Cardinal Ratzinger v. Catholic Encyclopedia: Did humanity owe a debt?

[OneSheep]

Alleluia, Amen to the end of the creditor s/he was a false god, but there is a proper way to have a debt view just as these Biblical quotes proclaim:

Alleluia, Amen to the end of the creditor s/he was a false god, but there is a proper way to have a debt view just as these Biblical quotes proclaim:

Quote:
Romans 3:25 “…whom God set forth as a propitiation” for our sins. “Propitiation” literally means “something that appeases a deity.” However, it can mean to “accept hurt”, to “forgive”, or to “show mercy.”

Rom. 3:25, 1 John 2:2; 4:10 - tells that Jesus did not pay a propitiation, but that He is a propitiation for our sins.

Romans 5:10 - “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life”

Romans 8:32 - “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?”

Rev. 12:10, 5:9, 12. - The end of the accusations of Satan.

Galatians 3:13 - "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, “Cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree”

Matthew 26:38 - “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death”

Romans 5:17-21 – “For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. 18 In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. 19 For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. 20 The law entered in so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through justification for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

John 3:13-15 – “No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.i14And just as Moses lifted up* the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,j15* so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

Mark 10: 45 - " For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

John 10:17-18 - “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.
So just as sin ruled over all people and brought them to death, now God’s wonderful kindness rules instead, giving us right standing with God and resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Peter 1:18-19 -
For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. He paid for you with the precious lifeblood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God.

Hebrews 2:14-17 - Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

2 Corinthians 5:21 - God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Corinthians 1:30 - It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Galatians 4:4&5 - till the appointed time came. Then God sent out his Son on a mission to us. He took birth from a woman, took birth as a subject of the law, 5 so as to ransom those who were subject to the law, and make us sons by adoption.

Good Morning, wmw!

I’m sorry that I had not taken the time to thank you until now for accumulating these wonderful verses.

It is difficult to address these all at once, but the issue you are addressing is if there is a debt, then what is God’s role in this debt? For example, if you look directly before your citation from Romans 5, there is this:

Romans 5:16New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

16 And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.

So, here is a quick look at this verse from two views, although there are many variations within the two views, I think. The question is, how do we describe God’s role?

In one “debt” view, the “condemnation” is condemnation by God, that God took offense and punished man, banishing him from the garden, keeping man away from Him until the offense is paid for. In this case, expiation is called for, and God can be described as a creditor, for lack of a better word. A example of a view of God that involves a need for expiation to God, because God has taken offense, is Anselm’s view.

Continued

 

[OneSheep]

Continued response to wmw:

In another “debt” view, “sin” is defined as alienation. Man is alienated from God, his true self, because of his enslavement by fear of death, the appetites, resentment, etc. The transgressions themselves are manifestations of this alienation. Man is not alienated because of offending God, but is alienated because he does not know what he is doing. So, the order of events is not transgression leading to punishment of alienation, but alienation because of ignorance leading to transgression. The “debt” in this view is not a payment to be made, but a gap, an “empty life” (1Peter) that is filled with the incarnation. Well, this is actually the same as what I am describing as a “no debt” view. Yes, words are difficult, are they not?

We believe that Jesus and God are one, and that Word was in the beginning, before Adam. Does Jesus take offense? Some say yes, some say no. Depending on the views, which I see as legitimate in either direction, “debt” takes on different forms. The key difference is, “What image of God is perceived/presented?”. Cardinal Ratzinger describes the Anselmian view as leading to a “false image”, but I still think that the Anselmian view is legitimate and has its place. People truly feel guilt before an offended God, and think that a payment had to be made.

Please, please, feel free to frame this dilemma differently.

Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

So, here is a quick look at this verse from two views, although there are many variations within the two views, I think. The question is, how do we describe God’s role?

So far, it seems to me that God’s role has not been fully described according to His Divine Nature.

