If Jesus took the just punishment for our sins

[Marcus_Red]

… shouldn’t he be in Hell now, suffering eternal damnation?

 

[LilyM]

No - for one, Hell is, in essence, a place/state of being where God is absent, a place/state of being that involves being exiled from His presence.

Jesus being God it’s a logical impossibility for Him ever be absent from Himself or exiled from His own presence, isn’t it?

What He suffered, while no less painful or severe a punishment than the pains of eternal damnation, had to be different in kind from ours.

 

[East_and_West]

… shouldn’t he be in Hell now, suffering eternal damnation?

You have to be careful of your atonement theology. What you are suggesting is more Protestant than Catholic. What Actually happened: Humanity had turned away from God and had to completely submitt itself back to God. However, since humanity was fallen, no human person could do this. Thus, God the Son, who is perfect, took on human nature and submitted completely and absolutely to God, even to the point of death. When he did that as our representaitve, he restablished Communion between God and Humanity. The willingness of God the Son to do his Father’s will, as man, even unto death, personally moved God, (or moved us as God cannot be moved) and drew us back into a relationship with our God.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You have to be careful of your atonement theology. What you are suggesting is more Protestant than Catholic. What Actually happened: Humanity had turned away from God and had to completely submitt itself back to God. However, since humanity was fallen, no human person could do this. Thus, God the Son, who is perfect, took on human nature and submitted completely and absolutely to God, even to the point of death. When he did that as our representaitve, he restablished Communion between God and Humanity. The willingness of God the Son to do his Father’s will, as man, even unto death, personally moved God, (or moved us as God cannot be moved) and drew us back into a relationship with our God.

This is correct. Protestans believe in something called Penal Substitution, where they believe Jesus took the legal punishment our sins deserved. This means He took the temporal (physical death) and eternal punishments due to sin, which means Jesus had to be damned in our place. Many famous Protestans (eg Luther, Calvin, etc) are clear on this.

This is unacceptable, blasphemy, and unbiblical and Catholics rightly reject it. The Catholic view is called Satisfaction in which God’s wrath is turned away by good works. Christ performed the ultimate good work of offering up his life.

 

[Marcus_Red]

Thanks for the replies.

So, Jesus did not take the just penalty for our sins, he merely submitted himself to the will of God (i.e. himself)?

Why was it then necessary to be crucified? Surely he could have told himself to do something less uncomfortable? All he had to do was submit to the instructions and all would be fine again.

Marcus

 

[Centos]

Thanks for the replies.

So, Jesus did not take the just penalty for our sins, he merely submitted himself to the will of God (i.e. himself)?

Why was it then necessary to be crucified? Surely he could have told himself to do something less uncomfortable? All he had to do was submit to the instructions and all would be fine again.

Marcus

Here’s a good answer from St. Thomas Aquinas –

On the contrary, St. Augustine says (De Trin. xiii): “There was no other more suitable way of healing our misery” than by the Passion of Christ.

I answer that, Among means to an end that one is the more suitable whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful to such end. But in this that man was delivered by Christ’s Passion, many other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man’s salvation. In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says (Romans 5:8): “God commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us.” Secondly, because thereby He set us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are requisite for man’s salvation. Hence it is written (1 Peter 2:21): “Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps.” Thirdly, because Christ by His Passion not only delivered man from sin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss, as shall be shown later (48, 1; 49, 1, 5). Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to 1 Corinthians 6:20: “You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body.” Fifthly, because it redounded to man’s greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 15:57): “Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” It was accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ’s Passion than simply by God’s good-will.

newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm#article1

May God be with you

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Thanks for the replies.

So, Jesus did not take the just penalty for our sins, he merely submitted himself to the will of God (i.e. himself)?

Why was it then necessary to be crucified? Surely he could have told himself to do something less uncomfortable? All he had to do was submit to the instructions and all would be fine again.

Marcus

He did something called making Satisfaction, that is reparations for sin. It can be understood as taking the penalty, like if you had to make up for anther’s faults, but it was not a transfer of the death penalty or anything like that as Penal Substitution wrongly teaches.
Take this excellent example from Moseseut 9:16 When I looked, I saw that you had sinned against the LORD your God; you had made for yourselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. You had turned aside quickly from the way that the LORD had commanded you. 17 So I took the two tablets and threw them out of my hands, breaking them to pieces before your eyes. 18 Then once again I fell prostrate before the LORD for forty days and forty nights; I ate no bread and drank no water, because of all the sin you had committed, doing what was evil in the LORD’s sight and so provoking him to anger. 19 I feared the anger and wrath of the LORD, for he was angry enough with you to destroy you. But again the LORD listened to me. 20 And the LORD was angry enough with Aaron to destroy him, but at that time I prayed for Aaron too.
Moses was forced to do very inconvenient acts of reparation to turn away God’s wrath from the idol they made. Notice Moses made atonement but did not have to have God’s wrath turned on himself, Penal Substitution states God’s anger and wrath would have to be shifted on Moses (Jesus) in the sinner’s place.

