Thereoy of the Atonement

[mondar]

What happened at the cross is one of the defining issues in Christianity. The doctrine of atonement has development.

Anselm and Aquinas developed a "satisfaction theory of atonement."
Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This view is held by some in the western Church today.

After this, John Calvin articulated the "penal substitutionary" view of the atonement. This is more often called the "limited atonement" because of the "L" in TULIP. Unfortunately, few understand what Reformed people are saying when they use the term "limited atonement." Of course in the "penal substitutionary" view, Christ's crosswork saves all those for whom he intends to save. This view is a development of the previous view.

A third view is the "governmental view of the atonement" which is the view of most non-Reformed Protestant scholars. While many protestants claim the believe in a "substitutionary atonement," this idea is not accurate to actually discribe the theology of many non-Calvinists. The substitutionary view does not extend salvation, or even the possility of salvation to the whole world, but only those for whom Christ died. Christ, was the substitute for those of faith, the elect. In the governmental view, Christ died for the whole world. He did not die for anyone in particular, but for all people in all times and places. In this view, Christ dies "For the world," but does not die in their place.

*** For those who wish to contribute, and if you do not understand the differences between one view of the atonement and another, please read up on the views before contributing. I recommend reading some of the simple articles in wiki. Just do a search on "theory of atonement."

For those who have read wiki or those who already know some of the differences, I invite you to participate. I will have to come back for a later post to defend the view of the atonement that I accept as truth. For now, I have to go.

 

[craigmn3]

From the day Adam and Eve were ejected from Eden a savior was promised.
Through out the all the books of the prophets His purpose was revealed

The Gosples show us the work of atonement and it is revealed in the the Epistals to be a intergral part of what we must believe to be saved.

It IS the bible.

I am shocked and dismayed, that men might try and mitigate this truth...into a theory.

Give me 10 well meaning uneducated Christians over one scholar, any day.

 

[theLords]

Give me 10 well meaning uneducated Christians over one scholar, any day.

Amen. "He useth the weak to shame the strong"

 

[mondar]

From the day Adam and Eve were ejected from Eden a savior was promised.
Through out the all the books of the prophets His purpose was revealed

The Gosples show us the work of atonement and it is revealed in the the Epistals to be a intergral part of what we must believe to be saved.

It IS the bible.

I am shocked and dismayed, that men might try and mitigate this truth...into a theory.

Give me 10 well meaning uneducated Christians over one scholar, any day.

Feel free to abhor this thread. Feel free to be shocked and dismayed. Hopefully you will do it by not reading the thread and saying away. This thread was not an invitation for the ignorant to show their ignorance, but for people of any strip of education or even no education to participate in a friendly discussion concerning some of the most important issues within western Christianity, the nature of the cross work of Christ, and thus the nature of the gospel and our salvation.

 

[Elijah674]

Feel free to abhor this thread. Feel free to be shocked and dismayed. Hopefully you will do it by not reading the thread and saying away. This thread was not an invitation for the ignorant to show their ignorance, but for people of any strip of education or even no education to participate in a friendly discussion concerning some of the most important issues within western Christianity, the nature of the cross work of Christ, and thus the nature of the gospel and our salvation.

Then why do you post?? Go to the Jer. 17:5 ones?
God told Eve to stay off the devils ground. (bottom/line!)
--Elijah

 

[Alabaster]

Why on earth do we need the views of old and/or dead theologians regarding the atonement?

We have God's word.

 

[Pard]

For any of the theories of the Atonement to hold water they must acknowledge two things first. The theory has to acknowledge the sinful nature of men and it has to acknowledge the sacrificial/substitutional nature of Jesus' death.

The government theory of Atonement is wrong because it forgets to mention that Christ actually did pay the penalty for broken laws and it only says that He suffered and showed people the laws were being broken. It reminds me of how bail works. Bail is set at 250,000$, but you only need to provide a fraction of that to get out. This theory is saying Jesus just paid that fraction to get us out... court is still coming!

The substitution theory of Atonement is the closest theory, the key word being closest.

The problem is that no theory totally encompasses every scripture reference to Atonement. It is like trying to represent a 3D object with a 2D drawing. It comes close, but it will never be the real deal. The reason there are SO many broken and half-right theories on Atonement is because they only answer part of what the Bible is saying.

