If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them?

[Poseidon]

This is one point I’ve never been clear on, even when I was a Catholic. Why couldn’t God just forgive our sins without having a blood sacrifice? Why did he need to sacrifice himself to himself so he could then forgive our sins?

Does this mean he is not omnipotent?
What does the death of a temporarily assumed human body do that God couldn’t?

Also, just so we’re clear I am actually looking for answers because I’m legitimately wondering. Debate is encouraged but I’m not just trolling for arguments! Thanks!

 

[andy92]

Just to clarify Jesus didn’t temporarily assume a body He became incarnate. He is and always will be Body and Soul.

 

[ericc]

Because the wages of sin is death. God is forgiving but he is also just. Justice demands a penalty. Since the penalty of sin is death, it truly shows how horrific sin is (it results in spiritual death) to God.

If there is no penalty, it belittles the seriousness of sin. For example, if someone were to massacre your whole family and the judge says he forgive the murderer, don’t you think justice is not served and in fact make light of the massacre? Or the sentence is 5 hours of community service would that be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime/sin?

Since sin cause everlasting death to the soul, obviously the penalty is suitably high.

 

[hansard]

Just to clarify Jesus didn’t temporarily assume a body He became incarnate. He is and always will be Body and Soul.

Yes, but his earthly body was temporary. He doesn’t have that same body now; he has a glorified body, which has properties far beyond anything he had during his earthly existence.

You couldn’t really say that the body, transformed, is the same body as it was before.

To use an analogy: my Subaru car could be transformed into a better car by replacing everything in and on it, but it would only resemble my car then. The new, improved model would be faster, smoother, smell nicer…it would almost be miraculous (!).

 

[tonyrey]

This is one point I’ve never been clear on, even when I was a Catholic. Why couldn’t God just forgive our sins without having a blood sacrifice? Why did he need to sacrifice himself to himself so he could then forgive our sins?

Does this mean he is not omnipotent?
What does the death of a temporarily assumed human body do that God couldn’t?

Also, just so we’re clear I am actually looking for answers because I’m legitimately wondering. Debate is encouraged but I’m not just trolling for arguments! Thanks!

1. The main causes of suffering in human society are ignorance and selfishness.
2. Divine mercy is consistent with divine justice.
3. We are forgiven to the precise extent that we forgive others.
4. Words have to be supplemented by action if they are to be truly effective.
5. Even sceptics have recognised the value of the Sermon on the Mount.
6. Without self-sacrifice it is impossible to love others and transform the world.
7. If we respond to His example and teaching Jesus liberates us from ourselves.

 

[DexUK]

When considering why God came to Earth as Man in the form of his son, Jesus and then willingly sacrificed himself for us, it has to be considered in two ways: one, that our created entered into the reality that he created in an authentic way - i.e. he experienced it on the same level as we do: physical, emotional, spiritual, tangible… And… that the life that he led, the things that he did, freely chosen, fitted with the way in which the Jews expected a messiah to come. Furthermore the manner of the sacrifice was consistent with the culture and the history of the Jews - which is why Christ is referred to as the Lamb of God - the lamb being the sacrificial offering at the Passover by the Jews.

Jesus’s life and the particular things that he did have to be understood in the context of the wider culture that he entered into. If he had not acted the way he did or been sacrificed in the manner that he willingly allowed, then he would not have been recognisable as the Son of God. All the prophesies pointed towards his sacrifice and his eternal reign. We wouldn’t have taken any notice if he’d done it any differently.

If you’re interested in how all completely Christ’s coming was prophesied, I can’t recommend much better an author to look at than Archbishop Fulton Sheen who, in his writings, makes the explanations of Christ and his place in God’s intentions for this world eminently clear and very readable. Look for his book ‘Life of Christ’. It’s approachable, readable and instructive.

 

[ericc]

Because the wages of sin is death. God is forgiving but he is also just. Justice demands a penalty. Since the penalty of sin is death, it truly shows how horrific sin is (it results in spiritual death) to God.

