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

[fhansen]

Agreed, but I think what’s off-kilter here is the notion that actual sins don’t matter to God. If someone commits a sin, he deserves to be punished for that sin. Even if the next day he repents and becomes a 100% good and loving person, he doesn’t stop deserving to be punished for the sin he committed. The fact that he is a 100% good and loving person now negates neither the wrongs he committed nor the harm done by those wrongs. Justice demands that those wrongs incur a cost that must be paid. Otherwise there’s no difference in righteousness between a person who commits no sins and is 100% good and loving his whole life and a person who commits a bazillion sins but turns 100% good and loving at the end. To say that the latter person doesn’t deserve punishment for his misdeeds is to basically make all notions of justice a meaningless concept. It is not only internal disposition but actions that matter. Jesus “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15), and James said, “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation…But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin.” (Jam 1:12a,14-15a) If Adam and Eve had only desired the fruit of the forbidden tree, they would not have sinned. God made the fruit desirable, so you couldn’t fault them for wanting it. But it was the fact that they acted and ate of it that made them guilty. Actions matter. Evil actions incur a cost, that cost (by God’s decree) is death, and that cost is precisely what Christ paid on the cross for sinners who choose to be found in Him.

**I see. But while the penalty is paid but I’m not sure how justice is served by an innocent person dying for the uninnocent. The sacrifice of Jesus could be looked upon as the ultimate injustice. Or it could be looked upon as God’s love and mercy trumping His justice

 

[passer_by]

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

This is a Theological position that you debate on and as far as I know, the Church has no dogmatically defined position on the matter. In fact, there were many different views in the early Church as to why Christ had to die on the Cross or if he really needed to.

The point to note however is that if Christ didn’t have to die on the cross to save, but he still went and did it anyway doesn’t make him a masochist. One can argue that he did that to show how to love completely. Through his suffering, he showed us a perfect example of love.

The following might help you understand the Catholic doctrine on the matter of Atonement.

newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

 

[mpartyka]

**I see. But while the penalty is paid but I’m not sure how *justice *is served by an innocent person dying for the uninnocent. The sacrifice of Jesus could be looked upon as the ultimate injustice. *Or *it could be looked upon as God’s love and mercy trumping His justice

The justice is in the paying of the penalty. The mercy is in the substitution of a willing victim who would pay the penalty for us. In this way God is both just and merciful – both at once, neither excluding the other – whereas to say that God’s love and mercy can trump His justice is essentially no different from saying that God is unjust.

Yes, the sacrifice of Jesus was an injustice. But God did not perpetrate that injustice upon His Son – we did. Human beings put the Son of God to death, a death He underwent willingly for our sakes. And God used that death to pay for our sins. Thus, human beings committed an injustice, but God, bringing good out of evil, used this injustice to satisfy His just requirement of punishment for our sins. And then, in yet another expression of His sovereign justice, God raised Jesus from the dead, having found no sin in Jesus to merit the death that He had suffered. Indeed, the resurrection of Christ is the proof that Christ died for our sins and not any sin of His own, for if there had been even one sin to His own name, His death would have paid for that sin, not ours, and God would have justly left Him dead and in the grave (and us without hope of salvation). But Christ did rise, proving the penalty He paid on the cross was not for Himself but for us, thus accomplishing our salvation.

 

[mpartyka]

The point to note however is that if Christ didn’t have to die on the cross to save, but he still went and did it anyway doesn’t make him a masochist. One can argue that he did that to show how to love completely. Through his suffering, he showed us a perfect example of love.

Loving completely and loving superfluously are two different things, and when you love superfluously to the point of self-injury, that’s masochism. If all I need is your fingernail clipping, and you tear out your whole fingernail for me, the only thing you’re showing me is that there’s something really wrong with you.

 

[Odell]

Jesus tells us that all the law and the prophets hang upon the commandments, “Love God with your whole being, and love your neighbor as yourself.” To do that is to follow the law perfectly. And this is what we are doing when we perform good deeds: expressing love of God and love of neighbor. And Paul says, Doing that can’t save you.

