Christ's sacrafice

  • Thread starter Thread starter TomD123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure God created the debt - he created everything. There is no debt without God creating it. EVERYTHING is his creation.

There is no Devil without God creating it. There is no temptation without God creating it. There is no sin without God creating it. There is no need for redemption without God creating it.
The Devil is a fallen Angel. All things created were created good. Evil is a privation of that good. God did not create sin. Sin is a misuse of a good that has been created. A knife can be used to cure or to kill.
 
The Devil is a fallen Angel. All things created were created good. Evil is a privation of that good. God did not create sin. Sin is a misuse of a good that has been created. A knife can be used to cure or to kill.
In the beginning there was nothing. He created everything.

How can you say he didn’t plan for us to fall? - are there things that aren’t part of God’s plan.? Things that he is powerless to change or prevent.

No, He created everything and everything is part of the plan. Isaiah 45:6-7
 
In the beginning there was nothing. He created everything.

How can you say he didn’t plan for us to fall? - are there things that aren’t part of God’s plan.? Things that he is powerless to change or prevent.

No, He created everything and everything is part of the plan. Isaiah 45:6-7
Yes, He did create everything. Sin, nor evil, are things they are privations. You cannot create a privation or a negative. They are misuses caused by creatures.

He did not cause us to fall. His plan was to create man as a rational creature with God as his end. Man has the choice to choose God or not. God planned to bring man to Himself after the fall by the incarnation, passion, and resurrection.

God is not powerless but to destroy our freedom would be to destroy our nature as raional beings. He gives us the choice to choose Him or reject Him. That is His plan.
 
Yes, He did create everything. Sin, nor evil, are things they are privations. You cannot create a privation or a negative. They are misuses caused by creatures.

He did not cause us to fall. His plan was to create man as a rational creature with God as his end. Man has the choice to choose God or not. God planned to bring man to Himself after the fall by the incarnation, passion, and resurrection.

God is not powerless but to destroy our freedom would be to destroy our nature as raional beings. He gives us the choice to choose Him or reject Him. That is His plan.
By creating a thing you create is absence - let there be light - before there was no darkness because there was no light. Light is something darkness is the lack of light. So before light there was no darkness. There was no thing.

So if the fall was not part of his plan - there are things that happen outside His plan. If that is possible then He’s not omnipotent.
 
By creating a thing you create is absence - let there be light - before there was no darkness because there was no light. Light is something darkness is the lack of light. So before light there was no darkness. There was no thing.

So if the fall was not part of his plan - there are things that happen outside His plan. If that is possible then He’s not omnipotent.
HIs plan was not to make people and force them to go to Heaven. His plan was to create a moral universe with rational creatures who had the freedom to choose or reject Him. You must distiinguish between His active will and passive will. His active will are the things He does, Creation, Miracles, the Incarnation etc. etc. His passive will are the things He allows --man to choose Him or to reject Him.
 
So he allows (passive) evil that serves his active plan - so he creates evil by allowing it to happen.
 
So he allows (passive) evil that serves his active plan - so he creates evil by allowing it to happen.
A better way to understand it is that he makes good come from the evil men commit. He does not create evil he allows it. He allows it for a greater good.
 
Not to interrupt the discussion of the nature of evil but…

I too have never understood the necessity of Jesus’s death in order to forgive sins. Inhimthroughher, you did a good job explaining how His death was able to pay an infinite debt within the framework of Christian faith, but I don’t think that it fully explains it.

Why is the payment even necessary?

If someone stole $50 from me I have two options. I can either hold that person in debt until they repay the $50, or I can just forget about it and not worry about getting my money back. If I were a rich man*, I may not care too much about getting the money back. I’d probably be happy so long as the thief were sorry for what he/she did.

It would seem that God is a pretty rich guy. Why is it necessary that he performs this whole stunt of sacrificing himself in order to pay a debt to himself when it could’ve just been truly forgiven and forgotten?

I think that **jonfawkes **is right saying that God created the rules. If the whole rule of sins needing to be paid by sacrifice was created by God, why not change the rule or at least make an exception? It is a rather bizarre rule to start off with…

*I am tempted to now sing “Daidle deedle daidle daidle daidle deedle daidle dum!” 😃
 
Sure God created the debt - he created everything. There is no debt without God creating it. EVERYTHING is his creation. He created the game. He created the rules. He created the players.

There is no Devil without God creating it. There is no temptation without God creating it. There is no sin without God creating it. There is no need for redemption without God creating it.
What god are you speaking of? The God of the written word allowed sin to enter, but He is not the author of sin. The Scripture states God temps no one. James 1 verse 23 states the following concerning the subject of God and tempting. “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.”
 
