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

[Odell]

And yet that is exactly what God must do if He is to save us, because:

Rom 3:9-10,19,23-26 – …we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one…

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.

to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

I highlight the later portion because it is important to the point I’m making about God’s justice. Why should God have “to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins?”

The forgivness of sins what brings jsutification. Those who humble themselves before Gd and admit their sin wil be justified. Those who do not admit their sin will not be justified.

Why should God have “to declare…His righteousness: that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus”?

He justifies those who repenet from their sin. It does not count its been blotted out. Their faith is counted, reconed, recorded as righteousnes. We are back to David again whom was credited righteouseness at the point that he confessed his sins. At this point you are righteous you are “pure in heart” and “renewed a steadfast spirit”. We have both the infusion of righteousness into the individual and God’s recognition of that righteousness.

Because God is doing exactly what you keep saying He is not doing – remitting the sins of unjust people, and declaring them just in spite of their being unjust.

He is remitting the sins of jsut people they have repented.

How is it God can excuse sinners and remain just? Because “God hath set forth” Christ Jesus “to be a propitiation.” He did not allow sin to go unpunished, but rather transferred that sin to a substitute who was punished for those sins in place of the ungodly.

Jesus was not punished. That would be like me beating my wife for my kids writting on my TV. That is not just.

Infuse all the grace you want into a person, and that will never make them righteous, because the Law will still be there saying, “Look at what you have done.”

Under the system of Law but under the system of grace scripture says other wise.

It is only if the guilt for your wrongdoing has been lifted from you, placed on someone else, and punished in that substitute, that the Law no longer has power to declare you guilty.

The Law has no power over me because im under the systeme of grace.

In the sacrifices of the Old Testament, the sins of the people were punished in the animals sacrificed on their behalf –

Not actually the sacrafices of the Old Testament was to show their faith in God.

Like Abraham and his son. It was not that God wanted and would be pleased with his son dieing. God says Gn 22:12 “now I know how devoted you are to God,”

Its a faith to faith a walking in faith. Not a simple faith in God.

When it comes down to it, it seems to me that all you and I are really debating is which comes first: Does God first infuse grace into a person to make that person actually righteous and then declare that person righteous on account of that infusion – this would be your position – or does God first declare a person righteous on account of that person’s faith and the transferrence of his/her sins to Christ on the cross and then infuse grace into that person to improve that person’s actual righteousness? I have to ask, which paradigm better represents reality? How many adults walk out of baptism or out of the confessional as perfectly-behaving people? And yet according to you, God has made them perfectly righteous, so by all rights they should be perfectly-behaving people. Whereas according to me, although they walk out of baptism or the confessional with the declaration of “not guilty” under their belt, their actual righteousness may vary depending on their interior condition and how they respond to the grace God chooses to infuse them with. So what I’m saying is that because our sin comes between us and God, God must remove our sin from us before He can infuse the grace into us that we need to become better people. This imputation of righteousness is what clears the way for the infusion of grace that we need to become Christlike in our ways.

I will have to get to this at another time sorry

 

[Philthy]

Let’s be clear that by “the means God chose” I am talking about the Messiah’s experiencing death and separation from God. There are bible verses which define death and separation from God as the punishment that God has declared that man should undergo for sin. So if God has specified that death and separation from God is the particular punishment for sin, God cannot choose not to punish sin in that particular way, or else He is arbitrary and unjust. “The wages of sin is death,” so if someone sins, then someone has to receive the wages for that sin – someone has to die and be separated from God as the consequence for that sin. What God has done in the plan of salvation is provided that the Messiah rather than we ourselves should receive the wages of sin in our place – He experiences death and separation from God so that we don’t have to. So when someone says, “Jesus didn’t have to die on the cross to save us,” that person is unwittingly saying, “God doesn’t have to require a punishment for sin. God can just turn a blind eye to sin,” which renders God no more just than you or I, which renders our idea of the justice of God – and really any notion of justice at all – meaningless. Justice means that all deeds are appropriately recompensed. To deny that Christ had to die for our sins, then, denies justice.
Now, we can speculate that God did not have to specify death and separation from God as the punishment for sin, but all that would do is render whatever God did specify as the punishment for sin to be what the Messiah would necessarily have to experience

 

[thenobes]

Just a few questions.