(Rom2:6-)God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 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. 11 For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Think about it: Let’s say that you sin against society, and then after that you give a billion dollars to charity.

what if you break a window but pay to have the window fixed?

Even after being so called saved we still have to pay for what we do. Does not scripture say “He disciplines whom He loves.”

Exactly! What “infinite worth” could Christ’s death on the cross possibly have before God, such that He could use that worth to cancel out our sins? It makes no sense to call Christ’s death an “infinitely good deed” unless you can show in what sense it’s “good” at all. And you can’t say, “Because it pays for our sins,” because that’s just begging the question: “It’s valuable to pay for our sins because it pays for our sins.”

I’m confused why wouldn’t it be worthy before God from a Catholic perspective?

I agree, but if God is a just judge, there cannot be a sin that goes unpunished. For a sin to go unpunished would mean that God doesn’t care about that sin. But God says He hates sin. That means he can’t treat sin as if it were nothing. Our sins deserve punishment.

But if a child of yours is fully repentant you might not be so harsh and give a full sentence or you might release do to good terms. Same in our judicial system someone may not serve there full term for good behavior.

Besides, He’s all better now

Is He because if He rally paid our rightful due He would still be in hell.

As a human being He could. That’s the whole point of His becoming human. God needed a human being to suffer the punishment.

So the humanity of Christ is still in hell? Isn’t that what those whom are not saved due their punishment. When becoming saved we no longer have to worry about spending eternity in hell. Because according to you He paid that debt. So Jesus humanity would have to be in hell for eternity.
But there is a fallacy in that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father advocating on our behalf. Which brings me back to the point about Him being an advocate for us Christians. If He already payed the full price why does He need to still be our advocate? **

“Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us…For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” (Heb 9:12,10:4)

Nothing Catholics disagree with here!

Still begging the question. And did you not notice that “laying down one’s life for one’s friends” is substitutionary? You’re dying so your friends don’t have to. Your death takes the place of theirs!

The passage says nothing of substitution.

The Catholic encyclopedia also has this to say
The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious [substitutionary] punishment . This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins. [6]

So Catholics don’t believe he was a substitute victim but that Jesus in some way takes our punishment. This I admit I will have to look more into. Even still the catholic encyclopedia is not the same as defined doctrine*

 

[passer_by]

Loving completely and loving superfluously are two different things, and when you love superfluously to the point of self-injury, that’s masochism. If all I need is your fingernail clipping, and you tear out your whole fingernail for me, the only thing you’re showing me is that there’s something really wrong with you.

As I said, you want to debate a very complex topic with undefined terminology as to what consists as Masochism, Love etc.

I suggest you give that article a good read.

I am not to saying that there are no great objections to the view that Christ didn’t have to die on the cross, but your objections are more of the trivial kind which usually disappear once you define terms involved.

In any case, its a Theological issue that has not been settled as far as I know. As long as your Theological view doesn’t contradict truths in the Catholic doctrine of Atonement, you are safe.

 

[mpartyka]

…what if you break a window but pay to have the window fixed?

That doesn’t account for the inconvenience caused by the broken window or the loss of the money spent to fix the window (which could have done other good elsewhere).

Even after being so called saved we still have to pay for what we do.

If I’m not mistaken, the Catholic Church makes a distinction between eternal and temporal consequences. Whatever we do to “make up for” our sins falls under the category of temporal consequences, but there are eternal consequences for those sins, too, that we cannot “make up for” with good deeds.

I’m confused why wouldn’t [Christ’s sacrifice] be worthy before God from a Catholic perspective?

I don’t know about “a Catholic perspective” – what I’ve been hearing you say is that Christ’s suffering and death has value to God. Things have intrinsic value insofaras they satisfy needs. Money, for example, has no intrinsic value because it doesn’t do anything for you in and of itself – rather, it has relative value in that you can exchange money for things you actually need. But God has no needs – He is self-existent, self-sustaining, and immutable. So Christ’s sacrifice and death can do nothing for God Himself – i.e., it has no intrinsic value to God.

