians would not assume that God actually thinks in those terms like various western Theologians do, they would say those are metaphors to help us understand.

This article describes things pretty well
Ancestral Versus Original Sin | St. Mary Orthodox Church of Central Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

[Paidiske]

I suspect that when we weigh the idea of God as persons with real emotional/affective attributes, against immutability, immutability is not supposed to so outweigh the former that we decide God cannot truly grieve, or rejoice, or (whatever emotional state). Not least because Scripture is very clear that God does indeed have a rich emotional life.

I realise that saying such a thing might raise concerns about patripassianism, but classic patripassianism is a narrower thing to do with the doctrine of the Trinity, and doesn't (as far as I can see) rule out God having an emotional life at all.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Even in the Christian west, this is only one possible way (among several) of viewing atonement. If you find it unhelpful - and many do - I suggest exploring other views.

The Anglican Church allows for other views?

 

[Michie]

Yes I do. Why?

Because you posed this question:

I'm not sure that answers my question. Yes, I know that Scripture makes anthropological claims about God. My question is, how can these things be anything more than pictorial, as in real? How can we actually cause an immutable being to grieve?