If there is no penalty, it belittles the seriousness of sin. For example, if someone were to massacre your whole family and the judge says he forgive the murderer, don’t you think justice is not served and in fact make light of the massacre? Or the sentence is 5 hours of community service would that be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime/sin?

Since sin cause everlasting death to the soul, obviously the penalty is suitably high.

I apologise for my incomplete response. This is the continuation:

Omnipotent does not mean God can contradict himself. God is Love and forgiving, but God is also just. Hence all sins need to be forgiven as well as paid for.

Because sin is incurred against God, a perfect being, sin offerings in the OT by man falls short because Man is imperfect. “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” Hebrews 10:1-14.

This is where Christ comes in. A perfect sacrifice made by a perfect man being, good for all ages. Where else can you find the perfect Man but from God? If God didn’t became Man, who can represent Man and perform the perfect sacrifice?

 

[Pugsly]

I apologise for my incomplete response. This is the continuation:

Omnipotent does not mean God can contradict himself. God is Love and forgiving, but God is also just. Hence all sins need to be forgiven as well as paid for.

Because sin is incurred against God, a perfect being, sin offerings in the OT by man falls short because Man is imperfect. “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” Hebrews 10:1-14.

This is where Christ comes in. A perfect sacrifice made by a perfect man being, good for all ages. Where else can you find the perfect Man but from God? If God didn’t became Man, who can represent Man and perform the perfect sacrifice?

Eric has given you a very good answer here.

 

[hansard]

But why does there have to be a human-divine sacrifice for sin? Given that purgatory and hell clearly exist (according to the Church), Christ’s sacrifice is only part of the story. You also need to have faith, do good works, be a member of the church (mainly by taking part in the sacraments) and repent. It all adds up.
The sacrifice of Jesus seems like a dramatic add-on. It hardly seems necessary. Why not just send souls to purgatory, as they mostly are anyway, and others to hell, and a few straight to Heaven, and bypass the whole “Jesus sacrifice” idea altogether?
I’ve always failed to see the necessary connection between Jesus’s sacrifice and my salvation.
I know what most people will say. The post by Eric (3.06am) is the standard response–exactly what the church would say.
I’m saying there is *no logical need *for God to take on humanity and die a human death in order to secure our salvation. God could have saved us by a simple act of will, and I believe he does. Sure, we wouldn’t have the story of Jesus: narratives like this are powerful and inspire people, but they’re not actually necessary.
If God loves me, he loves me in all my faults, in all my sinfulness. If he forgives our sins, then he forgives, and that’s it. We just need to be repentant.
I don’t believe Jesus achieved anything that couldn’t have been achieved far more simply.

 

[peace2u2]

But why does there have to be a human-divine sacrifice for sin? .
If God loves me, he loves me in all my faults, in all my sinfulness. If he forgives our sins, then he forgives, and that’s it. We just need to be repentant.
I don’t believe Jesus achieved anything that couldn’t have been achieved far more simply.

Because, than it wouldn’t be love or a relationship. It would be a form of abuse if He forced us to do anything especially to believe in Him and to love Him even though we cannot physically see Him. He asks that we Trust Him - we walk by faith not by sight. And that is why he gave us free-will. We must choose. The time of God’s great love, mercy and forgivenes is here and now.

God is the perfect gentlemen and He gives us the choice to come to Him or to reject Him in the relationship that He desires to have with us.

Walk By Faith by Jeremy Camp:

youtube.com/watch?v=bEK071gUHHg

 

[hansard]

Because, than it wouldn’t be love or a relationship. It would be a form of abuse if He forced us to do anything especially to believe in Him and to love Him even though we cannot physically see Him. He asks that we Trust Him - we walk by faith not by sight. And that is why he gave us free-will. We must choose. The time of God’s great love, mercy and forgivenes is here and now.

God is the perfect gentlemen and He gives us the choice to come to Him or to reject Him in the relationship that He desires to have with us.

