S
steve_b
Guest
Why is that such an issue?Not by innocent parties.
Why is that such an issue?Not by innocent parties.
Because the concept of justice is such an issue.Why is that such an issue?
Although I don’t agree with the Catholic perspective, what exactly is “almost perverse” about it? And what “view” are you talking about that differs from that of Eastern Catholicism?Because the concept of justice is such an issue.
What is at issue is not what God has done for us (obviously), but rather what I perceive as a very false, almost perverse, view of what and how and why it was done for us.
I don’t think that the Eastern Churches, or Eastern Catholicism, hold such a view, so it is not the only possible view. Somebody can correct me if I’m wrong.
Originally Sin brought about an irreparable chasm between God and man. Thus, Christ, as the second Person of the Trinity, chose to redeem mankind by His own doing, giving us the grace to return back to God. So God, Himself, paid the ransom. This ultimately means, to me, that the debt was paid by God, to God. Justice does not forbid a person or God to receive payment for a dept owed to them by another party who freely chooses to pay it.Something I hear fairly often just makes me crazy. It goes like this (with variations):
God’s justice is perfect, so he could not let our sins go unpunished
God’s mercy is also perfect, so he sent his Son to undergo the punishment.
Now as any moral being knows, sending an innocent victim to be punished for the actions of another is NOT just. So why do we keep hearing explanations like this one in Christian apologetics?
That God’s perfect justice requires what appears to be a gross injustice.Although I don’t agree with the Catholic perspective, what exactly is “almost perverse” about it?
Alas, I don’t know enough Eastern theology to make a clear statement. But I’m pretty sure I have read statements to that effect many times.And what “view” are you talking about that differs from that of Eastern Catholicism?
The Son didn’t volunteer, he obeyed the Father. Not my will but thine.Now if Christ was forced to pay this dept that was not his own, then I would be more inclined to agree with you.
I agree with you. But I think the solution is that when we are one with Christ, that is, “in His Body”, we are accorded as having offered the same sacrifice to the Father He did.The Son didn’t volunteer, he obeyed the Father. Not my will but thine.
I repeat, I know the Father and the Son did not do anything bad here (duh!). The issue, I am convinced, is a flawed explanation for what the Father and the Son did.
I agree with you. But I think the solution is that when we are one with Christ, that is, “in His Body”, we are accorded as having offered the same sacrifice to the Father He did.The Son didn’t volunteer, he obeyed the Father. Not my will but thine.
I repeat, I know the Father and the Son did not do anything bad here (duh!). The issue, I am convinced, is a flawed explanation for what the Father and the Son did.
How do you know the Son did not volunteer? In His divine person, Christ may have done just that. In His human nature, he had human tendencies and reached out to the Father in prayer many times. We see the humanness of Christ in the garden. And even if He did not “volunteer”, He still freely chose to please the Father.The Son didn’t volunteer, he obeyed the Father. Not my will but thine.
I repeat, I know the Father and the Son did not do anything bad here (duh!). The issue, I am convinced, is a flawed explanation for what the Father and the Son did.
Whether he volunteered or not (and scripture makes it very clear that he came in obedience to the Father), it is not justice to accept the death of an innocent victim even if the victim volunteers. So my claim still stands, which is that the way some Catholics and many Protestants view the actions of the Father and the Son are severely distorted.How do you know the Son did not volunteer? In His divine person, Christ may have done just that. In His human nature, he had human tendencies and reached out to the Father in prayer many times. We see the humanness of Christ in the garden. And even if He did not “volunteer”, He still freely chose to please the Father.
Let’s approach this another wayBecause the concept of justice is such an issue.
What is at issue is not what God has done for us (obviously), but rather what I perceive as a very false, almost perverse, view of what and how and why it was done for us.
Eastern Catholics being in complete union with the pope believe what the Catholic Church teaches. Otherwise they wouldn’t be Catholic. The Orthodox aren’t Catholic.I don’t think that the Eastern Churches, or Eastern Catholicism, hold such a view, so it is not the only possible view. Somebody can correct me if I’m wrong.
Yes, he loves us which is why he provided a way for us to reconcile. Perfect justice is rendered each time a soul “stands” before him after death. And then at the end of time.Whether he volunteered or not (and scripture makes it very clear that he came in obedience to the Father), it is not justice to accept the death of an innocent victim even if the victim volunteers. So my claim still stands, which is that the way some Catholics and many Protestants view the actions of the Father and the Son are severely distorted.
John 3:16 doesn’t say “For God’s justice was so perfect and so demanding that he gave his only son…”. It says “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son…”