Christ’s sacrifice and death has value to us, however, in that it can be exchanged for our suffering and death. But that’s value to us, not to God. God simply established that suffering and death should be the penalty for sin – this is not something beneficial to God but only a fitting recompense for sin. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, then, generated a suffering and death without any sin on Christ’s part for which it would pay. Hence, God can use Christ’s suffering and death to pay for all our sins instead.

But if a child of yours is fully repentant you might not be so harsh and give a full sentence or you might release do to good terms. Same in our judicial system someone may not serve there full term for good behavior.

But is that true justice? True justice says, “Here is the crime, and here is the punishment. You do the crime, you get the punishment.” That’s 100% fair. But human beings, not being God, aren’t bound to be 100% fair. They can allow mercy to overthrow justice. (Sort of like the cases that drive me insane: Somebody commits a crime, runs from the police for years, establishes a productive life, and finally the police catch up with this person, and the judge decides, “Eh, let this person go, he/she’s been good.” As if this person didn’t commit a crime? As if the police haven’t spent valuable time and resources tracking this person down? How is that just? This person could have chosen to live a good, productive life without having committed their initial crime. In that he/she didn’t choose to do so, he/she deserves punishment.)

…if He really paid our rightful due He would still be in hell. So the humanity of Christ is still in hell?

No, God raised Jesus from the dead on account of Jesus’ own personal righteousness. God first placed our sins on Jesus and allowed Him to die for our sins. Then God looked at Jesus’ own record of perfect, spotless righteousness and found no reason in Him that He should be dead. So He raised Jesus from the dead. So God’s justice worked twice – once to punish our sins in Jesus’ death, and again in raising Jesus from the dead on account of His own personal righteousness.

But there is a fallacy in that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father advocating on our behalf. Which brings me back to the point about Him being an advocate for us Christians. If He already paid the full price why does He need to still be our advocate?

Well, according to Catholic belief, Jesus paid the full price for our sins on the cross, but the “cash” isn’t put in our “account” until we die, right? And new people are being born all the time, so their sins continue to need drowning in His death, right? I’m not really opposed to the notion that the atoning value of Christ’s sacrifice is applied over time, or piecemeal as it were, only that the nature of its value is that of a positive cancelling a negative rather than the pure quid-pro-quo of substitutionary atonement. In other words, my claim is that Christ pays our debts in kind (i.e., death for death, suffering for suffering) not with a foreign coin (i.e., obedience for sin).

The passage says nothing of substitution.

Oh, nonsense. Why does a person lay down his life for his friends if not to save their lives? You don’t lay down your life so your friends can have shiny new cars.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also has this to say: “The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious [substitutionary] punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.”

And this is where I think the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Catholicism in general, is wrong – but I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia to show you that even in Catholic thought the idea of substitution was present in the OT sacrifices, and to some degree the sacrifice of Christ, too. (Also, keep in mind that the Catholic Encyclopedia was not written by a single author, so some articles might conflict with others.)

 

[Odell]

If I’m not mistaken, the Catholic Church makes a distinction between eternal and temporal consequences. Whatever we do to “make up for” our sins falls under the category of temporal consequences, but there are eternal consequences for those sins, too, that we cannot “make up for” with good deeds.

Right anyone should take this into context when Catholics talk about merit.

I don’t know about “a Catholic perspective” – what I’ve been hearing you say is that Christ’s suffering and death has value to God. Things have intrinsic value insofaras they satisfy needs. Money, for example, has no intrinsic value because it doesn’t do anything for you in and of itself – rather, it has relative value in that you can exchange money for things you actually need. But God has no needs – He is self-existent, self-sustaining, and immutable. So Christ’s sacrifice and death can do nothing for God Himself – i.e., it has no intrinsic value to God.

Christ’s sacrifice and death has value to us, however, in that it can be exchanged for our suffering and death. But that’s value to us, not to God.