Would The Father inflicting punishment on His innocent Son be just?

Or are you saying that He only allowed punishment to be inflicted (by others)?

If so, then how can one say it is true justice, if God did not inflict it?

I think better is that Jesus’s obedience becomes our lack of obedience, not our punishment His.

peace
steve

 

[PeterGStanley]

I think it had to happen exactly as it did in order to fulfill the scriptures or all the prophecy would of been pointless - it said that he would do what he did and he carried it out as prophesied. There is no argument.

 

[Cruxis117]

I think it had to happen exactly as it did in order to fulfill the scriptures or all the prophecy would of been pointless - it said that he would do what he did and he carried it out as prophesied. There is no argument.

I can understand that God would have to fulfill the Scriptures, however I would suggest that God is not bound to the Scriptures, because He wrote them. While He did exactly as the Scriptures said, we must realize that our God is an awesome God, who is completely free to do as he pleases. Therefore, Jesus wasn’t restricted. It was a free act. If it wasn’t a free act which Jesus did, then Jesus wouldn’t truly be God, because God is truly free to do as he pleases. And Jesus is God, and while He serves his Father, they are both free and are capable of doing whatever they please. This makes the Passion much more important, than if Jesus was forced** to be crucified. He freely chose this, and therefore it means so much more.

 

[PeterGStanley]

I absolutely cannot agree - it had to happen - there would be no Christian faith or as we know it - Jesus would not of died and been reserected , defeated death and sin - no to mention Isiah and the other prophets would of been left holding the bag - it was predestine from the very beginning - Jesus could do nothing else but follow the Fathers will or he would not of been the lamb of god it was his destiny to do so. There is no argument.

 

[PeterGStanley]

I also point out what Jesus said to Peter who said similar things

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

It was Gods will period.

 

[irish21450]

I have often asked why? Why this horrific death? Why a blood sacrifice?and I believe the Holy Spirit gave me the answer: Because it is the only thing that would truly get our attention - the only thing we could truly understand - someone giving his life for us - in this case the very God who created us- the ultimate love offering - the highest form of love. Many who are parents say that they would willingly give their life to save the life of their child - Well, God did it!

 

[Cruxis117]

I absolutely cannot agree - it had to happen - there would be no Christian faith or as we know it - Jesus would not of died and been reserected , defeated death and sin - no to mention Isiah and the other prophets would of been left holding the bag - it was predestine from the very beginning - Jesus could do nothing else but follow the Fathers will or he would not of been the lamb of god it was his destiny to do so. There is no argument.

Yes, of course it had to happen. We had to be saved. I’m not saying that we did not desperately need salvation. However, there is an argument. By following the particular idea which you possess, that of Jesus being permanently bound to the Cross as if he wasn’t God and couldn’t do as he pleased is absurd. Yes, it was his “destiny”, if you mean that it was what Jesus was going to do. However, I will not bind the Saviour to the Cross as if the Cross is more powerful than God. Rather, Jesus freely chose to die on the Cross. I wouldn’t say Predestined, in the sense that Jesus is bound to something which he cannot control. While Jesus follows the Father’s will, they are both equal. Jesus freely chose to carry the Cross, and freely chose to be nailed upon it. To say anything otherwise would be to say that Jesus wasn’t God. Jesus, being God, with his will united with God the Father’s, went and freely acted for us. Jesus wasn’t bound to this. Jesus had the ability to do whatever he wanted. However, he chose to commit this ultimate act of love for us. This is the issue, we cannot become legalistic about this. Jesus wasn’t bound to a legal contract which he signed with a pen. Jesus freely came down to us, freely lived, worked, ate, slept, breathed, and died with us and for us. Jesus didn’t have to do these things. But he did, out of his own merciful love for us.

 

[Cruxis117]

I also point out what Jesus said to Peter who said similar things

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

It was Gods will period.

Interesting response. What I find funny is that Pope Benedict XVI in his book Jesus of Nazareth spoke about this. The reason I find this funny, is because I believe your personal interpretation of this text is wrong. This is because you’re assuming that Peter had the same reason to say this “similar” thing as we do. This is wrong. Why?

