How did Christs death lead to the forgiveness of sins?

[shinytoy]

I know this is a complex one, but I asked the priests at Traditio.com and they told me to read their website. but i still dont get it.

What I dont understand is when people say, “Christ died for your sins” and “Christs blood means that sins were forgiven” how did his death lead to forgiveness of sin??

now one argument i;ve heard is that before Christ, when people disobeyed God, He sent plagues of locusts and things. and for forgiveness of sin they would need to sacrifice goats and things. but after Christ, the ultimate sacrifice to God, sins were forgiven. Christ was the ultimate sacrifice to God, and there were no need for God to send plagues to punish people, and no need for sacrificing goats etc.

BUT.

Christ IS God in the Tri-une. so basically the above makes no sense.
God (Father) says to people, obey my Word or I will punish you.
God (Father) says if you disobey me you must make a sacrifice to me to show you are sorry
God (Father) says if you are sorry and have made sacrifice I will forgive you.
Then
God(Father) decides to send God (Christ) to earth
God (Father) demands a sacrifice in atonement in order that God(Father) can forgive sins of people
God (Father) condemns God (Christ) to death in order to fulfil the sacrifice that God(Father) demanded
God(Father) forgives sin as the death of God(Christ) was as He demanded.

but suerly this gives a logical problem? i mean God demanded a sacrifice so that God could forgive sin, so God because the sacrifice for God and therefore God forgave sin. It makes no sense.
Surely the end result would be exactly the same if God just automatically forgave sin? why was there need for any sacrifice? HOW did God(Jesus) death mean sins were forgiven by God(Father) since both of them were God ?

a related Q - did everyone go to hell before Jesus as Ive heard peopel say that you can only go to heaven thourgh Him, and that after He died and came back the doors of heaven were re-opened after original sin???

 

[Nelka]

John 3: 16 For this is how God loved the world: he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

 

[JamestheOlder]

a related Q - did everyone go to hell before Jesus as Ive heard peopel say that you can only go to heaven thourgh Him, and that after He died and came back the doors of heaven were re-opened after original sin???

‘Tis true. Read the Apostles’ Creed. Christ opened heaven to ALL, starting with Adam.

 

[Gem]

Old testament - The Jews sins are forgiven through obedience to the Law, BUT the gates of Heaven were still closed due to Origianl Sin of Adam and Eve. The faithful dead went to the Bosom of Abraham - a pleasant enough place, but not heaven. After Jesus rose, the gates were opened and these Jews entered the Kingdom.

Because God is infinitely good, a sin against Him is infinitely bad. We can’t fix it by ourselves. So God fixed it for us by offering Himself. Yes, He could have just forgiven us for all time on the spot, but what do you think people would think of that? They wouldn’t care. It’s too easy. Just like many don’t care now even though Christ suffered for us. People presume on His mercy.

But God wants us to love (have a relationship with) Him, and true love must be freely offered and chosen. To have a choice, there must be an alternative. So people are free to choose agaist God and refuse God’s forgiveness by their actions.

“But surely once people knew the truth, they would choose God.”

Of course, but that would not be a free choice, and therefore, not true love. So again, people are left free to choose.

 

[shinytoy]

Old testament - The Jews sins are forgiven through obedience to the Law, BUT the gates of Heaven were still closed due to Origianl Sin of Adam and Eve. The faithful dead went to the Bosom of Abraham - a pleasant enough place, but not heaven. After Jesus rose, the gates were opened and these Jews entered the Kingdom.

Because God is infinitely good, a sin against Him is infinitely bad. We can’t fix it by ourselves. So God fixed it for us by offering Himself. Yes, He could have just forgiven us for all time on the spot, but what do you think people would think of that? They wouldn’t care. It’s too easy. Just like many don’t care now even though Christ suffered for us. People presume on His mercy.

But God wants us to love (have a relationship with) Him, and true love must be freely offered and chosen. To have a choice, there must be an alternative. So people are free to choose agaist God and refuse God’s forgiveness by their actions.

“But surely once people knew the truth, they would choose God.”

