Explaining The Pashcal Mystery

[tyler_1]

Imagine you are a non-christian (NC) discussing the Catholic faith with me (C). The conversation goes something like this:

C: God loved the world so much that He sent His only Son Jesus, to show us how we are to live our lives in a way pleasing to God, and then Jesus made atonement to God for our sins through His death on the cross.

NC: If God loves us so much as you say, then why did Jesus have to die?

uhh… you see where I’m stuck on that one. How do I explain God as being all-good all-loving all-forgiving, but yet wouldn’t accept man kind into heaven without Jesus sacrificing himself for us?

for me personally I can accept this on faith… (like pain), though I do not understand it, I trust in the goodness of God.

but this can quickly unravel any momentum for bridging the divide between NC and C. any advice on how to approach this topic in conversation?

thanks for any insights you have.

 

[VociMike]

I would offer a three-part answer. 1) To show us the deadly consequences of our sin. 2) To show us how strongly God desires to free us from the deadly consequences of our sin, even to the point of joining his nature with ours, and enduring our horrific abuse, and 3) to show us that we truly have nothing to fear from death, but that we can and will live after death.

 

[Maranatha]

What would happen if I messed up and found myself in a situation where I owed someone a billion dollars. This is similar to the situation that all of mankind found itself except the price was a billion dollars for each person who ever lived.

We were in a hopeless situation unless someone with the spare cash came along and paid the price for us. Oh yea, by the way, we own Him big time.

 

[VociMike]

What would happen if I messed up and found myself in a situation where I owed someone a billion dollars. This is similar to the situation that all of mankind found itself except the price was a billion dollars for each person who ever lived.

We were in a hopeless situation unless someone with the spare cash came along and paid the price for us. Oh yea, by the way, we own Him big time.

IMHO, most non-Christians would reject the debt/payment view as being immoral both regarding us and regarding Jesus. I find it almost impossible to believe that an NC would think “yeah, that makes perfect sense”. I could be wrong, of course.

 

[Maranatha]

IMHO, most non-Christians would reject the debt/payment view as being immoral both regarding us and regarding Jesus. I find it almost impossible to believe that an NC would think “yeah, that makes perfect sense”. I could be wrong, of course.

I’m not sure why a non-Christian would think St. Anslem’s debt satisfaction theory would be immoral.

 

[VociMike]

I’m not sure why a non-Christian would think St. Anslem’s debt satisfaction theory would be immoral.

Because an NC is going to think it’s immoral that a newborn baby is born owing the spiritual equivalent of a billion dollars, and that it’s immoral that a person who didn’t owe that debt (Jesus Christ) had to die to pay it.

I’m just of the opinion that the debt/payment line of thought is the wrong one to take with a non-Christian. I think it will strike them as being just wrong, unjust all around.

For example, do we allow known innocent people to be executed for the crimes of known guilty people, and then let the known guilty people go free?

 

[Maranatha]

Because an NC is going to think it’s immoral that a newborn baby is born owing the spiritual equivalent of a billion dollars, and that it’s immoral that a person who didn’t owe that debt (Jesus Christ) had to die to pay it.

I’m just of the opinion that the debt/payment line of thought is the wrong one to take with a non-Christian. I think it will strike them as being just wrong, unjust all around.

For example, do we allow known innocent people to be executed for the crimes of known guilty people, and then let the known guilty people go free?

Jesus took the payment upon himself so that would not be immoral.

Those that think a new born is not part of humanity and does not share in our predicament look at things form a hyper-individualistic perspective. The Church does make allowances for infants.

 

[VociMike]

Jesus took the payment upon himself so that would not be immoral.

Those that think a new born is not part of humanity and does not share in our predicament look at things form a hyper-individualistic perspective. The Church does make allowances for infants.

Remember, we’re talking about the perspective of a non-Christian here.

And again, when has it ever been considered moral to execute an innocent person so that a guilty person can go free? You might think that such an allowance would have developed in Christian countries, of all places, but it never has.

But I don’t want to help derail this thread, so maybe this is a discussion that should take place elsewhere.