Also see the excellent quote by Centos.

 

[Marcus_Red]

Hi Centos,

Here’s a good answer from St. Thomas Aquinas –
But in this that man was delivered by Christ’s Passion, many other things besides deliverance from sin concurred for man’s salvation.

Aquinas gives a list of useful consequences of Christ’s particular actions in getting himself crucified, but does not explain how getting himself crucified was necessary.

The substutionary sacrifice theory at least makes sense in principle, if not in its details. How otherwise does getting yourself crucified make man reconciled to God? Are a man’s sins only deserving of a few hours on a cross and a couple of days dead?

Regards,

Marcus

 

[Marcus_Red]

Hi Catholic Dude,

Moses was forced to do very inconvenient acts of reparation to turn away God’s wrath from the idol they made. Notice Moses made atonement but did not have to have God’s wrath turned on himself, Penal Substitution states God’s anger and wrath would have to be shifted on Moses (Jesus) in the sinner’s place.

I don’t recall the bit where God tells Moses that he must spend forty days without food and water (did he relax and eat in the evenings btw?), that seems to have been Moses’ own idea. It looks more like Moses indulging in a bit of grovelling rather than submitting to the will of God. If he were to have submitted to God’s will then he would not have attempted to change God’s mind.

Regards,

Marcus

 

[Yours_Truly]

Aquinas gives a list of useful consequences of Christ’s particular actions in getting himself crucified, but does not explain how getting himself crucified was necessary.

The substutionary sacrifice theory at least makes sense in principle, if not in its details. How otherwise does getting yourself crucified make man reconciled to God? Are a man’s sins only deserving of a few hours on a cross and a couple of days dead?

Regards,

Marcus

Our sins are infinite and deserving of eternal punishment, not because of the finite sins committed by us, but because of the infinite magisty of God Who was offended. Since we are finite creatures, and God is an infinite being, we are incapable of making sufficient satisfaction for our sins. Any satisfaction we make is merely finite, whereas the offense against God was infinite - again, not because of the finite sin, but because of the infinite magesty of God who was offended.

In other words, our finite sins infinitely offend God, whereas our finite satisfaction is not of infinite value in repairing such an offence.

That is why God Himself became man. As man, God could make a sacrifice of infinite value that would satisfy the infinite magisty of God that was offended. In so doing, the justice of God was fully satisfied, which is something that a mere man could never do. The justice of God being satisfied, we can now have our sins forgiven, thereby avoiding the eternal punsishment due to them.

Why did Jesus have to be crucified? He didn’t. Being God, He could have satisfied the justice of God by less, but He chose to endure what He did for the reasons St. Thomas gave above.

 

[Marcus_Red]

Hi Yours Truly,

Our sins are infinite and deserving of eternal punishment, not because of the finite sins committed by us, but because of the infinite magisty of God Who was offended. Since we are finite creatures, and God is an infinite being, we are incapable of making sufficient satisfaction for our sins.

That does not make sense. How does a finite sin become infinite on account of God being infinite? Isn’t it the other way round? If God is infinite and our sins are finite then, relative to God, our sins are zero, not infinite.

Any satisfaction we make is merely finite, whereas the offense against God was infinite - again, not because of the finite sin, but because of the infinite magesty of God who was offended.

Why would an infinitely majestic God be offended by what a few small bipeds can do on a small planet far far away during the few short years they are alive? Such a petty attitude does not sit well with “infinite majesty”.

The justice of God being satisfied, we can now have our sins forgiven, thereby avoiding the eternal punsishment due to them.

So now you are saying that it is substitutional sacrifice after all, but that Jesus gets a different tarrif to the rest of us because, although he is a man, he can claim infinite privileges due to being God too.

Why did Jesus have to be crucified? He didn’t. Being God, He could have satisfied the justice of God by less, but He chose to endure what He did for the reasons St. Thomas gave above.

Well he didn’t endure very much, frankly, compared with what real people have had to put up with. A beating, a few hours on the cross, a couple days dead then back to heaven for tea and cookies.

Regards,

Marcus

 

[Yours_Truly]

That does not make sense. How does a finite sin become infinite on account of God being infinite? Isn’t it the other way round? If God is infinite and our sins are finite then, relative to God, our sins are zero, not infinite.

The sins would be infinite because they are committed against God. The greater the one offended, the greater the offense. Since God is infinite, a sin committed against Him is of far greater severity than one committed against another person, for example.

