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

[mpartyka]

(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 had actually heard things like this before. “God could have just forgiven us.” “Jesus could have pricked his finger, shed a single drop of blood for us, then returned to Heaven.” But I had thought this was a line of speculation that had died out in medieval times. I at least had thought it wasn’t the official teaching of the Church (which I assume is what Catholic Answers is trying to promulgate out there).

Why does the idea that Christ didn’t have to die for us turn me off so? Because if all God had to do to save us was forgive us, or if all Jesus had to do to save us was prick his finger, then that renders the cross of no personal consequence to me. God went over the top for me – so what? That wasn’t because of anything I did. That wasn’t because of my sin. That was His choice. Why should I feel guilty that Jesus hung on the cross and died for me if that was purely a voluntary choice and not a matter of necessity? Unless Jesus’ suffering unto death was absolutely necessary to procure my salvation, why should Jesus’ suffering unto death impress me or make me want to bow my knee to him or especially give my life for him, rather than make me recoil at the Father’s sadism and/or Jesus’ masochism for constructing an unnecessarily horrific death? A God who would come and die for me because that’s what He had to do – because there was no other way – that’s the kind of God I can get behind. A God who would suffer and die needlessy – that kind of God repels me, because that, to me, is a God who enjoys suffering and death and inflicts it, not because He has to, but because He wants to.

Am I wrong about what the Church teaches here? Did Christ have to suffer and die for us? And if he didn’t, am I the only one who feels repelled by that notion?

 

[Windfish]

I can see how that question and its answer can be jarring for Christians - I think both are poorly worded. Here is how the question should have been worded: “Was the Cross the only way for G-d to redeem humanity?” The emphasis is on the word “only.” And the answer is No. G-d is not bound by anything since he is omnipotent - he could have done anything he wished to redeem humanity. That makes sense?

 

[1ke]

Am I wrong about what the Church teaches here? Did Christ have to suffer and die for us? And if he didn’t, am I the only one who feels repelled by that notion?

Of course Christ didn’t *have *to do any of what he did.

He could have left the gates of Heaven permanently closed to us and left us in our sin.

I think you misunderstand the choice.

 

[mpartyka]

Here is how the question should have been worded: “Was the Cross the only way for G-d to redeem humanity?” The emphasis is on the word “only.” And the answer is No. G-d is not bound by anything since he is omnipotent - he could have done anything he wished to redeem humanity. That makes sense?

Well, no. Because what I’m saying is that if Jesus could have said, “Okay, you’re forgiven,” at no cost to Himself, and didn’t, then He is a masochist in that he chose to suffer and die without necessity.

Basically it’s like this: If whacking your finger with a hammer one time is all it would take to accomplish your purpose, whacking it multiple times is masochistic.

 

[mpartyka]

Of course Christ didn’t *have *to do any of what he did.

He could have left the gates of Heaven permanently closed to us and left us in our sin.

I think you misunderstand the choice.

No, see, that’s exactly what I would have expected to hear from Catholic Answers: “Sorry, but your teacher is wrong. Christ did have to suffer and die for us because that was the only way to save us. Anything short of that, and we’d still be dead in our sins. And that’s what makes the cross so impressive. That Christ was willing to do what it took to save us, knowing in advance all that He would have to undergo. He loved us that much.”

 

[fhansen]

(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 had actually heard things like this before. “God could have just forgiven us.” “Jesus could have pricked his finger, shed a single drop of blood for us, then returned to Heaven.” But I had thought this was a line of speculation that had died out in medieval times. I at least had thought it wasn’t the official teaching of the Church (which I assume is what Catholic Answers is trying to promulgate out there).

Why does the idea that Christ didn’t have to die for us turn me off so? Because if all God had to do to save us was forgive us, or if all Jesus had to do to save us was prick his finger, then that renders the cross of no personal consequence to me. God went over the top for me – so what? That wasn’t because of anything I did. That wasn’t because of my sin. That was His choice. Why should I feel guilty that Jesus hung on the cross and died for me if that was purely a voluntary choice and not a matter of necessity? Unless Jesus’ suffering unto death was absolutely necessary to procure my salvation, why should Jesus’ suffering unto death impress me or make me want to bow my knee to him or especially give my life for him, rather than make me recoil at the Father’s sadism and/or Jesus’ masochism for constructing an unnecessarily horrific death? A God who would come and die for me because that’s what He had to do – because there was no other way – that’s the kind of God I can get behind. A God who would suffer and die needlessy – that kind of God repels me, because that, to me, is a God who enjoys suffering and death and inflicts it, not because He has to, but because He wants to.