Another issue is that they try to EXPLAIN how it works. Now maybe they actually can explain it, but there is no need for the intricate workings of God to be explained to us.

 

[Drew]

Why on earth do we need the views of old and/or dead theologians regarding the atonement?

We have God's word.

Although I have little doubt that my understanding of the atonement differs from that of mondar, I need to speak out against this string of recent posts which are, on the whole, clearly dismissive of those who wish to investigate the subtleties of this very important doctrine.

I suggest these posts demonstrate the false "either or" dichotomy between serious theological inquiry and the word of God. There is nothing to be lost, and everything to be gained, by studying what "dead theologians" have to say about this matter.

You (and others) may think that your position the nature of the atonement is based solely on the bare word of God, and is unalloyed by the ideas of theologians long dead. I suggest that this view is mistaken - whether we want to admit or not, there is no such thing as a purely objective view of the scriptures and we are all, whether we admit or not, products of the thinking of those who have gone before us.

If the atonement doctrine is so simple, perhaps you can explain why Paul describes the atonement in terms of God condemning sin (and not Jesus) in this critical text from Romans 8:

3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

 

[stovebolts]

Feel free to abhor this thread. Feel free to be shocked and dismayed. Hopefully you will do it by not reading the thread and saying away. This thread was not an invitation for the ignorant to show their ignorance, but for people of any strip of education or even no education to participate in a friendly discussion concerning some of the most important issues within western Christianity, the nature of the cross work of Christ, and thus the nature of the gospel and our salvation.

I second that

Lets keep to the OP folks

 

[Alabaster]

God is the Father. Jesus is the Son who surrenders to the Father's will.

 

[mondar]

Why on earth do we need the views of old and/or dead theologians regarding the atonement?

We have God's word.

Alabaster, this sounds like the glorification of ignorance. Where do you think men like Calvin got their "theory of Atonement from?" I mention Calvin, because Luther seemed to purposely not have articulated a theory of Atonement. He never tried to systematize how he understood the mechanics of Christs work on the cross. Calvin did make that effort and so Calvin's name is more often attached to such discussions. Nevertheless Alabaster, please don't join those who glorify ignorance of the teachings of past men on the scriptures. Come with me in this discussion. You may not agree with me, I will end up defending the penal substitutionary view of Christs shed blood (atonement). You might believe a more governmental view, I dont know. The issues are huge. Did Christ die as a substitute in my place, or did he do something less, he died simply "for me." There are few issues as paramount.

IN UNDERSTANDING GOD WORD, WE STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF PAST GREAT TEACHERS
Alabaster, I forget who said this, but it is very true. We all stand on the shoulders of the men who went before us. I lean more toward Reformed Theology. The rich exegetical history of the scholars that went before us is a truly valuable resource. In fact, lets take Martin Luther. The man wrote hundreds of volumes. I must admit I find Luther's expressions shocking, and at times humorous, but Luther makes his point. Protestants believe that salvation is by "faith alone." This doctrine was nearly lost in the teachings of the Church. Luther came and the issue exploded for 200 years. Now in 2011, the protestant Church is in very sad shape. I rarely hear the terms "faith alone" in our pulpits. Luther once said "as so goes the doctrine of "faith alone," so goes the Church.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT TEACHERS ARE INFALLIBLE
I am not saying that Luther, Calvin, Owens, Spurgeon, or any of the scholars or preachers alive now are equal to the scripture. Certainly that would be absurd. These men taught "scripture alone" themselves. The authority of the scriptures as the final and absolute authority is one I have maintained for a long time. I would guess some of my opponents in debate over sola scriptura would testify that I was involved. Ask Francisdesales, or Dadof10. The would of course take the view that I am in error with what I believe about the authority of the scriptures. They have defended the teachings of "Sacred Tradition." However, even in their Roman Catholic tradition, it is not, Popes, Church Fathers, or individual scholars that are infallible, but the collection of them that they call "Sacred Tradition" that is authoritative. The will claim that even their popes can err. Only when the pope speaks "ex Cathedra" can an individual speak with infallible authority. I, however, am more reformed and take the "sola scriptura" view.

