Jesus didn't have to be crucified for our sins?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Veronica97
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Veronica97

Guest
I just finished reading an article in our diocesan newspaper entitled “God Willed His Son’s Faithfulness, Not His Crucifixion.” The article says that God did not require Jesus to die in order that we be forgiven for our sins. This is what I have always believed–that Jesus took the punishment we as sinners deserve. The article says that God sent His Son to bring His love into the world and that He became human in order to sympathize with our weaknesses. I agree with those things; however, I thought He also sent His Son to die for us. The article goes on to say that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light b/c their works were evil. I’ll agree with that too. I know that God never wills sin, but He gives mankind free Will and can bring good out of evil that others do to us. The final point of the article is that God did not will His Son’s crucifixion, but He Willed His faithfulness. Does that mean that if Jesus had come into the world and lived a sinless life, totally faithful to God, but had died an old man peacefully in His sleep, that we would still be saved from all our sins? Something about this article bothers me, yet, I am willing to accept it if this is what the Church truly teaches. Any thoughts on this?
 
varunrayen said:
Is it possible to share the article through any means?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry–I cannot seem to find the article online, but in the diocesan newspaper it says it is from FaithAlive! Catholic News Service, and the article is written by Father Lawrence Mick.
 
Well, since ANYTHING is possible to God, it is logical to suggest he could have thought of another way to save us besides Jesus on the cross, but for some reason, God thought that method was best.

Whats really confusing is when Jesus is on the cross, he tells God, forgive them, they know not what they do, but if they did in fact know what they were doing (in other words, if they KNEW that by crucifying Jesus, this single act was going to save all of mankind), I think they would have went ahead and did it anyway as they would have seen the crucifixion as a good thing, as it is going to save all of mankind.
 
mikekle said:
Well, since ANYTHING is possible to God, it is logical to suggest he could have thought of another way to save us besides Jesus on the cross, but for some reason, God thought that method was best.

Whats really confusing is when Jesus is on the cross, he tells God, forgive them, they know not what they do, but if they did in fact know what they were doing (in other words, if they KNEW that by crucifying Jesus, this single act was going to save all of mankind), I think they would have went ahead and did it anyway as they would have seen the crucifixion as a good thing, as it is going to save all of mankind.
Click to expand...
I suspect he meant, if they knew they were crucifying the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The murder (by unjust execution) of The Most Innocent Guy Ever, Who Also Happened to Be God, was an evil act by the people who did it, whether or not God intended it for the ultimate good.

Usagi
 
That is one of the misteries of God, He is able to use even our evil acts to in the end bring about good from them.
Without God’s intervention (by taking on Himself the just punishment for our sins) we would be condemned to be forever separated from Him.
Without Jesus death on the cross we would go on our destructive path to oblivion.
He gave us the path and the means to free ourselves from our chains but always respecting our free will to do so. If we so choose He is there with His open arms to welcome us.

As for the paper you mentioned I do not see any contradictions, after all God does not will evil for any one. On the contrary He loves us. He loves us so much that He sent His only son to us knowing before hand He would be murdered.
The problem is, had He not sent His son we would be forever separated from Him.
He chose to show us what the true meaning of love is. Offer His life in ransom for our freedom.
Why cannot we love Him with the same level of commitment?

–
 
Veronica97 said:
Does that mean that if Jesus had come into the world and lived a sinless life, totally faithful to God, but had died an old man peacefully in His sleep, that we would still be saved from all our sins.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he he merely meant that Jesus had free will and could have chosen not to be crucified, leaving us all unredeemed? I’ve never heard anyone (reliable) say that the sacrifice of the Cross was unnecessary for our redemption.

It is important to read articles in diocesan newspapers, even those written by priests, with discernment. Sometimes they do not accurately reflect church teaching. Without seeing the article, or knowing anything of Fr. Mick’s reputation, it’s not possible to tell if his article is incorrect, or merely unclear. The best thing you can do is look to see what the Catechism has to say on this issue.
 
Veronica97 said:
I just finished reading an article in our diocesan newspaper entitled “God Willed His Son’s Faithfulness, Not His Crucifixion.” The article says that God did not require Jesus to die in order that we be forgiven for our sins. This is what I have always believed–that Jesus took the punishment we as sinners deserve. The article says that God sent His Son to bring His love into the world and that He became human in order to sympathize with our weaknesses. I agree with those things; however, I thought He also sent His Son to die for us. The article goes on to say that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light b/c their works were evil. I’ll agree with that too. I know that God never wills sin, but He gives mankind free Will and can bring good out of evil that others do to us. The final point of the article is that God did not will His Son’s crucifixion, but He Willed His faithfulness. Does that mean that if Jesus had come into the world and lived a sinless life, totally faithful to God, but had died an old man peacefully in His sleep, that we would still be saved from all our sins? Something about this article bothers me, yet, I am willing to accept it if this is what the Church truly teaches. Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
This article is an attack on Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.