Am I wrong about what the Church teaches here? Did Christ have to suffer and die for us? And if he didn’t, am I the only one who feels repelled by that notion?

I think a question regarding the Atonement will always be, “why did it have to be that particular way?” And how, exactly, does Christs death reconcile, satisfy, redeem? But the fact that I know He willingly endured it, as an act of immeasurable love, is what draws me to the cross.

 

[Usagi]

There does not seem to be a settled teaching on this, though Catholic thought seems to lean in the direction indicated by CA’s answer.

I checked Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which lists various theological propositions and rates them according to their degree of certainty. The necessity of Jesus’ death doesn’t seem to be addressed directly, but the necessity of His Incarnation is. That God chose freely to save us is rated as theologically certain, but not directly revealed. That God could have saved us without the Incarnation (which obviously means without the Crucifixion) is rated as common theological opinion, but not certain. Interestingly enough, that the Incarnation (and presumed death) of a divine Person would be necessary if God were to insist on full atonement for the infinite offense of sin is placed in the same category.

In an earlier section, as part of the author’s commentary on the divinely revealed truth that God is infinitely just, it is mentioned that we should not regard God as “locked in” to the need for full atonement by His justice – there is no higher Judge to whom He answers, so He can choose to pardon without full satisfaction.

It appears that St. Anselm famously argued for the necessity of Jesus’ death to save us, while Ss. Augustine and Aquinas argued against him. Catholic thought seems to lean toward the latter two, while the subset of Protestant thought to which I’ve been exposed seems to follow Anselm.

I once agreed with the idea that God’s justice demands substitutionary death, hence the lesson of the OT sacrifices from Abraham’s ram to the Passover lamb and afterward. Those taught the principle of atonement-by-death, and Jesus’ death actually accomplished the redemption of humankind by its infinite value. That was, indeed, a useful way to escape the question of whether God was being a sadist in demanding the Crucifixion. If His justice demanded such a recompense, yet He was willing to pay it Himself where we could not, then the bloody manner of our redemption makes sense and illustrates, rather than conflicting with, God’s love.

Now I find myself leaning toward the position articulated by Catholic Answers. Now, as you say, why would God choose such a terrible manner for our redemption if he didn’t, in some sense, have to? The usual answer, which the CA apologists generally supply when they speak on this topic, but which you may have missed if you immediately turned off your radio, is that God chose to save us by dying for us in order to illustrate the full horror of sin and to show His love in that he was willing to do even that to redeem us. Likewise, the whole principe of sacrifice in the Old Covenant was set up, not because God has to have blood in exchange for sin, but to illustrate the same lesson. Had God merely given us a full pardon or had Jesus shed only that single drop of blood, we could easily have come to regard sin as no big thing, and God as less loving because He went to so little effort for us.

I don’t think sadism and masochism come into the equation, really. Jesus is God, so it’s not as though some external sadist was demanding His suffering. Likewise, even if Jesus chose His suffering as the wisest course of action rather than the only one, He did it not for His own pleasure but because that’s what we needed to see. No masochism there.

Usagi

 

[mpartyka]

I think a question regarding the Atonement will always be, “why did it have to be that particular way?”…But the fact that I know He willingly endured it, as an act of immeasurable love, is what draws me to the cross.

Exactly. But what Catholic Answers said was that it didn’t have to be that particular way. They (as well as some medieval theologians) said that Christ’s suffering and death didn’t have be part of the atonement process at all. Is this the official position of the Church? And if so, does Christ’s willingly enduring unnecessary suffering and death still draw you to the cross, or does it repel you from it?

 

[Binary]

Well, no. Because what I’m saying is that if Jesus could have said, “Okay, you’re forgiven,” at no cost to Himself, and didn’t, then He is a masochist in that he chose to suffer and die without necessity.

Basically it’s like this: If whacking your finger with a hammer one time is all it would take to accomplish your purpose, whacking it multiple times is masochistic.