Why would an infinitely majestic God be offended by what a few small bipeds can do on a small planet far far away during the few short years they are alive? Such a petty attitude does not sit well with “infinite majesty”.

Because we would be slighting God. God gives a command and man says “forget you God, I’ll do what I want”. That will indeed offend the justice of God. If it didn’t, it would mean that God was not just, and therefore not perfect.

So now you are saying that it is substitutional sacrifice after all, but that Jesus gets a different tarrif to the rest of us because, although he is a man, he can claim infinite privileges due to being God too.

Believe it or not, a God-man is different than a regular man; and if a God-man makes a sacrifice for sins, the sacrifice is of infinitely more value than that of a normal man. If you can’t grasp that, I won’t be able to help you. A God-man can satisfy in one moment what a regular man cannot satisfy for all eternity.

Well he didn’t endure very much, frankly, compared with what real people have had to put up with.

WOW. That was pretty bad. I just hope you don’t think you are a Christian. If you are an Atheist it will be easier to understand such a comment. Jesus endured more than you will ever know, or more than you will ever have to endure until you arrive in hell.

A beating, a few hours on the cross, a couple days dead then back to heaven for tea and cookies.

There is a book written by a medical doctor about the crucifixion, using the Shroud of Turin as an additional guide. You really ought to read it to set yourself straight. What Jesus endured is more than you will ever realize until you arrive in hell, at which time you will experience suffering beyond your imagination.

Of course, there is also a slight chance that you will convert the True Faith, have your sins forgiven, and be saved. It seems unlikely, but anything is possible. I guess time will tell. Who knows, maybe you are actually of good will, properly disposed toward the truth, and God led you here to convert you.

 

[Brendan]

Hi Centos,

Aquinas gives a list of useful consequences of Christ’s particular actions in getting himself crucified, but does not explain how getting himself crucified was necessary.

Necessary, as in there were no other means, no. God is infinite and therefore ANY action of God’s is of infintite merit, the mearest twitch of a God’s finger (so to speak) may bring infinte Mercy and Grace.

So yes, God could have done any of an infinte number of things to bring about Redemption.

Where it becomes ‘necessary’ is that this was the BEST way ( as Aquinas demonstrated) and God, beinging infinitely wise and powerful, does not choose any way but the Best way to accomplish His Will.

 

[LilyM]

About 20 years ago there was a brand-new monorail built here in Sydney Australia. It broke down several times in the weeks after it opened - always because some tiny little part, worth a dollar at most in and of itself, would malfunction.

If a huge multi-million-dollar piece of state-of-the-art technology can grind to a screeching halt because of one little part not working properly, then who’s to say that the infinite God is incapable of either noticing or being affected by what a bunch of little bipeds are doing in an out-of-the-way corner of His universe?

He created the thing with a plan in mind, that plan depends on each part of creation doing its job. Humans and angels, unlike animals and plants, are capable of stuffing the thing up by refusing to do their job.

We’re the opposite of petty, by the way - we’re made in His own image and likeness, uniquely among all creation.

 

[hansard]

Well, of course he didn’t have to be crucified, did he? To achieve physical death, he could have been run over by a chariot, stabbed or drowned, or died of disease or old age…just about anything.

To me, the story is, basically:

a) that he avoided sin, and therefore didn’t have to die (“the wages of sin is death” and all that), and

b) that he nevertheless chose to die, simply to show that if you don’t sin, death has no hold over you (and because everybody has sinned, therefore, everybody has to die–Rom. 3:23), and

c) nothing to do with “saving people from sin”–in fact, sin has been allowed to continue, obviously and simply to show us how bad it can be and how self-destructive our actions are. When it gets to be REALLY bad, as in so bad that we are on the brink of destroying ourselves, then he will step in to restore everything, and

d) had Jesus ever sinned during his life, he would have died (like any other sinner) and not been resurrected. In short, he put his existence on the line in coming here in the first place. Of course, as God, he knew what it would take beforehand, and it would never be allowed to happen. But, having said that, he was severely tempted by the devil himself, at a time when he was physically weak. He did well to keep his wits about him.

Anyway, that’s my two bob’s worth on this matter. Feel free to throw any amount of scripture at me.

Thanks
Chris

 

[Marcus_Red]

Hi Yours Truly,

The sins would be infinite because they are committed against God. The greater the one offended, the greater the offense.

Oh, I see. So if I offend a tramp or some young schoolkid then that is a lesser offence than offending the chairman of a multinational corporation, is it? You’re just making this up.

God gives a command and man says “forget you God, I’ll do what I want”. That will indeed offend the justice of God. If it didn’t, it would mean that God was not just, and therefore not perfect.

