Is faith necessary?

[elysianverse]

Suppose you commit a crime and I take the blame for you. I am punished, you’re saved. My sacrifice has saved you, period. Even if you hate me, have no faith in me, you’re still saved by my sacrifice.

And Jesus died for our sins…

 

[GratefulFred]

Suppose you commit a crime and I take the blame for you. I am punished, you’re saved. My sacrifice has saved you, period. Even if you hate me, have no faith in me, you’re still saved by my sacrifice.

And Jesus died for our sins…

Two missing elements.

1. There are those who commit crimes and are NOT sorry and do not seek forgiveness and do not intend to make retribution. Your act of Love may have ‘saved’ the criminal in THIS life, but not in the coming Eternal Life.
2. God is indeed Merciful. But He is also a Just God. Christ spoke of Heaven and Hell. It is illogical to think that one can do wrong as he pleases because a Merciful God will allow him into Heaven anyway. Justice requires the separation of the sheep from the goats in Eternity.

Read more carefully exactly what Christ said.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Suppose you commit a crime and I take the blame for you. I am punished, you’re saved. My sacrifice has saved you, period. Even if you hate me, have no faith in me, you’re still saved by my sacrifice.

And Jesus died for our sins…

If you serve my jail time fine. I didn’t have to go to jail. The sin I committed is against God and not you. If I don’t go to confession and get absolution I’m damned if it was a serious offense.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Suppose you commit a crime and I take the blame for you. I am punished, you’re saved. My sacrifice has saved you, period. Even if you hate me, have no faith in me, you’re still saved by my sacrifice.

And Jesus died for our sins…

Greetings Elysianverse [and to Catholic Answers Forum],

There is a Scripture somewhere, and I hope and would ask that the more Bible savy people would hand on verse and chapter, that says

Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

Faith is the first step.

You cannot be saved without belief. It does not work this way.

With your scenario, you might have saved me on this earth, but I will face a far worse judgement seat that earth could offer. No other human being can save us from that judgement throne, only Jesus, the God Man, can save us if we believe in Him and do His will.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[jbravo71]

Read also the book of Hebrews Saint paul says that without faith it is impossible to please Him HEBREWS 11:6…please read the whole ch for it is known as the faith chapter god bless

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Read also the book of Hebrews Saint paul says that without faith it is impossible to please Him HEBREWS 11:6…please read the whole ch for it is known as the faith chapter god bless

Greetings Jbrabo71,

Thank you for the chapater and verse.

God Bless You,
Anathama Sit

 

[Khalid]

Suppose you commit a crime and I take the blame for you. I am punished, you’re saved. My sacrifice has saved you, period. Even if you hate me, have no faith in me, you’re still saved by my sacrifice.

And Jesus died for our sins…

That kind of substitutionary atonement is a false, heretical theory proposed by John Calvin, based on a modification of Anselm’s satisfaction theory (the most commonly held in the Western church today), and is not Catholic, nor even heterodox - it is heresy. Commonly called “penal substitution”, it implies that God punished Jesus instead of us, as a mere proxy; that we are not imputed righteousness, but that we are merely declared righteous by a legal fiction (as our souls are still impure, but have a white coat of spay-paint added to them by Jesus): since God can not justly punish twice for the same offense, this - penal substitutionary atonement - leads logically, inescapably and necessarily to 1) double predestination and reprobation, 2) once saved always saved/perseverance of the saints, 3) unconditional election, 4) irresistible grace, and with less absolute “this must follow” logical power, to 5) limited atonement (or, alternately, universalism), 6) lack of free will, 7) non-imputation of righteousness, etc.

That is, if one holds penal substitution to be true, the only logical conclusion is to become a Calvinist: Calvin took penal substitution to its logical conclusion, and ended up with TULIP: these points necessarily follow from penal substitution; that is, penal substitution is a necessary and sufficient cause for the central positions of Calvinist/Reformed theology. There are other, broader, philosophical and ethical considerations that he did not analyze. However, it should be painfully obvious that the conclusions are not in the least compatible with Catholic theology, Catholic teaching, or Catholicism in general, and, insofar as penal substitution goes, are completely alien to the spirit of Christ’s Church.

