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

[mpartyka]

The question is can that faith save him?

Well, let me ask you this: Had Abraham had a heart attack right after Gen 15:6 – that is, right after believing in God’s pronouncement that his seed would be as numerous as the stars, and having God reckon that to him as righteousness – would Abraham have been saved? Never mind that he had not yet had the promised seed by that point, and so it would be a conundrum: Was Abraham’s faith at that point in his life, imperfect as it was, sufficient to save? Or was Abraham’s faith only sufficient to save him once it was made perfect via his offering up Isaac as a sacrifice?

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

1 John 3:7 says, “He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.” But just a few verses earlier, 1 John 3:3 says, “And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.” This speaks of progress toward perfection, not the attainment of perfection. Even as Paul says, “Not as though I had already attained [the resurrection of the dead], either were already perfect.” Perfect righteousness, in terms of behavior, is not possible for us in this life – it is almost a truism that the more one purifies oneself, the more one is painfully aware of how far one is from perfection. One can appear to be righteous and blameless under the law, or under the commandments, by doing the sacrifices of the law, or even from before the law (like Abel or Noah or Abraham did), but that is because of faith, not because of actually being sinless by way of behavior. I mean, I suppose that someone can go without sin for a while, and for that while that person could be accounted as righteousness, but one slip and one is right back to being a sinner, so I’m not sure what is the value of trying to account someone righteousness in that fashion. Anyway, since we cannot be perfectly righteous in this life in terms of our behavior, then it makes no sense to say that we are declared righteous by God on account of whatever righteousness or grace He infuses into us because we’ll just lose that title the next time we sin (which, if you’re like me, will happen the next time you experience heavy traffic). Isn’t it more comforting to rest in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which can never be tarnished, rather than your own infused righteousness, which fluctuates daily and is truly never perfect or even perfect-rendering?

No he cannot lie. This is why Christ does not take our punishment and view us innocent.

I understand what you’re getting at, but what I’m trying to show you is that infused righteousness can never give us the perfect righteousness that we need to satisfy God. We are not perfect people – even if we should attain to a moment of perfection, we certainly do not stay perfect for long – and only pefect people, who are guilty of no sin whatsoever, deserve the status of “righteous” and the reward that comes with it – the same way that only people who are guilty of sin, people like us, deserve the status of “guilty” and the punishment that comes with it. Now, if Christ received that punishment without actually being guilty, because he was numbered with the transgressors without actually being a transgressor, doesn’t it likewise follow that we can receive the reward without actually being righteous, because we are numbered with the righteous without actually being righteous?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Imagine if Christ had come to the Middle Ages, or to Modern Times instead of the Roman period. He might have died some other way - the burning stake, the rack, the chopping block, the electric chair, lethal injection, prison riot, etc.

But He chose to die in crucifixion - the bloodiest, most agonising, most warped form of execution known to man. The Romans were artists when it came to long, painful executions. Indeed, the word “excruciating” comes from the Latin “ex crucis”, of the cross.

Why did He choose such a terrifying, bloody, painful death - with the crown of thorns and being whipped on top of that?

Such a horrifying experience is what He was willing to do - even if He didn’t have to - to save us from ourselves. Therefore, no one will complain:

“How did this trivial pricking of a finger save us from spiritual death? A man can prick his finger with hardly any effort at all. My mother’s a diabetic and she does it all the time; how many people has she saved by pricking a finger? He could have died on a cross; that would have been far more memorable than being pricked.”

The crucifixion can only be understood, however, if the Resurrection is also taken with it. That expression of love is only just if Christ does not die a permanent death and shows us that no matter how horrifying the price, He will always be able to pay it.

On the other hand, I read something C.S. Lewis wrote:
[homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_lewisatone.html](http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_lewisatone.html)

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

My thoughts on this very challenging awesome question…

I think you are making it too complicated it is actually as simple as yes God COULD HAVE done it differently but…

Salvation is God’s will…His PLAN of Creation…we are still in a state of being created, so His coming to die a bloody death for us was and IS His Divine Plan…God’s Will. *So snapping His fingers to make it happen, is not part of His plan, that is not how God Creates. (although he could if He wanted to), but *this is not “Man magic.”…it is God Will.

