Jesus Didn't have to Die?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, hope I don’t repeat anything. God is omnipotent so He could have just forgiven us all like that. But would that be the best way for Him to do it? First, by becoming man and suffering, He basically walked the walk so to speak. It made it so much easier for us to relate to Him.

Most importantly, however, it showed His love for us. The greatest act of love is self-sacrifice and God revealed His love in just that way.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Ok, hope I don’t repeat anything. God is omnipotent so He could have just forgiven us all like that. But would that be the best way for Him to do it? First, by becoming man and suffering, He basically walked the walk so to speak. It made it so much easier for us to relate to Him.

Most importantly, however, it showed His love for us. The greatest act of love is self-sacrifice and God revealed His love in just that way.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Hi Stone,

You said:
“God, according to His infinite holiness, could not simply “will” our salvation. It would not only go against His infinite holiness but His infinite justice.”
”There are things God cannot do. Such as, He cannot lie. He cannot go against His own holiness or justice. To simply “will” our salvation would go against His justice which had to be satisfied.”

*“I think that the real problem lies with the idea that He could have just “willed” our salvation. He could not have done such a thing. That would go against His holiness and would not satisfy His justice.”
*“Justice is a part of His divine nature. He cannot deny Himself. His justice is not some entity outside of Himself which is subject to Him. This argument is nonsensical.”
*
I read in your profile that your religion is “Biblicist.” I assume by this term you mean that you are a Bible-believing (like Catholics) Bible-only (unlike Catholics) Christian. Am I correct? If so, you’ve used philosophical arguments in the above quotes. Can you back-up your claims with Scripture or are you just giving us your philosophical opinion? I’m not trying to be argumentative. I’m just trying to discern where you’re coming from.

Thanks,
Gene
 
I am reading Karl’s book at this time and I have to admit that that assertion did in fact throw me for a loop! I think what is missed, especially by fundies is that Christ, the Messiah, did not come into existance when Jesus was conceived. Christ is eternal, through Him all was created. God knows all, He sees all of time as one, unlike us, the created who are limited. Before all creation, God knew His plan. Therefore, He could have willed a different means of human salvation. Simply willing our salvation would not have accomplished His purpose. We, who are bound by the carnal, need the visibility of Jesus’ suffering and subsequent resurrection in order to understand the enormity of our fall from grace and the generosity of Christ’s sacrifice.

At second glance, what Karl was saying is not that the human Jesus did not have die. As I understand it, Jesus’ salvific mission was planned before creation, therefore, it was in keeping with God’s plan. God could have done it differently, but He chose a way that we could see and understand. When the Jews were taken out of captivity in Egypt, they were quick to lose sight of what God had done for them. Through the very human suffering of Jesus, we have a constant signpost of God’s love for us. As long as we look to the crucified Jesus and His resurrection, we have a physical reminder of forgiveness and salvation. It is not some abstract willing of salvation, but a true sacrifice present to us even after 2000 years.
 
I was thinking about this on a bus journey the other day while re-reading the gospel reading for the Sunday coming. A rare opportunity for me to read in daytime.

Jesus prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass me by. Nevertheless, let it be as you, not I, would have it”
(Jerusalem Bible I assume, I’m copying this out of the missal we use here in the UK).

If it were possible, the prayer would have been granted. Jesus would not have had to suffer and die.

If it were possible, and Jesus did not have to die, then the Father would not have forced the Son to suffer and die needlessly.

Therefore, I reckon that Jesus did have to die. There was no other way.

Could God have just willed our salvation? Not without removing the demands of holiness and justice. Not without removing our own free choice. Not without going against the history of his relationships and covenants with people.

That verse quoted is amazing showing the humanity of Christ for me perhaps more than any other words he spoke. And a supreme example of obedience.
 
If Karl Keating wrote that Jesus did not have to die, he is wrong.

The Original Sin story is a “thin-sliced hypothetical.” It portrays what each would do with every single moral decision, but for the grace of the cross.

Outside of the grace of the cross, we are disgusting, alienated animals, good only for burning in Hellfire.

In effect, the “economics of salvation” are as follows.