Christ understands the importance of symbols to help us understand our relationship with God. See also: communion and baptism. The water isn’t doing anything mystical when used to baptize, but it is a powerful symbol that marks a bestowing of grace. The symbolism of Christ’s death is deep, and is a constant and useful reminder to us of how we betray God with our sins, the way Judas betrayed Christ. It shows us how far he is willing to go to win us back to him, and so on. I’m sure you can continue the analysis yourself.

 

[Barbkw]

Humanity needed Him to die within that sacrificial system; so that we would stop and contemplate inside of our own lives and outside of our own existence. He died for us.

 

[mpartyka]

In an earlier section, as part of the author’s commentary on the divinely revealed truth that God is infinitely just, it is mentioned that we should not regard God as “locked in” to the need for full atonement by His justice – there is no higher Judge to whom He answers, so He can choose to pardon without full satisfaction.

But if God pardons someone without atonement, doesn’t that necessarily mean God is unjust? Justice means requiring due recompense. If a human judge were to free a convicted criminal without demanding some sort of recompense (which usually takes the form of punishment), that judge would be deemed unjust. If God’s justice doesn’t take the same form, then calling God “just” loses all meaning whatsoever.

If His justice demanded such a recompense, yet He was willing to pay it Himself where we could not, then the bloody manner of our redemption makes sense and illustrates, rather than conflicting with, God’s love.

Exactly.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

It’s my understanding Aquinas teaching indicate that Christ’s death was not a necessity from compulsion, as God is free to choose how redemption is handled, but a requirement due to supposition, as it was God’s will. As to why death is chosen, it is highly symbolic and the ultimate gift one can give as a human being. God and Christ had held of nothing back to see us gain salvation. Quite a demonstration of His love for us. Given this display of love, we now have a model on how much self sacrifice we are to exhibit to our fellow brothers and sisters.

 

[Yab_Yum]

This is just the Euthyphro dilemma in a different guise, i.e. a question regarding the relationship of God to necessity.

 

[Usagi]

(Please see my edit. Sent post early the first time. Must get back to work, but will address your reply as soon as I can.)

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

This is just the Euthyphro dilemma in a different guise, i.e. a question regarding the relationship of God to necessity.

In a way that’s true, though Christians usually escape the Euthyphro dilemma by locating any constraints on God’s behavior internal to Him. That is, holiness is neither an external reality to which God must conform, nor something He could redefine on whim; rather, the definition of holiness (or goodness, or justice, etc.) is part of Who God Is. It flows from Him, but not arbitrarily so.

The issue here is whether the infinite justice that’s part of God’s nature means that dying for us was the only way (consistent with that nature) that He could save us, or whether it just happens to be the one He chose as best and wisest.

Usagi

 

[Barbkw]

On the EWTN program “Our Father’s Plan” Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavin were talking about Adam’s sin and Jesus redemption.

They said that Adam’s sin was his refusal to sacrific himself, to stand up against Evil and save Eve from death. He remained silent in objection of Evil.

Jesus on the other hand, sacrificed Himself for the forgiveness of sin.

Jesus’ first reading at synagogue:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord.” Luke 4:18

As Jesus said on Holy Thursday at the Last Supper - and as we hear at ever Mass during the consecration:

“Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”

 

[fhansen]

And if so, does Christ’s willingly enduring unnecessary suffering and death still draw you to the cross, or does it repel you from it?

It draws me because I know Gods love-I know God is love- for reasons besides the act of Jesus’ sacrifice even if that* is* the definitive proof -and we can’t forget the effects grace has on our ability to recognize/have confirmed that God acts only out of love. I’ve been praying for a better understanding of the Atonement but I also know I have to place my trust in Gods’ wisdom on doing things the way He did-and someday I’ll understand the mystery fully.

 

[mpartyka]

The usual answer, which the CA apologists generally supply when they speak on this topic, but which you may have missed if you immediately turned off your radio, is that God chose to save us by dying for us in order to illustrate the full horror of sin and to show His love in that he was willing to do even that to redeem us. Likewise, the whole principe of sacrifice in the Old Covenant was set up, not because God has to have blood in exchange for sin, but to illustrate the same lesson. Had God merely given us a full pardon or had Jesus shed only that single drop of blood, we could easily have come to regard sin as no big thing, and God as less loving because He went to so little effort for us.

