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

[Philthy]

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.

I basically agree with all of this and I believe the Catholic Church does as well. I think the only point of contention is whether God could have effected salvation in a different way. That, of course, would have required some of Revelation (ie Scripture) to have been different, but it’s largely a moot point IMHO. We all agree that something needed to be done, that we couldn’t do it and that God, out of love for us, did. Amen?

 

[Philthy]

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

Again, I will point out that our goal is to spend eternity with God in Heaven - not to simply be “saved”, “justified” or “credited rightousness” during our lives. Those are all huge events, but they are stepping stones to Heaven, they are not Heaven itself.
Just remember that Abraham didnt go to Heaven simply by believing and having that faith “credited as righteousness”. Perhaps he would have IF HE HAD DIED AT THAT MOMENT, but he didnt. He still had a life to live and obedience to follow (offering up Isaac) - and to ignore the importance of those aspects of Abraham’s life is simply to ignore what God actually says to us in Scripture in favor of what we’d like to believe God meant even though he didnt say it. A plain reading of Gen 22 is that Abraham made his faith known to God through his willingness to offer his son…"Now I know how devoted you are…(v12).
James’ contention that the fulfillment of Abraham’s credit occurring in Gen 22 may have more to do with God’s eternal perspective and our temporal perspective, and does not necessitate the logical wrangling that you go to above to render James’ statement meaningless. Furthermore, James couldn’t be clearer : Will (ie in the future) faith without works save you? NO, for just as a body without a spirit is dead, so is faith without works, and dead faith does not save you.

 

[mpartyka]

How does someone who is not pure enter heaven under protestant theology?

That’s a good question. In my Protestant years what I theorized is that when God regenerated one’s spirit so that one was “alive to righteousness” rather than “dead to sin,” that was all that was needed for a person’s spirit to achieve entry to Heaven upon death. After all, the difference between being destined for Heaven or Hell was a matter of whether you were in Christ (“alive,” “spiritual”) or not in Christ (“dead,” “carnal”). And it occurs to me upon saying this that the whole concept of regeneration is something that I had forgotten from back then. In Reformed soteriology, regeneration logically precedes faith and is the gratuitous act of God upon the spirit of a person to make that person spiritually “alive from the dead.” It is this regeneration that enables a person to have faith in Christ, and it is upon the basis of this faith in turn that God justifies a person (i.e., imputes righteousness to that person) and begins the process of sanctifying the person (i.e., enabling the change of behavior corresponding to one’s having passed from death to life). The whole chain finally ends in glorification. So it strikes me now that when you talk of “infused righteousness,” one might interpret this as a sort of shorthand for the kind of process that Reformed soteriology lays out: Righteousness is “infused” in the sense that God infuses grace into the soul to effect regeneration, which in turn effects the response of faith in the regenerated person, on account of which faith God imputes a status of righteousness to the person and begins the process of sanctifying the person.

 

[mpartyka]

He therefore *could *have accomplished his merit apart from becoming man…

But he couldn’t have paid the wages of sin without becoming man.

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.

Very true. But it was God who established what kind of punishment He would accept, and that punishment was death.

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?

Yeah, I admit I’m coming to see it that way. Don’t really want to, but I’m not a Protestant anymore, so I’m not really obligated to see things the old “faith alone” way. Difficult to shift paradigms, though. I would still, however, hold it true that there is no level of good behavior on our part that is sufficient to merit salvation for us, only a level of good behavior that is sufficient to not get us kicked out from under the auspices of the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to us on the basis of our faith rather than our works. Good enough?

 

[tdgesq]

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?

The two passages that immediately come to mind are Mark 8:31 & 10:45:

Mark 8:31 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

31And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the ancients and by the high priests, and the scribes, and be killed: and after three days rise again.

Mark 10:45 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

45For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

I am not able to give an exegesis from the original Latin, but if Jesus “must” suffer and be killed then there must be some reason for it. I think we would agree that God is not arbitrary. The question then becomes: what is the reason that Jesus must suffer and be killed? Mark 10:45 states one reason; he gives his life as redemption for many (other translations say “ransom for many”). I suppose you could hypothesize that Jesus could have saved just as many if he did it another way without interference with our individual free will. I’m open to suggestions supported by reasons.

It would seem to me that God could do anything He so chose to save the people.

As you noted in your previous post, he has the power to save every human being, but possibly only at the cost of interfering with free will. There is no doubt he has the power to do this. I also agree that he had a choice to save us, but Mark 8:31 does read that he “must” suffer and die for some reason. It is that reason I think we are trying to establish.

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.