Of course, but that would not be a free choice, and therefore, not true love. So again, people are left free to choose.

thanks for the only proper answer on this thread. i am NOT asking people to quote the Bible and say ‘IT IS BECAUSE IT SAYS SO!!!’
guys, this is a logical problem. i want a rational solution.

i dont understand WHY God had to offer us Himself at all for the forgiveness of sin, or why they had to be any suffering. like this:

a) God sends God down to earth >> God suffers >> God rose again >> God forgave sin
vs
b) God >>> forgave sin.

same result so why are the middle bts needed? i dont buy the ‘God would think it was too easy’ argument since the end result is exactly the same. to Joe Bloggs in the street, a) and b) have the same effects more or less - if Joe is bad, he is forgiven, if he is good he is forgiven.

plus. if Jesus died for the forgiveness of sin BUT after we die Jesus judges if we go to Hell, surely if Jesus has already paid the penalty for our sins, then nobody wuold ever go to hell.

 

[Gem]

i dont understand WHY God had to offer us Himself at all for the forgiveness of sin, or why they had to be any suffering. like this:

a) God sends God down to earth >> God suffers >> God rose again >> God forgave sin
vs
b) God >>> forgave sin.

same result so why are the middle bts needed? i dont buy the ‘God would think it was too easy’ argument since the end result is exactly the same. to Joe Bloggs in the street, a) and b) have the same effects more or less - if Joe is bad, he is forgiven, if he is good he is forgiven.

But Joe is not forgiven unless he repents. That’s the key. Joe has to accept God’s love and admit he did wrong. God does not force His love on anyone.

You are correct that suffering was not necessary for forgiveness in the sense that God could have forgiven anyway. However, God’s justice demands that a penalty be paid for sin. In His generosity, He paid it Himself. The other reason suffering is useful to God and therefore to us, is because we can relate to it. We understand the cost.

Think about someone you love and what you would do for them if the situation demanded it. If they saw you do it, they would see your love for them. True love involves sacrifice; otherwise, you are just entertaining yourself.

plus. if Jesus died for the forgiveness of sin BUT after we die Jesus judges if we go to Hell, surely if Jesus has already paid the penalty for our sins, then nobody wuold ever go to hell.

But as I said, one must accept the forgiveness of Jesus. He paid the debt for all, but only all those who recognize Him. Of course, God in His mercy and justice can pardon whomever He deems worthy by His own judgement, not ours. But what Christ taught was that one should repent, believe, be baptized and do what God commands.

Gem

 

[shinytoy]

But Joe is not forgiven unless he repents. That’s the key. Joe has to accept God’s love and admit he did wrong. God does not force His love on anyone.

You are correct that suffering was not necessary for forgiveness in the sense that God could have forgiven anyway. However, God’s justice demands that a penalty be paid for sin. In His generosity, He paid it Himself. The other reason suffering is useful to God and therefore to us, is because we can relate to it. We understand the cost.

thanks. i think you are onto something. you see, catholicism, unlike protestantism, is a religion of logic and coherancy. when i ask questions like this to a fundamentalist protestant, they thump the Bible and say “Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins because THE BIBLE SAYS SO!!!” with no further attempt to understand how this works. if i ask a non-fundie protestant, they say “well I personally think xyz and MY understanding is this so I believe this” with no objectivity. whereas i know the CC wil have an answer.

The bit that confuses me i guess is that He demanded the penalty and He paid it. so its kinda like an own goal. its like me imposing a penalty of £100 to be paid to me by anyone caught smoking in my house. if i pay the £100 for them, they get off scot free, and i am no better nor no worse off. it is not altruistic for me to pay it for them, since the penalty is demanded by me and paid for by me. the smoker doesnt understand or appreciate the cost since he didnt have to pay anything. he didnt learn from it becuase i paid it and he didnt suffer.

But as I said, one must accept the forgiveness of Jesus. He paid the debt for all, but only all those who recognize Him. Of course, God in His mercy and justice can pardon whomever He deems worthy by His own judgement, not ours. But what Christ taught was that one should repent, believe, be baptized and do what God commands.
Gem

but in another thread, i saw someoen had quoed a passage from the code of canon law or something saying that non catholics can go to heaven if they have lived in accordance with their conscience even if they didnt believe in God. salvation by grace you know? so loads of non believers will be savedd.

plus, if God loves peopel why would there be hell - how could He sent peopel there if He love them?