• Back in the garden in The Beginning of that plan… Adam and Eve had supernaturally *infused *knowledge and *had freewill, basically they were one with God, they had life with God, so they simply" knew" Him, they knew “all” because they were One with Alpha and the Omega, the ALL. ( As Fr. Neuhaus was fond of putting it…“at one ment” ) After the fall from grace and loss of God life, They now had a “dead body”. (Rom8: 10-11) * They were like the living dead…zombies! Yes it is gruesome!! In this dead body, they lost the infused knowledge, unable to understand like they used to. so part of Gods plan of creation and in his Mercy and Love, He was to come to us Himself, to show us…(.Rabbi!) *To TEACH us and encourage us to used the free will to choose life with Him again. And in order to do it, he had to teach us how to Die bloody deaths. Blood is life! And He shows us how to kill the dead life, to kill our dead bodies, so that we may put on Christ (the Living Body)… and live again.

** *Yes, God could’ve fixed the problem with the blink of an eye a snap of the finger on his right hand. *BUT *that would interfere with His plan…in THIS plan, WE Choose! *And it isnt a mamsy pamby choice…it is a LIFE and Bloody Death choice! This bloody killing is Good!

He came Himself out of His love for us to SHOW us (follow me)* the way back to eternal life and it had to be *DEATH of our dead selves … to do what He did had to DIE a bloody death because he took on mortal flesh…He took on flesh that dies, a whole body not just the finger! so in dying he kills mortality. *So too we must die…not prick our fingers with a safety pin! *NO finger prick will do the job in THIS plan it is the SELF that needs to die, and CHRIST who lives in us to stay. *And it has to be a bloody death, a serious decision, a decision of our whole heart and body… so we die to the sin of Adam *to be re born in HIm. **

If you are looking for a hippie,love,peace god, you will *not find that in Jesus. *The business of salvation is serious! *This is war!!

Brothers,
I beg you through the mercy of God to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice to God; do not conform yourselves to this age but allow your minds to be transformed by the Spirit of God to judge what is good, pleasing and perfect to Him.

Rom 12:1-2

READING
Romans 8:10-11**

If Christ is in you the body is dead because of sin, while the spirit lives because of justice. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, then he who raised Christ from the dead will bring your mortal bodies to life also, through his Spirit dwelling in you.

 

[Odell]

Well, let me ask you this: Had Abraham had a heart attack right after Gen 15:6 – that is, right after believing in God’s pronouncement that his seed would be as numerous as the stars, and having God reckon that to him as righteousness – would Abraham have been saved? Never mind that he had not yet had the promised seed by that point, and so it would be a conundrum: Was Abraham’s faith at that point in his life, imperfect as it was, sufficient to save? Or was Abraham’s faith only sufficient to save him once it was made perfect via his offering up Isaac as a sacrifice?

Either your not reading what I post or you just are not getting it. James is not saying Abrahams faith that he has had his whole life lacks perfection. Neither is Paul saying his faith lacks obedience. Paul in Romans 2:7 everyone who works good eternal lifeand those who seek glory, honor and immortality eternal life. Abrhamam had this faith before. Go back and read the whole post above I should not have to go repost what kind of faith it was Abraham had if you have already read what I wrote.

However it could be argued that Abraham did lose his faith in Gen 17:17 after God promises once again that Sarah will bear the child,. "Abraham fell face down and laughed and said to himself, 'will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety? It is hard to believe this is the same man a decade or so ago earlier had accepted Gods word without question. And before this he took another wife not trusting God would provide the son from Sarah.

