Catholic Answers says Christ didn't have to die for us?

[Odell]

I think you are missing my point. The point is not whether merit can be aquired by works, either naturally or through the grace of God. The point is whether sin can be paid off by merit so as to make a person not guilty before God. You are, I think, arguing yes, whereas I am arguing no.

Christ paid the eternal debt no one can pay for their eternlnal debt. Christ however appeased Gods anger. The animal sacrafices of the old although pointed to the ultimate sacrafice of Christ, were intended to appease Gods anger. God would “smell the sweet savor of the sacrafice.” And in turn he would relent of his wrath. Lev 5:5-10, 6:21

This is what Moses did Ex 32:9-13, apparently, God was on the verge of destoying all of the Israeliets and only Mose’ plea abated the. Occurence. It becomes even more evedent in the rest of the chapter. I’m on my phne so I cant cut and paste. You need to read the chapter.

Abraham pleads with God for mercy, attempts to find ten righteous people to satify God Gn 18

In Ezekiel 14:14 here we have God determined to destroy Judah and poses a hypothetical example of Noah, Daniel, and Job who would under more normal cirumstances, be able to apease Gods anger

Only Christ can appease the eternal consiquences. But notice we are the body of Christ any good we do is Christ in us. God sees this threw the lense of grace that does not oblige.

[QUOTEMaybe I am misunderstanding the Catholic position, but I thought it was this: Man’s debt to God from sin cannot be paid by man’s own good works because man’s infinitely smaller personal value compared to God renders his works of too little value to pay off the debt of sin, which is infinitely great due to the infinite personal value of God who is the offended party. Hence, Jesus, who is of infinite personal value and therefore able to offer up good works of infinite value, came to earth as a man to do the good work of the cross (i.e., laying down His life for us) and thereby generate the infinite merit required to pay off the debt of our sins.

What I’m basically saying is that the whole notion of “Merit = positive value, and sin = negative value, so merit can cancel out sin,” is a false premise even relative to the sins of human beings against one another, where both the offended and offending parties are of the same value, so it makes no sense to argue that this premise is somehow true when it comes to the relationship between God and man.

I believe I may have answered this just above. Let me know if you have any more questions

Consider: Molesting a child is a sin. Giving money to charity is a good work. How much money should a person give to charity to get out of being punished for molesting a child? What amount of charity is required to purchase a “not guilty” verdict from the judge? Does it even make sense to ask such a question? What would we think of a judge who allowed for such an exchange? “Pay the court a billion dollars, and we’ll let you go free.” That’s not justice. That’s bribery. We wouldn’t allow this kind of reckoning from human beings. To attribute this kind of reckoning to God is horrific.

No work of man could ever withstand the tribunal of God, if we mean by Gods perfct standard of righteousness. However if God were to judge us by his perfect standards, our faith would never be acceptable to him. Again it is only through the eyes of grace that he can accept our faith.

You would as well as Catholiccs say that God accepts ones faith by his gracious forbearance. Surley no ones faith is sufficiently perfect to satisfy the standards of Gods tribunsl. God must accept the imperfect quality of the faith based on his grace and mercy. If God can accept his faith by his grace and mercy, ghen he can also accept works in the same way.

 

[grammieof5]

I too have heard teachers incorrectly teach that Jesus did not have to die. You can look up the correct answer to this question in The Catechism of the Catholic Church. It says Christ had to die for our sins.

Why death? If you study the history of the Jewish people and their relationship with God through covenant you will see where in order to break a covenant someone has to die. Humans were already dead in their sins. God had to die in order to break the old and form the new covenant.

Did you know that marriage is a covenant? Til death us do part. Only death breaks a covenant.

 

[Tetiaroa]

(How ironic. I didn’t even realize until today that this web site was sponsored by Catholic Answers, though I’ve posted things here off and on for years. )

I’ve been drifting away from Christianity for quite some time, but I missed it some, so I started listening to Catholic radio. I was really getting into it until I happened to tune in to an episode of Catholic Answers in which a teenage boy called in and said, “I just learned in one of my classes that Christ didn’t have to die for us to save us.” I was expecting the host to contradict that assertion, but instead the host said, “That’s right!” At which point I shut off the radio and haven’t gone back to Catholic radio since…

I think I won’t buy into what you complained here since you only heard the response “That’s right” and you shut off your radio without even listening further.