Not to interrupt the discussion of the nature of evil but…

I too have never understood the necessity of Jesus’s death in order to forgive sins. Inhimthroughher, you did a good job explaining how His death was able to pay an infinite debt within the framework of Christian faith, but I don’t think that it fully explains it.

Why is the payment even necessary?

If someone stole $50 from me I have two options. I can either hold that person in debt until they repay the $50, or I can just forget about it and not worry about getting my money back. If I were a rich man*, I may not care too much about getting the money back. I’d probably be happy so long as the thief were sorry for what he/she did.

It would seem that God is a pretty rich guy. Why is it necessary that he performs this whole stunt of sacrificing himself in order to pay a debt to himself when it could’ve just been truly forgiven and forgotten?

I think that **jonfawkes **is right saying that God created the rules. If the whole rule of sins needing to be paid by sacrifice was created by God, why not change the rule or at least make an exception? It is a rather bizarre rule to start off with…

*I am tempted to now sing “Daidle deedle daidle daidle daidle deedle daidle dum!” 😃
Along with being merciful God is also just. Forgetting sin is not just. To satisfy Justice the debt had to be paid. To be merciful he became man and paid it. These are not subjective rules God set up. They are part of His being and essence.
 
Along with being merciful God is also just. Forgetting sin is not just. To satisfy Justice the debt had to be paid. To be merciful he became man and paid it. These are not subjective rules God set up. They are part of His being and essence.
Then to be merciful and just to the thief that took $50 from me, I should write out a check to myself and and let the thief know that I am cashing my own check? Seems like a pretty strange and pointless ritual.
 
Then to be merciful and just to the thief that took $50 from me, I should write out a check to myself and and let the thief know that I am cashing my own check? Seems like a pretty strange and pointless ritual.
As always analogies are imperfect and break down if depended on too much. The point of the analogy was to give a general idea of the situation.

God gains nothing by His sacrifice but man gains much. An exercise in Justice and Charity are never pointless. Jesus, from the Cross, showed us the cost of sin. We learn about the dangers of sin by seeing its consequences and its price.

Is it pointless for a parent to give a child money for the child to “buy” the parent a gift for Christmas? No, it is a lesson for the child and a gift from the parent to the child. The parent gets nothing from the gift, they could have bought it themselves.
The child learns the value of money, the cost of goods, and how to exercise charity.
 
So he allows (passive) evil that serves his active plan - so he creates evil by allowing it to happen.
The most important thing in life is love - and the capacity for love implies free will. Genuine love is the result of choice not compulsion. God created us for love knowing we may abuse that gift but it is a lesser evil than creating us as zombies. **We cannot have everything for nothing. **There is always some price to pay for what we have received…
 
Excellent thread. This question has been on my mind lately. I suppose I have absorbed so much Catholicity that I can “feel” the meaning of the Cross by looking at a crucifix, but I am unable to articulate my intuition with clarity. I imagine this is what the Church is for - there is probably A LOT of theology behind this, and maybe someone more knowledgeable than us can step in and help.
 
I was not sure where to post this, but here’s my question:
I understand that Christ died for all of us and paid the price for our sins. The only thing I was wondering about was exactly how this was accomplished. In what way exactly did Jesus dying on the cross pay for our sins? How did Jesus’s passion make it so that we can enter into heaven. In addition to this, I was wondering what role does the mass have if our sins have already been paid for?
Thanks for any responses
Here’s my take on it, Tom. God becoming man was a radical transformation of his nature; God, a spiritual being outside of time took on human form – our form – in time. He took on our form although he was entirely God also, and could not act in a way that would contradict God, including the giving up of his earthly life at the hands of worldly evil, all without condemning those who rejected him. In doing so, the God-man creates a way for us to be reconciled with God, a way that requires a *radical transformation of our nature *too, to embrace humility and obedience in following the path of Christ. In following this path, we are crucified with him, rise with him, and ascend with him.

I think the way that many believe that Christ died for our sins, is that he figuratively laid himself down on the muck and dirt of sin so that we could walk on his back toward heaven, without really internalizing the reality of his sacrifice. But others say that we must follow HIS path, which is a significantly different thing, a much more difficult thing, requiring this radical metanoia and conversion; this is the path to authentic life in Christ. Which is most correct? I think that the Church and Holy Scripture points more to the latter. And it makes much more sense to me on a deep level.
 