That is certainly one hypothesis based upon inferences from attributes of God and ourselves that we know. If we can base our conclusions directly on revelation (scripture) though, as a general rule we have a greater degree of certainty in our conclusions.

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).

I don’t disagree with this, and I think it fits in nicely with God’s revelation that his death is for the redemption of many.

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.

Again, you will get no disagreement from me. The Church is explicit that Christ is the earthly model for us, and his death and resurrection is what gives us hope, faith and love in him.

 

[TarkanAttila]

The two passages that immediately come to mind are Mark 8:31 & 10:45:

Mark 8:31 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

31And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the ancients and by the high priests, and the scribes, and be killed: and after three days rise again.

After checking out the verse in the NASB, and in context, I gotta say… you got a point.

Christ said it Himself, first of all. Word of God is a pretty strong argument. And then Simon Peter tried to rebuke Him, but Jesus confirmed Peter’s fears: He was going to have to die. That seems rather convincing that Christ had to die to save us.

Thank you for the lesson. I apologise. I was wrong.

Mark 10:45 (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

45For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

This seems to further confirm what you have said, and what the Good Book says. See Mark 10:32-45, and you will see Christ once again prophesies His own death (Mark 10:33) to His Apostles.

I am not able to give an exegesis from the original Latin, but if Jesus “must” suffer and be killed then there must be some reason for it. I think we would agree that God is not arbitrary.

Agreed.

The question then becomes: what is the reason that Jesus must suffer and be killed? Mark 10:45 states one reason; he gives his life as redemption for many (other translations say “ransom for many”).

A good answer. I wonder if there is not something in the supernatural realm that we do not known about, however. Some technical rule that would make any other form of redemption illegal, or cheating, if you will. I would not know what that is.

I suppose you could hypothesize that Jesus could have saved just as many if he did it another way without interference with our individual free will. I’m open to suggestions supported by reasons.

As you noted in your previous post, he has the power to save every human being, but possibly only at the cost of interfering with free will. There is no doubt he has the power to do this. I also agree that he had a choice to save us,

…nope. The passages you quoted seem sufficient to me that, for whatever reason, Christ had to die to save us. I still don’t know why He does, but I take Christ at His word. I was trying to be proved wrong, really, I was.

But I do think, if God followed a different ruleset, He could just as easily have saved us without the death of His Son. He could have saved us without even sending a God-man being down to us. God can do anything He so pleases.

But, He isn’t doing it the way I think salvation could be handled. He isn’t doing it the way any of us think salvation could be handled. God’s rules for salvation are His own, and He thinks them best, hopefully for good reason. Considering the prospect He offers, I think rebelling against Him is rather much a bitter, fruitless work in comparison to following Him.

but Mark 8:31 does read that he “must” suffer and die for some reason. It is that reason I think we are trying to establish.

I think we were just trying to establish whether it was necessary or not, but it certainly couldn’t hurt.

Hm…

That is certainly one hypothesis based upon inferences from attributes of God and ourselves that we know. If we can base our conclusions directly on revelation (scripture) though, as a general rule we have a greater degree of certainty in our conclusions.

… yeah; you’re right.
I know I will get through it eventually, but over 2000 pages of Book, no matter how amazing its message, is still very daunting. Say, is it true that if we read the Daily Readings every day for three years we will have read the entire Bible?

Any way about it, reading and understanding the Bible and the Traditions of the Holy Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit will undoubtedly make me a better apologist, a better preacher (I do YouTube videos on occasion), and a better Catholic.

It does still kind of leave the question of “Why crucifixion and not some other form of execution?” but execution is execution, I suppose. Besides, it played out just as the Prophets had described, and as I read tonight from my “Word Among Us” (it has the Daily Readings), if the Church were of man and not God, it would have died out a long time ago.

 

[Philthy]

But he couldn’t have paid the wages of sin without becoming man…it was God who established what kind of punishment He would accept, and that punishment was death.

I don’t disagree, and I mostly see it as a moot point

Yeah, I admit I’m coming to see it that way. Don’t really want to, but I’m not a Protestant anymore, so I’m not really obligated to see things the old “faith alone” way. Difficult to shift paradigms, though.

I completely(well, not completely of course) understand and sympathize. I have to encourage you and complement you: such frank and honest statements are the exception rather than the rule. Yours is the freshest breath of air I have personally experienced here…thank you.

I would still, however, hold it true that there is no level of good behavior on our part that is sufficient to merit salvation for us,

Completely Catholic!

only a level of good behavior that is sufficient to not get us kicked out from under the auspices of the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to us on the basis of our faith rather than our works. Good enough?