So no wonder when he goes to sacrafice Isaac God says “now I know that you fear God because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”

Abrhams faith is fullfilled or perfected because it is an enduring faith. Abrham posessses, aoa righteousness that is revealed from faith to faith" Rom 1:17

One can appear to be righteous and blameless under the law, or under the commandments, by doing the sacrifices of the law, or even from before the law (like Abel or Noah or Abraham did), but that is because of faith, not because of actually being sinless by way of behavior.

I think we agree to an extent. Luke 1:6 says “they wlked in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly.” Paul and you are correct that all men are sinners and unrighteous more over there is nothing we can do in ourselves to rectify the situation. God must make the first move. God must provide the grace.

This means not that they were sinless but that they understood their sinful nature and used used God grace to walk in the commandment and ordinances of the lord blamelessly.

God is the reference point in determining the righteousness of Zecharia and Elizabeth. “They were both righteous before God” It is not men who see the outside but God who sees the inside.

Heb 11:4 says of Abel “By faith, Abel offered God a better sacrafice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings.” Gn 4:4_5 specifies how God was able to speak well of Abel: “THE LORD LOOKED WITH GRACE ON ABEL AND HIS OFFERING, BUT ON CAIN AND HIS OFFERING HE DID NOT LOOK WITH GRACE.”

God can look at our works and be pleased under the system of grace because it does not oblidge him.

To tie this back into your original question
God was not oblidged by Moses not to destroy all of the Israelites. But he was pleased with Moses. Good was not obidged by Abraham if he could find ten righteous people not to destroy Sodom.

Under more normal circumstance God could have appeased the wrath of Judah in Ez 14:14 The same is true in jeremiah 15:1 “then the lord said to me 'even if Moses and Samuel were to stand before me, my heart would not go out tothis people.”

So we have from scripture those who are righteouse those who do please God

But Only Jesus could appease for the sins of the whole world.

I mean, I suppose that someone can go without sin for a while, and for that while that person could be accounted as righteousness, but one slip and one is right back to being a sinner, so I’m not sure what is the value of trying to account someone righteousness in that fashion.

God looks at the heart. And he know we slip up and sin. But in the end he peers into our hearts.

I understand what you’re getting at, but what I’m trying to show you is that infused righteousness can never give us the perfect righteousness that we need to satisfy God.

Your saying we can never satisfy or please God but I just showed you where scripture says other wise. The reason we can please God is because he peers into our hearts and looks with grace as the example of Abel above

Gn 6:8-9 reads “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord”

Under the strict merits of the law Noah could never pleased God. But under grace he could

doesn’t it likewise follow that we can receive the reward without actually being righteous, because we are numbered with the righteous without actually being righteous?

No it does not, not with ALL the scripture that point to an interior change Jesus himself told the Pharases “you clean the outside of the cup but in the inside you are filty.”
Jesus desires this interior change. This is what he came to do

 

[Arrowsmith1994]

mpartyka,

Saying that God does not lie is not the same as saying that God can’t lie. You are right when you imply that God does not act in a way contrary to His nature. This is the concept of non-contradiction. Remember that the mind of God is not knowable, think Job. If you think that you know and understand God completely and His motives then what you know and understand is not beyond you and if this god is not beyond you then it is not really god.

The author of a book is free to tell the story the way he sees fit. The story of the Passion and Crucifixion of Our Lord is the story that God wrote for us. We are in God’s story and our salvation is bound to this suffering of Christ. But God was not bound to write the story in this manner. Did Frodo have to destroy the One Ring to save Middle Earth? Yes. Was Tolkien bound to complete the story in this way, No. The question about whether or not Jesus had to die is actually a ruse to create conversation and debate and we can see by the length and breadth of this thread that it has worked.

 

[mpartyka]

You’re saying we can never satisfy or please God but I just showed you where scripture says otherwise. The reason we can please God is because he peers into our hearts and looks with grace as the example of Abel above. Gn 6:8-9 reads “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” Under the strict merits of the law Noah could never pleased God. But under grace he could.