 

[Gem]

thanks. i think you are onto something. you see, catholicism, unlike protestantism, is a religion of logic and coherancy. when i ask questions like this to a fundamentalist protestant, they thump the Bible and say “Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins because THE BIBLE SAYS SO!!!” with no further attempt to understand how this works. if i ask a non-fundie protestant, they say “well I personally think xyz and MY understanding is this so I believe this” with no objectivity. whereas i know the CC wil have an answer.

I think both Protestants and Catholics can be either intellectual or not about things. But you are right that the CC has centuries of writings by many grace-filled people who have thought about the very questions you have.

The bit that confuses me i guess is that He demanded the penalty and He paid it. so its kinda like an own goal. its like me imposing a penalty of £100 to be paid to me by anyone caught smoking in my house. if i pay the £100 for them, they get off scot free, and i am no better nor no worse off. it is not altruistic for me to pay it for them, since the penalty is demanded by me and paid for by me. the smoker doesnt understand or appreciate the cost since he didnt have to pay anything. he didnt learn from it becuase i paid it and he didnt suffer.

Yes, they get off scot free - that’s God’s mercy. None of us deserves in ourselves to be saved. But it IS altruistic. As the ruler of your house, you could freely toss smokers out without a second thought and be justified. But you don’t. In your mercy, you pay the fine and tell them you paid it. Some will be grateful and endevour to never smoke again in your home. Others will continue to puff. Rude, no? Well, when the lease is up, they will be tossed out, still puffing away. The time to pledge to quit will have passed. Those who gave up smoking will go with you to the new nicer house.

but in another thread, i saw someoen had quoed a passage from the code of canon law or something saying that non catholics can go to heaven if they have lived in accordance with their conscience even if they didnt believe in God. salvation by grace you know? so loads of non believers will be savedd.

plus, if God loves peopel why would there be hell - how could He sent peopel there if He love them?

Yes and no. What the Vatican II documents state is that, it is possible for God to save whomever He wishes. In His justice, he may choose not to damn someone who is ignorant of Him. However, Jesus’ teaching still stands that all are saved through Him (and He is the head of the Catholic Church. He gave His authority to Peter and the Apostles “I give you te keys to the Kingdom”). God may choose to apply the merits of Christ to people who didn’t have a chance to know him in life. But without access to the grace and mercy of Jesus, I would think it would be more difficult to be saved that way. Through the sacraments, scripture and grace, God has given us Catholics all we need to know and love Him - to live well without “smoking”.

God does not send people to hell. Those who “smoke” until death choose to go there. How can one live forever in heaven when one has actively rejected everything in heaven for his whole life? What would be there for him?

When we sin, we separate ourselves from God and retreat into ourselves. We love ourselves and our desires more than the work of God. That’s what hell is - but in the case the separation is complete. And because there is no time in heaven, it is “permanent”.

 

[Nelka]

The faithful dead went to the Bosom of Abraham - a pleasant enough place, but not heaven.

Sounds nice.

 

[manualman]

I think there are several different ways of looking at it and I’m not educated enough to say for sure mine’s THE right one (disclaimer).

When I hung out among protestants, the main explanation is that God is both perfect justice and perfect mercy. Justice requires that sin be punished and so God punched his way out of the seeming moral trap by accepting that punishment on Himself (the Son) as a way to provide us mercy.

This never seemed quire right to me. Made God into sort of an avenging robot that MUST squash the sinner when sin is committed. Even puny humans seem to have more capacity for forgive than that.

The way I understand it is to FIRST understand sin. Sins aren’t things that are arbitrarily listed in a book because God wanted to keep us from having too much fun. Sins are things that inherently harm, do damage to our (and others’) ability to give and receive love. When we sin, we push ourselves and others further away from God.