In describing atonement, even some Catholic writers I have read fall in to repeating this heresy unknowingly, or due to poor choice of language, likely due to its similarity to the orthodox satisfaction theory (which I personally do not hold, but the Western church, by and large, does). One must be careful when it comes to theories of atonement, as this specific area of soteriology is one of - no, the - most complex, Byzantine, and fraught areas of all of theology, which, in the most common formulations and in differentiating them in a way that brings out the glaring differences, greatly depends on the kind of precise logic as used by the late Scholastics: it’s not an exercise for most.

Check out the common and orthodox satisfaction theory of Anselm, the Christus Victor theory (which is the common understanding in Eastern Orthodox theology, as compared to satisfaction in Western theology), the recapitulation theory of St Irenaeus, and the ransom theory (which I myself hold, sometimes in in a modified form, drawing of elements of the recapitulation theory and Christus Victor theory in to it, with elements of Moral Influence, which, while heresy on its own, can be combined in a common-sense manner with other orthodox theories, without lessening their orthodoxy. Depending on the day and the theology I’m currently reading, sometimes I hold a view where Christus Victor is predominant). I’m currently reading Anselm’s work but I don’t think I’m going to be converted to satisfaction anytime soon, but who, beyond God, can tell?

One should also see, to understand, the non-orthodox (ranging from heterodox to heretical) governmental theory, the moral influence theory, the pental substitution theory, and the general (often combined with penal substitution, although, in theory, it can, like moral influence, be brought in as a meta-theory of atonement with virtually any theory), limited atonement.

 

[JRKH]

Suppose you commit a crime and I take the blame for you. I am punished, you’re saved. My sacrifice has saved you, period. Even if you hate me, have no faith in me, you’re still saved by my sacrifice.

Saved for what??
Saved to move into your house with you and your family?
Even if I hate you and have no faith in you are you still going to invite me into your house to live with you forever?

This is where your analogy fails. We are to repent - to turn away from evil, to change. How does one do this while hating him who took the blame?

The one who hates and has no faith in he who took the blame, will simply continue on their evil way - commit another crime, be caught and, because now there is no one to take the blame for him, will perish.

And Jesus died for our sins…

Yes He did. So we should repent.

Peace
James

 

[empther]

Since God is infinite, a sin against God requires an infinite reparation. This was accomplished by the sacrifice of Jesus who was Son of God. But some people through no fault of there own don’t know Jesus and obviously don’t have faith in him. Are they lost? Not necessarity.

It is a constant teaching of the Catholic Church that any man can be saved as long as he follows his conscience. God implants a conscience in every man “lest any be lost”. This conscience consists in the intellect’s recognition of right and wrong.

http://old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.shtml#847

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

The “Supremacy of Conscience” determines whether we are saved or lost. That it, if we follow our conscience, we will be saved despite invincible ignorance. God wills all men to be saved, even though they may have no concept of God at all.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04268a.htm

 

[fhansen]

Suppose you commit a crime and I take the blame for you. I am punished, you’re saved. My sacrifice has saved you, period. Even if you hate me, have no faith in me, you’re still saved by my sacrifice.

And Jesus died for our sins…

God’s purpose with the sacrifice of Jesus is to restore faith in Him-in God, in His existence, His love, His trustworthiness. This is so simply because faith was lost at the Fall. The Catechism tells us that trust died in man’s heart with the first sin of disobedience of God. *** If we don’t trust God, then we have** no God, for all practical purposes.* This is a destructive injustice-a disorder-something not meant to be. This is what constitutes man’s separation from his creator-a separation He gave us the freedom to achieve.

Faith is not a quasi-magical cure-all that merely saves us from punishment for sin. It’s our first response- the beginning step on our part to reconciliation with God in response to the Atonement. Once we believe again in God, then He can begin a work in us, the Potter molding the clay, until order and integrity are completely restored in us, each at a time. This is accomplished as we come to love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. But lack of faith precludes relationship/communion with God.

 

[jochoa]

In response to: “Is faith necessary?”

Faith is not only necessary, it is mandatory.
Please consider the following:
We think, therefore we do not know, therefore we have to have faith.

 

[jbravo71]

thanks for sharing never thought of it that way before

 

[empther]

In response to: “Is faith necessary?”

Faith is not only necessary, it is mandatory.
Please consider the following:
We think, therefore we do not know, therefore we have to have faith.

In that case, those born in circumstances where through no fault of their own they have no concept of God or knowledge of Jesus are doomed to be lost. That’s not right.

As I pointed out in my last post, it is the teaching of the Church that anybody can be saved as long as they follow their conscience.