But doesn’t this strike you as being exactly what is meant by imputed righteousness? God doesn’t judge their conduct, but rather reckons righteousness to them on the basis of their faith – a faith that “justifies the ungodly,” among whom the faithful rightly number themselves?

with ALL the scripture that point to an interior change Jesus himself told the Pharases “you clean the outside of the cup but in the inside you are filty.”
Jesus desires this interior change.

Again we’re at the chicken-or-egg question. What I’m saying is that God justifies the ungodly on the basis of their faith and then effects a progressive interior change for the better in them, whereas you’re saying that God effects a complete interior change for the better and then justifies the no-longer-ungodly person on account of their newfound godliness, correct? But which paradigm really fit the scriptures, which say that our actual purification of ourselves is a never-ending process in this life? If we are justified on the basis of being pure, then we are never justified.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

I also agree with this. Someone may have already addressed this, but there is more than one way to view the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross as necessary for our salvation. I often meditate on this mystery as the ultimate example for humanity of obedience to God and the subsequent reward that is offered

The death of Jesus on the cross is inextricably linked to his resurrection. His death would be meaningless without the reality of the resurrection as St. Paul notes. Jesus is the perfect example of a man on Earth who followed obediently the will of the Father, even unto an agonizing death. As a result he was raised on the third day in glory to sit at the right hand of the Father for eternity. This is the only example of a bodily resurrection that I know of in scripture.

Is this not the perfect model for us? Has it not led countless souls to salvation? I believe in this way it was necessary for Christ to suffer and die for our salvation.

 

[TarkanAttila]

The question about whether or not Jesus had to die is actually a ruse to create conversation and debate and we can see by the length and breadth of this thread that it has worked.

lol, that seems rather pointless.

And the fellow above me has the right idea, although I do not think salvation by the Cross was necessary. Rather, it was the most effective way God could imagine delivering His message to us without turning us into robots. However, without the Resurrection, the crucifixion is little more than a misguided martyrdom of a deranged God-man. We must always remember the Cross in light of the Resurrection, or else it doesn’t make sense.

 

[mpartyka]

…without the Resurrection, the crucifixion is little more than a misguided martyrdom of a deranged God-man. We must always remember the Cross in light of the Resurrection, or else it doesn’t make sense.

I would argue that even with the Resurrection, an unnecessary crucifixion is little more than a misguided martyrdom of a deranged God-man, for the question would remain, “Why should I follow in your footsteps of obedience unto death if it wasn’t necessary for you to go so far to accomplish my redemption? Why should I care that you died for my sins if you could have redeemed me without dying had you so chose?”

 

[Odell]

But doesn’t this strike you as being exactly what is meant by imputed righteousness? God doesn’t judge their conduct, but rather reckons righteousness to them on the basis of their faith – a faith that “justifies the ungodly,” among whom the faithful rightly number themselves?

But God does judge our conduct.

Romans 2: 5-10

5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”7** To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life**.** 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger**. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

1 Cor 9:27-10:6
This passage you posted earlier ill give you a couple more verses.

27 No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others,** I myself will not be disqualified for the prize**.
Ch10: 1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
6 **Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. **

Paul says in Gal 5:21 if one lives by the sinful nature he will lose his inheritance in the kingdon of God. Likewise, James has the same message as Paul when he says that if one discriminates against a lower social class, then he will be judged by God "without mercy"

There is many many more. But notice God judges some without mecy how else does he judge with mercy. He has mercy on whom? Those who set the hearts on the things of the Lord and not on evil things. Those who have faith that obeys as Abrahams

Again we’re at the chicken-or-egg question. What I’m saying is that God justifies the ungodly on the basis of their faith and then effects a progressive interior change for the better in them, whereas you’re saying that God effects a complete interior change for the better and then justifies the no-longer-ungodly person on account of their newfound godliness, correct?

I would say it begins with faith.
Justification is a process

But which paradigm really fit the scriptures, which say that our actual purification of ourselves is a never-ending process in this life? If we are justified on the basis of being pure, then we are never justified.

Scripture tells us its never ending Paul above says he has not won the prize.