During the time of the Lord, the Jewish people were looking for an earthly, temporal Messiah. A man who would overthrow the Romans and bring Israel back to God. When Peter said that Jesus shouldn’t die, we can see that (Peter being a Jew), Peter was still thinking in this mentality of Jesus as the temporal Messiah-King, rather than the Divine King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Sacrificial Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world by his death. This idea of death didn’t fit with the Messiah which the Jews were expecting. Therefore, if Jesus died, as Peter and other Jews would have thought, then he couldn’t be the Messiah-King. This is understood with Jesus’ next line, “for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” Certainly, if we were following your interpretation, we would be assuming that Jesus was rebuking Peter for caring about his well-being. I would find that preposterous, for Jesus encouraged the Apostles to celebrate his life, for example, with regards to when the Apostles were eating with Jesus instead of fasting. They were celebrating his life. Now, if we follow what I find to be the proper interpretation, we would clearly see that Jesus was rebuking Peter’s image of what Jesus was supposed to be. Jesus is the Divine Son, the Servant who would be pierced and would bear our sins for us. This was the will of God, I agree. But the will of God is the will of Jesus, for Jesus is God, and Jesus being God the Son meaned that Jesus freely chose to be nailed on the Cross. God can do whatever we wishes, he is omnipotent, as I believe you agree with me. And if God can do whatever he want, then Jesus can do whatever he want. If God wanted Jesus to bear our sins and die, Jesus wished for it at the same time. Their wills could not and would not become opposed to one another. Therefore, I find it that contrary to what you believe, there is an argument to be made here, and one which actually makes sense.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Wouldn’t matter what I say in your mind you would be right and I would be wrong - so be it.
Thats the only argument here.

 

[Cruxis117]

Wouldn’t matter what I say in your mind you would be right and I would be wrong - so be it.
Thats the only argument here.

Not at all. Rather, it’s the idea that you’ve decided to present minimal text to support your claims. However, I will not reduce the work of Jesus to a legalistic point of view. Christ the Lord freely chose to act. And as I can see, you cannot present any argument to the contrary.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Your right.

 

[mpartyka]

Paul is using the term obligation it refers to a measured compensation which is legally owed by one party to another…God cannot be put in a position of being legally obligated to pay man for his work. Outside of the legal framework, however, God can pay man what God thinks his work is worth because God is honest and just…good works presuppose faith in God, as well as an acknowledgment of personal sin. These works are accompanied by faith and repentance, are not works done under the principle of debt or obligation that Paul repudiates in Romans 4:4. As long as you or anyone refuse to see a distinction between strict merit due from obligation and gracious merit provided by benevolence, there can be no resolution to our controversy.

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.

Maybe 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.

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.

Jesus was not punished. That would be like me beating my wife for my kids writing on my TV. That is not just.

But neither is it just to refuse to punish the sin of writing on your TV. Someone wrote on your TV, so someone deserves to be punished. The question is who will take the blame. Your kids are the ones who did it, so they should take the blame for it and be beaten for it. But let’s say that your wife knows that your kids have brittle bones, and your beating them would do serious damage to them, whereas she’s strong enough to take it and recover from it. So she offers herself to bear the beating in their place, and you accept the exchange because you really don’t want to hurt your kids either. In fact, you would like to just let it go and not punish anyone at all, but if you did that, you would be treating sin the same as righteousness, and the very notion that you could do such a thing would make you a hypocrite and unjust. After all, it was you who said, “If you write on my TV, you’ll get a beating,” and if you don’t carry out your threat, that makes you a liar, and who respects a liar? So if your wife, who is innocent, takes the beating in place of your kids, then you can be both just and merciful – just, in that you delivered the punishment you said you would; merciful, in that you delivered that punishment to someone willing and able to bear it in place of your kids. Because otherwise you would have had to beat your kids and maybe cripple or even kill them and lose them forever, and you didn’t want that. And as much as your kids might protest, “No! No! Mom’s innocent! This shouldn’t happen!” your wife would tell them, “Hush, children. It has to be this way, or else either you will lose all respect for your father, as he will become a man who doesn’t follow through on his word, or you will bear the punishment yourselves and be crippled or killed, which is even worse than this. I will be fine, so, please, just accept this gift from your father and I, and from now on try to be obedient.”