A conscience may consist of nothing more that a secular code of standards with no reference to God. “It’s right to let people live. It’s wrong to kill.” If that kind of right/wrong code is all an individual has who through no fault of his own knows nothing about God, then if he follows his conscience God is satisfied and the man will be saved.
We could say the man has “faith in his conscience”, no matter how simple and incomplete his code of right and wrong may be.

 

[fhansen]

In response to: “Is faith necessary?”

Faith is not only necessary, it is mandatory.
Please consider the following:
We think, therefore we do not know, therefore we have to have faith.

I’m not sure about this. Does thinking imply ignorance? Does God think?

 

[jochoa]

In that case, those born in circumstances where through no fault of their own they have no concept of God or knowledge of Jesus are doomed to be lost. That’s not right.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I had no intention on limiting the basis of the faith, nor was there any intention on stating that faith in the Truths of Roman Catholicism is a requirement for salvation.

I was intending for the statement to be simple and vast. Just as you stated, a person who knows nothing about God, still has “faith in…” Even to the person who is only willing to state, “I know, I do not know.” S/he is limiting the knowledge to a circular reasoning, which is unwilling to consider the unknown in attempts to avoid thinking, which in turn allows him/her to believe s/he does not have faith in anything.

Thanks for the food for thought! I enjoyed writing further on this topic!

I’m not sure about this. Does thinking imply ignorance? Does God think?

Excellent Questions! I really enjoy pondering the answer to second one. I hope my responses are not too confusing, please note: this is my first time to share these concepts.

Please consider the following:
If we apply the definition of ignorance as the lack of knowledge. Then the instance a person thinks, s/he is demonstrating a lack of knowledge. For if the knowledge was complete, s/he would not think, s/he would know.

Regarding Does God Think?
Given that you asked this question in the present tense, I would have to say no. God Knows all that is to happen from the beginning of time to the end of time. He knows that His plan to fulfill His desire of bringing free-willed creations to choose to Truly Love as He Loves will work.
Had you asked this question in the past tense, I would say I am not sure. I tend to think yes because based on the following interpretation of, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” What I find extremely engaging regarding this loop is the the lack of, “In the beginning was God and the Word.” God intentionally leaves out, “In the beginning was God.” Which would indicate that the Word existed before God. But since the second declaration is that, “the Word was with God…” this implies that God existed before the Word. And since the final declaration is, “The same was in the beginning with God.” We are left with a loop which claims there was something before God. However, what is amazing about this loop is that it is the Wisdom of all things that come into existence. Please consider the following:
If you interpret Word as unchanging forces and God as the single source of creations, you are left with a statement that explains how any creation comes into existence: “In the beginning(before the creation) there were unchanging forces/laws, the unchanging forces acted together with the single source of the creation, and the unchanging force was a single source of creations.” In other words, “Before a person is conceived: In the beginning were laws of spiritual, emotional, and physical natures, and the laws acted with the single cell/egg of the person, and the laws were a single source of creation.” This can be applied to any thing that comes into existence.
Given all of this: One can interpret the Word as the Law of Love and God as Jesus Christ. And when one does this, Jesus Christ could have either thought of what was needed to bring free-willed creations to choose to Love as He Loves, or He could have known instantaneously.
And had you asked in the future tense, I would have answered yes. Based on my interpretations of Jesus Christ’s desires and the blessings of living in the Kingdom of Heaven, namely limitless happiness, then I believe the following:
Prior to creation, Jesus Christ was living in a state of perfect happiness. However, He wanted to experience a limitless happiness. In order to achieve a limitless happiness, there is a requirement of not knowing as to what might happen, hence the necessity of another life of which He does not know what s/he is thinking. However, He does not want to experience a limitless happiness at the cost of losing peace in any of the members of His Kingdom, therefore the members must perfect patience as to not sacrifice any peace, just as He is perfectly patient. If the members of His Kingdom will freely perfect patience and kindness, He can trust that the use of their free-will will achieve the goal of limitless happiness without damaging peace. Therefore, at the end of time, in the Absolute Kingdom of Heaven, where the resurrected body and soul of Jesus Christ is currently, we will be taught how to be as perfectly patient and kind as He is, and will be able to help him experience limitless happiness as He will help us experience limitless happiness.

Thank you tremendously for asking the questions! I greatly enjoyed pondering them and look forward to further discussion!

Thoughts?