Please, how would you describe God’s role based on His Divine Nature. By the way, Divine nature is in no way similar to human nature?

On the other hand, when one studies Genesis 1: 26-27, we can suggest that human nature, because of its spiritual principle, is similar, not the same as, to God

 

[OneSheep]

How can we choose Mortal Sin and then commit it, if we do not know what we are doing? .

Hi Granny, that is another great question. For an investigation into that question, see this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=879640

If you would like me to start a new thread investigating that question, let me know. I am actually thinking, though, that this will be my last thread for awhile. I am very, very busy at my parish (new priest, needs lots of help) and I am leading the Arise team (renew intl) for this lent season as well as many other responsibilities.

Have a great day, Granny!

 

[grannymh]

Continued response to wmw:

In another “debt” view, “sin” is defined as alienation.

Please take into consideration that within the Catholic Church, “sin” can refer to more than one reality. Seems to me that the reality of the Original Adam Sin needs further explanation. Because persons do write about Original Sin, what do you think about the role of Original Sin in connection to the Divine Nature of the Maker of Heaven and Earth?

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
How can we choose Mortal Sin and then commit it, if we do not know what we are doing? .

Hi Granny, that is another great question. For an investigation into that question, see this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=879640

If you would like me to start a new thread investigating that question, let me know. I am actually thinking, though, that this will be my last thread for awhile. I am very, very busy at my parish (new priest, needs lots of help) and I am leading the Arise team (renew intl) for this lent season as well as many other responsibilities.

Have a great day, Granny!

The suggested thread is titled “Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?”
Thank you for this suggestion; however, I have noticed some rather tempting comments in this thread; therefore, I prefer your thoughts as an answer to my question.

Since I often freely choose not to answer all your questions, I certainly will accept your free choice not to answer my question.

My answer to my own question would include the role of God as the Divine Maker of human nature. This means that there are two separate beings who must be considered when we seriously look at the debt/no debt issue in this thread. In a broad Catholic sense, the debt/no debt issues depend on the reality of Original Sin and the reality of two sole first parents of humankind.

I did find the Arise Together in Christ process. I certainly understand the serious responsibilities of your special participation. Of course, you need not answer the questions in posts 420 & 422. On my part, I will continue to look for pertinent questions. I remember a long-ago story about a student who saw this written on a chalkboard. “Jesus is the answer.” The student responded: “If Jesus is the answer, then what is the question?”

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

It looks like you have both views covered:

Yes, to love without taking offense, that is the no-debt view.

This view shows Jesus as paying a debt for an offense. “Paid in full” means that Jesus’ debt was a payment, and payments are incurred when there is an offense, in this case an offense against God. This is the debt view.

In the no-debt view, Jesus came not to pay a debt, but to unify.

Do you see how these views are so completely different?

If we love without taking offense, then we love like God, there is no debt. That is the no-debt view. Jesus came to unify us with God and with our own love of God.

In the debt view, God is offended by injustice, and this created a debt. Jesus paid until the debt was “finished”.

Do you see the difference? Of course, Jesus suffered in both views he “gave something up”, and “giving something up” itself is sometimes referred to as* payment*. However, once we start referring to such “giving” as payment, we are knowingly or unknowingly indicating that there is a creditor involved.

Thanks, and have a great day.

Yes I can see both views, I would stick my neck out and say many people can see both views. I would say we have many thoughts on what Jesus’ death really meant, was it a payment to a God who loves but still holds the sin of Adam and Eve against us, or was it God’s way of inviting the people of that time to start to live as Jesus lived, leaving behind the sacrifices that were offered, and actually living for God, loving and forgiving each other and passing on this way of living to next generations.

Can’t say we’ve always done a good job of it, but not everyone agrees with each other.

When Jesus say’s “it is finished” what did he mean? Did he mean that the sin of man was no more, that God now no longer should be thought of as holding the debt of O.S against his children, and by following his human example, all that do can be the sons and daughters of God, because God is love and does not take offense like humans do?