 

[mpartyka]

I dont know - nor do you - whether becoming human was the only way for God to “experience death and separation from God”.

Well, that’s an interesting point. I don’t know of any other way besides becoming a man that God could have experienced a punishment intended for man, but that doesn’t fully remove the possibility of their being one. Hats off for thinking outside the box!

In addition, the punishment for sin is *eternal *separation from God it could be argued that Christ didn’t actually experience that since his humanity did not remain eternally separated from God.

I would argue that the “eternal” aspect of man’s punishment is not something God actively applies but is rather a consequence of there being no way to heal the separation after one’s death and rejection of Christ. That way, for Christ to experience death and separation was sufficient for Him to satisfy the requirements of the penalty without the separation having to be eternal in duration (if that’s what “eternal” can really be understood to mean, rather than referring to a state that exists outside of time of which the closest approximation our limited minds can fathom is “forever and ever”).

My sense is that you misunderstood those alleged speculations that “Christ didnt have to die” as a way of denying the NECESSITY OF GOD PROVIDING A MEANS FOR US.

That could be, but be aware there have been pious theologians who have speculated in kind that either God could have just forgiven us without requiring any action from Christ at all, or that Christ could have magically appeared on earth as a full-grown man and left immediately after shedding a drop of blood from a pricked finger, or that Christ could have come and helped an old lady across the street and paid for our sins because (as some here have argued) any good deed by a person of infinite value has infinite merit. So even if I did miss the radio host’s point – though I really don’t think I did, because I seem to recall him listing other options, but now I don’t know if I’m confusing what I read before with what I heard on the radio – there have indeed been arguments like the ones above that have definitely been made that I’ve wrapped up along with the host’s response in order to start this thread.

 

[mpartyka]

Would The Father inflicting punishment on His innocent Son be just?

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

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.

I think better is that Jesus’s obedience becomes our lack of obedience, not our punishment His.

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 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.

 

[Quatsch]

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.

I highly recommend you read the page on merit from the Catholic encyclopedia at newadvent.org if you want a Catholic understanding of merit. Here is an excerpt that deals with the how merit and satisfaction are related.

From newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

There remains the distinction between merit and satisfaction; for a meritorious work is not identical, either in concept or in fact, with a satisfactory work. In the language of theology, satisfaction means:

• atoning by some suitable service for an injury done to another’s honour or for any other offence, in somewhat the same fashion as in modern duelling outraged honour is satisfied by recourse to swords or pistols;
• paying off the temporal punishment due to sin by salutary penitential works voluntarily undertaken after one’s sins have been forgiven.

Sin, as an offence against God, demands satisfaction in the first sense; the temporal punishment due to sin calls for satisfaction in the second sense (see PENANCE).

Christian faith teaches us that the Incarnate Son of God by His death on the cross has in our stead fully satisfied God’s anger at our sins, and thereby effected a reconciliation between the world and its Creator. Not, however, as though nothing were now left to be done by man, or as though he were now restored to the state of original innocence, whether he wills it or not; on the contrary, God and Christ demand of him that he make the fruits of the Sacrifice of the Cross his own by personal exertion and co-operation with grace, by justifying faith and the reception of baptism. It is a defined article of the Catholic Faith that man before, in, and after justification derives his whole capability of meriting and satisfying, as well as his actual merits and satisfactions, solely from the infinite treasure of merits which Christ gained for us on the Cross (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. xvi; Sess. XIV, cap. viii).

