# Catholic Doctrine on the atonement?



## Matthew1344 (Aug 5, 2014)

What is this blog saying?

Here is just a section of it:



> "To [Jesus] was imputed the guilt of their sins, and He was suffering the punishment for those sins on their behalf. And the very essence of that punishment was the outpouring of God's wrath against sinners. In some mysterious way during those awful hours on the cross, the Father poured out the full measure of His wrath against sin, and the recipient of that wrath was God's own beloved Son.
> In this lies the true meaning of the cross. - John MacArthur"
> 
> Why would someone affirm such a blasphemous teaching? What most don't know is that Jesus getting damned in our place is the heart of Sola Fide....
> ...



Seems like it just sums it up and says "I cant believe they think this!", but I thought catholics believed this. I do not understand (1) the blogs point and (2) catholic doctrine on the atonement.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 5, 2014)

They object to the penal part of penal substitutionary atonement. For them Christ died so that God would not have to mete out punishment.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 5, 2014)

SRoper said:


> mete out punishment.


What does this mean? or is this a typo?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Aug 5, 2014)

There isn't any kind of error either in the spelling or grammar of "mete out punishment".

It means to deal out punishment.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 5, 2014)

Yes, mete means to deal, assign, apportion. What I mean is they don't think that the punishment due to our sin was laid on Christ. Every sin needs to be atoned for, but not every sin needs to be punished.


----------



## ZackF (Aug 5, 2014)

Matthew1344 said:


> What is this blog saying?
> 
> Here is just a section of it:
> 
> ...




One should say Catholic doctrines, plural, of the atonement. Sufficed to say it is very complicated especially when you factor in Purgatorial expiation.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 5, 2014)

KS_Presby said:


> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> > What is this blog saying?
> ...



I'm starting to see that


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 7, 2014)

Does anyone have a good hold on what they believe about the atonement? I have Catholics as grandparents. They arent practicing Catholics. They are sweet, old, and were raised in heresy. When I get back to america I am going to have a difficult convo with them. I was going to talk about intercession and high priest, but this seems even more important.


----------



## tyndale (Aug 7, 2014)

From Paul Washer, it is one of the best i've ever heard and should be a good starting point --> The Crushing of Christ | SermonAudio.com 

James White's sermons from his Hebrews series (around chapter 10) talk about the intent and the extent of the atonement... really good stuff that i've never thought about before 

What is sad is that the RCC position is almost in lock step with the historical arminian one, which is why the latter usually cannot give a good answer to what the atonement is other than something shallow like "Jesus died for my sins". Sadly people like Christopher Hitchens capitalized on this fact and said things that he deplored that God sent down a disgusting "human sacrifice" to solve the world's problems in his debates and the Arminian opponent never EVER had a response to that to challenge it.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 7, 2014)

Matt,

Best that you start here:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Doctrine of the Atonement

To get a handle on what they profess to believe.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 7, 2014)

Thanks!!!


----------



## ZackF (Aug 7, 2014)

Matthew1344 said:


> Does anyone have a good hold on what they believe about the atonement? I have Catholics as grandparents. They arent practicing Catholics. They are sweet, old, and were raised in heresy. When I get back to america I am going to have a difficult convo with them. I was going to talk about intercession and high priest, but this seems even more important.



If you are interested in a decent grasp of modern I would say center-right Catholic theology get a copy of most recent catechism from the 1990s. Next week I'll post some excerpts if I can scrounge up mine.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 7, 2014)

Thanks!


----------



## MichaelNZ (Aug 8, 2014)

R.C. Sproul's book _Justified by Faith Alone _was very helpful to me in understanding the Romanist view of salvation. The blogger was right when he wrote this:

"Sola Fide teaches that by faith the sinner receives the righteousness of Christ, while acknowledging Christ received the punishment the sinner deserved. "

This is the critical difference between the Christian and the Romanist view of justification. We believe in _imputed_ righteousness - the righteousness of Christ is credited to the sinner's account so he is justified (declared just) in God's eyes - _simul iustus et peccator_ as Luther put it. The Papists believe in _infused _righteousness - at baptism, the righteousness of Christ is "poured" into the soul of the baptized person which cleanses them from original sin, regenerates them and puts them into a state of grace. Such grace, however, can be lost by mortal sin. In Roman theology, God does not declare anyone just until they _are _just. So they do not believe that Christ paid the entire penalty due to sinners when He suffered on the Cross.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Aug 8, 2014)

Very helpful! Thanks Michael!


----------

