Catholic and Reformed conceptions of the atonement and Is 53 explained too

http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/justification-salvation/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement-by-bryan-cross/

The above reference is a pretty good article contrasting the difference and explaining the Catholic view. (Is 53 explained too) . Here is a quote about Isaiah 53 giving a Catholic answer to this question (but the entire article above should be read) Lower down I give some problems with this view for a Protestant:

"A third question, from the Reformed point of view, is this: How then should we understand Isaiah 53? What does it mean that:

Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. .. And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand. Because his soul hath laboured, he shall see and be filled: by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify many, and he shall bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53;4-6, 10-11)

{RC answer}This means that Christ carried in His body the sufferings that sin has brought into the world, and that Christ suffered in His soul over all the sins of the world, and their offense against God. He bore our iniquities not in the sense that God punished Him for what we did, but in the sense that He grieved over them all, in solidarity with us. That is what it means that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He suffered the consequences of sin (i.e. suffering, grief, death), by entering into solidarity with us, entering into our fallen world, and allowing Himself to suffer in it with us, for us, even by our hands."

He also states this:

The Catholic conception of Christ’s Passion and Atonement is that Christ offered Himself up in self-sacrificial love to the Father, obedient even unto death, for the sins of all men. The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son. The Passion is Christ’s greatest act of love, the greatest revelation of the heart of God, and the glory of Christ.¹ So when Christ was on the cross, God the Father was not pouring out His wrath on His Son; In Christ’s act of self-sacrifice in loving obedience to the Father, Christ was most lovable in the eyes of the Father. Rather, in Christ’s Passion we humans poured out our enmity with God on Christ, by what we did to Him in His body and soul. And He freely chose to let us do all this to Him. Deeper still, even our present sins contributed to His suffering, because He, in solidarity with us, grieved over all the sins of the world, not just the sins of the elect. Hence, St. Francis of Assisi said, “Nor did demons crucify Him; it is you who have crucified Him and crucify Him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.”² The Passion is a revelation of the love of God, not the wrath of God. The fundamental difference can be depicted simply in the following drawing: (NA)(see article)"

This seems to be , then, the satisfaction theory of the Atonement which Anselm held to---Berkhof states this theory as thus:

Anselm stressed the absolute necessity of the atonement by grounding it in the very nature of God. According to him sin consists in the creature's withholding from God the honor which is His due. By the sin of man God was robbed of His honor, and it was necessary that this should be vindicated. This could be done in either of two ways: by punishment or by satisfaction. The mercy of God prompted Him to seek it in the way of satisfaction, and in more particularly through the gift of His Son, which was the only way, since an infinite satisfaction was required. Christ rendered obedience to the law, but since this was nothing more than His duty as man it did not constitute any merit on His part."

{note: the RC encyclopedia states that after Anselm:," Abelard was unable to accept Anselm's view that an equivalent satisfaction for sin was necessary, and that this debt could only be paid by the death of the Divine Redeemer. He insists that God could have pardoned us without requiring satisfaction. And, in his view, the reason for the Incarnation and the death of Christ was the pure love of God. By no other means could men be so effectually turned from sin and moved to love God. " But it seems the RC now holds to the necessity --not sure on this--for the encyclopedia states: But on the hypothesis that God has chosen to restore mankind, and at the same time, to require full satisfaction as a condition of pardon and deliverance, nothing less than the Atonement made by one who was God as well as man could suffice as satisfaction for the offense against the Divine Majesty. And in this case Anselm's argument will hold good. Mankind cannot be restored unless God becomes man to save }

PROBLEMS WITH THE ABOVE. Berkhof in his systematic theology [the chapter entitled Divergent Theories of the Atonement] states that the problem with this is --"This theory really has no place for the idea that Christ by suffering endured the penalty of sin, and that His suffering was strictly vicarious. The death of Christ is merely a tribute offered voluntarily to the honor of the Father. It constitutes a supererogatory merit, compensating for the demerits of others; and this is really the Roman Catholic doctrine of penance applied to the work of Christ."

Secondly "The scheme is also one-sided and therefore insufficient in that it basis redemption exclusively on the death of Christ, conceived as a material contribution to the honor of God, and excludes the active obedience of Christ as a contributing factor to His atoning work. The whole emphasis in on the death of Christ, and no justice is done to the redemptive significance of His life." Berkhof doesn't give scripture here for the redemptive significance of his life, but in an early chapter, I believe he does.

Thirdly Berkof states about this Satisfaction theory : "It ostensibly does not ground this necessity[of the atonement] in the justice of God which cannot brook sin, but in the honor of God which calls for amends or reparation.