When we say that Jesus came to pay the price for our sins, I think it means that He came to love us, reach out to us and call us back even though he KNEW that the consequence of our sins would be that we (humanity) would murder Him simply for being who He is. By accepting that fate and loving us anyways, He opened the way for our hardened hearts to be cracked open and see that there IS hope, regardless of how far we’ve fallen. We ARE still loved and are still offered the Grace to be restored to what God originally intended us to be. Coming to grips that WE killed Jesus with our sins is IMO the first real step of repentence. (Which is one reason it is so irritating when skinheads blame the Jews for killing Christ. Talk about missing the point!).

 

[jrgiancola]

By being completely innocent of sin and taking on the sins of everyone who ever lived and who will ever live, Jesus suffered the justice that was due each sinner. If we had received the justice that was due us, not one of us would ever have been able to see God after death. By this act of love, Jesus’ death and resurrection reconciled God’s Justice with His Mercy. Simply stated, “How can a just God avoid punishing sinners and how can a merciful God be truly merciful if He does punish sinners?” Jesus’ death and resurrection is how; justice and mercy are satisfied; God is shown to be both just and merciful.

 

[PJM]

=jrgiancola;7976233]By being completely innocent of sin and taking on the sins of everyone who ever lived and who will ever live, Jesus suffered the justice that was due each sinner. If we had received the justice that was due us, not one of us would ever have been able to see God after death. By this act of love, Jesus’ death and resurrection reconciled God’s Justice with His Mercy. Simply stated, “How can a just God avoid punishing sinners and how can a merciful God be truly merciful if He does punish sinners?” Jesus’ death and resurrection is how; justice and mercy are satisfied; God is shown to be both just and merciful.

My dear friend in Christ,

While there is nothing in you’re message that is “wrong” it nevertheless implies [IMO] the proststant theology of Once Saved, Always Saved.

This is of course a Spiritual Impoosibility

1. It denies God’s need for “perfection.” GOD can be defined as “every Good Thing -PERFECTED.” Meaning God CANNOT error.
2. It denies that God made us is a precise manner in order that we [humanity] MIGHT freely chhose to Know, Love, Serve and Obey Him… Thus of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of living things on earth; ONLY Humanity has the potential to accomplish this.

Isaiah 43: 7 and 21:" every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."… " And the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise."

1. Predestination is the “TOTAL -OWNERSHIP” of the the one doing the “predestination.” Meaning that it is a “pre-knowlege” of what will be chosen WITHOUT interference with humanities FREEWILL, mind and intellect. Such is the Design, WILL, and PLAN of God.

Humanty has the POTENTAL of salvation because Christ makes it a POSSIBILITY; depending on our lifes choices and COMPLETE Obedence to what HE TAUGHT and thus COMMANDED.

Acts.17: 30 “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,” **Heb.6: 10 *“For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do”.
John.14: 15, 21 ** “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” 1John.1: 8 to 10
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, ***he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. **1 Jn. 5:16-17 ** “If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. ***All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. *** MEANING having "Mortal consegeunces: that SEVER our personal relationship with God untill: repented, Confessed and Forgivern. *** John.20:20 to 23
"Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” ***[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.[WITH MY POWER AND AUTHORITY THAT I NOW PASS ON TO YOU …MY Church] **If you [SINGULAR] forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you [SINGULAR} retain the sins of any, they are retained."[/COLOR]

God Bless you; KEEP UP you’re GOOD WORK!

Pat**

 

[razredge]

but suerly this gives a logical problem? i mean God demanded a sacrifice so that God could forgive sin, so God because the sacrifice for God and therefore God forgave sin. It makes no sense.
Surely the end result would be exactly the same if God just automatically forgave sin? why was there need for any sacrifice? HOW did God(Jesus) death mean sins were forgiven by God(Father) since both of them were God ?

?

There are a few theories of atonement out there - you don’t necessarily have to go with the substitutionary atonement model most Protestants (and some Catholics) believe in.

The Church Fathers used to favour the Moral Influence theory of atonement where the purpose of Jesus’ life and death was to bring about positive moral change to humaniry through his teachings, his martyrdom on the cross and his resurrection - which inspired his disciples to spread the Gospel to the corners of the earth and changed the lives of billions.