THE SCRIPTURE WRITE THAT GOD GAVE US TEACHERS
I would see this issue as a greater issue. God gave us pastors, teachers, and men of God to assist us and teach us what the word of God says (See Ephesians 4:11-12). We, as protestants, are not a people who believe that we can go out in the woods, just us and our bibles, ourselves, and God, and that's all we are allowed to have. Protestants believe that the scriptures are "sufficient" for salvation and spiritual growth, and that the scriptures are the only infallible source of doctrine, but we do not believe that God has not sent us preachers and teachers. We do not deny that God has given us more then what is "sufficient." If God gave us teachers, why is it so wrong to read of the teachings these men gave us from the past? Their written words can span the centuries and teach us today.

THE DENIAL OF TEACHERS
Alabaster, how far should one carry the "bible, me, and God" concept? Should a man never bother going to Church because it is the word of a fallible preacher? Certainly our preachers are fallible, and so are we! Can I never read a book because of the fact that a saint is dead? Can I never read a book?

MY MOTIVE IN CREATION OF THE THREAD
Certainly the issue I raised takes some background reading to actually carry on a civil conversation. It occured to me that there are many people in these threads that are ignorant of the subject I was going to raise. For those people, I was hoping they would just ignore the thread. I must admit, I did not expect such a hostile reaction to the thread. My motive in starting it was the suggestion of Francisdesales in a different thread. He raised the issue of the penal substitutionary view of the atonement cannot properly reflect the love of God. I began to defend my view and he commented that I should start another thread. His comment was fair. Our conversation could have dominated and even ruined the subject of the thread.

In my opinion, it is a good idea to have a thread dedicated to learning and discussion of the opposing theories of atonement. Some will defend themselves from "Sacred History." I will attempt to make a defense from the scripture. I have not made my scriptural defense yet, but I hopefully will do that when I am home sometime.

Alabaster, I invite you to read and think about the issues that might come up. I also invite you to participate in the discussion. I would suggest going to wiki and searching "theory of atonement." It is a good starting place to understand what this discussion is to be about. Please look at it, then come back and join us. A "theory of atonement" is something that has to do with the core of our faith. It is the most central thing we believe.

When I hear people saying it is not important, my ears hear a little of this... "It does not matter what happened on the cross... that is for those foolish scholars. Forget the cross, a simple faith of untaught people is far better." For me, and I believe for you, what happened on the cross (theory of atonement) is one of the most important things in our lives.

 

[Alabaster]

By all means use intimidation, calling all who would dare to enter your thread and have a difference of opinion as ignorant.

It matters what happened at the cross, but it doesn't matter what Wiki has to say! Good grief!

Have fun with yourself.

 

[mondar]

Drew, SteveBolts, Pard....
Thanks for the support for the thread and the comments.

Mondar

 

[mondar]

By all means use intimidation, calling all who would dare to enter your thread and have a difference of opinion as ignorant.

It matters what happened at the cross, but it doesn't matter what Wiki has to say! Good grief!

Have fun with yourself.

Alabaster, intimidation was not intended. I did use the term "ignorance" but that was not intended to intimidate, but was simply a statement of fact. We are all ignorant of something. There are surely too many areas of knowledge about the bible that I am ignorant of. Also, I know I am very ignorant of Eastern Orthodox theology and writings. Shoot, I could not name one eastern writer past the 5th century. If you were to say that I am ignorant of the views of the Eastern Church on the Bible and theology, why should I be "intimidated?" It would simply be a true statement.

If you were to start a thread on Eastern Orthodox theology, I might read some, I might even have a question or two. Hopefully I would not come in and say that there is something sick about the conversation and argue against the mere existance of the thread.

To say someone is "ignorant" can be simply a statement of truth, and is not an insult. We are all ignorant about many many things.

 

[francisdesales]

What happened at the cross is one of the defining issues in Christianity. The doctrine of atonement has development.

Anselm and Aquinas developed a "satisfaction theory of atonement."
Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This view is held by some in the western Church today.