MORE ON THE CATHOLIC VIEW OF THEATONEMENT HERE: http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/07/atonement-according-to-scripture-more.html

A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION BY THE CATHOLIC GUY NAMED NICK ON ISAIAH 53 IS HERE:

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-job-suffering-servant-of-isaiah-53.html

Thomas Aquinus on the curse of the cross --found this from comment 327 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/#comment-65583

But it is possible to expound this authority both with respect to the evil of punishment and the evil of guilt. Of the evil of punishment thus: Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree, not precisely because he hangs on a tree, but because of the guilt for which he hangs. And in this way Christ was thought to be cursed, when He hung on the cross, because He was being punished with an extraordinary punishment. And according to this explanation, there is a continuity with the preceding. For the Lord commanded in Deuteronomy that anyone who had been hanged should be taken down in the evening; the reason being that this punishment was more disgraceful and ignominious than any other. He is saying, therefore: Truly was He made a curse for us, because the death of the cross which He endured is tantamount to a curse—thus explaining the evil of guilt, although it was only in the minds of the Jews—because it is written: Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree. But with respect to the evil of punishment, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree is explained thus: The punishment itself is a curse, namely, that He should die in this way. Explained in this way, He was truly cursed by God, because God decreed that He endure this punishment in order to set us free

also from here at comment 330 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/#comment-67181

I would ask you to think back to the Old Testament and the type/shadows of Christ. God instituted the sacrificial system to prepare the Jews for the Messiah, and for us as our schoolmaster to understand the New Covenant. In the Old Testament, the lamb had to be spotless, without blemish. This was a symbol of perfection and innocence. In fact, those are precisely the concepts an image of a lamb evokes. Christ, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world does so not by becoming a scalawag, but instead He saves us because He is not just a shadow of a perfect, sinless and guiltless lamb – He is the Perfect One, the Son of God, our Pasche.
I think an alternate view of the atonement only makes sense if the lamb of the Old Testament was “punished.” But, it was not. It was sacrificed.
If Christ were guilty of something, then his punishment would been justice for him. Instead, because he is guiltless, the justice of his punishment is for us. In this way, I think that Catholics can admit to a type of vicarious atonement (vs. vicarious punishment). The sacrifice of Christ on the cross, executed by those He was redeeming, satisfied the wrath of the Father – not because it was an act of aggression by God – but because it was a perfect act of Love by God for us. Perfect loves casts out all fear.

Amen

and from comment 331
............................
If you look at the atonement from the perspective of the Catholic paradigm, then you see that the sinless perfection of Christ is necessary in order for the gift of love He offers to the Father on our behalf to be perfect, and therefore superabundant in its meritorious value, such that by this perfect sacrifice Christ made atonement for every sin that has ever been committed, and will be committed, by every human person who has ever lived, and ever will live, and merited the gift of sanctifying grace for every human person who has ever lived, and ever will live.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement

Then here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

someone asked: comment 460

1) God forgives human sin and gives grace by means of Christ’s atonement.
2) God could have forgiven human sin and given grace by other means that did not involve punishing an innocent person.
3) It is unjust to permit the punishment of an innocent person to effect a good when the same good could be effected by other means that do not include punishing the innocent.
4) God acts unjustly (from 1, 2, and 3).

Since (1) and (2) are affirmed by St. Thomas, it would seem you have to deny (3) to avoid the conclusion. That is, unless (4) is a non sequitur that I’m missing. Yet, (3) seems to be true, at least when examined with our moral intuitions. How might one who affirms the Catholic, Thomistic conception of the atonement respond to this argument?

the answer given in 461_

 First, (4) is a non sequitur, because the premises equivocate between “punish” and “permit punishment.” But beyond that problem, (3) is not true in part because “the same good could be effected” conflates the distinction between the goodness of the end achieved and the goodness of the means by which that end is achieved. That distinction is precisely what St. Thomas is talking about in the paragraph quoted in #458 above. Yes, the same end could be achieved (i.e. the Beatific Vision) by mere divine fiat offering grace and forgiveness to sinners. But the goodness of saving us by means of taking on our nature through the incarnation and then, making satisfaction through an act of supreme sacrificial love even unto death through our assumed nature, would be lost if God were to bring us to the same end by immediate fiat. It is not intrinsically unjust to permit an innocent person to choose knowingly and freely to save others by allowing himself to be punished by others, even when the same end can be achieved by other means that do not include punishing the innocent. So a fortiori it is not unjust to permit this if this way of saving others is a better means than the means that do not include anyone punishing the innocent.