Ok I understand where you are coming from a little more clearly.
God may be immutable but He still has a will and desire. The very fact that you admit we can please God should prove this.

But is that true justice? True justice says, “Here is the crime, and here is the punishment. You do the crime, you get the punishment.” That’s 100% fair.

But what is the end result in the punishment? Is not the fathers point in discipline to form our consciences? (Heb12) They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

If one has showed that they are already whole heartily sorry what Father would dicipline the same?

No, God raised Jesus from the dead on account of Jesus’ own personal righteousness. God first placed our sins on Jesus and allowed Him to die for our sins. Then God looked at Jesus’ own record of perfect, spotless righteousness and found no reason in Him that He should be dead. So He raised Jesus from the dead. So God’s justice worked twice – once to punish our sins in Jesus’ death, and again in raising Jesus from the dead on account of His own personal righteousness.

Now that you are making more sense to me. Maybe this explanation will help where I’m coming from. If we are new creatures in Christ Jesus and if our righteousness is actually Christ righteousness working through us. Then the first part to your equation that dosnt apply to Christ doesn’t need to be applied to us because Christ is in us. God sees this righteousness in us and sees that we are not deserving of death. The Fathers justice is saving us from death based on Christ righteousness through us.

You see God the Father didn’t save Jesus from death because of any substitute on Jesus behalf but because of His righteousness. If this same righteousness is in us; it is this same righteousness of why God the Father sees no reason in us that we should be dead.

Well, according to Catholic belief, Jesus paid the full price for our sins on the cross, but the “cash” isn’t put in our “account” until we die, right? And new people are being born all the time, so their sins continue to need drowning in His death, right? I’m not really opposed to the notion that the atoning value of Christ’s sacrifice is applied over time, or piecemeal as it were, only that the nature of its value is that of a positive cancelling a negative rather than the pure quid-pro-quo of substitutionary atonement. In other words, my claim is that Christ pays our debts in kind (i.e., death for death, suffering for suffering) not with a foreign coin (i.e., obedience for sin).

But this advocating to the Father isn’t just for the conversion of new Christians born throughout time. It for those who are already Christians who are constantly in need for propitiation of their sins.

Oh, nonsense. Why does a person lay down his life for his friends if not to save their lives? You don’t lay down your life so your friends can have shiny new cars.

Well one certainly can lay down their life so another may live. But many die so we may not only live but live free! “freedom dosnt come free” Anyway Jesus didn’t only die that we may live but that we may live a life of righteousness.

And this is where I think the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Catholicism in general, is wrong – but I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia to show you that even in Catholic thought the idea of substitution was present in the OT sacrifices, and to some degree the sacrifice of Christ, too. (Also, keep in mind that the Catholic Encyclopedia was not written by a single author, so some articles might conflict with others.)

Right, and maybe Jesus was punished not in a vicariously way by taking on our eternal debt. But that He took on suffering and death that was due to us. We are do this suffering and death still. But Christ being fully human also took on this suffering and death so in a mysterious way He took on punishment but not in the sense of taking our place in all of eternally in hell. Not even in the sense that he took suffering and death in totality from us because we still suffer. Maybe He was punished for being in the cross fire? Idk trying to make sense of those who taought He was punished but not vicariously and it something I need to look more into. It is indeed a mystery but I don’t think either one of us can come to the point that He took our punishment in totality!

 

[mpartyka]

But what is the end result in the punishment? Is not the fathers point in discipline to form our consciences?

Then from whence comes Hell? Hell is eternal punishment. If the punishment of Hell is eternal, such that there is no point to whatever discipline comes from it, then there is a purpose that punishment serves besides discipline. There is, in other words, a retributive aspect of punishment that stands apart from any requirement of discipline. God punishes sin because it is right to punish sin – punishment is what sin deserves.

God sees this righteousness in us and sees that we are not deserving of death. The Father’s justice is saving us from death based on Christ righteousness through us. You see God the Father didn’t save Jesus from death because of any substitute on Jesus behalf but because of His righteousness. If this same righteousness is in us; it is this same righteousness of why God the Father sees no reason in us that we should be dead.

