Original sin or Personal sin

[javid]

Dear Talstar

If someone says “I believe in what Catholic Church says, But I have right to ask questions”, then What Is His Religion? Search my old posts to see I said it ,several times. If according to my research, other churches has many problems in following The Jesus Christ, Can’t I say they are not real Christians? Yes they are all Christians! But Is their way, as Christ’s way? No! Especially protestants have many great abberances. I do not say

And about the innocent lamb in Old Testament: The carnivores eat lambs, and Human save the lamb from wolves and use its meats! If Jews did not sacrifice the lamb for their sins, then the lamb was a food for them and had no natural death! They sacrificed the lamb as their things, they must pay money for the lamb and this sacrifice was amerce of them, because they paid price for the lamb, and the lamb was a food. We can’t say it is not fair, as we can’t say it is not fair to wolves eat the lambs and the lambs eat the fettles! Was Jesus one of our things? Did we pay any price for his sacrifice? The lamb did not pay price instead of us, and we must pay price for them, then in that way the sinner pays the price and the innocent lamb just has its usual death being killed!), because people save them to kill them to use their meat. So, there was a different way in Old Testament, which does not seem to be unfair.

And I do not asking question, about appeasing the God, my question is on Justice. Yes, I seem to be much more focused on justice, over and above everything else, it is not so! Justice is a God’s attribute! I do not have problem with others in salvation, so I ask about the justice. Love is fact, and I know God loves us, But he is just while he loves us! So we must have good explanation for his justice. My way to define justice is “Sinner One must pay the price and the Just Judge can’t accept to an innocent one pay the price instead of him.” Do you think it is not true? A Just Judge does not admix his love and his justice! So, if sacrificing Jesus is fair, explain how, and if it is not fair explain how can God be not just.

On the other hand, I really do not know what is that religion that much more focused on justice over any other virtue, but I think in Christianity God is just and we do not need any other religion to find a just God. I know my Question has a good answer, that a Good Christian must give it to me.

All the best

 

[Telstar]

If someone says “I believe in what Catholic Church says, But I have right to ask questions”, then What Is His Religion? Search my old posts to see I said it ,several times. If according to my research, other churches has many problems in following The Jesus Christ, Can’t I say they are not real Christians? Yes they are all Christians! But Is their way, as Christ’s way? No! Especially protestants have many great abberances. I do not say

Hi, Javid

Thank you! If you believe what the Church teaches, that’s a good start. It’s true that we all have a right to ask questions about what we should believe, so I certainly can’t argue with that. But, some questions are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get an answer that will really satisfy us. Some questions only God can answer. But, we don’t have any right to question God, Himself, about His Judgements, or anything that we might disagree over how He does them. God never has to answer to any of us about His actions. He can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants.

And about the innocent lamb in Old Testament: The carnivores eat lambs, and Human save the lamb from wolves and use its meats! If Jews did not sacrifice the lamb for their sins, then the lamb was a food for them and had no natural death! They sacrificed the lamb as their things, they must pay money for the lamb and this sacrifice was amerce of them, because they paid price for the lamb, and the lamb was a food. We can’t say it is not fair, as we can’t say it is not fair to wolves eat the lambs and the lambs eat the fettles! Was Jesus one of our things? Did we pay any price for his sacrifice? The lamb did not pay price instead of us, and we must pay price for them, then in that way the sinner pays the price and the innocent lamb just has its usual death being killed!), because people save them to kill them to use their meat. So, there was a different way in Old Testament, which does not seem to be unfair.

Even in the Old Testament, the lamb was a sacrifice in one way or another, either as food for beasts, or for mankind; or as a sacrifice offered to God for man’s sins. While it might not be seen by men as being unfair to them, couldn’t it be seen by the lamb as being unfair to him? If they were capable of understanding, then it certainly could be. But, this is how God decided it should be done, so it isn’t up to any of us to question His intentions or His judgements about why it should be done that way.

The same goes for the way we look at what Jesus did for us. It might not seem fair in our human view of things, but why should we question God’s methods, or His acceptance of Jesus as the Lamb of God that willingly gave His Own life for us? Do we have any more right to question God about Jesus, than we did for what He asked of men in the Old Testament? I really don’t think we should ever question what God does, or how He chooses to do it. We should just accept what He has offered to us as a free gift of His Mercy and Love, with deep humility, because of it’s great cost to Him. It’s the gift He chose to give to us. It might not make any sense to us in human terms, but it must make perfect sense in God’s way of thinking. It’s not meant for us to fully understand it, because we never will.

And I do not asking question, about appeasing the God, my question is on Justice. Yes, I seem to be much more focused on justice, over and above everything else, it is not so! Justice is a God’s attribute! I do not have problem with others in salvation, so I ask about the justice. Love is fact, and I know God loves us, But he is just while he loves us! So we must have good explanation for his justice. My way to define justice is “Sinner One must pay the price and the Just Judge can’t accept to an innocent one pay the price instead of him.” Do you think it is not true? A Just Judge does not admix his love and his justice! So, if sacrificing Jesus is fair, explain how, and if it is not fair explain how can God be not just.

