Is this an official Roman Catholic Position?"

[narnia59]

How many autobiographies by Luther are there? I know of none.

I've read a good many of Luther's works not to mention the acclaimed biography "Here I Stand" by Roland Bainton and have no such recollection of the claims you are making. Sounds like you have bought into someone's propoganda.

Granted - Luther had his issues but at least he was willing to admit his faults and sinfulness. More than I can say about the leadership in another church I know of...

"Autobiography" is the result of my typing too fast. My apologies. I do know the difference.

There are several valid biographies which look at the relationship with his father which are not "propaganda". Regardless of whether you believe this influenced Luther the fact remains he forged an understanding of the atonement of Christ which is not present in the first 1500 years of the church that turns God the Father into a bully.

And his admission of his own sinfullness was indeed there -- he was consumed by it. He could not accept forgiveness or understand it on any terms except the one he devises. But in terms of humility -- not a chance. There are so many quotes by Luther raising himself up it would be hard to put them all into one document. In reality he does not object to the concept of a pope -- he merely thinks it should be him. This is never more evident than when others begin to take him seriously -- that Scripture is meant to be interpreted by the individual and no teaching authority is required -- and alas! they begin to disagree with him, and the fracturing of the church begins in earnest. He has little tolerance for those who interpret Scripture who disagree with his views. Less tolerance than was shown to him by the church.

 

[AndOne]

Then your initial question was in fact a challenge.

Not really - I just know that if it is indeed the official stand of the RCC then I would have to say how much I disagree with it - and the OBOB is not the place to do that.

 

[AndOne]

"Autobiography" is the result of my typing too fast. My apologies. I do know the difference.

There are several valid biographies which look at the relationship with his father which are not "propaganda". Regardless of whether you believe this influenced Luther the fact remains he forged an understanding of the atonement of Christ which is not present in the first 1500 years of the church that turns God the Father into a bully.

Give me a break - Luther taught free grace through faith alone. Hardly what I would call a theology that turns God into a bully.

And his admission of his own sinfullness was indeed there -- he was consumed by it. He could not accept forgiveness or understand it on any terms except the one he devises. But in terms of humility -- not a chance. There are so many quotes by Luther raising himself up it would be hard to put them all into one document. In reality he does not object to the concept of a pope -- he merely thinks it should be him. This is never more evident than when others begin to take him seriously -- that Scripture is meant to be interpreted by the individual and no teaching authority is required -- and alas! they begin to disagree with him, and the fracturing of the church begins in earnest. He has little tolerance for those who interpret Scripture who disagree with his views. Less tolerance than was shown to him by the church.

The reason Luther was consumed by his own sinfulness is because he knew there was nothing he could do to merit salvation by his own merit or through the tenets of the chuch. It wasn't because of any relationship with his father that he came to this conclusion. It was because he actually read the Bible and saw that is what it taught - specifically in Romans 3. The Bible teaches free grace through faith alone - and that is precisely where Luther learned it.

 

[Harry3142]

If I understand it correctly, the statement clarifies that Jesus' suffering and death in the physical sense does not exempt us from also suffering and dying bodily prior to his return. This I can agree with, as we do in fact continue to suffer and die of various and sundry ailments, injuries, or wounds to the present day.

But the main purpose of his Passion was as an atonement for our sins, and therefore the 'death' which he suffered in extremis was the spiritual death incurred due to his taking our sins and making them his own. This was the true horror of his Passion. The Person who was sinless had become the bearer of the sins of others, and found himself estranged from God the Father as a result.

It was his acceptance of our sins on himself which separated him from God the Father for a period of time as he hung on the cross. It was his acceptance of our sins on himself which enabled him to make us righteous before God the Father. When he said, "It is finished," he was saying that the deed had been done, our salvation had been secured, God the Father was satisfied.

We are righteous because Jesus Christ took our unrighteousness as his own, so that we can stand before God the Father with Christ's righteousness as our own. The righteousness which is necessary for us to have in order to merit eternal life is a righteousness which we can never obtain. But it is a righteousness which God is willing to give us. All we need to do is ask for it.

 

[Trento]

But the main purpose of his Passion was as an atonement for our sins, and therefore the 'death' which he suffered in extremis was the spiritual death incurred due to his taking our sins and making them his own. This was the true horror of his Passion. The Person who was sinless had become the bearer of the sins of others, and found himself estranged from God the Father as a result.

It was his acceptance of our sins on himself which separated him from God the Father for a period of time as he hung on the cross. It was his acceptance of our sins on himself which enabled him to make us righteous before God the Father. When he said, "It is finished," he was saying that the deed had been done, our salvation had been secured, God the Father was satisfied.