Walk By Faith by Jeremy Camp:

youtube.com/watch?v=bEK071gUHHg

I did not even hint at any of the things you just posted. I said nothing about being forced to repent or being forced to love god; I said nothing about the presence or absence of free will. I simply asked why God cannot just forgive sins, without the need for a sacrifice.
You seem to have misunderstood my post. If you did understand it, you are falling back on the usual platitudes that mark you as a dedicated Catholic, but a poor participant in a philosophical forum.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Poseidon,

Christ did not have to die on the cross.

St. Thomas Aquinas (our premiere theologian) does not say that he had to die but that it was “fitting” (S.T. P3, Q50, A1). Pope Clement IV wrote in Unigenitus Dei Filius that one drop of Christ’s blood would have sufficed to redeem the whole human race. Even a simple act of obedience on the part of Christ would have sufficed to redeem us, because all of his actions are infinitely meritorious. And I believe it is the opinion of Fr. William Most (a present-day theologian) that God could have simply forgiven us without any propitiatory sacrifice at all.

But God has a way of going “all out.” Could he have shown his love more completely or vividly? If Christ did not make the sacrifice He did, I don’t think we would appreciate how bad sin is, or how good God is. Having this appreciation helps us understand spiritual reality better and thus grow closer to God. It also gives us comfort in our sufferings to know that Christ suffered. There are other benefits as well.

 

[AF_Fugue]

(emphases mine)

But why does there have to be a human-divine sacrifice for sin? Given that purgatory and hell clearly exist (according to the Church), Christ’s sacrifice is only part of the story. You also need to have faith, do good works, be a member of the church (mainly by taking part in the sacraments) and repent. It all adds up.
The sacrifice of Jesus seems like a dramatic add-on. It hardly seems necessary. Why not just send souls to purgatory, as they mostly are anyway, and others to hell, and a few straight to Heaven, and bypass the whole “Jesus sacrifice” idea altogether?
I’ve always failed to see the necessary connection between Jesus’s sacrifice and my salvation…

But the sacrifice of Christ is not an “add-on,” it is the essential ingredient. The other things you listed (faith, works, repentance, etc) would mean nothing if not for God’s grace. You cannot, without the grace of God, muster up enough faith or do enough good works to merit heaven. The sacrifice of Christ is primary. Why then are the other things necessary? Imagine that you are estranged from a friend; you haven’t spoken in years. Your friend finally forgives you, and even calls you up to say, “I’d like us to be friends again.” If you ignore the calls, then even though you are forgiven, the two of you are still not reconciled. It takes two people to affect a reconciliation. God is always the first mover, but we must want to be reconciled. Keeping the order straight is extremely important in understanding the process of salvation.

I’m saying there is *no logical need *for God to take on humanity and die a human death in order to secure our salvation. God could have saved us by a simple act of will, and I believe he does. Sure, we wouldn’t have the story of Jesus: narratives like this are powerful and inspire people, but they’re not actually necessary.
If God loves me, he loves me in all my faults, in all my sinfulness. If he forgives our sins, then he forgives, and that’s it. We just need to be repentant.
I don’t believe Jesus achieved anything that couldn’t have been achieved far more simply.

God did save us by an act of will - He willed Himself onto the cross. Remember, this is a God who cannot be contained in one person. When God speaks, His Word itself is a Person! And to top it off, the love between the Father and Son begets a third Person! God’s will manifests itself in our reality in mysterious ways. God willed to reconcile us with Himself - and that Will manifested as the cross.

Besides, without the cross, how would we know the seriousness of our sins or the depth of God’s love? Prophets had been declaring God’s love and forgiveness for millenia; the Israelites still weren’t listening. So God came down and did it Himself. How much does God love you? Don’t take a prophet’s word for it - look at how far He stretched Him arms on the cross!

Finally, in regards to your question, “Why does there have to be a human-divine sacrifice?” God is an infinite being, therefore sins against Him are infinite in nature and require infinitely more than we can manage. Hence the divine element of the sacrifice. The human element serves to more fully unite us with God. God, in His eternal widsom, saw fit to take on human form, thereby elevating the status of humanity above even the angels. Humanity has been divinized thanks to His Incarnation.