I would agree to a point. Yes, God sees Christ’s righteousness in us – Christ’s righteousness, not ours. We only become righteous insofar as His righteousness is given to us. This can (and, in my opinion, must) be understood not only in terms of infusion but also imputation: since our sins have been transferred to Christ on the cross, we appear as righteous to God as Christ (who actually had no sins) appears to God – i.e., we appear to God as though we, too, have never sinned (not merely through the infusion of righteousness but because the record of our sins is no longer upon us, having been paid for in the death of Christ). So, again, I’m putting forward a both/and sort of proposition here, with the “and” part being that Christ’s having paid off our sins at the cross makes us appear perfectly righteous before God – He sees no sins to hold against us, their having all been paid for in Christ’s atoning sacrifice.

But this advocating to the Father isn’t just for the conversion of new Christians born throughout time. It for those who are already Christians who are constantly in need for propitiation of their sins.

Agreed, but you are taking this “advocacy” and “propitiation” to mean a continual paying off of our sin debt, both eternal and temporal. I would be more inclined to think that the continual ministry deals more with the temporal punishment for sin, whereas the eternal punishment for sin is something which is either applied or transferred once the Christian has died. I have distaste for this notion of, “You’re baptised, so you’re saved! Oops, you sinned, now you’re damned. You confessed, now you’re saved! Oops…,” and over, and over, and over again, as if you’re turning Christ’s righteousness in you on and off like a light bulb. I prefer to think of salvation as an umbrella you stand under – you’re either under it or your not, and your hope is that you find yourself under it when the fiery rain starts pouring. In other words, what saves you isn’t whether you’re a good person or not – you’re not and never will be – but rather whether you’re standing under the umbrella or not. And that umbrella is Christ. If you are in Christ, then the rain falls on Him rather than you, keeping you from harm. And in the end God will simply judge your heart to see whether you are truly in Him or not, and you’re either in Him or you’re not – no need for Purgatory or anything like that. (That’s another discussion entirely, though. Hate to get into anything like that here.)

 

[Odell]

I have been meaning to respond for some time but have been busy. I really don’t know how much more I can contribute this may be my last response and it’s not really going to long. Sorry for that.

God is a God of justice and thus punishment but love is the motive behind all His deeds of discipline even Hell. What love was disposed to Jesus if he was punished by God what did Jesus have to learn? Was any love in it for Him? It was because of us that Jesus suffered and was punished not God whom punished. So God makes straight with crooked lines. God has nothing but flawed instruments to work with. Jesus suffered and died and punished due to us.

Jesus was the perfect lamb this is why His legs were not broken in Johns gospel. John says this was in order to fulfill scripture. What scripture? In the Old Testament the lamb had to be spotless to be worthy it was not worthy to take a lamb that was worthless broken legs exedra. Jesus legs were not broken on the cross there was no deceit found even after the nails were placed.

 

[mpartyka]

God is a God of justice and thus punishment but love is the motive behind all His deeds of discipline even Hell.

If Hell is for discipline, why doesn’t Hell end? After all, once the end has come, and everyone is either saved or damned, there is no more chance of going from saved to damned or damned to saved. So why does God eternally torment the damned in Hell, seeing how there is no chance for anyone to repent after that torment? (Or are you suggesting that it’s the eternal torment of the damned in Hell that keeps the saved from ever falling after the last day?)

Jesus legs were not broken on the cross there was no deceit found even after the nails were placed.

There was no sin in Jesus Himself, that is sure. But He carried our sins in our place on the cross. Just because He carried our sins doesn’t mean He became at that time a sinner in fact – as if our sins were some kind of dark, evil force originating from us that permeated Him and put Him into a state of disorder. Rather, what Jesus bore was the record of our sins. Sin does not result in just a disorder of the faculties but also in a record of wrongs done. Infused righteousness can heal the disorder of our faculties (making us “actually righteous” as you would argue) but does nothing about our record of wrongs. That’s where the imputed righteousness of Christ comes in – because God punishes Jesus for the record of our sins, that record of sin no longer applies to us (i.e., God doesn’t do double jeopardy), and to God we appear just as righteous as Jesus, having no record of sin upon us.