Jesus did not have to die for us. He is the resurrection and the life. He is the bread of Life. He is the water the fountain of life. Jesus admitted himself at the garden of Gethsemany when he prayed to the Father asking to take away the cup. He knows that he did not have to die but the will of the Father is what must be done that he should die. Beyond human comprehension where the wise could not even comprehend, God provided the most silliest thing to show His love for mankind. He sent his only begotten son to die. What a decision! Not even anyone can dare to sent his or her son to die in a war because this is not a wise thing to do. It is suicide! Yet God did it. Even if we deny or refuse but that his will. There is nothing we can do to prevent that. Likewise, there is something that we have that God doesn’t have. And that is the power to take away our freedom of choice which he gave to us. If we decide to reject God, then that’s our choice. God cannot in his mighty powers do anything about it. Yet he still loves us and always willing to receive us back to him.

So WHY Jesus had to die? The wages of sin is DEATH. The whole world was drowning in sin. There was no more perfect and pure sacrifice. No more lamb sacrifices could be pleasing to God. The only pure offering had been his only Son Jesus Christ which was offered 2000 years ago to redeem mankind from the bonds of sin. Jesus Christ did not have to die to save us from our sins. It is the wages of our sins that Jesus died for. In other words, we don’t have to sin because we will be saved by the death of Jesus Christ. If we choose to sin and reject God then Christ’s death will not save us. That’s our choice.

 

[Philzik]

Don’t forget, God said you will surely die. Seems to me He took that certainty on himself
to satisfy justice through paying the cost of mercy

 

[thenobes]

First of all…'sup, Steve! Long time no argue!

Seems like just yesterday on cat…org, don’t it! Was it baptism then? or justification, like now. or original sin? I lost my notes

If Christ, by way of the curse written in the Law (“Cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree”) took the guilt of our sins upon himself (like the animal sacrifices of the OT took the guilt of the sinners upon themselves), then yes, it’s just, because God was inflicting punishment on the person holding the blame.

First of all,Hebrews says that the sacrifices did not take away guilt, else there would be no yearly recalling of such.

And although it does say he became sin so that we could be righteous, I believe “Sin” in that context represents “Sin Offering”. But I could be wrong.

That’s still the case, though – both/and rather than either/or. Our “disobedient/guilty” verdict is transferred to Jesus, and in exchange, Jesus’ “obedient/not guilty” verdict is transferred to us. (Well, that’s probably not what you mean, really.)

I think of it more that the Father’s outpouring of Love for His Son because of His obedience pours over onto us when we are “in Him”.

I think it depends on whether you see obedience and disobedience as being able to cancel each other out. But does it? Check my “Today 2:31PM” post.

LOVE cancels all out.

peace
steve

 

[Quatsch]

Isn’t this somewhat exactly what I’m saying, albeit in more of a “limited atonement” sense in which only those who are in Christ have this satisfaction provided for them by Christ on their behalf – as if, to use the example above, Christ took the fatal cut or bullet meant for all those who have taken refuge in Him? Whereas in the case of those outside of Christ, they must still pay the satisfaction which they owe by going to Hell?

Yeah, it seems like what you are saying.

And note specifically the example of satisfaction used to describe the “suitable service”: getting shot dead. Getting shot dead is not in and of itself a meritorious work, any more than dying and going to Hell is a meritorious work. Getting shot dead is a punishment for doing what you ought not to have done.

I agree for the most part.

And what I’m arguing is that Christ took this punishment, which we ourselves deserved for doing all that we ought not to have done, upon Himself at the cross, thus satisfying God’s justice (or “anger,” if you prefer) on our behalf.

Yes, this is what we believe.

I think the argument got sidetracked into talking about faith and works. There is more that could be teased out as to what the Christian’s responsibilities are once justified, but reaching that state of justification (we call it being in a state of grace) is solely by Christ’s atoning for our sins.

 

[Quatsch]

You would as well as Catholiccs say that God accepts ones faith by his gracious forbearance. Surley no ones faith is sufficiently perfect to satisfy the standards of Gods tribunsl. God must accept the imperfect quality of the faith based on his grace and mercy. If God can accept his faith by his grace and mercy, ghen he can also accept works in the same way.

This is true, but only for someone in a state of grace.