 

[JRKH]

This is one point I’ve never been clear on, even when I was a Catholic. Why couldn’t God just forgive our sins without having a blood sacrifice? Why did he need to sacrifice himself to himself so he could then forgive our sins?

Does this mean he is not omnipotent?
What does the death of a temporarily assumed human body do that God couldn’t?

Also, just so we’re clear I am actually looking for answers because I’m legitimately wondering. Debate is encouraged but I’m not just trolling for arguments! Thanks!

I’m sure that you will get many good theological ideas from the folks here but when I was working through these issues (before returning to the Church) I asked the same sort of questions. There is an aspect to the life, ministry, death and resurrection of our Lord that I think is often overlooked. That aspect is the humanity and the “example” of it.

Why did God become incarnate? Why die? Why resurrect? Why the references to the “Son of Man” and to Adam etc.
If we look at Jesus primarily as “God in human form”…then it can be very difficult to see the point of it all. BUT - if we look at Jesus primarily as Man who was also God’s Son, and the “New Adam” we can begin to see a certain sense.

In a way - Jesus is the “reset button”.
He came into the world as Adam did - No original sin and in the friendship of God. Unlike Adam, he lived his entire life in that friendship resisting all attempts by the serpent to trip Him up. Because He did this, death could not hold Him. But in order that we might know this He had to die - publicly and thoroughly. Then His resurrection and appearance to the Apostles and others would be “proof positive”, not just of His divinity, but of the veracity of all that He said and did in His ministry among us. Also it would show that the sin of Adam, through which death entered the world, no longer held sway.

Of course the consequences of Adam’s sin…The knowledge of good and evil, and the consequent problems and responsibilities that such knowledge entails remains…Yet - because of the incarnation, death and resurrection Jesus demonstrated conclusively that with God and through God - all things are possible.
And now - because we had reached the “fullness of time” we were (as a species) mature enough to be able to appreciate and embrace these possibilities - and for this reason - God has returned His Holy Spirit to the world…To each person who is able to see and embrace Him.

Now - The above is a very crude and rudimentary understanding of this perspective.
One must also be careful in how far one pursues it lest we run into heterodoxy or even heresy. So the above always needs to be seen within the understandings and teachings of the Church and not separate from it.
However - I think that pondering this idea of the Incarnation, of Jesus manhood and not just his divinity, and the incarnation being an “example” to us all, and that Jesus has not set before us anything that we are (theoretically) unable to accomplish - can provide some very useful insights.

Of course all of this needs to be considered carefully and prayerfully.

Peace
James

 

[TheReYUI]

If God loves me, he loves me in all my faults, in all my sinfulness. If he forgives our sins, then he forgives, and that’s it. We just need to be repentant.
I don’t believe Jesus achieved anything that couldn’t have been achieved far more simply.

First, God DOES love you, but he doesn’t love your sins. He hates and detests sin wherever it may be found (it pains him terribly that sin is found in you (his children) because he can’t stand it). Yes, maybe jesus could have saved us by sending a couple of people to purgatory and hell etc. However, the fact that he chose to DIE on that cross for you shows how much he loves you because he chose the way that would lead more souls to heaven. To understand why Jesus had to die on that cross to atone for our sins, you have to understand the nature of sin and the nature of God. Sin kills and destroys everything in its path and God detests sin with “every fiber of his being” and since God is infinite that means he infinitely hates sin. When you sin even the smallest sin you hurt God infinitely.

 

[jonathan_hili]

This is one point I’ve never been clear on, even when I was a Catholic. Why couldn’t God just forgive our sins without having a blood sacrifice? Why did he need to sacrifice himself to himself so he could then forgive our sins?

Does this mean he is not omnipotent?
What does the death of a temporarily assumed human body do that God couldn’t?

Also, just so we’re clear I am actually looking for answers because I’m legitimately wondering. Debate is encouraged but I’m not just trolling for arguments! Thanks!

I think a lot of people have responded quite well, so I won’t add much more. Perhaps just a couple of questions, and then an extension of what’s been said.