Mondar,

I assure you that Anselm and Aquinas developed different ideas of "Theory of Atonement". I'll just address Anselm, for now, since his theory of Atonement and the later misunderstanding of it has caused countless problems. Anselm's Theory is based upon Freedom, and specifically states that it is not God's honor that is at issue. "It is impossible for God to lose His honor" (Why God became Man, 1 14:276-77). In His "Reflections", Anselm notes that God's dishonor can only mean the dishonoring of his created order, which sin attacks. The created order is man's freedom to give His entire self to His creator. It is human nature that "requires" to make a satisfaction. In addition, Anselm sees satisfaction as a replacement for punishment. (As I will explain shortly, this is where "penal substitution" falls short). Freedom is thus regained. Anselm uses the analogy of the OT koper payment, which restores the possibility of full community. This satisfaction is based upon the grieved party indicating a desire to forgive and the guilty party ready to ask and accept forgiveness by a sign (the reparation).

Luther and Protestantism is based upon something entirely different.

"God against God for men" - "The gracious God against the wrathful God for our benefit". These are Lutheran theology formulas of the work at the cross. It is Luther's view that Christ not only took upon HImself the consequences of sin, but became sin ITSELF!

Luther wrote in his interpretation of the Letter to the Galatians that Christ BECAME literally a curse: "He is the greatest robber, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer and so on. THere is no greater sinner than He". Of course, this is absurdum, but this is Luther's mindset: When God intends to grant grace, he shows him wrath, when he intends to set someone upright, he bows him down. Christ's suffering reach the pinnacle of "sub contrario". Thus, in the "great exchange", he understands an exchange of substitution - our sins become Christ's sin and his righteousness becomes our righteousness...

This idea is based upon the expresssion that Christ became a curse for us (Gal 3:13) It is a misinterpretation by Luther, since Paul does not say Christ was cursed by God Himself, but that Christ endured being condemned as a cursed man in the eyes of the Law.

Paul writes that Jesus accepted the human condition under the law of sin in order to reconcile it to God in an act of perfect obedience and love. In 2 Cor 5:21, Paul thus does not say "God made him to be a sinner...so that we might become the righteousness of God". That would contradict what Paul had just written "him...who knew no sin".

So from this, we see Luther's understanding of sin is faulty. He has the same problem in the realm of individual ethics, the setting of grace v nature, the Law v the Gospel. This naturally leads to Jesus' role in redemption v the "wrathful" God. To Luther, it is God HIMSELF who revokes his communion with man! Indeed, according to Luther, the creature's hostility to God is in fact the result of God's wrath!!! Absurd - God is faithful and will NEVER break the covenant...

To Luther, the Incarnation primarily means joining the ranks of sinners, which, contrary to all tradition and common sense, sets the Christ at a distance from God Himself! HOW does Christ becoming HIMSELF a sinner and sin itself help liberate man from sin? If Christ is abandoned by God (as Calvin thought), how does this help man??? If indeed, God turns from Christ, rejects HIm and makes Him a curse, it is a tremendous leap of logic to conclude that this helps mankind in some way... And we can see the foundation of "imputed justification" here, since man remains in sin, even after redemption.

Now, penal substitution:

Anselm develops the idea of satisfaction - sin has confused the order of God's works. God's justice leaves two possibilities open, satisfaction OR punishment. Either the order that has been damaged must be repaired OR the just punishment ensues. NOT BOTH. Since Christ has made reparation for sins, the punishment no longer applies. Rather, Jesus' obedience is putting right what sin destroyed. Anselm follows Paul: Jesus' obedience is the satisfaction for the disobedience of sin - and that very fact renders punishment moot.

For "penal substitution", satisfaction becomes BOTH reparation AND punishment. Punishment is coming and it is only a question of who suffers it. A PROFOUND CHANGE OF THE IMAGE OF WHO GOD IS HAS TAKEN PLACE!!! One totally out of sync with Christianity prior to Luther...

According to this view of penal substitution, God's justice is always God's justice inflicting punishment, because man is always and necessarily a sinner. When satisfaction as conducted by Christ is understood as punishment, we have a "just" God punishing an innocent person, a most unjust situation! This cannot be explain away in absurdum.