The important distinction is that sin has both eternal and temporal punishment.

The eternal punishment is ONLY satisfied by Christ’s sacrifice. I think that is the crux of mpartyka’s questions and the point of this thread.

Once a person is justified (i.e. in a state of grace to use Catholic terminology), there are many things that need to be considered about how we can merit increases of grace from God. But I think that is beyond the point of this thread. The New Advent entry on Merit is very interesting for getting an idea of everything involved: newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

 

[Reynaud]

I must put in my 2 cents here.
I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church. I attended Roman catholic schools through high school, I even spent the first three years of high school in a seminary.
I fell in love with the teachings of Jesus but was astonished with how little this teachings were taught in the schools.
Jesus appeared to teach his followers to love their enemies, to pray for their persecutors and to forgive them.
If Jesus was serious about his teachings wouldn’t he have followed his own teachings even to the point of prooving it.
I’m not sure when the Church started teaching that Jesus was the only begotten son of God or that God could be divided into three persons for all of eternity.
I can imagine that Constantine who showed us that if you can’t beat them join them, made it look like he would join the church after he gave up control of the Empire. I can see that Constantine couldn’t follow the teachings of Jesus because his whole empire required that he not follow the teachings of Jesus.
Rumor has it that Constantine’s mother, Helena, was enthralled with the church and spent a lot of the empire’s resources to go on pilgramages and build churches and shrines. By law of the time, Constantine’s mother was a traitor to the Empire.
If Jesus was not the son of God, he was a zealoius practitioner of nonviolence. He could have done more for the world, the kingdom of God, if he had been a man who was able to convey his philosophy rather than tell his followers that if they believed that he was God and were baptized that God would let them slide on the teachings of Jesus.
It wasn’t until the Romanization of the teachings of Jesus that Christians (Roman Catholics) were given the freedom to ignore the teachings of Jesus if they were lucky enough to confess their sins before their death.
If Jesus was a man, his acceptance of his death should speak volumes to people who don’t feel blessed with money and other forms of wealth that God loves them and does not condone violence.
The main problem that I have with the Church is that Jesus’ death is not seen as a crime against the teachings of Jesus but as means to trick Rome into letting him be killed for the Empire.
Jesus didn’t do such a good job of showing us the loving God that he was trying to tell us about because most Catholics put their whole faith in the notion that Jesus’ death was the will of God.
God wasn’t pleased with the way that Jesus was treated. Because of his teachings, Jesus was framed for execution that makes it easier to believe that Jesus died for us at the cost of overshadowing his teachings and hiding the possible reason why Jesus died.
Gandhi spent 1 hour every morning and one hour every afternoon reflecting on the Sermon on the Mount for decades. Gandhi may have revered the teachings of Jesus more than any of our popes. He did more for the Sermon on the Mount than most Christians have. The problem is that the only “sacrifice” that Christians accept is the one forced on Jesus. Didn’t most of his apostles follow the nonviolence of Jesus to their deaths? Weren’t there thousands of other Christians who died without using Jesus’ death to justify their use of violence?
May the peace of Jesus guide us in our daily acts.

Peace

 

[alfafemme]

If Jesus had just pricked his finger, none of us would be talking about it. I think God chose something with huge impact, something that would be remembered by people for thousands of years. That is the only way I can accept what happened to Jesus.

 

[Arrowsmith1994]

mpartyka,

A lot of words have been spent trying to answer your question, “Did Jesus have to die to save us…?”

The answer is simple, No. If you say, yes God had to do something, meaning he was forced to, something exerts a force on Him. He ceases to be the Prime Mover. It violates one of Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for God. Your statement violates the definition of the Judeo-Christian god. You have a lot of mystery on which to meditate. I suggest that you look into the writings and lectures of Dr. Peter Kreeft, a philosophy prefessor at Boston College. If you do, you won’t be disappointed.

ps. Please turn the Catholic Answers Live back on

 

[Odell]

This is true, but only for someone in a state of grace.

The important distinction is that sin has both eternal and temporal punishment.

The eternal punishment is ONLY satisfied by Christ’s sacrifice. I think that is the crux of mpartyka’s questions and the point of this thread.