The people of that time recorded it as a payment.

The problem I see is do we hold as it was seen 2,000 years ago and still is taught by our church, although not in a debt view way, but the bases for the teaching is still a debt view, or are we supposed to be seeing if differently 2,000 years later, as no payment as such, but a free gift?

 

[grannymh]

Yes I can see both views, I would stick my neck out and say many people can see both views. I would say we have many thoughts on what Jesus’ death really meant, was it a payment to a God who loves but still holds the sin of Adam and Eve against us, or was it God’s way of inviting the people of that time to start to live as Jesus lived, leaving behind the sacrifices that were offered, and actually living for God, loving and forgiving each other and passing on this way of living to next generations.

Can’t say we’ve always done a good job of it, but not everyone agrees with each other.

When Jesus say’s “it is finished” what did he mean? Did he mean that the sin of man was no more, that God now no longer should be thought of as holding the debt of O.S against his children, and by following his human example, all that do can be the sons and daughters of God, because God is love and does not take offense like humans do?

The people of that time recorded it as a payment.

The problem I see is do we hold as it was seen 2,000 years ago and still is taught by our church, although not in a debt view way, but the bases for the teaching is still a debt view, or are we supposed to be seeing if differently 2,000 years later, as no payment as such, but a free gift?

Would you be willing to insert the reality of Adam and Original Sin into your post 424? The reality of Original Sin would be the fully complete Catholic explanation of Original Sin.

 

[simpleas]

Would you be willing to insert the reality of Adam and Original Sin into your post 424? The reality of Original Sin would be the fully complete Catholic explanation of Original Sin.

I wasn’t leaving out Adam and Eve, and the original sin. If God was and still is offended by Adam and Eve’s choice, then how do we view God’s love for us? If all are still born with O.S even after Jesus’ death, then God still holds the sin of Adam and Eve against their decendants.
After Adam and Eve loose their graces, which they chose for themself and everyone, they then “see” God as angry, they feel guilt, they see themselves as they are.
God never destroyed what he had created, because he allowed them freewill, but they then started to offer animal sacrifices to God for his forgiveness for their failing, and maybe to appease him?

This stops when Jesus dies on the cross, when he rises from the dead.

God’s love isn’t supposed to change, it stays the same, it is us humans that have needed to grow in understanding what God is really showing us, and so it is us that changes, with the grace God has always given us.

Is this far from Catholic thought?

 

[grannymh]

I wasn’t leaving out Adam and Eve, and the original sin. If God was and still is offended by Adam and Eve’s choice, then how do we view God’s love for us? If all are still born with O.S even after Jesus’ death, then God still holds the sin of Adam and Eve against their decendants.
After Adam and Eve loose their graces, which they chose for themself and everyone, they then “see” God as angry, they feel guilt, they see themselves as they are.
God never destroyed what he had created, because he allowed them freewill, but they then started to offer animal sacrifices to God for his forgiveness for their failing, and maybe to appease him?

This stops when Jesus dies on the cross, when he rises from the dead.

God’s love isn’t supposed to change, it stays the same, it is us humans that have needed to grow in understanding what God is really showing us, and so it is us that changes, with the grace God has always given us.

Is this far from Catholic thought?

Sorry, I have no clue as to the meaning of this comment “then God still holds the sin of Adam and Eve against their decendants.” I think my dumbness is because the full Catholic explanation for what Original Sin is and what all that involves was not in the post 426.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello Simpleas!

Yes I can see both views, I would stick my neck out and say many people can see both views. I would say we have many thoughts on what Jesus’ death really meant, was it a payment to a God who loves but still holds the sin of Adam and Eve against us, or was it God’s way of inviting the people of that time to start to live as Jesus lived, leaving behind the sacrifices that were offered, and actually living for God, loving and forgiving each other and passing on this way of living to next generations.