God is the Final Judge. Only He knows what ultimately satisfies His Justice. We may never understand it until we’re in Heaven, or we might not even understand it, then. We can’t possibly understand why God does the things He does. Some things we just have to accept on faith. He knows the best way to do everything. When we question His reason for doing things, we can cause ourselves to doubt His judgements about everything else that He’s done. Once we let small doubts about God creep into our thinking, then we might even lose the faith we already have. Sometimes, it’s just better for us to accept what we can’t explain, and let God handle it. Our minds can’t really grasp the way God does things.

On the other hand, I really do not know what is that religion that much more focused on justice over any other virtue, but I think in Christianity God is just and we do not need any other religion to find a just God. I know my Question has a good answer, that a Good Christian must give it to me.

I certainly agree that we don’t need to look anywhere else to find God’s perfect justice. But, I’m not sure you’ll ever find anyone that understands God well enough to answer your question. I know I can’t answer it any better than I’ve already tried to do. Sometimes, we just have to be content to accept that the Goodness of God made our salvation possible through Jesus’ death on the cross, and have faith to believe that it all happened that way for a reason. I can’t even fathom why He chose to suffer that way, and I can never really thank Him enough for doing it. Sometimes, all we have is our own feeble faith to go on. If we put our trust in Him, even when we can’t find answers to all of our questions, we should be OK.

I don’t know what anyone else can say to help you find an answer. Maybe this will help.

 

[thinkandmull]

Well the Church teaches that Original Sin was passed on, but doesn’t St. Paul say that everyone sinned in Adam. So it was commited, not passed on. St Thomas Aquinas says it is like a king commiting a sin, and all his subjects receive the shame. But this can not be true since Jesus and Mary are Adam’s children and would thus have the shame because it exists in the father

 

[opusAquinas]

OK. I want to understand something. Our Lord suffered and died to pay the penalty of Original Sin. He became a man: pure and unblemished. His sacrifice - He knew His creatures would torture and kill Him on a cross. So He used His own creatures as executioners and torturers. And Justice required this torture and death in order to make things right between us and God again.
And because He is both God and man His sacrifice "covers" all personal sins as well.

 

[fhansen]

Well the Church teaches that Original Sin was passed on, but doesn’t St. Paul say that everyone sinned in Adam. So it was commited, not passed on. St Thomas Aquinas says it is like a king commiting a sin, and all his subjects receive the shame. But this can not be true since Jesus and Mary are Adam’s children and would thus have the shame because it exists in the father

But Mary was preserved from OS and Jesus was begotten by the Holy Spirit.

 

[fhansen]

---

OK. I want to understand something. Our Lord suffered and died to pay the penalty of Original Sin. He became a man: pure and unblemished. His sacrifice - He knew His creatures would torture and kill Him on a cross. So He used His own creatures as executioners and torturers. And Justice required this torture and death in order to make things right between us and God again.
And because He is both God and man His sacrifice "covers" all personal sins as well.

I think Jesus’s sacrificial act of Atonement did two things: it definitively proved the sinfulness of man in that we would, almost cavalierly, humiliate, torture, and crucify the most innocent, perfect, and beautiful being in the universe, totally ignorant to or unconcerned with the true light and goodness in our midst, and, secondly, it proved His love in spite of that sin, in spite of that hate. Our response, with the help of grace, should be a change of heart towards the reality of human sin, and towards God.

 

[javid]

Dear Talstar

I ask my questions and if I don’t find any good answer I canaccept by faith.

About the lamb in Old Testament, there are many differences, as I said.

About justice of God, my problem is not that I can’t understand how it is fair; my problem is contradiction between what we call it justice and what God done. If we say What God does is fair then it is accepting by faith, not by reason. I am looking for a reasonable faith.

 

[Telstar]

Dear Talstar

I ask my questions and if I don’t find any good answer I canaccept by faith.

About the lamb in Old Testament, there are many differences, as I said.

About justice of God, my problem is not that I can’t understand how it is fair; my problem is contradiction between what we call it justice and what God done. If we say What God does is fair then it is accepting by faith, not by reason. I am looking for a reasonable faith.

OK, I’m going to give this one more try. I hope this helps you a little more than my answers did.

LINK: "Question 46. The passion of Christ

Article 1. Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race?

Objection 1. It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race. For the human race could not be delivered except by God, according to Isaiah 45:21: “Am not I the Lord, and there is no God else besides Me? A just God and a Saviour, there is none besides Me.” But no necessity can compel God, for this would be repugnant to His omnipotence. Therefore it was not necessary for Christ to suffer.

Reply to Objection 1. This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion on God’s part.

Objection 2. Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. But Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written (Isaiah 53:7): “He was offered because it was His own will.” Therefore it was not necessary for Him to suffer.
**
Reply to Objection 2.** This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on the part of the man Christ

Objection 3. Further, as is written (Psalm 24:10): “All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth.” But it does not seem necessary that He should suffer on the part of the Divine mercy, which, as it bestows gifts freely, so it appears to condone debts without satisfaction: nor, again, on the part of Divine justice, according to which man had deserved everlasting condemnation. Therefore it does not seem necessary that Christ should have suffered for man’s deliverance.