We are righteous because Jesus Christ took our unrighteousness as his own, so that we can stand before God the Father with Christ's righteousness as our own. The righteousness which is necessary for us to have in order to merit eternal life is a righteousness which we can never obtain. But it is a righteousness which God is willing to give us. All we need to do is ask for it.

Paying the punishment for sin is a legal action. Offering a sacrifice to the Father as an appeasement is a personal action. They are entirely two different things, and cannot be confused. There was nothing legal about Christ’s atonement. It was a voluntary sacrifice (John 10:18) that served as a propitiation, not a payment. Calvin and Luther believed Christ made a legal payment, not Catholic theology. Calvin and Luther insisted that Christ paid the exact price, an eternity in hell, to pay for the sins of the elect, and no one else, which is why they said God predestined the elect and damned everyone else before they were born. In short, “payment” atonement theology is an insidious heresy. Not only Catholic theology but every Church started by the Apostles which include Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox says that Christ served as a sacrifice to appease the Father’s wrath, so that the Father would once again offer man a way to heaven. This was provided to the whole world.

It should be kept clear that Christ did not assume the guilt of sin, but the obligation of making satisfaction for the sins Christ remained free of all guilt, and that He was always loved by His Father. Christ assumed the responsibility of making satisfaction for the sins of men but not the guilt of their sins. He freely undertook to give to the Father something that was more pleasing than the sins of men had been hateful. He also took the responsibility of discharging the penalties due to men’s sins. This does not mean that Christ was punished in man’s stead. He freely accepted, out of love and obedience, sufferings by which He freed men from the burden of suffering the penalty of eternal damnation.

 

[Harry3142]

Trento-

Thank you for your reply, as I could tell it was heartfelt. But this is one of the areas where the RCC theology and protestant theology differ. We state that rather than Jesus' sacrifice as being a means of appeasement with God, which needs completion by our works, it was instead the culmination of the blueprint for our salvation which God himself drew up, and so is complete in and of itself. We are saved because of what God has done, rather than because of what we will do. This is made plain in Scripture:

Now we know that whatever the laws says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished - he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:19-26,NIV)

Once we accept the salvation that God offers us, we are then righteous before God. But it is not our righteousness; it is God's own righteousness which he has given us. God did all the work that was necessary for our salvation. He had to; none of us were capable of helping him.

Even what we do as Christians is not to be seen as being to our credit. Scripture is quite clear that those of us who truly accept his salvation also receive the Holy Spirit as our counsellor (Galatians 5:16-26) . From that point onward, what we do on behalf of the furtherance of the kingdom of God is not to be credited to us as independent agents. It is to be credited to the Holy Spirit as a master workman using us as his willing instruments.

The law will not save us, nor will it 'anchor' our salvation. It doesn't matter if it's the Mosaic Law, the Messianic Law, or Ecclesiastical Law. We are saved by no other means than because Jesus Christ suffered, died and rose again from the dead. When he did this, he took the sins which were rightfully ours and bore them in our stead. If we accept that God has indeed saved us from the just consequences of our own weakness, and we accept our salvation as God himself has fulfilled it, then we can be assured from the point at which we accepted it that we are truly saved. If instead we try to diminish Christ's role to one of an icon supporting various and sundry laws which we must obey in order to earn our own salvation, then we are in peril.

 

[Secundulus]

If instead we try to diminish Christ's role to one of an icon supporting various and sundry laws which we must obey in order to earn our own salvation, then we are in peril.

If you think that the sacrifice of Jesus frees you form obeying God's moral law then you have strayed outside classical Anglican Theology.

See the 12th and 14th Articles of Religion.

I can never understand this notion that if we strive to be like Christ, and obey the moral laws he gave us, that we somehow diminish him. That doesn't make any sense. It magnifies him because we recognize, worship, obey, and follow him for who he is.

 

[Albion]

Read one of several good autobiographies of Martin Luther. He spent the better part of his life trying to please his abusive and tyranical father.

That's not correct. While it may be true of his years prior to entering the religious life, he defied Hans Luther and trememdously disappointed him by becoming a priest. I think you know this. Everything thereafter--his posting of the 95 Theses, his rejection by the Papacy, the formation of independent congregations, etc.--lies outside that issue.

He converted the image of God the Father to match the one of his own father

You won't find much support for that speculation among Luther's biographers. But it is a fact that Christians generally, not just Luther, saw God in severe terms at that point in history, as a judge who had every right to send judgment upon mankind, etc. Luther was, IOW, very much a creature of his time. The most significant fact in this is that his study of scripture allowed him to break free of that perception.

So Christ becomes a shield between the Father and us, and absorbs the wrath of the Father.

Well, that's no more or less than what the Bible teaches.

 

[AndOne]

If you think that the sacrifice of Jesus frees you form obeying God's moral law then you have strayed outside classical Anglican Theology.