Can’t say we’ve always done a good job of it, but not everyone agrees with each other.

When Jesus say’s “it is finished” what did he mean? Did he mean that the sin of man was no more, that God now no longer should be thought of as holding the debt of O.S against his children, and by following his human example, all that do can be the sons and daughters of God, because God is love and does not take offense like humans do?

The people of that time recorded it as a payment.

Well, according to two guys from New Zealand, (I checked your link) the people recorded it as payment. People will interpret, translate, and suggest meanings for things that make sense to their own view. Did those two guys look for the aramaic words that Jesus actually spoke and “discover” that Jesus actually meant “all paid off now”? Probably not, they looked at the options for the word and chose the definition that made the most sense to them.

There is a Christian fellow who is a landowner nearby, and he has in huge letters on his fence “3 nails + 1 cross = 4given”. It is a debt view.

The problem I see is do we hold as it was seen 2,000 years ago and still is taught by our church, although not in a debt view way, but the bases for the teaching is still a debt view, or are we supposed to be seeing if differently 2,000 years later, as no payment as such, but a free gift?

Aquinas and others taught that revelation comes from two sources: from creation, and from scripture. Scripture is only about 4000 years old, at the most, if I remember right. Creation has been around a lot longer (billions of years, and humanity for hundreds of thousands), and we continue to learn more about it. In this way, revelation continues to “unfold” as we learn more about creation itself.

The two views, “debt” vs. “no debt” have been around at least since the times of Christ, and Jesus speaks to both views. Do you remember the lines from Pope Leo on the first page of this thread?

Granny keeps going back to original sin, but the way a person looks at original sin will depend on the way one sees God. She asks a great question, “Is God like humans?”. It can be narrowed down to: Does God take offense, like humans do: (debt view) or, instead, is this more like God:

If we know that God is love and love is forgiveness, we know that God has forgiven “before always” all there ever was to forgive.

Brother David Steindl-Rast Deeper than Words: Living the Apostles’ Creed

However, I still think that in order to get to the deepest root of the matter, we must take a good, hard look at ourselves. We are going to project that God is the way that we are, there is simply no escape to that. If we forgive everyone, we will project that God does also. If we do not, in certain occasions, then we will project that God, also, withholds forgiveness in certain circumstances. A “debt” is a circumstance, it is something that has to be paid in order for forgiveness to take place. How often do we hear from others “I’ll forgive her if she says she is sorry.” The debt, in that case, is the required expression of guilt from the trespasser. Everyone senses a debt until they have forgiven at the deepest level, so all of us will project that we owe a debt to God at times.

So, as usual, I am saying that forgiveness is the crux of the matter. Our forgiveness of all we hold anything against affects our relationship with others, our view of God, our “alienation”, our sense of the Holy, and so much more. This is not saying that people who hold a debt view have not forgiven everyone, though. It is very common, I think, that people do not realize that they have not forgiven completely when they think that they have. Sincere people will hold resentments that are “below the radar” even though they think they have forgiven all. This is where introspection and self-awareness are so important.

Whew, I really ran-at-the-mouth there. Sorry for the long analysis.

Thanks, Simpleas.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

“Adam” means “man”. “Eve” means “woman” they are not proper names.

Ever since the beginning of human history we have had free choice. Choices have natural consequences and create habits, patterns of behavior, addictions. And so we find ourselves in such a predicament.

Christ, by his life, death and resurrection shows us the way to salvation. Not just his death like some sort of payment. He shows us by the way he lived and died in his unwavering obedience and humility.

 

[grannymh]

Well, according to two guys from New Zealand, (I checked your link) the people recorded it as payment. People will interpret, translate, and suggest meanings for things that make sense to their own view. Did those two guys look for the aramaic words that Jesus actually spoke and “discover” that Jesus actually meant “all paid off now”? Probably not, they looked at the options for the word and chose the definition that made the most sense to them.