It is so close to Catholic (if not outrightly so) that I say, “Good enough!” The ramifications of the term “imputed” righteousness has some areas that would require discussion beyond the scope of this thread. For the time being I’m happy to hear your articulation that our behavior can jeopardize our eternal destiny. Thanks again for your honesty…

Blessings!

 

[Jacqueline_1156]

I always thought the human nature of Jesus served as a metaphor for our human free will. Jesus had a choice. We have choices. He could have chosen to run from his duty and responsibility, but he free willingly chose to fulfill scripture even though he knew it would be painful and sacrificial. His human nature shows us that we still have the free will choice to be selfish, but a greater love is found by dedicating one’s life to others. I may be way off on this but I always thought that he thought that God would save him from his sacrifice at the last minute “My Lord and My God, why have you abandoned me?” but then we wouldn’t have the ultimate sacrifice as an example of the sacrificial, responsible parenthood that is needed for the next generations. He could have chosen to run from his responsibility, like the soft culture is urging us to do, but then world history would be very different.

I think that when Jesus cried out it was at that moment He felt separation from God as only a soul can feel. As we can feel. Totally alone. Totally abandoned. For that one moment He was “us”. His sacrifice was complete. He showed us the Way by giving us the Truth so we could have the Life. His total sacrifice helps us to bear our own crosses for we know for certain that He knows us well. Just a thought.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I think that when Jesus cried out it was at that moment He felt separation from God as only a soul can feel. As we can feel. Totally alone. Totally abandoned. For that one moment He was “us”. His sacrifice was complete. He showed us the Way by giving us the Truth so we could have the Life. His total sacrifice helps us to bear our own crosses for we know for certain that He knows us well. Just a thought.

That’s an endearing thought…

…
…
…

“My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” are the first words of Psalm 22 - the Psalm that describes His Passion, and indeed begin as words of despair. But from verse 19, the writer shows he still has faith in the Lord, and as the verses go on, becomes more and more confident in his faith.

“Where there is despair, hope.”

So I believe despite His disappointment and pain, Christ still believed, as many do despite their pain and sorrow.

 

[Odell]

In Reformed soteriology, regeneration logically precedes faith and is the gratuitous act of God upon the spirit of a person to make that person spiritually “alive from the dead.”

In Catholic theology it is simultaneous with faith. Remeber Paul uses Davids experoence in Psalm 32 and Psalm 51 as a reference point and definition for justification. In other words what happend to David is what happens WHEN one is justified. His sins are blotted out, but in addition, David speaks of his inner nature being channged. He wants God to create a “pure heart” and " renew a steadfast spirit" within him. Also “wash away all. My iniquity and cleanse me from my sin” , “surly you desire truth in your inward parts; you teach me wisdom in the innermost place”

Paul is combining the simultaneity under the exclusive term justification in Rom 4:5-8, not the protestant notion of sanctification or regeneration.

Paul also makes clear that our conforming to the likeness of Christ involves our justification1cor 6:11 “but you were washed , you were sactified, you were justified in the name of the lord Jesus Christ”

This event happens in our present life. And it refers exclusively to the time they were intrinsically made righteous. Thus 1 cor6:11 associates the term justification with the transformational change in the individual

They are not separate. This agrees with the evidence in Rom 8:30, which leaves sanctification out and subsumes it under the title of “justified” we see this in Titus3:5-7

“He saved us not because of righteous things we had done but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of REBIRTH AND RENEWAL by the Holy Spirit whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our savior, so that, BEING JUSTIFIED BY HIS GRACE…”

Here we notice that in the same breath that Paul speaks of Obeing saved through washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit" he p(name removed by moderator)oints the time this was done for us as Obeing justified by his grace." Justification occurs when we were “saved” rebirthed" and “renewed”

Justification is rebirth and renewal as much as sanctification and glorification.

]

 

[mpartyka]

The ramifications of the term “imputed” righteousness has some areas that would require discussion beyond the scope of this thread. For the time being I’m happy to hear your articulation that our behavior can jeopardize our eternal destiny.

Here’s the way I would seek to put it: We have this feeling that there are “good people” and “bad people” in the world, based on the condition of their hearts (in spite of each group’s less-than-perfect behavior), and we would expect that God would judge between the two. However, God is just and cannot accept anything less than perfect obedience as “good.” He must punish sin, even the sins of those who are “good people.” Therefore He sent Christ to die for the sins of the “good people,” so that as their sins are imputed to Christ for Him to pay the punishment and satisfy God’s justice, likewise Christ’s righteousness (i.e., his record of perfect obedience) is imputed to them so that they may enter Heaven without violating God’s justice. Meanwhile the sins of the “bad people” remain upon them, which results in their being punished in Hell.