 

[Odell]

If Hell is for discipline, why doesn’t Hell end? After all, once the end has come, and everyone is either saved or damned, there is no more chance of going from saved to damned or damned to saved. So why does God eternally torment the damned in Hell, seeing how there is no chance for anyone to repent after that torment? (Or are you suggesting that it’s the eternal torment of the damned in Hell that keeps the saved from ever falling after the last day?)

Maybe discipline was the wrong word. The point I was trying to make is that even the punishment of hell is an act of love on Gods part to the individual. Those in hell ultimately have gotten what they wanted.
This being true what was the motivation for Christ suffering? How was that an act of love imparted to Christ? Again it is because of us that Jesus was punished not that God punished but that we did it. I admit I have more to learn Peter Kreeft the man credited for starting this forum says in his book “You Can Understand The Bible” says himself the sin offering of old foretold Christ as bearing the punishment for our sin. So you are right it’s a both and I’m just not willing to make the leap that He took our place. The Church teaches justification by infusion there has to be a happy medium somewhere. Who knows we might just be talkin past one another.

 

[mpartyka]

The point I was trying to make is that even the punishment of hell is an act of love on Gods part to the individual. Those in hell ultimately have gotten what they wanted. This being true what was the motivation for Christ suffering? How was that an act of love imparted to Christ?

I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say, “Those in hell ultimately have gotten what they wanted.” Christ’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus doesn’t describe the rich man as seeming very pleased to find himself in agony. I think it’s more accurate to say, “Those in hell ultimately have gotten what they deserved.”

Christ, on the other hand, on the cross took upon Himself what we deserved. He suffered and died for our sins, taking on the punishment that we deserved. And if that had been the end of the story, then we might have cause to gripe about how unfair that was. But that wasn’t the end of the story. Instead, after God punished Christ for what we deserved, God then granted Christ what He deserved – i.e., God recognized and judged Christ’s perfect record of sinlessness and obedience, and in response to that perfect record of righteousness, God raised Christ from the dead and glorified Him.

See, most people think that Christ was raised from the dead because He was God. Not so – or at least, that’s only part of the story. Christ was raised from the dead because He was a sinless man who didn’t deserve to be dead. Just as God’s justice requires that a record of sin be punished, so God’s justice requires that a record of sinlessness be rewarded: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.” (Lev 18:5) Christ kept the law 100%, from womb to tomb, so He merited eternal life for Himself in His humanity. And that is why imputed righteousness is so important – i.e., why infused righteousness is not enough. So long as the record of our sins remains upon us – so long as we deserve to die – all the infused grace in the world cannot help us, for by the justice of God we must be cast into Hell for the record of our sins. But because Christ takes the record of our sins off of us and pays the price for it Himself, He leaves our records clean in the sight of God – just as clean as His own record was – and so we possess “the righteousness of Christ” (i.e., that same 100% spotless record of righteousness that Christ alone was able to actually accomplish). And that imputed righteousness, combined with all you’ve had to say about infused righteousness, is what makes us totally free from God’s condemnation.

And that is why Christ had to actually die for our sins – so that by taking our sins and our punishment upon Himself we could have imputed righteousness as well as infused righteousness, and thereby be 100% in the clear.

 

[Deconi]

I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say, “Those in hell ultimately have gotten what they wanted.” Christ’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus doesn’t describe the rich man as seeming very pleased to find himself in agony. I think it’s more accurate to say, “Those in hell ultimately have gotten what they deserved.”

