Did Jesus Have To Die?

[adrift]

One theory, sometimes referred to as “substitution,” “satisfaction” or “ransom” theology, was championed by St. Anselm in the 11th century. He believed that Christ’s sacrificial death was necessary in order to liberate humanity from sin and restore communion with the Father, that the blood of Jesus was “payment” to God for human sin.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Anselm’s theology prevailed, even though it was challenged by scholars such as Peter Abelard, a contemporary of Anselm, who insisted that Christ’s death on the cross had been an act of love, not payment. Even St. Augustine, 700 years before, had reservations and asked in his De Trinitate: “Is it necessary to think that being God, the Father was angry with us, saw his son die for us and thus abated his anger against us?” A fair number of modern-day scholars, too, find the satisfaction theology bothersome because of the way it images God. What kind of loving God, they argue, would demand such horrific suffering from his own Son in order to secure divine justice? What seems to me a reasonable explanation is this: God decided to send Jesus to live among us, to be fully human so that he could teach us and show us the ways of the Lord. Once he became human, death was inevitable; and because his teaching challenged both the religious and secular authorities of his day, a violent death was likely. So we are, in fact, redeemed by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, but we are not compelled to believe that God deliberately willed the suffering of his Son..

catholiccourier.com/comme…fnGme9q7.dpuf

I agree with Abelard, Aquinas, Augustine, Fr. Doyle, and the Catholic Church. In Catholic theology programs, especially in upper level Christology classes, Anselm’s theory is taught as the “wrong” theory. I know kids in catechism class who know that.

Again, thank you for proving my point.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Penal substitution is not the same as Catholic Atonement. Jesus dying for sin is not the same as Jesus substituting for sinners.

If he died for sin, as you contend, whose sin did he die for? He was sinless.

 

[adrift]

I agree with Abelard, Aquinas, Augustine, Fr. Doyle, and the Catholic Church. In Catholic theology programs, especially in upper level Christology classes, Anselm’s theory is taught as the “wrong” theory. I know kids in catechism class who know that.

Again, thank you for proving my point.

Then you agree that Jesus died for sins and that the cross was a sacrifice:thumbsup:

 

[adrift]

If he died for sin, as you contend, whose sin did he die for? He was sinless.

Then you don’t agree with the Church:nope:
According to the Catechism

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396

**“He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” **

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Then you don’t agree with the Church:nope:

I am sure I do. I am sure I agree with the Church in all things. I am sure the Church says Christ was, at all times in his Incarnation, sinless. Are you now attempting to say Christ was not sinless!?

If he was sinless, and he died for sin, as you contend, whose sins did he die for?

 

[adrift]

I am sure I do. I am sure I agree with the Church in all things. I am sure the Church says Christ was, at all times in his Incarnation, sinless. Are you now attempting to say Christ was not sinless!?

If he was sinless, and he died for sin, as you contend, whose sins did he die for?

I am sure you don’t

Then you don’t agree with the Church:nope:
According to the Catechism

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396

**“He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” **

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I am sure you don’t

You, yourself, proved I do when you posted the article by Fr. Doyle that I quoted from.

I’m really not interested in pursuing this with you. You don’t understand my point.

If I agree with Abelard, Aquinas, and Augustine, and I do, then, according to your reasoning, they, too do not agree with the Church. If you believe they agree with the Church, and I agree with them, and I do, then I agree with the Church.

Case closed, as far as I’m concerned.

 

[adrift]

You, yourself, proved I do when you posted the article by Fr. Doyle that I quoted from.

I’m really not interested in pursuing this with you. You don’t understand my point.

If I agree with Abelard, Aquinas, and Augustine, and I do, then, according to your reasoning, they, too do not agree with the Church. If you believe they agree with the Church, and I agree with them, and I do, then I agree with the Church.

Case closed, as far as I’m concerned.

What did the article prove? It actually disproved what you stated. The article stated What is clearly the church’s teaching (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 615) is that “Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.” … So we are, in fact, redeemed by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. "
615 mentioned is

615 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”.444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445

The article supports that Jesus died for our sins yet you post

If he was sinless, and he died for sin, as you contend, whose sins did he die for?

Why would you ask this question if you were in agreement with Abelard, Aquinas, and Augustine all of who believe that Jesus died for our sins? It is a fundamental truth born through out the ages. You deny that Jesus is a sacrifice besides the Catechism stating it I could produce hundreds of other documents but one will suffice for the moment
My emphasis

1. The mystery of the divine redemption is primarily and by its very nature a mystery of love, that is, of the perfect love of Christ for His heavenly Father to Whom **the sacrifice of the Cross, **offered in a spirit of love and obedience, presents the most abundant and infinite satisfaction due for the sins of the human race; “By suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race.”(30)

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII HAURIETIS AQUAS
ON DEVOTION TO THE SACRED HEART
May 15, 1956
The case may be closed for you,( does that mean don’t confuse you with fact? )but it does not change that you do not hold Catholic thought when you deny Jesus was a sacrifice (why do you think that the mass is called a sacrifice?) and that He died for our sins.

 

[davidv]

I’m not going to read all that. I don’t have time. One of the forum rules is to keep posts short. You didn’t answer my question: If Jesus died “for” our sins, the debt is paid, so why the ongoing punishment? Or do you believe Jesus’ death cannot satisfy a debt? Fact: He didn’t die “for” our sins; he died “because” of them. For a thinking person, there is a world of difference.