Here’s my take on it, Tom. God becoming man was a radical transformation of his nature; God, a spiritual being outside of time took on human form – our form – in time. He took on our form although he was entirely God also, and could not act in a way that would contradict God, including the giving up of his earthly life at the hands of worldly evil, all without condemning those who rejected him. In doing so, the God-man creates a way for us to be reconciled with God, a way that requires a *radical transformation of our nature *too, to embrace humility and obedience in following the path of Christ. In following this path, we are crucified with him, rise with him, and ascend with him.

I think the way that many believe that Christ died for our sins, is that he figuratively laid himself down on the muck and dirt of sin so that we could walk on his back toward heaven, without really internalizing the reality of his sacrifice. But others say that we must follow HIS path, which is a significantly different thing, a much more difficult thing, requiring this radical metanoia and conversion; this is the path to authentic life in Christ. Which is most correct? I think that the Church and Holy Scripture points more to the latter. And it makes much more sense to me on a deep level.
It is important to remember that the nature of God did not change. He is still fully God, He assumed a human nature, given through the Blessed Virgin Mary. The two natures, God and Man, were united in the person of God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. (Two natures, one person. A person is a “who” a nature is a “what”) The human nature of Christ really suffered and died, (His soul seperated from His body) because of its union with the Divine nature in the Divine person, His suffering had infinite value and he was able to pay the debt of sin. Through the gift of the Holy Spirit He gave us we are able to be united with Him through Sacramental Grace, this does transform us and makes us part of Hid mystical body. As part of His mystical body we are required to submit ourselves to the head which is Him. We must live in harmony and in coordination with the end of the body. It is a radical way of life we are called to live. We are to offer Christ our human nature and unite ourselves to his person allowing Him to live through us similar to the Incarnation.
 
Excellent thread. This question has been on my mind lately. I suppose I have absorbed so much Catholicity that I can “feel” the meaning of the Cross by looking at a crucifix, but I am unable to articulate my intuition with clarity. I imagine this is what the Church is for - there is probably A LOT of theology behind this, and maybe someone more knowledgeable than us can step in and help.
Try reading the NT; you will learn a lot from God Himself there on this subject and no i am not being sarcastic; I’m serious.
 
Here’s my take on it, Tom. God becoming man was a radical transformation of his nature; God, a spiritual being outside of time took on human form – our form – in time. He took on our form although he was entirely God also, and could not act in a way that would contradict God, including the giving up of his earthly life at the hands of worldly evil, all without condemning those who rejected him. In doing so, the God-man creates a way for us to be reconciled with God, a way that requires a *radical transformation of our nature *too, to embrace humility and obedience in following the path of Christ. In following this path, we are crucified with him, rise with him, and ascend with him.

I think the way that many believe that Christ died for our sins, is that he figuratively laid himself down on the muck and dirt of sin so that we could walk on his back toward heaven, without really internalizing the reality of his sacrifice. **But others say that we must follow HIS path, which is a significantly different thing, a much more difficult thing, requiring this radical metanoia and conversion; this is the path to authentic life in Christ. Which is most correct? ** I think that the Church and Holy Scripture points more to the latter. And it makes much more sense to me on a deep level.
Have you ever consulted Jesus on this “bolded” issue shown above? He said very simply “I am the Way, the truth and Life; NO ONE comes to the Father except through ME”; He means no one, not you, not I, Not peter, Paul, Mark, Luke or James & not Mary; no one. isn’t that ironic - God has a sense of humor; Jesus comes into our human earthly world as a man through Mary and she cannot get to the Father, where He came from but through Him. Why is that? Because Jesus is both the judge and the justifier and earned the title of Justifier because He is the only one with enough value to drink that cup of wrath and survive unlike most of the world and can impute His righteousness to whom ever He wants and there is not a darn thing a man or woman can do about that; who can resist His will? No one.

Jesus did not give up His divine nature; He set aside His glory…if He did not anyone that He looked at or looked at Him would burn up instantly - vaporized by the Shekinah glory because “for no man shall see Me, and live”-Ask Moses; he a real good story on this.
 
The most important thing in life is love - and the capacity for love implies free will. Genuine love is the result of choice not compulsion. God created us for love knowing we may abuse that gift but it is a lesser evil than creating us as zombies. **We cannot have everything for nothing. **There is always some price to pay for what we have received…
So yes, he creates evil. HE created evil only to save us from evil.
 
So yes, he creates evil. HE created evil only to save us from evil.
Evil is a privation and lacks perfection and being. Therefore evil is not created nor can it be created. You are not making any sense. Please define evil in the way you are using it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top