Is this the link, from Simpleas, post 411, which you checked?

jesusplusnothing.com/questions/ItIsFinished.htm

Here is something really interesting quoted from that link.
It is interesting in this regard that the single word that Jesus spoke (which we translate as ‘It is finished’) was ‘*tetelestai’. *This certainly has the meaning of completion (which is what it primarily means in the context of John 19:30) but it can also mean ‘discharge a debt’ or ‘paid in full’. It was common to the Jews and Romans of that time because it was the word they wrote on a debt that someone had, once it was paid. So this victory cry of Jesus would have also meant to His hearers "Paid in full!’ I like that!

Now, this work of redemption involved the completion or end of many other things. So as a secondary application you could say that ‘It is finished’ applied to the following as well (remember, this is not the primary meaning of those words in context but is a part of Jesus’ work in dying for our sins…)

‘It is finished’ applies to:
· The work of redemption
· The Mosaic covenant with it’s priesthood, temple and sacrifices
· The curse of the law
· Sin (in the sense that it was all placed upon Christ - past, present and future)
· The prophecies and types concerning the Messiah’s death
· The old fallen creation (which was placed ‘in Christ’). God’s purposes are now centered on a ‘new creation’ in Christ.
· Satan’s dominion and hold over man
· The separation of Jew and Gentile

There will be other things that I have missed but I hope this helps. You could say that that cry of Jesus from the cross is one of the most important cries ever given! That’s why I said it was a good question to ask! It is important that we understand the depth of those words.

From the Catholic Religion point of view, there is the main importance of Christ repairing the shattered relationship between humanity and Divinity via the Sacrament of Baptism. We used to say that Christ re-opened the gates of heaven.

 

[simpleas]

Sorry, I have no clue as to the meaning of this comment “then God still holds the sin of Adam and Eve against their decendants.” I think my dumbness is because the full Catholic explanation for what Original Sin is and what all that involves was not in the post 426.

I was referring to the fact that we are born with the Original sin, even though Jesus died for the sin of Adam and Eve, we aren’t washed clean of it until we are baptised.

 

[grannymh]

I was referring to the fact that we are born with the Original sin, even though Jesus died for the sin of Adam and Eve, we aren’t washed clean of it until we are baptised.

It is best that I simply withdraw my question for the moment.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Granny!

A quick post for my lunch break, then I’ve got to run.

So far, it seems to me that God’s role has not been fully described according to His Divine Nature.

Please, how would you describe God’s role based on His Divine Nature. By the way, Divine nature is in no way similar to human nature?

On the other hand, when one studies Genesis 1: 26-27, we can suggest that human nature, because of its spiritual principle, is similar, not the same as, to God

I’m not sure if I shared this with you, but I start with the process of forgiveness. When I take offense at someone’s actions, I sense a debt. The offender owes me, owes society, owes service, reparation, apology, etc. This, according to my tentative theory, is exactly the way that God created us to think. In addition, if I hurt someone, I am to feel a sense of guilt, that I owe someone, and I owe something to God. This, too, is the way I was created to process the hurt I cause others.

Now, in order to forgive someone else at the deepest level, I have found that I really have to enter into the trespass and see why I would do exactly what they did that offended me. When, through prayer, introspection, and coming awareness, I understand why I would do exactly as the other did, then I can forgive the other completely. I may not have completely forgiven myself, but at least I have forgiven the other, I see their “good intent”. What I am saying is that in the process of forgiveness, I go from a state of being less aware to a state of being more aware. This is not to say that I come to a point where I think a person should not be punished. I come to a point that I think that the only reason to punish is for the good of the person himself, and society, not for my own “he should be punished, because he deserves it.” I have forgiven him, I am no longer alienated from him.

God does not go from a state of being less aware, for God is omniscient. Therefore, since my own taking offense depends on my lack of awareness, I am extrapolating that God never takes offense, as He is completely aware. So, yes, God’s nature is completely different: He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent; I am not.

