Since @ThomasdelVasto has made a couple "main-Motte" religious posts I thought I'd join in the fun.
I'm a Protestant with strong Reformed leanings. My wife, on the other hand, has just converted to Catholicism. This has led me to explore aspects of Catholic teaching, though necessarily at a surface level given the rich history. Aquinas alone would take months if not years to digest. I expected to disagree on Mary (perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, assumption) and the Pope (infallibility); and I still do (though I was surprised how recently these have become "dogma": I would have found it much easier to be a Catholic in 1800 than today). I am pleasantly surprised at how much weight they place on Scripture, Christ, and Assurance: there are far more shared hymns than I had anticipated, as as an example.
What follows is some of the reflections I had to this surface exploration. I would be thrilled to be corrected or critiqued by any of the Motte's Catholics, if nothing else to better understand my wife's flavor of the Christian faith. Many of these are reactions to "Catholicism" by Bishop Robert Barron, which my wife kindly bought to introduce me to the titular topic. While I presume he is orthodox Catholic, his interpretations may not be universally accepted by Catholics. If I challenge particular arguments from Barron, it should not be interpreted as an argument against Catholicism unless Barron is arguing for Church Dogma. His "Catholicism" is also meant as an introduction and for popular consumption, and his actual beliefs may have more nuance.
As part of this journey (which is certainly not over yet!), I also read (the dense and repetitive) "Divine Will and Human Choice" by Richard Muller and "Christus Victor" by Gustaf Aulén. These, too, have varying degrees of rigor. Muller and Aulén were both Protestants.
God’s freedom
While Reformed theology would affirm that God predestines both those who are saved and those who are damned, Catholics balk at this concept; arguing that this implies a God who would cause sin. God cannot will that which is against his nature. Catholics would appeal to God’s provision and common grace that allows humans consciences to (partially and weakly) discern good and evil. Yet we cannot perfectly discern this apart from divine revelation (scripture). And scripture states multiple times in the Exodus narrative that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Aquinas (as if often the case) provides the most rigorous Catholic argument I’ve heard for this hardening. God through an act of his will withdrew what grace was granted to Pharaoh. Absent God’s grace Pharaoh drew more into his sin. While Aquinas argued this case for the individual case of Pharaoh, it seems consistent to assume that were God to withdraw his common grace more broadly that all would fall into a state where our consciences are no longer capable of even partial discernment of good and evil. This is also consistent with God giving humans over to their lusts in Romans 1.
So far, this interpretation is consistent with scripture, though I am discomfited by the constraints this threatens to place on God: constraints that come perilously close to being primarily informed by our own interpretation or perspective of scripture and sin. God works and wills, including in sin.
Barron, if I read him correctly, goes a step further. He puts the "problem of sin" as one of the best arguments against God. I’ve never understood this as a problem for Christians. It is a deep problem for atheists, who have to explain or excuse their visceral (though often mis-aligned) desire for justice despite no objective basis for these judgments. Christians have no such need to explain or excuse: of course we are all deeply desirous for justice since we have (again, weakly and with great room for error) a sense of what transcendent goodness could be. A consistent perspective on the problem of evil would be that God defines good, and if we don’t understand his actions to be "good" that is a fault (a mis-calibration) of our fallen nature. The fact that Barron does not take this tack hints that he believes humanity’s desire for a "good" God is compatible with humanity’s definition of "good". This runs the grave risk of putting ourselves as a "judge" or external arbiter of God’s behavior.
Barron continues to put a soft face on hard truths. Later in the book, Barron says "God sends no one to hell, people freely choose to go there". This sharply contradicts scripture. Jesus talks about casting sinners into the outer darkness. Peter says the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. John’s Revelation describes those who receive a mark on their forehead drinking the wrath of God, mixed in the cup of his anger, and tormented with fire and brimstone. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Again, God is not passive: he works and wills.