(i) Could God forgive our sins if we do not seek to be forgiven, if we do not fully recognise the consequences of our sin, not only to ourselves, but to others and the world in general?
(ii) Did God sacrifice Himself to Himself? Did He not rather sacrifice Himself for us? That is to say, who was the receiver of the sacrifice? Was it God the Father or humanity?

I’d also suggest thinking about Jesus’ death on the cross and his suffering as more than just a payback: do this one thing and it’s all fixed. Rather, think about what is needed to (i) repair a relationship that has been irrevocably damaged (imagine, for instance, I cheated on my wife: do you think it would be sufficient just for me to say “I’m sorry” so that she would say, “No problem, you’re forgiven, all is well”?); (ii) re-establish right relationship (my wife might forgive me but she still might not want to have anything to do with me anymore); and (iii) extend and grow in relationship (what would convince my wife not only to trust me again but to grow in love for me, have children with me, etc.?). This last part I think is crucial because Christ did not only come so that we could be forgiven (in fact, he forgave people’s sins even before dying on the cross) but so that we could share in the divine life and become children of God. There is something about dying and being reborn that ties in with this. And, incidentally - but also crucially - Jesus’ death and resurrection is the model that all are called to follow: we too are to carry our cross, die daily and so have new life.

Hope that helps!

Jonathan

 

[Steve_Jay]

This is one point I’ve never been clear on, even when I was a Catholic. Why couldn’t God just forgive our sins without having a blood sacrifice? Why did he need to sacrifice himself to himself so he could then forgive our sins?

Does this mean he is not omnipotent?
What does the death of a temporarily assumed human body do that God couldn’t?

Also, just so we’re clear I am actually looking for answers because I’m legitimately wondering. Debate is encouraged but I’m not just trolling for arguments! Thanks!

Hello,
I’ve said in another thread that I became at war with God over this very issue. I went so far as to tell God that he knows nothing about love. I am expected to forgive and to turn the other cheek. God demanded blood. I’m expected to forgive without demanding blood.
I became very angry because Jesus suffered and died for me.
Jesus even said "Go and find out what this means: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” Jesus who suffered and died for me said that.

After the fall of mankind, God largely became unknown. The Israelites didn’t know God very well. They thought God might like a golden calf. We see God keeping his distance from Moses but coming down on the later prophets and filling the virgin Mary. What was going on was a nation being prepared to become holy. It seems to me that God gave the Israelites certain observances to help to hold them. Did God really want lamb sacrifices?
I also tend to think that the house Israel was to become holy for the Lord’s mother. As soon as there was a holy woman God delivered Jesus to the world. Not many recognised him. God was largely unknown. Accusations of blasphemy were inevitable. Being tortured and put to death was inevitable.
Jesus was put on trial, beaten and flogged and put to death. Can you imagine someone doing that to a lamb sacrifice? Putting the sheep on trial and flogging it. So Jesus was no pagan sacrifice. The sufferings of Jesus has many lessons. He could have walked away but chose not to. Jesus presents the ultimate lesson of love. Through his sacred heart we find God himself. Jesus heals our wounds in his wounds. Every time we sin we wound our own person in some way. Jesus carried the evidence of sin on his body. Mocked, he had thorns pushed in to his head. Flesh torn from a dreadful beating. Nails driven through his hands and feet. His body carried the evidence of sins committed against him. The message is that God hurts. God burns because of the sins of mankind. Jesus is God’s cry for mankind to stop it.

Salvation. Saviour. Related words.

2 Corinthians 7:10
Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation. So what’s that got to do with Jesus? Jesus is the saviour. Jesus gave his life for his friends. That’s what he said he would do.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Jesus had said that his words are everlasting life.

John 5:24
Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

Jesus put his own life on his words. The Father agreed with him because Jesus is risen.

We see it said that salvation is in what Jesus did and not in what we do.

2 Corinthians 7:10
Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

Repentance is for us to do. Jesus can’t repent for us. So there is something for us to do. Look at what sin did to our greatest friend. We should be horrified.

God bless

 

[snarflemike]

I’ll just touch on a few thoughts.