God creates us to know, love and serve Him – to be His humble friend.

But, in our not-yet-saved state, the objective reality is that we will make the morally bad decision every single time, because in the absence of grace man, composed of a free will attached to hungry mortal flesh, receives only the (name removed by moderator)ut of the hungry mortal flesh: “FEED me! CLOTHE me! Give me SEX!”

God was fully aware of this at our creation. Out of divine love, He desired to supply us wiuth the grace of salvation.

But something gets in the way of that – God’s Own perfect justice, which is “in-and-of” God.

God’s Own justice functionally screams, “No! No grace! That is against JUSTICE. These pigs don’t get grace, and don’t get to shake My hand and be My friend, which grace will permit them to do, unless somebody PAYS FOR that grace!!!”

In a sense, God the Son raises His hand and says, “I will!”

God the Father accepts the offer, and in turn offers His Son to suffer torture and die, to pay the price for grace exacted by God’s Own perfect justice.

So, Karl Keating is wrong. God’s Own perfect justice required that Christ had to suffer and die, for God’s Own will for humans to be fulfilled.
 
It has always been taught by the Church that God could have reconciled us with himself in any number of ways he wanted. Augustine taught it, Aquinas taught it, that is the teaching now. There is an article in a past issue of this Rock magazine that discusses what Aquinas says about it.

The only reason why Christ had to die on the cross was because God had pre-ordained it to happen. He could not change what he had already known would happen.

The grace of the cross is one of the great benefits to the mode of reconciliation God chose. Another is that it demonstrates the love that God has for us. Another is that it demonstrates all of the virtues to man in the life and death of Jesus. Another is that through the passion Christ conquered the devil’s pride with the virtue of humility. It also redounded to mans higher dignity; it was man that fell into sin and it was a man that saved mankind.

These are most of the reasons Aquinas gives, and I think they are all great reasons.

How do you know what God’s justice screams? If you can tell me that, then you would be a pretty helpful person to know. That is knowledge that only God has.

A characteristic of God is that he is just. His justice is subject to him though. What is just is subject to him. God is the author of justice. He is the only being that is just in and of himself, so he decides what is just. Who is anyone to say God is unjust if he just says a man is forgiven without the passion? God would still be just because there is nothing higher than him that would declare him to be unjust.

The just judge will judge the just and the unjust with his justice.😃
 
I disagree with the concept that Christ didn’t have to die, if by that is meant “all other things being equal.” Human alienation from God, in Original Sin, tends to suffering and death. God’s perfect justice is, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” – suffering for suffering, death for death. No matter how much you might wanty the contrary to be true to avoid disagreeing with Karl Keating and Aquinas and Augustine, this is true. That is why Hell is called “the second death” in the Scriptures which our inspired Magisterium gave us. It addresses death. When God’s justice says, “There is Hell to pay!!!,” it means, “DEATH must be paid for with DEATH!!!” God’s Own unchangable justice – God’s unchangable “God-ness,” if you will – says, “DEATH must be paid for with DEATH!!!”

Jesus had to die, because that same justice was talking to HIM.
 
40.png
jimmy:
How do you know what God’s justice screams?
Click to expand...
I read the Bible which our inspired Magisterium gave to us. See Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21.

The Exodus and Deuteronomy verses are very, very clear. They begin with “LIFE FOR LIFE.” When God’s justice screams “life for life,” it is screaming for death, is it not?

That is what our Church teaches. That is why it gave us the Bible.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
I disagree with the concept that Christ didn’t have to die, if by that is meant “all other things being equal.” Human alienation from God, in Original Sin, tends to suffering and death. God’s perfect justice is, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” – suffering for suffering, death for death. No matter how much you might wanty the contrary to be true to avoid disagreeing with Karl Keating and Aquinas and Augustine, this is true. That is why Hell is called “the second death” in the Scriptures which our inspired Magisterium gave us. It addresses death. When God’s justice says, “There is Hell to pay!!!,” it means, “DEATH must be paid for with DEATH!!!” God’s Own unchangable justice – God’s unchangable “God-ness,” if you will – says, “DEATH must be paid for with DEATH!!!”