Please take into consideration that within the Catholic Church, “sin” can refer to more than one reality. Seems to me that the reality of the Original Adam Sin needs further explanation. Because persons do write about Original Sin, what do you think about the role of Original Sin in connection to the Divine Nature of the Maker of Heaven and Earth?

God’s nature does not depend on original sin, though it is certain that many people’s faith and understanding of Christ depends on original sin. If a person is coming from a “debt” view, then due to God’s nature, God took offense to Adam and Eve’s disobedience by punishing them in a number of ways and banishing them from the garden. If a person is coming from a “no debt” perspective, then God forgave “before always” and took no offense, and then the whole concept of “original sin” is reconfigured. Unless, of course, the person coming from a “no debt” perspective sees the value of the “debt” perspective and does not modify the story (or O.S definitions) to allow for a God who does not become offended. In that way, the O.T. story of A&E stands as a story of how we all think about God when we have not forgiven completely (see above), and the Gospel tells a different perspective about the nature of God, that the “Good News” is about a God who is not offended, Who forgives “before always”. Therefore, original sin plays no role in connection to divine nature, but our own interpretation of original sin, and how we find meaning in it, will definitely depend on our own view of God’s nature.

Do you see that last paragraph as a harmonization of the two views, or instead, do you see a disharmony?

Thanks, Granny, and have a great day.

 

[simpleas]

Hello Simpleas!

Well, according to two guys from New Zealand, (I checked your link) the people recorded it as payment. People will interpret, translate, and suggest meanings for things that make sense to their own view. Did those two guys look for the aramaic words that Jesus actually spoke and “discover” that Jesus actually meant “all paid off now”? Probably not, they looked at the options for the word and chose the definition that made the most sense to them.

There is a Christian fellow who is a landowner nearby, and he has in huge letters on his fence “3 nails + 1 cross = 4given”. It is a debt view.

Aquinas and others taught that revelation comes from two sources: from creation, and from scripture. Scripture is only about 4000 years old, at the most, if I remember right. Creation has been around a lot longer (billions of years, and humanity for hundreds of thousands), and we continue to learn more about it. In this way, revelation continues to “unfold” as we learn more about creation itself.

The two views, “debt” vs. “no debt” have been around at least since the times of Christ, and Jesus speaks to both views. Do you remember the lines from Pope Leo on the first page of this thread?

Granny keeps going back to original sin, but the way a person looks at original sin will depend on the way one sees God. She asks a great question, “Is God like humans?”. It can be narrowed down to: Does God take offense, like humans do: (debt view) or, instead, is this more like God:

If we know that God is love and love is forgiveness, we know that God has forgiven “before always” all there ever was to forgive.

Brother David Steindl-Rast Deeper than Words: Living the Apostles’ Creed

However, I still think that in order to get to the deepest root of the matter, we must take a good, hard look at ourselves. We are going to project that God is the way that we are, there is simply no escape to that. If we forgive everyone, we will project that God does also. If we do not, in certain occasions, then we will project that God, also, withholds forgiveness in certain circumstances. A “debt” is a circumstance, it is something that has to be paid in order for forgiveness to take place. How often do we hear from others “I’ll forgive her if she says she is sorry.” The debt, in that case, is the required expression of guilt from the trespasser. Everyone senses a debt until they have forgiven at the deepest level, so all of us will project that we owe a debt to God at times.

So, as usual, I am saying that forgiveness is the crux of the matter. Our forgiveness of all we hold anything against affects our relationship with others, our view of God, our “alienation”, our sense of the Holy, and so much more. This is not saying that people who hold a debt view have not forgiven everyone, though. It is very common, I think, that people do not realize that they have not forgiven completely when they think that they have. Sincere people will hold resentments that are “below the radar” even though they think they have forgiven all. This is where introspection and self-awareness are so important.