"So while you won’t find any Church teaching that says “Penal Substitution is heresy,” you will find the Church teaching things directly contrary to what Penal Substitution espouses. Typically, the Church lays out parameters for orthodoxy, and while one is free to work within those parameters, one is not free to transgress those parameters…a Catholic cannot embrace that view [penal substitution] of the Cross and be within the parameters of orthodoxy and Catholic thought."

I’m not going to get into some long back-and-forth with you. I’m not interested in that. Just accept that I think you are wrong, and I will do likewise.

Why do you think our current situation is punishment?

The Church does not think so. It may feel like punishment, but it is not the result of direct application of judgement. The family members of someone convicted of a crime and sent to prison suffer, but are not being punished for the crime. Likewise we suffer the consequences of original sin but it is not punishment, in the strict sense of the word.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I agree with that, Carl and with Aquinas. What you posted is not penal substitution.

I do believe “Christ died for us,” not a substitute for us, or we would not now ever have to suffer, but to show us the way to live is in perfect obedience to the will of the Father.

I was just using Aquinas to answer the OPs question. I love how Aquinas does it!

Penal substitution is just a theory. So is the satisfaction theory and the ransom theory. We are not required to subscribe to any of them. Or we may believe in elements of each. Except I believe the penal substitution idea is frowned on in the CC where it says that Christ had to suffer the exact amount of punishment that was due us. The ransom theory was what the Church Fathers believed. The Satisfaction theory came after Aquinas and tends to be what the CC teaches today.

We do need to believe that Christ died for us and our sins. And that through which we are redeemed. As to exactly how that is accomplished there are different theories.

 

[fisherman_carl]

" All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.* " (Isa 53:6)

Interesting how I find this comment in my Catholic Ignatius Study Bible.

“* The doctrine of vicarious atonement is the unique characteristic of this prophecy. We find it in the New Testament in all its fulness.”

 

[fisherman_carl]

This is an interesting read - newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

 

[fisherman_carl]

I was just using Aquinas to answer the OPs question. I love how Aquinas does it!

Penal substitution is just a theory. So is the satisfaction theory and the ransom theory. We are not required to subscribe to any of them. Or we may believe in elements of each. Except I believe the penal substitution idea is frowned on in the CC where it says that Christ had to suffer the exact amount of punishment that was due us. The ransom theory was what the Church Fathers believed. The Satisfaction theory came after Aquinas and tends to be what the CC teaches today.

We do need to believe that Christ died for us and our sins. And that through which we are redeemed. As to exactly how that is accomplished there are different theories.

I should correct myself. The ransom theory was from St. Anselm which was before Aquinas.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I was just using Aquinas to answer the OPs question. I love how Aquinas does it!

Penal substitution is just a theory. So is the satisfaction theory and the ransom theory. We are not required to subscribe to any of them. Or we may believe in elements of each. Except I believe the penal substitution idea is frowned on in the CC where it says that Christ had to suffer the exact amount of punishment that was due us. The ransom theory was what the Church Fathers believed. The Satisfaction theory came after Aquinas and tends to be what the CC teaches today.

We do need to believe that Christ died for us and our sins. And that through which we are redeemed. As to exactly how that is accomplished there are different theories.

I agree with all you wrote, and yes, it was Anselm. So many names beginning with “A” - Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, more. It can get confusing when one is typing a post.

You are right again, Carl. Penal substitution is frowned on by the Church.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Why do you think our current situation is punishment?

The Church does not think so. It may feel like punishment, but it is not the result of direct application of judgement. The family members of someone convicted of a crime and sent to prison suffer, but are not being punished for the crime. Likewise we suffer the consequences of original sin but it is not punishment, in the strict sense of the word.

If original sin brought suffering and death into the world, and Christ paid our debt, a theory to which I do not subscribe, then why do we still suffer and die?

If someone commits a crime and is sentenced to two years in prison, if he serves his two years, he’s set free, he’s no longer confined.

I know what you mean by it not being punishment in the strict sense of the word, though, and I agree with you, it’s not strictly punishment.

 

[davidv]

If original sin brought suffering and death into the world, and Christ paid our debt, a theory to which I do not subscribe, then why do we still suffer and die?

That is the ultimate question isn’t it. It appears that humans have been attempting to answer it since the beginning. The answer, “God said so.” is not very satisfying.
Genesis 3:

To the woman he said,

“I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

17 And to the man** he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten of the tree
about which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

18
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.

19
By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread
until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”
**

If someone commits a crime and is sentenced to two years in prison, if he serves his two years, he’s set free, he’s no longer confined.

I know what you mean by it not being punishment in the strict sense of the word, though, and I agree with you, it’s not strictly punishment.

Understood.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thank you, David.

 

[adrift]

…
We do need to believe that Christ died for us and our sins. And that through which we are redeemed. As to exactly how that is accomplished there are different theories.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

That is the ultimate question isn’t it. It appears that humans have been attempting to answer it since the beginning. The answer, “God said so.” is not very satisfying.

Understood.

Yes, “Because God said so” is just too vague and conjures up an image of God as an uncaring law-giver, not a loving Being in our day-to-day lives.