Jesus had to die, because that same justice was talking to HIM.
Click to expand...
I am not saying what I want to believe. I am saying what the Church teaches. When Augustine says, “We assert that the way whereby God deigned to deliver us by the man Jesus Christ, who is mediator between God and man, is both good and befitting the Divine dignity; but let us also show that other possible means were not lacking on God’s part, to whose power all things are equally subordinate.”

He is saying what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that God could have done it in other ways if he wanted. You are basically denying the omnipotence of God.

You are making an assumption when you claim to know God’s Justice. His justice is subject to him, his justice is not part of his nature. What is part of his nature is to be just, as in the verb.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
I read the Bible which our inspired Magisterium gave to us. See Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21.

The Exodus and Deuteronomy verses are very, very clear. They begin with “LIFE FOR LIFE.” When God’s justice screams “life for life,” it is screaming for death, is it not?

That is what our Church teaches. That is why it gave us the Bible.
Click to expand...
That is good that you read the bible, but we are not a sola scriptura Church. I am not denying the authority of scripture, but the long teaching of the Church is that God is omnipotent, as it says in the Nicene Creed. The authority of the Church supercedes that of someone reading the bible on there own and coming to there own conclusion.

I just want to add, I quoted Augustine in the last post. He is not claiming that God changes. If you want to see that he does not believe God is changing, read “On Christian Doctrine.” I think it is book I. He specifically talks about God being unchangeing and he argues that the unchanging is better than the changing.
 
40.png
jimmy:
The Church teaches that God could have done it in other ways if he wanted. You are basically denying the omnipotence of God.

You are making an assumption when you claim to know God’s Justice. His justice is subject to him, his justice is not part of his nature. What is part of his nature is to be just, as in the verb.
Click to expand...
“You are making an assumption when you claim to know God’s Justice.” Actually, I was reciting what my Church, and not you, taught me: See Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21. These verses are expressions of the Magisterium. You seem to be ignoring them.

“His justice is subject to him, his justice is not part of his nature. What is part of his nature is to be just, as in the verb.” I think that you think that you have hit upon a clever distinction, here. But it is not a distinction at all, And, please read the Catechism… ‘271 God’s almighty power is in no way arbitrary: “In God, power, essence, will, intellect, wisdom, and justice are all identical. Nothing therefore can be in God’s power which could not be in his just will or his wise intellect.”’

God can not bend justice, which demands “life for life,” does it not?

“The Church teaches that God could have done it in other ways if he wanted. You are basically denying the omnipotence of God.” If you can find where the Magisterium actually teaches that God could have violated the “life for life” rule which is identical with His will, and which is therefore “in and of” God, then it is one of those temporary mistaken teachings, like Pope Liberius’ conditional endorsement of Arianism which Liberius himself condemned at a later date.

So, lay it out: Go ahead: Quote it: Let’s see it: Show us where a Magisterial organ expressed the teaching that “God could have done it other ways if he wanted.”
 
Consider that Christ could have called angels down from heaven when He was arrested; He could have given into the taunts of the people when they told Him to come down from the cross. I don’t believe that there was an option for Jesus not to die. The plan was written before the foundation of the world was laid. God cannot do what is against His nature; His justice and holiness demanded a blood sacrifice for sin (this is revelaed in Scripture, which is God’s revelation to man; Keating’s viewpoint makes me shudder:( ).
 
Jesus “had” to die in one very important way: He did. Did God allow Himself to get painted into some spiritual corner, thereby having to give up His son to be abused by the world? Are there rules that Good and Evil are bound to abide by?

It’s interesting to try to speculate why God chose to take certain courses of action. We don’t know the mind of God, nor do we know what the world would be like if He willed it to happen a different way than it did.

I’m personally thankful for the beautiful outpouring of love that God gave us in His Son. Dying He destroyed our death; Rising He restored our Life. Jesus proved that the darkness in the world could not keep Him down, even by killing His physical body. By grace He invites us to share in everlasting life and to let Him turn our crosses into blessing.