Once a person is justified (i.e. in a state of grace to use Catholic terminology), there are many things that need to be considered about how we can merit increases of grace from God. But I think that is beyond the point of this thread. The New Advent entry on Merit is very interesting for getting an idea of everything involved: newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

Agreed 100%

 

[Quatsch]

mpartyka,

A lot of words have been spent trying to answer your question, “Did Jesus have to die to save us…?”

The answer is simple, No. If you say, yes God had to do something, meaning he was forced to, something exerts a force on Him. He ceases to be the Prime Mover. It violates one of Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for God. Your statement violates the definition of the Judeo-Christian god. You have a lot of mystery on which to meditate. I suggest that you look into the writings and lectures of Dr. Peter Kreeft, a philosophy prefessor at Boston College. If you do, you won’t be disappointed.

ps. Please turn the Catholic Answers Live back on

You are right, strictly speaking, of course God doesn’t have to do anything. I don’t think that was what mpartyka’s question, though. I think what he meant was whether Catholics believe that, in the order of the world that God has established, Christ’s sacrifice was necessary for man to be saved. The answer to that, of course, is yes, it was necessary. God did not have to do it, but it was and remains and always will be the only means by which man can be saved.

The philosophical speculation is true, but I really don’t think that’s what he was wondering about.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, mpartyka.

 

[mpartyka]

No work of man could ever withstand the tribunal of God, if we mean by Gods perfect standard of righteousness. However if God were to judge us by his perfect standards, our faith would never be acceptable to him.

But the question isn’t whether one’s faith is perfect, but whether one has faith or not:

James 2:21-22 – Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?

Romans 4:9b-12 – We say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness by God years before Isaac was born, much less offered up as a sacrifice. So if Abraham’s faith was not made perfect until the near-sacrifice of Isaac, it must be that Abraham’s faith was imperfect until then. And yet it was for that imperfect faith that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham, and therefore when Paul says that righteousness is imputed to those who “walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised,” Paul is not referring to perfect faith, but imperfect faith. Therefore God does not require perfect faith to impute righteousness, but simply faith.

 

[mpartyka]

I think I won’t buy into what you complained here since you only heard the response “That’s right” and you shut off your radio without even listening further.

Ah, forgotten I had written that. I think that was me writing some hyperbole. I did listen to the radio a bit after that, just to get the general gist of what the host was saying, but it amounted to basically the same things I’d heard before from others who’d argued this point.

So WHY Jesus had to die? The wages of sin is DEATH.

This is exactly what I am arguing. I’m not arguing whether Jesus had to die in the sense that He could not have avoided it if He chose to forbear death rather than redeem us, only that if He decided to redeem us, it would necessarily take His death to accomplish this, because death is the wages that God has ordained for sin, and Jesus had to pay those wages on our behalf to redeem us.

 

[mpartyka]

I think of it more that the Father’s outpouring of Love for His Son because of His obedience pours over onto us when we are “in Him”…LOVE cancels all out.

But the equation you’re making is still, “Obedience cancels out disobedience,” only you’re trying to extend it out a step by saying, “Obedience generates love, and disobedience generates wrath, so love cancels out wrath.” But that kind of argument falls flat with me on grounds of justice. The fact that you obeyed in one thing doesn’t cancel out the fact that you disobeyed in another thing. You could have obeyed in the one thing and obeyed in the other thing, too. You could even have gone far above and beyond the call of duty in the one thing and still obeyed in the other thing, too, so even your superobedience in one thing doesn’t make up for your disobedience in the other thing. The problem is that your overall behavior fell short of the ideal – 100% obedience – to which you could possibly have attained, and it’s your falling short of that ideal that makes you guilty of sin. (“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”)

So in my view, what it is about Christ’s death that cancels out the wrath God has against us is the fact that God did exactly what wrath requires (according to His own word), but to Christ rather than to us. And all those who are not in Christ will experience what wrath requires for themselves rather than have Christ take it upon Himself. So one’s destiny depends not upon one’s personal righteousness, which can never be up to God’s perfect standard, but rather upon whether or not one has taken refuge in Christ. If you are in Christ when you die, God has already expended the wrath meant for you upon Christ, and consequently Christ’s righteousness is imputed to you as there is nothing left for which God could hold you accountable. But if you are not in Christ when you die, God will hold you personally accountable for your sins, and He will let loose upon you the wrath He has stored up for you.