 

[mpartyka]

In Catholic theology [regeneration] is simultaneous with faith.

The same is (or can be) true with Reformed theology (soteriology, actually). To say that regeneration “logically precedes” faith is to say nothing about time, only cause and effect. If you strike a match, you get both heat and light at the same time, but the heat causes the light, not the other way around. So in Reformed soteriology, regeneration causes faith which causes justification which causes sanctification and eventual glorification, but the first three are simultaneous, the fourth is a process (whose initiation coincides with the first three), and the fifth is a future event.

 

[Odell]

You still not adequatel aressed that justification is a process as much as sanctification, that people actually practice righteousnes.

And I would like to add one more imputatuon offers no adequate answers as to why God requires faith from the individual in order to attain justification, nor does it adequately explain why God requires a certain quality of faith.

 

[mpartyka]

You still not adequatel aressed that justification is a process as much as sanctification, that people actually practice righteousnes.

And I would like to add one more imputatuon offers no adequate answers as to why God requires faith from the individual in order to attain justification, nor does it adequately explain why God requires a certain quality of faith.

1. People may practice righteousness, but unless they also are completely sinless, their practicing righteousness isn’t enough to render them justified the way Jesus was justified (i.e., by being completely without sin). I am not denying that people cannot become better people, only that their becoming better people does not make them any less sinners in need of having righteousness imputed to them so that they can go to Heaven. Without that imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness, even the best people who ever lived are still Hellbound sinners on account of the sins they have committed.
2. I really don’t know how to answer why God requires faith for justification any more than I can answer why God requires death and separation from Himself as the wages for our sin. One characteristic about faith is that it is something apart from works – you either believe or you don’t – and so justification is a response to faith entirely apart from the system of works, in which one pays a person according to the work he/she has done. The only way that works justify is in combination with faith – works apart from faith are just as dead as faith apart from works. So with regard to “quality of faith,” I think that what James is saying is, “When your faith is put to the test, how does it respond?” But does that faith have to be tested to be present, or before it can justify? Maybe. I don’t know. But the Bible says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness” – there was nothing in between that Abraham did to prove that he believed God, and even though James says that Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac fulfilled that saying, Paul nevertheless asserts that Abraham’s justification came when he was uncircumcised (i.e., prior to that near-sacrifice) and that the same justification belongs to those “who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised,” which means that Abraham’s faith at the time he believed God, imperfect as it was, was sufficient not only for him but also for us. I daresay few people at all would get into Heaven if the faith of Abraham at the time of his near-sacrifice of Isaac were what was required for entry.

 

[Joan_of_Ark]

1. . I daresay few people at all would get into Heaven if the faith of Abraham at the time of his near-sacrifice of Isaac were what was required for entry.

Very intersting! I agree with your assessment of the situation, mpartyka, and would add that that is where purgatory comes in, because it is my beleif and personal experience that our works and sufferings purify our faith…as we 'suffer through" this world holding our Faith, not only in tact, but becoming more and more clear…pure! Through these works…these sufferings.

if our Faith is not purified, we cannot stand before God, our faith must finish a purification

people who are Saints, have had their Faith tested/purified…like Abraham!

isn’t another word for purify, 'tested"? I think so…

joan

 

[Odell]

1. People may practice righteousness, but unless they also are completely sinless, their practicing righteousness isn’t enough to render them justified the way Jesus was justified (i.e., by being completely without sin).

I totaly agree. But I would add that the only way you can practice rghteousness is because of Christ or that it is Christ working threw us.

The later part is why God can see our works as righteousness. Hence the New Testament passages that speak of works being judged with a view toward gaining etenal life are not hypotheical.

I am not denying that people cannot become better people, only that their becoming better people does not make them any less sinners in need of having righteousness imputed to them so that they can go to Heaven. Without that imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness, even the best people who ever lived are still Hellbound sinners on account of the sins they have committed.

I would say without the infusion of Christ’s righteousness God wold not look upon us with grace and we could not please Him. God would not peer into our hearts and our sins would be held against us. There is nothing we can do to rectify that we are sinners. God makes the first move. God provides the grace, through the atonement of Christ, which allows him to forgive men’s sins and look upon them much differently than he was required to do through the system of law.

By his atonement we can understand our sinful nature and use gods grace to subdue sin.

It is the atonement of Christ that has made this new view of man possible. Thus grace is both the lens through which God views us and the infused quality we receive from God to help us maintain his gracious view.