No one can do anything to appease God without the atonement of Christ, let alone strive to attain perfect righteousness to meet Gods standars. But once the atonement was accomplished, the grace of God was made available to the whole world.

In short, God does not demand perfect righteousness as seen through the uncompromising edicts of the law, but perfect righteousness that is in accord with his viewing of man from his grace and mercy.

As God infuses his divine righteousness into the individual, he instills the virtues of faith, hope, and love. As the individual, through Gods helping grace, maintains this personal righteousness, he bocomes increasingly justified and sactified in the eys of God, leading to his final justification and glorification in heaven.

You would have a problem my friend with Revelations 21:27 "nothing impure will enter heaven."
If we are only legally righteous and not intrinsically righteous, then you will not fulfill this requirement to be pure as we enter heaven.

 

[tdgesq]

lol, that seems rather pointless.

And the fellow above me has the right idea, although I do not think salvation by the Cross was necessary. Rather, it was the most effective way God could imagine delivering His message to us without turning us into robots. However, without the Resurrection, the crucifixion is little more than a misguided martyrdom of a deranged God-man. We must always remember the Cross in light of the Resurrection, or else it doesn’t make sense.

I agree with most of this, but I still think there is a good argument to be made that Jesus’ death was necessary for “our” salvation. We have good scriptural reasons to believe this adjective implies a great many people who would not have been saved but for Jesus’ death and resurrection. It may be that his death was necessary for the salvation of many as opposed to a few.

If this is correct then the mercy of God is all the more astonishing. Jesus could have escaped death to save some perhaps, but not all that He wanted to save. That is truly amazing.

 

[mpartyka]

The problem with taking Romans 2:5-10 and saying, “See? Conduct is what counts!” is that Paul demolishes such a perspective in Romans 3. Paul first says, “He who does what is good will be counted righteous, not he who merely knows what is good thanks to the Law,” but then he continues by showing that the same Law that shows us what is good also both demonstrates and declares that no one does good. Therefore all are under sin, whether they have the Law or not, because they have not done good. Thus, according to behavior, no one can be counted righteous. But according to faith, we can be counted righteous. The whole point of Romans 2 and 3 and a large portion beyond that (say, up through Romans 10, even) is to get the Jews and Gentiles to realize that they are all in the same boat – all are under sin, no one can claim to be righteous by way of deeds, so we must all be justified on the grounds of faith (i.e., not on the basis of our works, but on the basis of our being found in Christ).

With regard to 1 Cor 9-10, can a person stray so far as to be found outside of Christ after having been placed in Christ? Used to be, as a diehard Southern Baptist, I would have argued, “No, that’s not possible. Once saved, always saved.” But then I read the writings of the early Church Fathers and realized that they never subscribed to any such notion. Moreover, they had something that Protestants don’t have: a visible Church to which to belong. And Jesus said concerning the judgment of the Church upon people: “Whomever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whomever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven” – that is, the judgment of the Church is presumed to be the judgment of God. So as a general rule, you have to be in the Church to get into Heaven, and as another general rule, you have to behave yourself to stay in the Church. So in the sense that your pursuit of evil can get you ejected from the Church, and therefore ejected out from under the umbrella of Christ’s grace, then, yes, your behavior can impact your salvation. But none of this is the same as saying that it is a matter of how good a person you are that gets you saved. Because even while you sojourn within the company of the Church, you are not a perfect person who is actually worthy of salvation. Rather, you are someone who is shielded from the judgment of God by the umbrella of Christ’s grace – someone to whom God has imputed righteousness in spite of your being a sinner.

However, 1 Cor 9-10 also points out that there can be people within the Church who, despite their visibly belonging, are not under the umbrella of Christ’s grace. If, as John says, “He who has this hope within him purifies himself,” then he who does not purify himself but rather indulges in defilement does not have this hope – people can lose the faith that justifies them before God. So how should one know whether one has faith or not? By one’s works, just as James says, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.” Yet is it not on the basis of our works by which we are imputed righteousness, but on the basis of the faith demonstrated by those works.