It follows from the denial of Original Sin. It contradicts Divine Revelation. It assumes that Catholics do not understand the meaning of Adam’s obedience nor do Catholics understand the difference between the Creator and the human creature.

This article is an attempt to discredit the actions of Jesus Christ. Eventually, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist becomes less important. As for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass…

This article is a mixture of elephants and oranges.
 
‘He humbled himself, becoming obedient [to the Father] unto death, even to the death of the cross.’ (Philippians 2:8)

St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that every action of Jesus, God Incarnate, is infinitely perfect. In this sense, He did *far, far *more for us than was merely necessary to redeem us. But the excessive love of God willed the folly of the Passion and death of Our Lord, which is the height of love. In this sense, it was necessary for Our Lord to endure what He did. The will of Jesus and the Father are one.
 
This is brought up from time to time and is really nothing new.
Any act of Jesus was an act of God’s son and that in and of itself is an act of eternal merit before his father. So if the Father had merely willed his son to live that would be enough to redeem us.

However the fact is that God the Father willed that his son die crucified. For this is what Jesus prayed about in the garden of olives the night before he died…“Father, if it be thy will, let this chalice pass from me.” So it was the will of his Father that he die on the cross for our salvation.

We might also consider that there are many things that God has willed that may well have been changed by God if he so chose, but then who knows the mind of God, or who can tell God what is best? The fact that he willed his son to die in this way while being able to do it in someother way, shows all the more how much more he chose to prove his love for all of us in the most convincing way. Saying “I love you” is one thing, but this type of suffering shows how true this is, and is the proof.

According to St. Catherine of Siena, God revealed to her that he suffered on the cross so that noone could doubt his love for them, and that even the hardest of men could see his love and be moved by it. And that this was the best way to convince everyone so that no soul would be lost.

The Sacred Heart of Jesus is indeed true because he freely chose by this means to save us by the piercing of his Heart. And his Heart becomes a fountain of mercy and love to all generations.

“Like a shepherd he feeds his flock and gathers the lambs in his arms, holding them carefully to his heart…” Hymn
 
LittleRose said:
Perhaps he he merely meant that Jesus had free will and could have chosen not to be crucified, leaving us all unredeemed? I’ve never heard anyone (reliable) say that the sacrifice of the Cross was unnecessary for our redemption.

It is important to read articles in diocesan newspapers, even those written by priests, with discernment. Sometimes they do not accurately reflect church teaching. Without seeing the article, or knowing anything of Fr. Mick’s reputation, it’s not possible to tell if his article is incorrect, or merely unclear. The best thing you can do is look to see what the Catechism has to say on this issue.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Little Rose, for your suggestion to look in the catechism. It told me everything I needed to know, which is basically, YES, Jesus’s death was God’s plan.

II. CHRIST’S REDEMPTIVE DEATH IN GOD’S PLAN OF SALVATION

“Jesus handed over according to the definite plan of God”

599 Jesus’ violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God’s plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."393 This Biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God.394

“He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures”

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401
 
fred_conty said:
We might also consider that there are many things that God has willed that may well have been changed by God if he so chose, but then who knows the mind of God, or who can tell God what is best? The fact that he willed his son to die in this way while being able to do it in someother way, shows all the more how much more he chose to prove his love for all of us in the most convincing way. Saying “I love you” is one thing, but this type of suffering shows how true this is, and is the proof.
Click to expand...
Fred, what you shared is also affirmed in the catechism.

God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love

604 By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins."408 God "shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."409

605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."410 He affirms that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many”
 
Usagi said:
I suspect he meant, if they knew they were crucifying the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Click to expand...
?? well, thats a weird thing for him to have said then…after all, upon his birth, he knew what was going to happen, and really, it HAD to happen, I dont think God or Jesus would have even let someone put a stop to it.
 
Veronica97 said:
I just finished reading an article in our diocesan newspaper entitled “God Willed His Son’s Faithfulness, Not His Crucifixion.”

snip

The article says that God sent His Son to bring His love into the world and that He became human in order to sympathize with our weaknesses.
Click to expand...
Please check out John 3: 16-17. Notice the words “eternal life.”

To understand this article properly one needs to look for what is missing. What does the article’s idea that “God sent His Son to bring His love into the world and that He became human in order to sympathize with our weaknesses.” say about eternal life?