In Matthew 5:21 it is no longer sufficient to refrain only from physically killing someone; rather, Jesus says that even being angry with one’s brother puts one in danger of judgment. An interior despostion. Hence, the way our rightousness " exceeds" the righteousness of the Pharisees is by refraining from anger, whereas the Pharisess, though they did not murder their brother, hated and reviled him in their heart. By interpriting scrpture by its face value rather than superimposing a theological system upon it, we learn that we do not exceed such Pharisaical righteousness by laying claim to someone else’s righteousness but by exercising our own righteousness unto God whom we can please under his grace.

1. One characteristic about faith is that it is something apart from works – you either believe or you don’t –

Believe in what? How would you define Abrahams faith if it was not just a belief in God?

Ive showed you what kind of faith Abraham had.
Paul is clear in Romans 4:17-21 where he takes great pain to describe the tremendous inner quality of Abraham’s faith by such phrases as “against all hope” “without weakening” “not wavering” and finally “was fully persuaded that God had power to do what he promised.”

These words would be superfluous if all Abraham had to do was accept God as his savior. And Paul quotes these very words of undying faith right before Romans 4:22 When Abrahams faith was credited as righteousness.

And how is belief not a work in and of itself?

You can not qualify faith in any manner without falling into a salvation of works. Faith is not just an instrumetn, it is an instrument hat must be tuned properly in order to function as intended. In the end it depends on the intrinsic quality of faith in the individual and therfore cannot be reduced to the “alien righteousness of Christ.”

Christ atonement does not automatically impute righteousness to snners all together but is only appropriated by the faith disposition of the individual; thus it is basless to claim that justification by imputation has any ethical superiority over justification by infusion.

continued…

 

[Odell]

and so justification is a response to faith entirely apart from the system of works, in which one pays a person according to the work he/she has done.

Agreed but we know that God rewards us under the system of grace. As long as you cant see the distinction between strict merit due to obligation and gracious merit provided by benevolence, there can be no resoution. I think you understand more than your letting on.

The only way that works justify is in combination with faith – works apart from faith are just as dead as faith apart from works.

Dude you are right on. This is very Catholic

So with regard to “quality of faith,” I think that what James is saying is, “When your faith is put to the test, how does it respond?” But does that faith have to be tested to be present, or before it can justify? Maybe. I don’t know.

IDK either I know God test us to see the quality of our faith. I also know that only God knows the heart and some cant do what other might be able to do with their faith

, Paul nevertheless asserts that Abraham’s justification came when he was uncircumcised (i.e., prior to that near-sacrifice) and that the same justification belongs to those “who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised,” which means that Abraham’s faith at the time he believed God, imperfect as it was, was sufficient not only for him but also for us.

I think we both agree on this issue I had this to say a couple of post back

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.

I daresay few people at all would get into Heaven if the faith of Abraham at the time of his near-sacrifice of Isaac were what was required for entry.

Yes indeed

 

[Vladd]

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.

This is another subject that has always made me frown, God had the Hebrews slaughter Cannanites for sacrificing their children to be forgiving for sins and said he hates such a thing only later to decide the He wants to do the same thing! Can someone shed some light on this issue for me?? I’ve always had a hang up with this because it’s confusing , very confusing and God says he isn’t the author of confusion. :-/

 

[Vladd]

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

Good answer , I like this

 

[mpartyka]

This is another subject that has always made me frown, God had the Hebrews slaughter Cannanites for sacrificing their children to be forgiving for sins and said he hates such a thing only later to decide the He wants to do the same thing! Can someone shed some light on this issue for me?? I’ve always had a hang up with this because it’s confusing , very confusing and God says he isn’t the author of confusion. :-/

The main differences between the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifices of the Canaanites are:

1. The sacrifices of the Canaan were ineffective – all children born of sexual intercourse have original sin and therefore cannot serve as pure sacrifices (just as animals with physical blemishes were unacceptable by OT standards).
2. The sacrifices of the Canaanites involved unwilling victims rather than a willing victim.

And of course there’s the fact that God never told the Canaanites to sacrifice their children to Him. He told Abraham to do that once, to see whether Abraham had faith, but even then He stopped Abraham from going through with it because it was only supposed to be a test of faith – it wouldn’t have actually done any good for the remission of sins, and even though God could have raised Isaac from the dead (which is what Abraham was banking on, since God had promised him that he would have lots of descendents through Isaac), that would have been an unnecessary cruelty to Abraham, plus God used the opportunity through the ram that appeared and was sacrificed by Abraham in Isaac’s place to demonstrate in a tangible way the sacrifice of Christ for our sins in our place.