How does God work and will (1)? Does God have a an array of potential actions, any of which he can actualize? Yet this runs the risk of these potential actions being "outside" God. Does God create the potentials as he actualizes them? Thus no "possibles" exist for God, simply "actuals"? This also could be seen as a constraint on God and limit his radical freedom. Both these potential concepts of God’s will and freedom (of which I’m sure there are hundreds of alternative concepts) seem to be operating at a level above how Barron conceptualizes God’s freedom. Put crassly, Barron seems to be hinting that God could not "make a triangle a square", that is, that God is constrained by logical impossibilities. But this is such a small view of God. God creates our minds and universe. Our minds invent or discover things like logic, or define things like squares or circles. Whether spawned by our intellect or embedded in the structure of the cosmos, these concepts (including logic!) are part of Creation itself. God created the conditions under which we can model physical reality with math, structure, and logic. Logic is a model. Logos is Truth. Logic is created. Logos is the Creator.
God’s atoning work
The freedom God enjoys in his omnipotence has implications for a theological understanding of Atonement. The "big two" theories of Atonement, Satisfaction and Substitution, emphasize the sacrificial nature of the cross. This sacrificial interpretation retains God’s complete sovereignty with Christ’s death being an act of perichoretic propitiation. The incarnation and death was necessary because of God. It was not necessary because of anything external to God.
Catholics consider Substitution theory, which is the most common concept of Atonement in Reformed circles, to be heresy. Belief in the other concepts of Atonement are allowed. In the Satisfaction theory, which my understanding is that most if not all Catholics affirm, Jesus is our great high priest and a perfect offering, but does not receive the judgement of God. Christ died for our sins, but not in our place.
"Christus Victor" makes the historical case for Ransom theory. In principal, this theory could bring Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox together: the church Fathers at least strongly hinted at Ransom theory being the primary lens through which they interpret the cross, and the church universally recognizes the importance of the church Fathers. Aulén makes the case that Luther was also an adherent to Ransom theory. Yet this theory risks making God subservient to morality or law, proposing that Jesus was paid to Satan in exchange for humanity (2). Uncharitably, this theory makes God beholden to the "laws" of commerce, even transaction with a brigand.
However, I do find Ransom theory to have its merits. In heavily Reformed theology Satan is almost considered an afterthought. Satan plays no necessary role in the arc of human redemption and salvation. Ransom theory, on the other hand, puts Satan in a prominent place: he is either the kidnapper of human souls or is the (legitimate, in some sense) owner of human souls. The exchange of Christ for humanity and the subsequent torture and murder of Christ was simultaneously Satan’s crowning achievement and his destruction. This interpretation echos Jesus’ parable of the landowner who sent servants to collect from the tenants only to have them beaten or killed. The frustrated landowner finally sent his own son, but the tenants murdered him hoping to take his inheritance. At the conclusion of the parable, the chief priests react that the landowner will bring the tenants to a “wretched end”. Christ’s death and resurrection was the ultimate victory over Sin, Death, and the Devil, bringing this triumvirate to a “wretched end”. Indeed, this victory can be interpreted as more complete than Satisfaction or Substitution theories: it not only removes the penalty of sin, but defeats the sin itself.
Conclusion?
I plan to read and think more on this topic. Next on my list is "Deification through the Cross" by Khaled Anatolios. Any other book recommendations are welcome. I'm particularly interested in Catholic perspectives Atonement that go deeper than Barron's book.
(1) As I read "The Divine Will and Human Choice" I had to continuously bite my tongue. My mathematical training was screaming "But Kolmogorov!". Yet Kolmogorov is but a model, and Muller was trying to describe reality. Muller, though, had merely words to try to describe reality and I kept mentally begging for a more rigorous algebraic representation to more clearly and concisely communicate. Of course, the algebraic representation is itself a model, but so are words: anyone who uses ChatGPT or Claude is implicitly recognizing that words are not reality but just a map or model of reality.
(2) In CS Lewis' The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Aslan (representing Christ) is beholden to the "deep magic".
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Jesus affirms the accuracy of human moral intuition. His parables compare the reasoning of God to the reasoning of man. His sayings are based on a sensible person’s intuition. For instance:
What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the pasture and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders, comes home, and calls together his friends and neighbors to tell them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my lost sheep!’
Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him
And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? As you go with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, lest he drag you to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer put you in prison. I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the very last penny.