 

[mpartyka]

If Jesus had just pricked his finger, none of us would be talking about it. I think God chose something with huge impact, something that would be remembered by people for thousands of years. That is the only way I can accept what happened to Jesus.

As opposed to realizing that His death was actually necessary to redeem us?

 

[mpartyka]

If you say, yes God had to do something, meaning he was forced to, something exerts a force on Him.

So God can, for example, lie? And if God cannot lie, is this because something exerts a force on Him, or is it because God will not do what is against His own nature?

 

[mpartyka]

You are right, strictly speaking, of course God doesn’t have to do anything. I don’t think that was what mpartyka’s question, though. I think what he meant was whether Catholics believe that, in the order of the world that God has established, Christ’s sacrifice was necessary for man to be saved. The answer to that, of course, is yes, it was necessary. God did not have to do it, but it was and remains and always will be the only means by which man can be saved.

The philosophical speculation is true, but I really don’t think that’s what he was wondering about.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, mpartyka.

You are 100% spot-on. Thanks!

 

[Odell]

But the question isn’t whether one’s faith is perfect, but whether one has faith or not:

The question as can that faith save him?

Abraham’s faith was reckoned to him as righteousness by God years before Isaac was born, much less offered up as a sacrifice.

Abraham had saving faith yars before Gn 15 when Paul says righteousness was reckoned. Abrahams believe in Gn 15 was not a spur of the oment faith in God. He has built a life long life of trusting God since the moment twenty five years earlier when he, in a similar act of faith and obedience, answered the summon of God to leave Haran. The act of believing God in Gn 15 is just one more step in the life of faiththat Abrham has already displayed many times in the past.

Gn 12 " By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going" Heb 11:6 “and without faith it is impossible to please God.”

Hence the passage leads us to conclude that the faith Abraham in Gen 12 pleased God.

Paul also shows that the faith of Abrham in Genesis 12 was the same justifying faith of which he speaks in other contest for instance in Gal 3:7-9

7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

the quote “all nations will be blessed through you.” is taken from Gn 12:3 not Gn 156. this shows that the faith Abrham possssedi gn 12:3 was the same faith justifying fait he hd in Gn 15 the same faith through which the Gentiles can now believeand be justified.

Paul has a faith in veiw which incorpoates the whole of Abrahams life the faith tat believes God in spte of all the circumstantial evidence that militates against believing, and a faith that envisions the ultimate gloty of the heavely kingdom.

So if Abraham’s faith was not made perfect until the near-sacrifice of Isaac, it must be that Abraham’s faith was imperfect until then.

Abrhams faith was fullfiled or made perfect because it is an enduring faith. Abrham possess, to use Paul’s phrase of Romans 1:17 “a righteousness that is revealed from faith to faith” one instance of faith to another instance of faith.

This is the faith we must walk in as Abraham. If we do not our faith will not save.

And yet it was for that imperfect faith that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham, and therefore when Paul says that righteousness is imputed to those who “walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised,” Paul is not referring to perfect faith, but imperfect faith. Therefore God does not require perfect faith to impute righteousness, but simply faith.

You still have not proved that one is not inherently righteouse as a far as I know yo never responded to this from me?

Remember the passage in Luke 1 5-6. Where God peers into the hearts of Zechariah and Elizabeth who were both righteous before God walking in the comandment and ordinances of the Lord blamelessley.

The difference again is ‘works done under the principle of obligation’ as opposed to ‘works done under the auspices of Gods grace,’

Paul is absoultly correct that all men are sinner and unrighteous. Morever there is nothing they can do in themselves to rectify that situation. God must make the first move. God provides the grace. This means not that they were sinless but that they understood their sinful nature and used God’s grace to subdue it. The subduing of sin sllowed them to “walk in the commandment and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.”

Same language is use of Noah in Gen 6:9 “a righteous man, blameless among the people.” and Job and Abel an on and on.

1 John 3:7 “He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.”

In very simple language that does not mince words, John tells us that one acquires the state of being righteous by doing righteousness. Just as he is righteous we know this because we know who is doing the work.

Sounds to me a good argument of infusion not imputation

 

[Odell]

So God can, for example, lie? And if God cannot lie, is this because something exerts a force on Him, or is it because God will not do what is against His own nature?

No he can not lie

This is why Christ does not take our punishment and view us innocent.