First, God didn’t become incarnate just to die on the cross. I think it’s revealing that during the Creed we bow in reverence, not at the part where Jesus suffers and dies, but where he becomes incarnate. At that point, God joined himself fully and forever with us, his creatures, and gave us a High Priest forever before the Father.

As to why Jesus suffered and died (which, as has been pointed out, was fitting if not absolutely necessary), I always come back to the points of (a) demonstrating in the strongest possible way that sin leads to death, (b) demonstrating that God’s love for us knows no bounds, will stop at nothing to bring about our sanctification and union with him, and (c) demonstrating that the thing we fear most, suffering and death, has been conquered and is not something to be feared at all. Those are 3 powerful lessons that a simple “you are forgiven” could never teach.

God is not just, or even primarily, interested in forgiving our sins. He is interested in working within us, with our consent and cooperation, a complete transformation. He is interested in making us perfect and holy as he is perfect and holy. Everything he does should be viewed in this light.

 

[ericc]

But why does there have to be a human-divine sacrifice for sin? Given that purgatory and hell clearly exist (according to the Church), Christ’s sacrifice is only part of the story. You also need to have faith, do good works, be a member of the church (mainly by taking part in the sacraments) and repent. It all adds up.
The sacrifice of Jesus seems like a dramatic add-on. It hardly seems necessary. Why not just send souls to purgatory, as they mostly are anyway, and others to hell, and a few straight to Heaven, and bypass the whole “Jesus sacrifice” idea altogether?
I’ve always failed to see the necessary connection between Jesus’s sacrifice and my salvation.
I know what most people will say. The post by Eric (3.06am) is the standard response–exactly what the church would say.
I’m saying there is *no logical need *for God to take on humanity and die a human death in order to secure our salvation. God could have saved us by a simple act of will, and I believe he does. Sure, we wouldn’t have the story of Jesus: narratives like this are powerful and inspire people, but they’re not actually necessary.
If God loves me, he loves me in all my faults, in all my sinfulness. If he forgives our sins, then he forgives, and that’s it. We just need to be repentant.
I don’t believe Jesus achieved anything that couldn’t have been achieved far more simply.

Because he doesn’t gloss over sins. He is a just God. He punishes. Look at the Canaanites. Some people may only like the lovey dovey side of God and play down the God that gets angry and punishes. Even if you break your neighbours windows/Porsche, and he forgives you, you still owe damages. A spoilt brat may claim “I said I am sorry!” but you don’t get out of jail until you have paid the very last penny. It is clear that God forgives us for the hurt we caused him when we repent, but it is also clear that the last penny still need to be paid. Like any parent, we punish our kids when they do wrong. The bigger the wrong, the harsher the punishment. But that doesn’t stop parents loving their kids. The kids may have to break open their piggy bank to pay for the neighbour’s broken windows and if that is insufficient, Mom/Pop pays right?

So the next question is why Christ? He punishes the Canaanites and a number of very nasty people with death in the OT. In the NT, folks who cheated the Holy Spirit paid with their lives. The sins of the world past,present and future was paid by Christ’s death. If God were to “take it easy” on Christ, he would not be a just and impartial God. If not Christ, who else can bear this burden? The whole of mankind will have to pay. Perhaps if you can find a perfect sinless ordinary man who is willing and able to bear the past/present/future sins of others, Christ may be spared. But such a person doesn’t exist. Perhaps if the wages of sin is not death, Christ would not have to die. But it has been decreed very early on that the penalty for sin is death. Latecomers may complain about that but it is not for you or me to decide what should be the wages for sin or decreed that God’s love should “logically” do away with punishment.

Lastly, you said what I wrote to be standard response from the church. If what I wrote is true as to the nature of God as we understand him, the truth can come from anyone, not only the church. A non-convert reading the Bible as a non-fiction book could have come to the same conclusion as well.

 

[hansard]

Ericc, it is still worthwhile discussing such ideas. I believe in challenging the standard interpretations of scripture and I view everything through a cynical and sceptical eye. The Church, with all its mumbo-jumbo incantations and pious platitudes, has utterly failed to connect with me on any real level. That’s why I question things and come to my own conclusions.