As does Paul, eg:
The problem of evil is a thorn in the side of modern Christianity. A benevolent God would never allow something like childhood brain cancer; there are obviously better ways to test the sons of men than to inflict a random child with maximum pain before they have the cognitive capacity to understand what’s going on. Such a thing is evil, and if we say “it is God’s will”, it corrupts our image of God as perfectly loving. And we will be throwing all of the morally sensible and sensitive people out of the churches if we are adamant about this. In my view, the best answer is that God does not have the power to heal certain evils in the world, which are simply destined to happen because “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” The benevolent God does all He can for the victims of Satan in this world, but until the Second Coming there are some things that are inevitable. Perhaps this is because God, though all-powerful, gave mankind some of His omnipotence, which they disobediently misused to create a powerful evil. And something like this is suggested in the Wisdom of Solomon:
I believe this is correct because it is conducive to the greatest wellbeing. This is most comforting to the people who need the most comfort: Satan selects some of the best souls for torment, and these souls will one day be infinitely compensated, and at death already rest in the Bosom of the Lord. This is palliative to both the sufferer and the loved one. The alternative explanation is only palliative to a person who is, I don’t know, unthinking and insensitive or just uniquely submissive to authority. It will lead a person to either discount what happens in the world together or hate God.
I am also partial to my explanation because it elevates evil to a near-Godlike power, which… it is. Why else would Christ be waging a war in the heavenly realms unless it was? Why would his death be needed unless it was? Why else would He call it the ruler of the world? And I think our era needs to see evil as an insanely powerful ruler over the world — this is also conducive to wellbeing.
As is obvious from what I’ve written, I am way outside of Christian orthodoxy, but I think Christian orthodoxy is way outside of what Christ wants, which is the wellbeing of our neighbor, who works too hard to labor our theological treatises in a failed attempt to understand the spirit of God through reason. The earliest form of Christianity was spirit-based, or vibe-based. Spirit + a well-developed intuition. The endless speculation and articulating just empties the Cross of its power.
What do you make of the argument that this is exactly backwards? Take, for instance, John Psmith on Believe:
Jesus uses familiar images in his parables, yes, but the thrust of most of his parables is to cut against the logic of the world. Sometimes they are intuitive, but usually in ways that indict the moral intuitions of the listener. This is explicit in one of your citations: "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children". Whatever is perceived by human moral intuitions is at best a glimmer of righteousness; in our evil and fallenness we can perceive only a dim, shimmering outline of the righteousness of God. We often have to reason from analogy because goodness is so foreign to our experience; thus with the parable of unjust judge, for instance.
Jesus tells people that they will be richer if they give their wealth away, he illustrates this miraculously by producing more bread and fish than his own disciples gave away, and he gives obviously unintuitive, contradictory messages like "the last will be first" and "whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, and whoever will lose his life for my sake will find it". Whatever constitutes common sense according to the world, it is frequently either irrelevant or actually opposed to Jesus' teachings.
This is someone whose perhaps most famous command is to love your enemies, and that plainly is not human moral intuition, to the extent that other, more practical religions, call it out as absurdity and recommend a more sensible course of action. This is the Islamic critique; love your friends, do justice to your enemies, which is indeed a much more commonsensical position.
I do not assert that Jesus' moral teachings are the inverse of common sense or human moral intuition - that would be just as rote as assuming that they go together. I assert only that they do not reliably coincide with human moral intuition. This is consistent with the doctrine of the Fall - there was an originally good human nature that we can still perceive to an extent, but that nature is marred by sin and therefore we have a tendency to go astray. The teachings of Jesus, therefore, call us back to something that we have lost. It is, in a sense, absolutely true to say that human moral intuition is good, but we do not have access to true human moral intuition, but rather a corrupted facsimile thereof.
Thus independent human moral investigation can be good to an extent, producing something like the Lewisian Tao, but this is a limited endeavour, and Jesus clarifies and corrects. The Christian tradition has therefore sometimes distinguished between the classical virtues (fortitude, prudence, temperance, justice), which are recognisable to all men on secular terms and the theological virtues (faith, hope, and love), with the latter being contrary to the way of the world, and necessary to crown and redeem the former.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link