Alan
 
BibleReader said:
“You are making an assumption when you claim to know God’s Justice.” Actually, I was reciting what my Church, and not you, taught me: See Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21. These verses are expressions of the Magisterium. You seem to be ignoring them.
Click to expand...

I am ignoring nothing, And Augustines and Aquinas writings are expressions of the Magisterium.
“His justice is subject to him, his justice is not part of his nature. What is part of his nature is to be just, as in the verb.” I think that you think that you have hit upon a clever distinction, here. But it is not a distinction at all, And, please read the Catechism… '271 God’s almighty power is in no way arbitrary: “In God, power, essence, will, intellect, wisdom, and justice are all identical. Nothing therefore can be in God’s power which could not be in his just will or his wise intellect.”’

God can not bend justice, which demands “life for life,” does it not?
Click to expand...
I don’t see how this quote has to do with the question at hand.
“The Church teaches that God could have done it in other ways if he wanted. You are basically denying the omnipotence of God.” If you can find where the Magisterium actually teaches that God could have violated the “life for life” rule which is identical with His will, and which is therefore “in and of” God, then it is one of those temporary mistaken teachings, like Pope Liberius’ conditional endorsement of Arianism which Liberius himself condemned at a later date.
Click to expand...
Like I said above, Augustine and Aquinas express the teachings of the Magisterium. History is just as important as the bible. The fact that the Church through the past has taught that God could do as he wills is good enough.
So, lay it out: Go ahead: Quote it: Let’s see it: Show us where a Magisterial organ expressed the teaching that “God could have done it other ways if he wanted.”
Click to expand...
I have laid it out. I would like to see a statement from the Church that says that God could not have done it in any other way i he willed. I would like to see a statement that specifically deals with this matter, not something from the Catechism, that is a roundabout way may have a connection.
 
Hi, Jimmy.

It frequently occurs that folks who disagree, disagree on language, and aren’t speaking the same language at all, ultimately.

(1) Though you say, “I am ignoring nothing” after I suggest that you are ignoring Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21, you don’t actually discuss those verses and what they teach us about God’s justice. In fact, Revelation itself, in Scripture, says that God’s Justice demands “a life for a life.” It’s brutal. And so, because someone had to die, Christ was substituted in for us, so that Christ had to die.

I would go so far as to say that when Augustine and Aquinas wrote, that is the “Magisterium.” In my opinion, that is a very plain error.

(2) In response to Para #271 of the Catechism…

*‘271 God’s almighty power is in no way arbitrary: “In God, power, essence, will, intellect, wisdom, and justice are all identical. Nothing therefore can be in God’s power which could not be in his just will or his wise intellect.”’ *

…which I quoted to employ Church Magisterial authority to prove that justice is “in and of” God, not something which God can cast aside if He chooses, you wrote, “I don’t see how this quote has to do with the question at hand.”

If you can’t see how your position squarely violates the Catechism, then I guess we’re speaking two different languages, here, on that point. In fact, God can’t throw out a piece of His justice any more than He can throw out a piece of divine wisdom. As the Catechism says, they are identical. I can lead the horse to water, but I can’t make him drink.

(3) In response to my request that you show where the Church has said that God could have saved in other ways, you did not. Instead, you asked me to do the work of show that the Church maintains my position.

Well, I did. The Church just did not use the sentence you demand. Instead, the Church says in Paragraph 271 of the Catechism that God’s justice and wisdom are “identical.” God can’t throw out a piece of His Own wisdom. Doing that contradicts “God-ness.”
 
When Jesus prayed to the Father to remove this cup, but reaffirmed the surrender of His will to His Father’s, did He know for certain which choice the Father was going to make?

If he knew that saying the prayer would not prevent His own death, then for whom did He say it? Was he just going through ritual motions He knew would prove to be futile, or perhaps was it strictly for our consumption to teach us how to pray for wordly desires? Could it be that His human side was crying out in fear and pain and temporarily caused His faith to appear weakened?

Alan
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Hi, Jimmy.

I would go so far as to say that when Augustine and Aquinas wrote, that is the “Magisterium.” In my opinion, that is a very plain error.
Click to expand...
Oops. I meant, “I would NOT go so far as to say…”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top