Well, first of all, the "Gospels" - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are full of references, most from Jesus' own mouth, that he is the Christ, the Messiah, the Chosen One. He repeatedly refers to Moses and the Prophets speaking of him and the whole purpose of his coming. If he was not the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", then who was he? What was the point of his death on the cross if not for taking on the sins of the world? His shed blood was for the propitiation of our sins and was the once and for all sacrifice that all the sacrifices in the temple pointed to. They were only a covering until he came and took away our sins, nailing them to the cross.
Secondly, it is startling that you imply Catholics and Orthodox only base their doctrines upon the first four books of the New Testament. Should we all just toss out the rest of the Bible? I seem to think our Lord would not be too pleased if we did. The Holy Spirit went to all that trouble for nothing???
The blood of the Pascal Lamb was a sign for death to “Passover.”
In addition to Christ overcoming death, we should remember his teaching about our personal sin and his call for repentance, love and forgiving others. It is separating these two and, often, forgetting the second that causes some of the division in our beliefs.
I hate this thread. I keep coming back for the same reason I buy a BigMac every few years, just to remind myself why I hate it. At least with a bigmac I don't eat the whole thing. I hate all these mega-sado-evangelism threads (kudos to Mad Dawg) because "victory" is established by whoever is still standing around flicking boogers at people when all the sane people have moved on to the NEXT mega-sado-evangelism thread.
I do it too, so as much as I'm pointing at everyone else I'm pointing at myself as well.
Anyhow... Surely everyone who professes anything even semi-identifiable as Christianity understands that the New Testament and the Old Testament must be read through the lens of the Gospels. All of human history is only properly understood through the lens of Christ, not in some abstract manner, but directly. Not only does St. Paul not make any sense without oblique reference to Christ but he doesn't make sense without direct reference to what Jesus Christ said and did. In that sense, St. Paul doesn't explain Christ, Christ explains St. Paul.
So... to the matter at hand: The doctrine of the Atonement is possibly the only core doctrine of the Church that was not defined because of heresy. As far as I know even the reformers took with them that one doctrine whole and entire. Since then however there's been a mess. I consulted the online old Catholic Encyclopedia and found this:
In their general conception on the atonement the Reformers and their followers happily preserved the Catholic doctrine, at least in its main lines. And in their explanation of the merit of Christ's sufferings and death we may see the influence of St. Thomas and the other great Schoolmen. But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.
* The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.
* The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.
The point being, these concepts are new. If someone is finding these two ideas in Sacred Scripture they are finding something that nobody, not even the reformers found before them. The conclusion from the article on the Atonement:
It [the doctrine of the Atonement] is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom, or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt. But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, "making peace through the blood of His Cross".
The point of his death was to destroy death and offer mankind eternal life, thereby restoring humanity to its original created state. He offered himself as ransom, death accepted, and when Jesus died death realized it couldn't hold him and was rendered powerless.
The freed humanity was thus offered grace (pardon, mercy), and given an opportunity to return to God. The salvation was freeing mankind from obligate death, the way Passover was salvation for the Jews. The blood of the lamb in both cases meant life. Those who cling to God are led by God to eternal life. It is a reward. Those who don't cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
You may or may not agree with this, but this is what the early Church believed and what the Eastern Church believes to this day. In the West, particularly under the influence of Anslem (11th century), the concept of divine satisfaction becomes the new doctrine: Christ had to die to satisfy the insulted God and nothing short of a divine sacrifice would do.
The idea of Christ being ransom is the original Christian doctrine and is found in Matthew, Mark and 1 Timothy (Paul). The idea that he is a divine satisfaction (propitiation) is found in Romans, Hebrews and 1 John. Obviously he can't be both.
Obivously Jesus never taught he was a propitiation. Paul is wishy-washy as always (Romans-1 Timothy disconnect), being what he was best at, namely "all things to all men," not necessarily consistent, Hebrews is a Pauline-like book, using his expressions, and 1 John is a late work obviously following Paul's line of thinking.
Secondly, it is startling that you imply Catholics and Orthodox only base their doctrines upon the first four books of the New Testament. Should we all just toss out the rest of the Bible? I seem to think our Lord would not be too pleased if we did. The Holy Spirit went to all that trouble for nothing???
I never said only on the Gospels. I said the catholic and apostolic Church is based on the Gospels (the way Judaism is based on the Torah, but not only on the Torah). The Church uses the Gospels as the key with which to unlock (interpret) all other books of the Bible, NT or OT. The OT is interpreted in terms of the NT and the NT in terms of the Gospels.
Obviously not; yet we must consider Scripture and its source. The Gospels are the quotations of Jesus. Jesus is Lord God Almighty. I am baffled by alleged Christians acting as if (but not overtly confirming) that the words of e.g. Nehemiah or the Chronicler are as important if not more important than the words of Almighty God. I mean, do you really consider Lamentations as important as the Sermon on the Mount?