Whew, I really ran-at-the-mouth there. Sorry for the long analysis.

Thanks, Simpleas.

I don’t know about the two guys, it was the words Jesus was saying on the cross and what he meant by them that I found of interest. So far I have leant the greek word tetelestai translated into english means “it is finished” . And that the word was stamped on receipts, although some people dispute this. There is much discussion on the translation of the Hebrew written bible into greek and then english. It’s interesting

Yes I agree we all need to look deep within ourselves.

If we forgive everyone then we can only believe God does the same, if we do not, then we will believe that God does not also. The latter may not be true, the person who finds forgiveness hard, may not think that God would not forgive, they may think that only God would forgive the “offender” because they can not.

The Lords prayer helps us to remember that we need to forgive others their debts, it is a constant reminder about forgiving others so that God also forgives us. But I don’t think it means that God would withhold forgiveness from a person who finds forgiveness a difficulty, only God can do anything. But said enough, hopefully the message to forgive others because God has forgiven already sinks in and we find the correct path.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I love this topic and have long struggled to understand the traditional views that are discussed here.

A few quick comments:

1. The “debt”/“payment” metaphor has always seemed problematic to me. In order to have a debt something must be borrowed or otherwise owed. If God is the creditor and man the debtor couldn’t he just forgive the debt?
2. There is a natural tension between the concept of God as just and God as merciful. If, for example, I harm you God might forgive me but that doesn’t undo my harm to you. Perhaps this is the “debt to justice”, a payment to each for the other’s sins.
3. God owes us nothing and all that we have is a free gift. On the other hand, there is no debt for a gift (though in some cultures gift giving imposes a debt which requires a gift in return).
4. I’ve never heard of the idea of a debt to Satan; it’s an intriguing thought. But it too sounds like a rationalization.

Ultimately Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross calls out for some explanation. But the traditional one given is unsatisfying.

 

[grannymh]

God’s nature does not depend on original sin, though it is certain that many people’s faith and understanding of Christ depends on original sin. If a person is coming from a “debt” view, then due to God’s nature, God took offense to Adam and Eve’s disobedience by punishing them in a number of ways and banishing them from the garden. If a person is coming from a “no debt” perspective, then God forgave “before always” and took no offense, and then the whole concept of “original sin” is reconfigured. Unless, of course, the person coming from a “no debt” perspective sees the value of the “debt” perspective and does not modify the story (or O.S definitions) to allow for a God who does not become offended. In that way, the O.T. story of A&E stands as a story of how we all think about God when we have not forgiven completely (see above), and the Gospel tells a different perspective about the nature of God, that the “Good News” is about a God who is not offended, Who forgives “before always”. Therefore, original sin plays no role in connection to divine nature, but our own interpretation of original sin, and how we find meaning in it, will definitely depend on our own view of God’s nature.

Do you see that last paragraph as a harmonization of the two views, or instead, do you see a disharmony?

Thanks, Granny, and have a great day.

Lots of words. But not a word explaining Original Sin according to Catholic teachings. Sorry, but both views sound like there is a denial of the historical Adam.

I vote for non-disharmony with the Catholic Church.

 

[OneSheep]

Lots of words. But not a word explaining Original Sin according to Catholic teachings. Sorry, but both views sound like there is a denial of the historical Adam.

I vote for non-disharmony with the Catholic Church.

Cool! A double negative! Non-disharmony means harmony!

Unless, of course, you mean that the views I presented, accumulating the views of Cardinal Ratzinger, St. Anselm, Pope Leo, Duns Scotus, and many, many others in modern and historic Catholicism are disharmonious with the Catholic Church. None of what I wrote denied an existence of Adam or original sin.

Please, if you have a way of harmonizing the two views, offer one. Elimination, remember, is not the goal of this thread.

Thanks, Granny, but please, please, try harder to remember the goal here.

Eucharist, remember? Eucharist, not exclusion.