I did hear the explanation, but it was that explanation that led me to shut off the radio and never return. “He did it to prove a point,” is repellent. “He did it because He had to,” on the other hand, is compelling. When the author of the letter to the Hebrews says, “You have not yet resisted sin to the shedding of blood,” he was pointing to Jesus’ sacrifice. But to say Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t necessary is essentially to give the Hebrews reason to say, “Yeah, but He didn’t have to do that – He chose to – so why should we have to do that?”

The idea that God expended unnecessary effort just to prove a point to us, or to inspire us, actually robs the cross of that very meaning and inspiration, instead turning the cross into a testimony to gratuitous, pointless violence. I watched “The Passion of the Christ” in the theatre and felt traumatized by the experienced, but what mitigated the trauma for me was the idea that this is what Christ had to go through to save us. To think that Christ didn’t have to go through that horror renders the trauma He experienced – and the trauma I experienced watching this representation of it – of no redemptive value. Note that the Eucharist doesn’t involve slaying a goat to demonstrate the terribleness of sin, even though that would certainly drive the point home better than breaking bread and pouring wine. And even the Old Testament sacrifices escape being gratuitous only in that (1) it was the kind of worship the Israelites had seen in Egypt, so they were used to it; and (2) they are demonstrations of what God was going to have to do in order to release us from our sins, so that we’d know what to look for.

The issue here is whether the infinite justice that’s part of God’s nature means that dying for us was the only way (consistent with that nature) that He could save us, or whether it just happens to be the one He chose as best and wisest.

If Christ was to pay the penalty for our sins in our place, then nothing short of His death could suffice, for that is the penalty that God imposed on Adam. Had God imposed a lesser penalty upon Adam, then Christ could have paid the lesser penalty. But because God imposed death on Adam, death was required of Christ. For God to require nothing at all for Adam’s sin, or for God to require less of Christ than what was required of Adam, would have been arbitrary and unjust.

 

[WorkerPriest]

If Christ was to pay the penalty for our sins in our place, then nothing short of His death could suffice, for that is the penalty that God imposed on Adam.QUOTE]

There is much in what you write that I can agree with. Frankly, I was unaware that the Roman Catholic Church’s position on this was a undefined as some infer here. The Reformation Churches (and the Confessional Lutheran Churches, in particular) leave nothing to doubt in this regard, as they frame the argument in the same terms that St. Paul did in the New Testament. Just all died in Adam through his transgression, death being the consequence of sin, all are made alive in Christ’s sacrificial death (not through a symbolic action, but through the real and powerful divine Sacramental actions of Holy Baptism, the Holy Eucharist, and so forth.) Christ is the New Adam, in whom we live, because He died for us, and is raised for us. Even Christ Himself helps the Disciples understand that His path to the Cross for the redemption of mankind can occur no other way, when He prays with such passion in Gethsemane.

The resolution to the conundrum, if we desire to peer into the mind of God, at least as far as He has revealed His mind in Holy Scripture, is mostly seen in the perfection of God. He is perfectly just, perfectly loving, perfectly merciful, perfectly powerful, perfectly holy, and so forth, and these divine attributes are definitional to His being. To remain perfectly just, He must judge sin. In His love, He chooses to judge sin in the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ, who chooses to bear our sin upon Himself. Thus, in Christ, we have access to the forgiveness and mercy and grace of Jesus Christ, but outside Him, we remain under wrath for our sin (both original and personal.)

The Scriptures leave us a clear picture of why Christ dies for the sins of the world. My recommendation is to remain in fellowship with the Apostles who penned them, and leave the philosophers and speculative theologians to wallow in their own self-crafted uncertainty.

Peace to you.

 

[Senecus]

Not based on any profound scholarly analysis, I always felt God “must be Just” and anything other action never passes from thought/understanding to action on God’s part. While God is totally Sovereign, He is also completely Consistent.

The Father, Son & Spirit totally understood the exact scope of the sacrifice in advance, yet because the Son inherited a “human nature”, he emptied himself of a portion of that power or strength (hence his query to the Father in the Garden re the cup).

Because of that query (with acceptance of the Fathers will), we can know each and every act of the crucification saga was fully required. However, at the very second the scales were in balance, His suffering ended. A lesser scenario would not have sufficed.