If all Jesus had to do was to be faithful, how does that specifically reconcile humanity with Divinity? Actually, the real question is – What really happened that would require Jesus Christ to assume human nature?

To become human in order to sympathize with our weaknesses? So the State of Original Sin is simple weakness. Not according to the Catholic Church. And why would God have to become human in order to understand (sympathizing) the human nature He created? If God needs to send His son in order to bring His love into world, that sounds more like a second-rate Creator.

People should be uneasy with this article.

I am sure someone will say that everybody knows all the nitty-gritty about Original Sin and the doctrines surrounding the real Adam who freely chose to scorn his Creator with his act of deliberate, with full knowledge, disobedience. Not in this century.

Not all wolves in sheep’s clothing use the same tools to hack away our Catholicism. However, the ultimate goal is usually to chip away at Christ’s Divinity because that Divinity is important to the belief that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. How should that name Holy Sacrifice of the Mass be changed to indicate its step down to non-invasive faithfulness?

Going back to the sentence “To understand this article properly one needs to look for what is missing.” First, some technical points have to be examined. Technically, an article such as this one does not have to mention the reason which necessitated Christ’s divinity. And being faithful, technically, can indicate obedience, but faithfulness does not demand Crucifixion. Surely, Jesus would have known the difference between faithfulness and dying a horrific death.

Finally, technically, an ordinary human can be faithful to God, and can sympathize with other humans, and can explain God’s love in the world. That being the case, there is no reason this Jesus person has to be true God. This throws out chapter 6 of the Gospel of John.

To solve the problem of what is missing. The editor should have substituted an article that was more in keeping with the actual mission of Jesus Christ according to Catholic doctrines. On the other hand, maybe the fundamental Catholic doctrines surrounding Genesis 3:15 were unknown.
 
Veronica97 said:
I just finished reading an article in our diocesan newspaper entitled “God Willed His Son’s Faithfulness, Not His Crucifixion.” The article says that God did not require Jesus to die in order that we be forgiven for our sins. This is what I have always believed–that Jesus took the punishment we as sinners deserve. The article says that God sent His Son to bring His love into the world and that He became human in order to sympathize with our weaknesses. I agree with those things; however, I thought He also sent His Son to die for us. The article goes on to say that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light b/c their works were evil. I’ll agree with that too. I know that God never wills sin, but He gives mankind free Will and can bring good out of evil that others do to us. The final point of the article is that God did not will His Son’s crucifixion, but He Willed His faithfulness. Does that mean that if Jesus had come into the world and lived a sinless life, totally faithful to God, but had died an old man peacefully in His sleep, that we would still be saved from all our sins? Something about this article bothers me, yet, I am willing to accept it if this is what the Church truly teaches. Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Rom 5:8
Sin killed Jesus: God, perfect innocence, died at the hands of His own creation due to human self-righteousness and pride, due to humans proving they wanted to be rid of God even once they’ve encountered Him face to face. The light came into the world but man preferred darkness. This dramatizes the sheer insanity of sin, and can serve to convict us of it as we come to repentance, looking upon the One we’ve slain, He who was hated without reason. The resurrection then caps it off, showing God’s will for all men, for all of us sinners as we turn back to Him. Christ’s passion and death shows His love, what God’s willing to do for our sake.
 
Please read,
Isaiah 55: 8.
1Corinthians 15:3-5.
Romans ^;26
Isaiah 64:6.
Romans 3:23.
Genesis 3:15.
2 Corinthians 5:21/
Isaiah 53: 1-12.
John 1:29.
Psalm 16:10.
 
mikekle said:
Well, since ANYTHING is possible to God, it is logical to suggest he could have thought of another way to save us besides Jesus on the cross, but for some reason, God thought that method was best.

Whats really confusing is when Jesus is on the cross, he tells God, forgive them, they know not what they do, but if they did in fact know what they were doing (in other words, if they KNEW that by crucifying Jesus, this single act was going to save all of mankind), I think they would have went ahead and did it anyway as they would have seen the crucifixion as a good thing, as it is going to save all of mankind.
Click to expand...
How could they possibly have **known **that? :confused:
 
mikekle said:
Right, They couldnt have known…and yet Jesus said what he said on the cross…"Father, forgive them, they know not what they do’.
Click to expand...
Jesus was crying out in His agony as a man, not as the Son of God. He was praying for them because it was diabolically evil to crucify Him after having consoled and cured people without doing anything wrong. He was also praying for us because we don’t know the full extent of the harm we do. He was dying for all of us…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top