If God were actually to give me a command then it might be worth while considering how I should respond. All I have heard so far is other *people *telling me that he has handed out some commands, and I have seen no evidence that they are telling the truth. Where is your evidence? In the meantime, your comment is irrelevant.

Believe it or not, a God-man is different than a regular man; and if a God-man makes a sacrifice for sins, the sacrifice is of infinitely more value than that of a normal man. If you can’t grasp that, I won’t be able to help you. A God-man can satisfy in one moment what a regular man cannot satisfy for all eternity.

You are wrong. According to the Athanasian Creed Christ was fully man, if he had special dispensation against having to pay the same penalty for sins then he was not fully man, he would not have all the attributes of a man. Nowhere does any creed say that Christ was exempt from the normal penalties (viz. eternal hellfire).

Jesus endured more than you will ever know, or more than you will ever have to endure until you arrive in hell.

Since you know nothing about me, that is a very strange comment.

What Jesus endured is more than you will ever realize until you arrive in hell, at which time you will experience suffering beyond your imagination.

Really? You are expecting to win your point by frightening me into conceding? Nice try.

Who knows, maybe you are actually of good will, properly disposed toward the truth, and God led you here to convert you.

Well, I am not trying to frighten you into agreeing with me, so that might count towards the good will bit, who knows?

Regards,

Marcus

 

[Lizziebel]

This is correct. Protestans believe in something called Penal Substitution, where they believe Jesus took the legal punishment our sins deserved. This means He took the temporal (physical death) and eternal punishments due to sin, which means Jesus had to be damned in our place. Many famous Protestans (eg Luther, Calvin, etc) are clear on this.

This is unacceptable, blasphemy, and unbiblical and Catholics rightly reject it. The Catholic view is called Satisfaction in which God’s wrath is turned away by good works. Christ performed the ultimate good work of offering up his life.

Growing up Protestant, I’d never heard of an idea such as penal substitution. It doesn’t make sense to think that Jesus took on all of the punishment our sins deserved, as He most certainly rose after 3 days. No eternal punishment there at all. Satisfaction is the concept that makes the most sense.

 

[Marcus_Red]

Hi Brendan,

Necessary, as in there were no other means, no. God is infinite and therefore ANY action of God’s is of infintite merit, the mearest twitch of a God’s finger (so to speak) may bring infinte Mercy and Grace.

So what’s with the great sacrifice if it actually wasn’t necessary? Is God nuts? He could have sorted the whole thing out without all this fuss. Just because Aquinas thinks it was best way doesn’t mean that it was, or does God only take advice from Aquinas?

How about God showing up, engaging in some sort of two-way dialogue, and getting some convergence on how we could all get along without annoying each other or getting killed by those blasted earthquakes he keeps sending? That would have been better.

Regards,

Marcus

 

[JimO]

… shouldn’t he be in Hell now, suffering eternal damnation?

Hell isn’t so much a “place” as it is an experience of the absence of God, which, by the way, is freely chosen by anyone who ends up in that state. An atheist friend once told me, “If your God exists, I’d spit in His face.” Well, that homed in precisely on the issue. God’s existence is not even relevent to him. He has rejected God and wants no part of God. If he persists in that desire to the end, he will get what he wants.

Regarding your point, unless you can begin to appreciate the humble deprivation God experienced by taking human form, beyond, as you put it, “A beating, a few hours on the cross, a couple days dead then back to heaven for tea and cookies”, then the Christian Faith will be and elusive puzzle. None of us can fully understand or explain the implications of a transcendant God taking human form, submitting Himself to the will of His creatures, and experiencing an agonizing death. As Pascal said, the mind is a cul de sac when it comes to understanding God. Faith picks up where intellect leaves off. Your posts suggest that you rely entirely on intellect, so your understanding will be insufficient unless you engage your spirit and accept, by faith, that there are profound truths that your mind will never understand through pure intellect.

By the way, have you ever suffered? I mean really suffered? I have and I’m sure it is nothing compared with crucifixion, and I can tell you that time is irrelevent. The duration of suffering is not as relevent as the degree of suffering. Suffering is an experience that is somewhat independent of time. So, your flippant references to the crucifixion are, frankly, insulting and evidence of a profound ignorance with respect to understanding the basics of the Christian Faith.

Are you really interested in answers or simply making sport?

 

[adstrinity]

Oh, I see. So if I offend a tramp or some young schoolkid then that is a lesser offence than offending the chairman of a multinational corporation, is it? You’re just making this up.

Careful. All are created in the image and likeness of God. A child is human, same as a beggar, same as a chairman. They are all equal in the eyes of God. Do not arbitrarily place worth on who you think has more.