You would have a problem my friend with Revelations 21:27 “nothing impure will enter heaven.” If we are only legally righteous and not intrinsically righteous, then you will not fulfill this requirement to be pure as we enter heaven.

But don’t you, as a Catholic, believe in Purgatory – i.e., that even those who are not pure in this life will be purified and be allowed to enter Heaven? A person in need of purification cannot be called pure, and yet that person’s level of justification, however imperfect it was, was sufficient to get him/her into Heaven (albeit not “immediately”) rather than Hell.

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

I would argue that even with the Resurrection, an unnecessary crucifixion is little more than a misguided martyrdom of a deranged God-man, for the question would remain, “Why should I follow in your footsteps of obedience unto death if it wasn’t necessary for you to go so far to accomplish my redemption? Why should I care that you died for my sins if you could have redeemed me without dying had you so chose?”

But it was necessary according to God’s plan for our salvation which is encompassed in His Work of Creation in this world with the laws He set forth here. God is omnipotent and omniscient, so He could have saved us any way He wished. But again, the way He did is /was necessary according to the laws of Creation He set forth. This is HIS Creation. HE is God, not you. have you climbed the mountain of The Lord? Do you stan in His place?(ps24)

Surely, Without the death of our dead selves, we as FREE WILL creatures would not be able to be reborn unto His Life. Whether he could have done if different or couldn’t have done it different does not matter… He saves us and He asks us to follow Him. Anyone who knows this and does not follow is a damned fool!

If you are truly stuck in front of this stumbling block, I advise you to put the debating gloves down and pick up the Bible, prayerfully study and meditate upon it. Ask The Holy Spirit to fill you with His light that you may see and understand. And confession, Holy Eucharist and Trust. You will never get it if you do not die a bloody death to your self. That is all you need to know. Let God handle the details.

God’s grace be with you.

-j

 

[Edoson]

Actually Christ did have to die for our sins, Bible says so, when Jesus went to the garden to pray he even asked the father in heaven if there was another way.

Only perfect blood could wipe of us of our sin, Jesus was perfect, and no one else except the rest of the trinity.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I agree with most of this, but I still think there is a good argument to be made that Jesus’ death was necessary for “our” salvation. We have good scriptural reasons to believe this adjective implies a great many people who would not have been saved but for Jesus’ death and resurrection. It may be that his death was necessary for the salvation of many as opposed to a few.

If this is correct then the mercy of God is all the more astonishing. Jesus could have escaped death to save some perhaps, but not all that He wanted to save. That is truly amazing.

Forgive me, I am not Scripturally learned (not strongly so, anyway). What passages would you suggest as evidence that some could only be saved by Christ’s dying and resurrection - and not any act of God made in the name of God for the salvation from sin? It would seem to me that God could do anything He so chose to save the people.

Perhaps it is because I think He made the world as something of a challenge? A puzzle? Dare I say, a game? He could have made us all worship Him, or gotten all of us into Heaven like that, but He chose not to. He made it so we would have to contact each other. So we would have to come to Him and He would have to reach out to us.

And the Cross is His most dramatic message to us: that He would willingly die for us to save us from Death (and indeed, He did). He could have just as easily left a giant stone slab in the middle of Jerusalem, written in His own hand saying “I would die to save you from your sins.” But we humans (which He programmed to act a certain way) react more emotionally to death and sacrifice than to mere words (usually).

Aside from saving us by this act, it would compel us to follow this man - this God - who died so that we might be with Him forever, and rose to prove that it could really happen. To obey Him, to offer ourselves up for this man, because we feel we owe it to Him given His sacrifice.

 

[mpartyka]

But it was necessary according to God’s plan for our salvation which is encompassed in His Work of Creation in this world with the laws He set forth here. God is omnipotent and omniscient, so He could have saved us any way He wished. But again, the way He did is /was necessary according to the laws of Creation He set forth.