Christ, on the other hand, on the cross took upon Himself what we deserved. He suffered and died for our sins, taking on the punishment that we deserved. And if that had been the end of the story, then we might have cause to gripe about how unfair that was. But that wasn’t the end of the story. Instead, after God punished Christ for what we deserved, God then granted Christ what He deserved – i.e., God recognized and judged Christ’s perfect record of sinlessness and obedience, and in response to that perfect record of righteousness, God raised Christ from the dead and glorified Him.

See, most people think that Christ was raised from the dead because He was God. Not so – or at least, that’s only part of the story. Christ was raised from the dead because He was a sinless man who didn’t deserve to be dead. Just as God’s justice requires that a record of sin be punished, so God’s justice requires that a record of sinlessness be rewarded: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.” (Lev 18:5) Christ kept the law 100%, from womb to tomb, so He merited eternal life for Himself in His humanity. And that is why imputed righteousness is so important – i.e., why infused righteousness is not enough. So long as the record of our sins remains upon us – so long as we deserve to die – all the infused grace in the world cannot help us, for by the justice of God we must be cast into Hell for the record of our sins. But because Christ takes the record of our sins off of us and pays the price for it Himself, He leaves our records clean in the sight of God – just as clean as His own record was – and so we possess “the righteousness of Christ” (i.e., that same 100% spotless record of righteousness that Christ alone was able to actually accomplish). And that imputed righteousness, combined with all you’ve had to say about infused righteousness, is what makes us totally free from God’s condemnation.

And that is why Christ had to actually die for our sins – so that by taking our sins and our punishment upon Himself we could have imputed righteousness as well as infused righteousness, and thereby be 100% in the clear.

Matey, you seem to have ‘started’ something that I would have thought Catholics had settled, but after 12pages of it, I’d wager it has deteriorated into pages of semantics, error, mismash of fact and best guesses!

There was a choice for Christ, one of ONLY two!

1. Do nothing!

Humanity, having being ousted from the garden of Eden, left to their wiles away from God’s visits, deteriorated on their own as we can see from Adam to Noah!

Bear in mind two things; God’s breath that gave life, as in us, is Divine and possess ‘properties’ that are like a memory of him on the subjects We can see some of that in the fact that Abel and Cain were making ‘offerings’ to God.

1. Christ had to suffer precisely as it was done to Him, when it was done, how it was done, where it was done, for God to accept humanity back into His favour, as it were.

Some of the characters of God we know from revelation;
Love
Perfect
Just
Creator
King

There are more, of course, but these should suffice to illustrate the point. As limited as our experience of Love, Just and Perfect, may be, we should know enough to see that a Just and Perferct Being, doesn’t eject people from his kingdom, every time he has a hissy fit, and then just accept them back in when he has cooled down.

‘Perfect’ - does not err, and ‘Justice’ measures Perfect in both directions.
Love - stuffs them both!

When God ejected ‘us’ (Adam and Eve) it was the perfect and just consequence that as King, He could mete out for the transcretion committed. He could have left it at that, and death would have been just that; Death! Separation and dark existence with the fallen angels already there.

As God’s Honour as Sovereign was wounded, only a ‘perfect and just’ god of the same magnitude can ‘appease’ the Sovereign, otherwise it would not be Just, and He could not be said to be Perfect!

The death or destruction of everything He created could not be equivalent to the slight, because He created them.(unJust) Yet, to allow them to exist would be an affront (Sovereign) and since He is eternal, that affront would also be eternal.

The ONLY Being that is equal to God, is God! The only Sovereign that can ‘save face’ is Him. The only Justice to be done that will equal to His Justice, is Him!

Being ‘Perfect’ does have consequences! He could have erased everything and start over!..but He will always know!..eternally!

LOVE, I think is the quite possibly the only thing ‘bigger’ than Him! To even bother with such a wretched creature, even if in His image, is too much for this human brain to fathom. I also cannot believe that His Love for said creature, necessitated that He, Himself, had to come in the same form, suffer in said form, to satiate the Justice of His Nature…and that He actually did it???

Love!..sure stuffs things up.

People keep talking of ‘ransom’ etc…and I suppose it is a human way of understanding what was ‘paid’. Man! We have no idea!