See the 12th and 14th Articles of Religion.

I can never understand this notion that if we strive to be like Christ, and obey the moral laws he gave us, that we somehow diminish him. That doesn't make any sense. It magnifies him because we recognize, worship, obey, and follow him for who he is.

His point being that striving to be like Christ and observing moral law in an effort to gain salvation or merit favor with God - is a waste of time. We do these things as a result of salvation - not a means to it. Hence the difference between us.

 

[Secundulus]

His point being that striving to be like Christ and observing moral law in an effort to gain salvation or merit favor with God - is a waste of time. We do these things as a result of salvation - not a means to it. Hence the difference between us.

Straw man. That's not what the Catholic Church teaches no matter how badly you want it to be.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Here is some of what is taught on it .

http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co...=0&q=sacraments+salvation&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

If you can add any other passages that you might think pertinent feel free to do so .

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I don't believe there is a dogmatic position on soteriology. I do not know if penal substitution is specifically condemned. The viewpoint expressed by the OP's quote is conformable to what I understand and believe about Catholic-Orthodox soteriology.

The bottom line here is this: Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to. Jesus Christ suffered and died so that our good works offered up in him can be truly pleasing and salvific before God. And indeed, Jesus didn't suffer and die so that we don't have to suffer and die, he suffered and died so that our suffering and death could be salvific.

A Protestant online responded to something I said by saying that Christ suffered so that we don't have to. I couldn't understand what that means -- certainly s/he was not blind to the incredible amount of suffering in the world and in our own lives, Christian and non-Christian.

I quipped somewhere that Christ didn't die so that we don't have do, He died so that we could. Of course, that needs a bit of qualification. Sin brought the consequence of physical death and decay. What Christ did was enable us to join Him in His suffering and death so that we could die to our corrupted human nature and be resurrected with Him into a glorified, Christ-like nature. Baptism is the greatest image of this death and resurrection but every work in our lives, our participation in the Sacraments and especially Holy Eucharist, makes us more dead to the world and alive to Christ.

St. Francis de Sales referred to suffering as the Eighth Sacrament, indeed, our suffering is not evil, it may not be penal but purgative. Suffering isn't always a punishment for sin, though it is a consequence of sin in our own lives and in the world. Suffering atones for the temporal effects of sin. St. Francis of Assisi referred many times in stories about him to his romance with "Lady Poverty" in the same way.

St. Paul never talks about penal substitution. If you want to understand Christ's death, read Hebrews. Paul talks about the earthly Temple and the Heavenly Temple, about what a Jewish high priest does and what Christ does as High Priest and Victim (and Altar). In Catholic theology, our liturgy is a imperfect reflection of the Heavenly Liturgy, the priest stands in persona Christi (in the person of Christ, in His stead), he brings Christ to the people (and should be alter Christus -- another Christ -- in his life). It is much easier to see the sacred rites in a traditional Mass than underneath the crass garb of the modernist liturgies. That's why I will sit on the bus for two hours each direction to get to Mass tomorrow -- because it is so worth it to have a beautiful experience of God and the Holy Sacrifice.


The Mass is Heaven on Earth

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

That was rambling, sorry, I'm tired. Point is, go read Hebrews, esp. ch 9 and you will understand a bit better Christ's suffering and death.

 

[MamaZ]

Again, I'll echo a previous poster: why not ask this in OBOB or in Specific Denomination-Theology?

When the answer is given there can there be discussions and debate about it?

 

[AndOne]

When the answer is given there can there be discussions and debate about it?

No - which is why I didn't put this there. It is precisely why they want me to put it there.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

No discussion? hmm it would seem more edifying to continue this thread . post something in OBOB and quote their response in this thread .

 

[AndOne]

No discussion? hmm it would seem more edifying to continue this thread . post something in OBOB and quote their response in this thread .

You are welcome to post a link to this thread there if you want -

 

[Gregory Thompson]

If i find another (more edifying) reason to be there other than this tangent . i might just do that .

 

[boswd]

When one looks at the quote and to see many "reformers' get rather up in arms by it to me exposes what is wrong with Reformation Theology.
Christ did not die for us so we can go and do what we want. I'm sorry he didn't.
He died so our sins can be forgiven but it's not a free pass to live and do whatever you want.

The problem with Reformation theology is it releases oneself of any responsiblilty and accountabilty that one should have to the Faith.

 

[boswd]

If you think that the sacrifice of Jesus frees you form obeying God's moral law then you have strayed outside classical Anglican Theology.

See the 12th and 14th Articles of Religion.

I can never understand this notion that if we strive to be like Christ, and obey the moral laws he gave us, that we somehow diminish him. That doesn't make any sense. It magnifies him because we recognize, worship, obey, and follow him for who he is.

QFT