When penal substitution took the place of represenative satisfaction, one sees God as demanding punitive justice. One sees Christ's blood as pacifying a bloodthirsty God, rather than a God of Love who humbly became man. And thus, Calvin wrote:

THis (satisfaction) was not achieved by Christ merely suffering bodily death. No, He had truly to feel the whole harshness of the divine judgment in order to turn away His (God) wrath and to give satisfaction for His just sentence... He not only gave His body for ransom, but offered a greater and more costly sacrifice for us in that he endured in his soul the fearful torments of the damned and doomed man" (Institutes, 2, 16, 10)

The image of a wrathful father is dominant here, not the God of the Gospels revealed by Jesus Christ, in such parables as the Prodigal Son. Where is the "punishment" of the younger son??? It is further intensified by the widespread notion that only a sinless offering can appease the judgment of God. THis idea is not found in Scriptures, as God willingly forgives the humble man BECAUSE of the man's repentance AND God's mercy/willingness to forgive, Koper. God, in the Bible, is never shown to await a perfect offering before giving forgiveness to the repentant man. Thus, the idea of penal substitution causes serious issues with Who God is and Why God became man in the first place.

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

lol. if luther didnt decide to try to fix the catholic church, with his 95 thesis, allabaster and et all would be as francisdesales, Catholics

carryon mondar.

i will admit ignorance on all that is calvinism.

 

[craigmn3]

Although I have little doubt that my understanding of the atonement differs from that of mondar, I need to speak out against this string of recent posts which are, on the whole, clearly dismissive of those who wish to investigate the subtleties of this very important doctrine.

And yet with a handful of things, the Deity of Christ, the Love of the Father, atonement is sacrosanct. Examine it for what it is, yes. Find the nuances, mine the ore, reach for depths of understanding of what it is....but first accept that it is. And it, like all truths of God are compeltely independant of the vagaries of men and scholars.

 

[jasoncran]

And yet with a handful of things, the Deity of Christ, the Love of the Father, atonement is sacrosanct. Examine it for what it is, yes. Find the nuances, mine the ore, reach for depths of understanding of what it is....but first accept that it is. And it, like all truths of God are compeltely independant of the vagaries of men and scholars.

what mondar is trying to say that unless we are totally independent of the church and dont have a pastor we will be listening to someone elses theology and will see the entire bible through their lens.

can you admit that?

i do. i wasnt shown any viable defense of the pre-trib rapture just believed it because the pastors that taught me quoted the few verses that supported it.

its until now that i'm looking for the entire biblical picture of the end times.

 

[Elijah674]

what mondar is trying to say that unless we are totally independent of the church and dont have a pastor we will be listening to someone elses theology and will see the entire bible through their lens.

can you admit that?

i do. i wasnt shown any viable defense of the pre-trib rapture just believed it because the pastors that taught me quoted the few verses that supported it.

its until now that i'm looking for the entire biblical picture of the end times.

Hi again. No big deal from this end as far as others see things perhaps? But your post says heaps to me of ones sincerety. Who else in the Rev. 17:1-5 ones over the past many years are prophesied with a change in doctrine which you have just done? (very few!)

And on the Subject of Atonement, (Christ's Final Work) notice in Lev. 17:8-9 that both the stranger & the one of Israel had this last chance to make it right. There were twice daily sacrifices in the Holy Place, but only once a year was the Day for Atonement done in the second apartment called the Most Holy Place. That was where the Ark of the Covenant was, & still is kept in heaven. The Great Original. Note this verse in the 'time of judgement'. Rev. 11:18-19

I do not know where you are at with the High Priest's (Christ's) work in the Most Holy Place? (pointing to Christ's last work) But notice the 'seven times' in Lev. 16:14-16 & again in verse 19's 'seven times'.

--Elijah

 

[francisdesales]

Alabaster, this sounds like the glorification of ignorance. Where do you think men like Calvin got their "theory of Atonement from?" I mention Calvin, because Luther seemed to purposely not have articulated a theory of Atonement. He never tried to systematize how he understood the mechanics of Christs work on the cross. Calvin did make that effort and so Calvin's name is more often attached to such discussions. Nevertheless Alabaster, please don't join those who glorify ignorance of the teachings of past men on the scriptures. Come with me in this discussion. You may not agree with me, I will end up defending the penal substitutionary view of Christs shed blood (atonement). You might believe a more governmental view, I dont know. The issues are huge. Did Christ die as a substitute in my place, or did he do something less, he died simply "for me." There are few issues as paramount.