That’s basically what I’m saying. Christ had to die to redeem us because death was the penalty God had assigned man to pay for sin as part of the laws of Creation which He set forth and revealed to Adam and Eve. Had God set up something besides death as the penalty for sin, then Christ would have had to pay that other penalty. But because the wages of sin is death, death is the wage that Christ had to pay for our redemption.

I think I would object, though, to any notion that God didn’t have to set up some sort of punishment for sin. For God to treat righteousness and sin the same would be unjust. God pretty much wouldn’t be God if He did that.

 

[mpartyka]

What passages would you suggest as evidence that some could only be saved by Christ’s dying and resurrection - and not any act of God made in the name of God for the salvation from sin?

Basically, Rom 6:23a – “For the wages of sin is death.” If there is sin, death is the wage that is paid to it. So Christ died for us and took the wages meant for us due to our sin.

To obey Him, to offer ourselves up for this man, because we feel we owe it to Him given His sacrifice.

But this feeling of indebtedness only applies if the sacrifice was necessary rather than gratuitous.

 

[Odell]

The problem with taking Romans 2:5-10 and saying, “See? Conduct is what counts!” is that Paul demolishes such a perspective in Romans 3.

What paul demolishes is that no one can earn their salvation based on works who is in turn obligating God to pay with eternal life. So we must conclude that the works Paul requires in Romans 2 are not those performed with an eye to obligate God to pay the individual eternal life. Rather it is presumed that those who “persist in doing good” and who"seek gloery, honor, and incoruruption" are doing so under the auspices of Gods grace and mercy.

Paul first says, “He who does what is good will be counted righteous, not he who merely knows what is good thanks to the Law,” but then he continues by showing that the same Law that shows us what is good also both demonstrates and declares that no one does good.

No one does good under the law. Surely your not going to egnore all the scriptures I quoted were one pleases God. In light of this we must also understand that the good works or Rom 2, being done ine the context of repentence from sin, works that presuppse faith. Hence woks accompanied by faith and repentance, are NOT works done under the principle of debt or obligation that Paul repudiates later in Romans.

The whole point of Romans 2 and 3 and a large portion beyond that (say, up through Romans 10, even) is to get the Jews and Gentiles to realize that they are all in the same boat – all are under sin, no one can claim to be righteous by way of deeds, so we must all be justified on the grounds of faith (i.e., not on the basis of our works, but on the basis of our being found in Christ).

The whole chapter is an indictment agains the Jews for their hypocritical living. They boast of having Gods written law, which the Gentiles do not have, yet the continually disobey that law by sinning and judging others. “You therefore, who who are teaching others, do you not teach yourself? You who say not to steal do you steal?”
This takes an entire chapter for Paul to develop and in the midst of this he specifies warning that God will judge the wicked and bless the good.

Paul argues later on that the covenant of circumcision came chronologically after Abrahams faith and righteousness, then his circumcision could not have caused his justification or righteousness.

Paul is showing us that one must have faith in the grace of God as Abraham did before he excan expect God to recognize his works (Rom 4:12) Paul recognizes Abrahams work of circumcision as a legitimate work that pleased God, Circumcision was indeed a sign of the covenant, but the Jews misinterpreted this to make circumcision the means of obtainging the promises of the covenant.

With regard to 1 Cor 9-10, can a person stray so far as to be found outside of Christ after having been placed in Christ? Used to be, as a diehard Southern Baptist, I would have argued, “No, that’s not possible. Once saved, always saved.” But then I read the writings of the early Church Fathers and realized that they never subscribed to any such notion. Moreover, they had something that Protestants don’t have: a visible Church to which to belong. And Jesus said concerning the judgment of the Church upon people: “Whomever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whomever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven” – that is, the judgment of the Church is presumed to be the judgment of God. So as a general rule, you have to be in the Church to get into Heaven, and as another general rule, you have to behave yourself to stay in the Church. So in the sense that your pursuit of evil can get you ejected from the Church, and therefore ejected out from under the umbrella of Christ’s grace, then, yes, your behavior can impact your salvation. But none of this is the same as saying that it is a matter of how good a person you are that gets you saved. Because even while you sojourn within the company of the Church, you are not a perfect person who is actually worthy of salvation. Rather, you are someone who is shielded from the judgment of God by the umbrella of Christ’s grace – someone to whom God has imputed righteousness in spite of your being a sinner.

