Ep. #160 – What do Catholics Believe about the Atonement? w/ Michael Gormley
Summary
What do Catholics believe about the atonement? Why does it matter that some guy died 2000 years ago? How can we distinguish Catholic views from Reformed protestant views of the atonement? How might we understand Leviticus 16, Isaiah 53, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 8:3, and 1 Peter 2:24 in light of the Catholic view? Michael Gormley joins us to tackle these issues head-on.
Guest Bio
Michael Gormley, also known as Gomer, is co-host of the Catching Foxes podcast. He is a full-time evangelist working for the Church since 2005, making lifelong disciples. He works with individuals, staff, faculties, parishes, and dioceses in a variety of ways in order to bring about the new evangelization of God’s people. Also, he also co-hosts an outstanding Evangelization podcast Every Knee Shall Bow.
Resources
The Catholic Doctrine of Atonement: An Historical Inquiry into its Development in the Church by Henry Nutcombe Oxenham
Jesus Christ: Fundamentals of Christology by Roch A. Kereszty
Sed Contra Podcast – Would God have become Incarnate Had Man Not Sinned?
Layevangelist.com (Gomer’s website)
Every Knee Shall Bow (podcast)
Atonement (Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology) by Eleonore Stump
Catching Foxes (podcast)
Reasonable Faith Course (taught by Gomer)
Related Episodes
Ep. #129 – Defending Fundamentals of the Faith w/ Michael Gormley
Ep. #96 – What’s missing from Catholic apologetics? w/ Michael Gormley?
Ep. #71 – Why Take Jesus Seriously? w/ Michael Gormley
Ep. #54 – Evangelizing Atheists w/ Michael Gormley
Gormley mentions multiple times (around minute 23 & 46) that Christ assumes a fallen human nature. This is false. He correctly says that Christ is sinless, but it is not intelligible to talk about a “fallen” and sinless nature, because Christ is born without original sin. With this false belief of the incarnation, one can not understand correctly the role of Jesus’s human nature in the plan for salvation. It would not surprise me if Gormley just suffered a slip of the mind or tongue because he seems very knowledgeable. But could you maybe reach out to him to let him know, just in case?
Thanks, Dominic, for the comment. I will listen back to what Gormley said and get the scoop on this. Definitely possible that he misspoke. Peace, John
On the contrary, It is written (Hebrews 2:18): “For in that, wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted.” Now He came to succor us. hence David said of Him (Psalm 120:1): “I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me.” Therefore it was fitting for the Son of God to assume flesh subject to human infirmities, in order to suffer and be tempted in it and so bring succor to us.
-St. Thomas Aquinas, ST 3, q 14, a1
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 8:3) that “God” sent “His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Now it is a condition of sinful flesh to be under the necessity of dying, and suffering other like passions. Therefore the necessity of suffering these defects was in Christ’s flesh.
-Ibid, a2
In the same way He might have assumed human nature without defects. Thus it is clear that Christ did not contract these defects as if taking them upon Himself as due to sin, but by His own will.
-Ibid, a 3
But there are some third defects, to be found amongst all men in common, by reason of the sin of our first parent, as death, hunger, thirst, and the like; and all these defects Christ assumed, which Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 11; iii, 20) calls “natural and indetractible passions” —natural, as following all human nature in common; indetractible, as implying no defect of knowledge or grace.
-Ibid, a4
Amazing comment. Let’s do another episode on this in the future and perhaps interact with Balthasar’s atonement thought and sift the bad and good.
The quotes you give require analysis. Because you do not say how they support your claim, I do not know. I assume you mean to say that because Thomas says, “…,” I am correct to assert that Christ did assume a fallen human nature. I will say that your research is good, and I have never seen this part of the Summa. However, I do not believe Thomas is saying things in this section that support your statement that Christ assumed a fallen human nature. Furthermore, It is even a separate question as to whether or not what Thomas says here is correct. (We are reminded of Thomas’s fallibility in the third article of this very section where we read him write, “The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in original sin” ST 3, q14, a3 Reply 1).
But we will leave the question of Thomas’s correctness to the side for now and look at what he does say, and we will take it as true.
First of all, Thomas does not use the language of a fallen human nature. He talks about the defects of Christ’s human nature. Thomas is very emphatic in this section these defects are not from sin. The sin is exactly what is meant by the term “fallen,” as it refers to the fall of man in Genesis 3. Christ’s defects are assumed not by sin, but by the divine will.
But is this defective human nature of Christ the same as fall human nature? Thomas seems to be saying no. In article 4, he asserts that Christ does not assume all the defects which arose in human nature due to sin. Because it is a different set of defects it is a different kind of human nature. Furthermore, when we see which defects Christ did not have we see that Christ’s defective human nature sounds very different from fallen human nature. Thomas says that Christ did not have, ” ignorance, a proneness towards evil, and a difficulty in well-doing” (3, q 14, a4, “I answer”) These defects, which might be able to be identified as concupiscence, seem like integral defects of fallen human nature. Without these, it is hard to say Christ’s defective human nature is the same as fallen human nature.
But what is Thomas getting at in these descriptions? Thomas mentions a possible enemy to his argument as Manicheans. Because they see all matter as inherently evil it is impossible, for them, to say that God could possess any material component. Such thoughts lead to the docetism that sees Christ’s human nature as purely illusionary. Thomas wants to affirm, as do all Catholics and most Christians, that Christ did in fact die. This has always been a belief of Christianity since its earliest times. Salvation history does contain the death and resurrection of Christ. In saying that Christ did not have a fallen human nature, I do not mean to say that his human nature was not mortal. It was. Christ died. In this way one can both agree with what Thomas says at this part of the Summa and deny that Christ has a fallen human nature.
Hi Dominic,
Thanks for this further engagement. Let me see if I can synthesize what both of you are saying since it clearly hinges on the term “fallen human nature.”
I think we all agree that (1) Christ assumed a human nature, (2) Christ, in his human nature, never lacked sanctifying grace and communion with the Father, (3) Christ assumed in his human nature some of the same consequences of our fallen human nature (e.g. death).
Do we disagree with any of those? I’ll leave it to you and Gomer to say.
If we all agree on that, then I think we’re just verbally disagreeing over the use of a term. Christ did not assume a “fallen human nature” in the sense that his human nature was never *deprived* of original holiness and justice, whereas the descendants of Adam and Eve are indeed born deprived. Additionally, Christ did not have the same concupiscience that we have in our fallen human nature. So, if one means fallen in that sense, then Christ did not assume a fallen human nature.
Yet, if one means to say that Christ did not assume a nature with *all* of the preternatural and supernatural gifts that Adam and Eve had (e.g. immortality), and because of this, his assumed human nature is in someway “fallen” (i.e. in at least some way lesser than the unfallen bodily state had by Adam and Eve), then one could say (in that qualified sense) that Christ assumed a fallen human nature.
That’s my synthesis at least. Curious if you’ll both agree.
Peace,
John
John,
I feel like there is so much to unpack in what you said. It is all great stuff, but more than I want to talk about through this forum. (I like talking theology and if you want to zoom me sometime we can work that out. I think you have my email as the owner of the site.)
Suffice it to say that within Christian doctrine language is very important. Think of the debates of homoousios vs homoiousios at Nicaea or Theotokos vs Christotokos at Ephesus. We don’t want to get too bogged down in the exact language, but there are times when a certain expression is deemed to be out of bounds concerning the faith.
With regard to this discussion, because there was so much debate about the incarnation among the Church fathers, the rules regarding its language is more defined than in other topics. This is why I feel that the language must be fairly precise. I feel the type of qualifications needed here would simply make the original statement nonsensical.