IN UNDERSTANDING GOD WORD, WE STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF PAST GREAT TEACHERS
Alabaster, I forget who said this, but it is very true. We all stand on the shoulders of the men who went before us. I lean more toward Reformed Theology. The rich exegetical history of the scholars that went before us is a truly valuable resource. In fact, lets take Martin Luther. The man wrote hundreds of volumes. I must admit I find Luther's expressions shocking, and at times humorous, but Luther makes his point. Protestants believe that salvation is by "faith alone." This doctrine was nearly lost in the teachings of the Church. Luther came and the issue exploded for 200 years. Now in 2011, the protestant Church is in very sad shape. I rarely hear the terms "faith alone" in our pulpits. Luther once said "as so goes the doctrine of "faith alone," so goes the Church.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT TEACHERS ARE INFALLIBLE
I am not saying that Luther, Calvin, Owens, Spurgeon, or any of the scholars or preachers alive now are equal to the scripture. Certainly that would be absurd. These men taught "scripture alone" themselves. The authority of the scriptures as the final and absolute authority is one I have maintained for a long time. I would guess some of my opponents in debate over sola scriptura would testify that I was involved. Ask Francisdesales, or Dadof10. The would of course take the view that I am in error with what I believe about the authority of the scriptures. They have defended the teachings of "Sacred Tradition." However, even in their Roman Catholic tradition, it is not, Popes, Church Fathers, or individual scholars that are infallible, but the collection of them that they call "Sacred Tradition" that is authoritative. The will claim that even their popes can err. Only when the pope speaks "ex Cathedra" can an individual speak with infallible authority. I, however, am more reformed and take the "sola scriptura" view.

THE SCRIPTURE WRITE THAT GOD GAVE US TEACHERS
I would see this issue as a greater issue. God gave us pastors, teachers, and men of God to assist us and teach us what the word of God says (See Ephesians 4:11-12). We, as protestants, are not a people who believe that we can go out in the woods, just us and our bibles, ourselves, and God, and that's all we are allowed to have. Protestants believe that the scriptures are "sufficient" for salvation and spiritual growth, and that the scriptures are the only infallible source of doctrine, but we do not believe that God has not sent us preachers and teachers. We do not deny that God has given us more then what is "sufficient." If God gave us teachers, why is it so wrong to read of the teachings these men gave us from the past? Their written words can span the centuries and teach us today.

THE DENIAL OF TEACHERS
Alabaster, how far should one carry the "bible, me, and God" concept? Should a man never bother going to Church because it is the word of a fallible preacher? Certainly our preachers are fallible, and so are we! Can I never read a book because of the fact that a saint is dead? Can I never read a book?

MY MOTIVE IN CREATION OF THE THREAD
Certainly the issue I raised takes some background reading to actually carry on a civil conversation. It occured to me that there are many people in these threads that are ignorant of the subject I was going to raise. For those people, I was hoping they would just ignore the thread. I must admit, I did not expect such a hostile reaction to the thread. My motive in starting it was the suggestion of Francisdesales in a different thread. He raised the issue of the penal substitutionary view of the atonement cannot properly reflect the love of God. I began to defend my view and he commented that I should start another thread. His comment was fair. Our conversation could have dominated and even ruined the subject of the thread.

In my opinion, it is a good idea to have a thread dedicated to learning and discussion of the opposing theories of atonement. Some will defend themselves from "Sacred History." I will attempt to make a defense from the scripture. I have not made my scriptural defense yet, but I hopefully will do that when I am home sometime.

Alabaster, I invite you to read and think about the issues that might come up. I also invite you to participate in the discussion. I would suggest going to wiki and searching "theory of atonement." It is a good starting place to understand what this discussion is to be about. Please look at it, then come back and join us. A "theory of atonement" is something that has to do with the core of our faith. It is the most central thing we believe.

When I hear people saying it is not important, my ears hear a little of this... "It does not matter what happened on the cross... that is for those foolish scholars. Forget the cross, a simple faith of untaught people is far better." For me, and I believe for you, what happened on the cross (theory of atonement) is one of the most important things in our lives.

Overall, a good post. It is arrogance to think that we can "re-invent the wheel" with every new generation. It is unwise to ignore the teachings of past men who had much to say on interpreting the Word of God. God has revealed to mankind something about Himself, and that revelation continues through the generations of the Church. Does one think that the Spirit only comes to this generation??? True, individuals are not infallible, but the Great Tradition that has come before us, the life and teachings of the Church of past ages, was equally led by the Holy Spirit. We build upon our knowledge of God and Revelation by taking to heart what the Spirit has revealed before.

Regards