Have you read the Church fathers on what it means to be righteous?

So how should one know whether one has faith or not? By one’s works, just as James says, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.” Yet is it not on the basis of our works by which we are imputed righteousness, but on the basis of the faith demonstrated by those works.

Heb 11:17 “by faith , Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrafice.” Abrahams faith and works “working together” in Gen 22, Thus we should not think of Gen 15 as merely establishing the faith of Abraham and of Gen 22 as demonstrating the works of Abrham. Faith and works are an indivisible unit. We should not understand other instances of faith or works without considering their respective counterpart.

I have already showed you from scripture the kind of faith Abrham had. Paul never says “a man is justified apart from love,” or “man is justified by faith apart from obedience.”

But don’t you, as a Catholic, believe in Purgatory – i.e., that even those who are notpure in this life will be purified and be allowed to enter Heaven? A person in need of purification cannot be called pure, and yet that person’s level of justification, however imperfect it was, was sufficient to get him/her into Heaven (albeit not “immediately”) rather than Hell.

Right those who are not pure.
How does someone who is not pure enter heaven under protestant theology?

 

[Philthy]

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.

While the bolded line is correct in that he did do that, Jesus’ “infinite value” did not come about by his Incarnation. He has always and will always have “infinite value”. He therefore *could *have accomplished his merit apart from becoming man…

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.

Really? How will punishment change the fact that the TV has been written on? It doesnt, unless the person who had their TV written on accepts the punishment.

 

[Philthy]

The problem with taking Romans 2:5-10 and saying, “See? Conduct is what counts!” is that Paul demolishes such a perspective in Romans 3.

I’ve never heard any one - certainly not the Catholic Church - say that “Conduct is what counts!” Faith counts and so does conduct. This is abundantly clear in Scripture and in our conscience.

With regard to 1 Cor 9-10, can a person stray so far as to be found outside of Christ after having been placed in Christ? Used to be, as a diehard Southern Baptist, I would have argued, “No, that’s not possible. Once saved, always saved.” But then I read the writings of the early Church Fathers and realized that they never subscribed to any such notion. Moreover, they had something that Protestants don’t have: a visible Church to which to belong. And Jesus said concerning the judgment of the Church upon people: “Whomever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whomever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven” – that is, the judgment of the Church is presumed to be the judgment of God. So as a general rule, you have to be in the Church to get into Heaven, and as another general rule, you have to behave yourself to stay in the Church. So in the sense that your pursuit of evil can get you ejected from the Church, and therefore ejected out from under the umbrella of Christ’s grace, then, yes, your behavior can impact your salvation.

Your analysis here is very good! But I have 2 things to say:
First: 1Cor 6:9-10 deals not with “salvation” but with “inheriting the KOG”. Paul treats them very differently: salvation (entering into God’s family) is by faith - apart from works. Inheriting the KOG (ie “finishing the race” requires maintaining faith through suffering (Acts 14:22), doing good works(James 2), and avoiding serious sin (cf Gal 5, Eph 5)
Second: Please say what you mean to say regarding the consequences of our “behavior”! It doesnt merely “impact” our salvation (vague), it jeopardizes our inheriting the KOG (ie going to Heaven). Or don’t you see it this way?
Philthyism: We are not saved by good works but we earn condemnation by unrepentant sin - saved or not!

But none of this is the same as saying that it is a matter of how good a person you are that gets you saved.

We are “saved” by faith, but our ultimate goal is not merely to be saved, but to go to Heaven. Paul is abundantly clear that how those of the faith act determines their eternal destiny.