The second kind of satisfaction, that namely by which temporal punishment is removed, consists in this, that the penitent after his justification gradually cancels the temporal punishments due to his sins, either ex opere operato, by conscientiously performing the penance imposed on him by his confessor, or ex opere operantis, by self-imposed penances (such as prayer, fasting, almsgiving, etc.) and by bearing patiently the sufferings and trials sent by God; if he neglects this, he will have to give full satisfaction (satispassio) in the pains of purgatory (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, can. xiii, in Denzinger, n. 923). Now, if the concept of satisfaction in its twofold meaning be compared with that of merit as developed above, the first general conclusion will be that merit constitutes a debtor who owes a reward, whilst satisfaction supposes a creditor whose demands must be met. In Christ’s work of redemption merit and satisfaction materially coincide almost to their full extent, since as a matter of fact the merits of Christ are also works of satisfaction for man. But, since by His Passion and Death He truly merited, not only graces for us, but also external glory for His own Person (His glorious Resurrection and Ascension, His sitting at the right hand of the Father, the glorification of His name of Jesus, etc.), it follows that His personal merit extends further than His satisfaction, as He had no need of satisfying for Himself. The substantial and conceptual distinction between merit and satisfaction holds good when applied to the justified Christian, for every meritorious act has for its main object the increase of grace and of eternal glory, while satisfactory works have for their object the removal of the temporal punishment still due to sin. In practice and generally speaking, however, merit and satisfaction are found in every salutary act, so that every meritorious work is also satisfactory and vice versa. It is indeed also essential to the concept of a satisfactory work of penance that it be penal and difficult, which qualities are not connoted by the concept of merit; but since, in the present state of fallen nature, there neither is nor can be a meritorious work which in one way or another has not connected with it difficulties and hardships, theologians unanimously teach that all our meritorious works without exception bear a penal character and thereby may become automatically works of satisfaction. Against how many difficulties and distractions have we not to contend even during our prayers, which by right should be the easiest of all good works! Thus, prayer also becomes a penance, and hence confessors may in most cases content themselves with imposing prayer as a penance. (Cf. De Lugo, “De pœnitentia,” disp. xxiv, sect. 3.)

 

[mpartyka]

In the language of theology, satisfaction means…atoning by some suitable service for an injury done to another’s honour or for any other offence, in somewhat the same fashion as in modern duelling outraged honour is satisfied by recourse to swords or pistols…Sin, as an offence against God, demands satisfaction in [this] sense…Christian faith teaches us that the Incarnate Son of God by His death on the cross has in our stead fully satisfied God’s anger at our sins, and thereby effected a reconciliation between the world and its Creator.

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?

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. 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.

 

[mmacalos]

mpartyka- I’m not sure if anyone’s already mentioned this, but here’s my take:

Although I understand what you mean (I’ve heard that too, but I guess I’ve never interpreted it as such), there is that one part where Jesus asks the Father if this cup can pass him…but Your will be done, etc (sorry, I’m terrible at quoting scripture). If that’s all it took, just for him to simply ask his Father to take all the suffering away (or to prick a finger, etc), then perhaps it might not have had to happen. However, b/c that isn’t what happened, then I am compelled to believe (and trust in God) that Jesus DID have to die on the cross for me.

I consider the claim that “Christ didn’t have to die for us” to mean that God has the power to do whatever he wants.

And I also have to keep in mind that it wasn’t Him that put Christ on the cross…that was us.

Hope that addresses your question.

 

[George_2007]

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?

Two words - Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus was obedient to His Father, unto death. He said that of course he could call down legions of angels to save him, but that he had to do what the Father willed. So there’s no masochism. The Father made the decision. He was so distressed that he sweat blood - not looking forward to pain or choosing pain as a masochist would.

So, no, no repulsion at all.

Then the question falls to the Father - did He have to will it. I think that as for what God the Father (or Son or Spirit for that matter) ***might ***have done or ***could ***have done, or ***had ***to do is all pointless speculation, I think. He made the perfect decision because He is perfectly wise, perfectly just, all knowing, perfectly merciful perfectly loving.

So if we question whether the crucifixion was a good idea (which is really what we’re doing if we’re asking whether it was necessary), we may as well question whether allowing sin to enter the world was a good idea, whether condemning people to hell for rejecting Him is just, whether allowing the Hitlers of the world a chance to repent and spend eternity in paradise alongside Mother Teresa, etc, yada, yada, all the doo-da day.

We can’t try to confine God to our human common sense because we will inevitably get bent out of shape when He doesn’t follow it. That way lies madness.

Whatever God’s options were, he made the right decision - it’s impossible for it to be otherwise. We can’t tell for sure what was necessary for Him to do - we are incapable of making that kind of decision, so we can’t analyze it the way we would analyze a human’s decisions.