Reply to Objection 3. That man should be delivered by Christ’s Passion was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man was set free by Christ’s justice: and with His mercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature, as was said above (Question 1, Article 2), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him, according to Romans 3:24-25: “Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.” And this came of more copious mercy than if He had forgiven sins without satisfaction. Hence it is said (Ephesians 2:4): “God, who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ.”

Objection 4. Further, the angelic nature is more excellent than the human, as appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). But Christ did not suffer to repair the angelic nature which had sinned. Therefore, apparently, neither was it necessary for Him to suffer for the salvation of the human race.

Reply to Objection 4. The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin of the first man (I, 64, 2).

On the contrary, It is written (John 3:14): "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting."

I answer that, As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v), there are several acceptations of the word “necessary.” In one way it means anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on the part of man for Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause quite apart from itself; and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause then it brings about the necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if the external factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such end–namely, when some particular end cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either on God’s part, who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ’s own part, who suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed; and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14): “The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” Secondly, on Christ’s part, who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to this must be referred Luke 24:26: “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?” Thirdly, on God’s part, whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): “The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined”; and (Luke 24:44-46): "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead.""

 

[javid]

Dear Talstar

Thanks. But this is about necessity of sacrifice, not about justice.

 

[thenobes]

Dear Talstar

I ask my questions and if I don’t find any good answer I canaccept by faith.

About the lamb in Old Testament, there are many differences, as I said.

About justice of God, my problem is not that I can’t understand how it is fair; my problem is contradiction between what we call it justice and what God done. If we say What God does is fair then it is accepting by faith, not by reason. I am looking for a reasonable faith.

javid,

If we are united with Christ in His Body, wouldn’t His Sacrifice become ours?

And secondly, perhaps the justice served is the presentation to the Father of what we could not ourselves accomplish, the living of a sinless life, perfect in obedience…

So by being in Christ, we both obtain a death of self as payment to original sin, and a restoration to the Father of what is His due, a life of obedience?

peace
steve

 

[javid]

javid,

If we are united with Christ in His Body, wouldn’t His Sacrifice become ours?

And secondly, perhaps the justice served is the presentation to the Father of what we could not ourselves accomplish, the living of a sinless life, perfect in obedience…

So by being in Christ, we both obtain a death of self as payment to original sin, and a restoration to the Father of what is His due, a life of obedience?

peace
steve

Dear steve

We don’t talk about life in christ. Lord Jesus as human has his own life and he is not ours. Yes his sacrifice is for all humanity, but we talk about something before sacrifice: his life; His life was his! His life was not ours. But what he did pay for our sins instead of us was his life. Now we have the problem: Why God let he pay price instead of us?

 

[fhansen]

Dear steve

We don’t talk about life in christ. Lord Jesus as human has his own life and he is not ours. Yes his sacrifice is for all humanity, but we talk about something before sacrifice: his life; His life was his! His life was not ours. But what he did pay for our sins instead of us was his life. Now we have the problem: Why God let he pay price instead of us?

It’s not a problem; it’s the answer: because we couldn’t pay the price! Sin is out of sync with Reality, with the order of the universe, with the will of God. The wages of sin is death: extermination; there 's no place in God’s creation for disorder/disharmony/injustice. He dies so that we may live, purely gratuitous. Because the flip side would be for no justice to be done at all, for us to continue to live while remaining in our sin, because man can never pull himself out of the pit, we cannot save ourselves, we cannot restore ourselves to grace. Either God ultimately saves us, or we would have to cease to exist. The justice comes, from humanity’s part, when we then turn back to God in recognition of His rightful role as God.

Because justice was lost when man turned away from God, the first act of unbelief, justice is restored when we turn back to Him, in response to His overture, His grace. This is all He asks, at His prerogative. This is the beginning, the first step of justice restored. Man is fully just as he comes to hope in, then, most importantly, to love God. “For these three remain: faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love”. 1Cor 13. We are a work of His from beginning to end, from before the Fall all the way to the end in heaven. He makes us right, only He can justify us, with our cooperation.

The only justice man can possibly have already comes from Him. Man’s justice begins as he comes to recognize and accept that fact. Our paying the price for sin would destroy God’s work, by ceasing our existence. That was never His plan in all this, in His creating us to begin with.

 

[porthos11]

Dear steve

We don’t talk about life in christ. Lord Jesus as human has his own life and he is not ours. Yes his sacrifice is for all humanity, but we talk about something before sacrifice: his life; His life was his! His life was not ours. But what he did pay for our sins instead of us was his life. Now we have the problem: Why God let he pay price instead of us?

Because we can’t. Because our sins offend an infinitely good and great God, our sins have infinite guilt. Because we are finite creatures, we could NEVER pay the price for our sins. Therefore, we were condemned to hell because nothing unclean can ever enter the presence of God. No matter what we do, no matter what we try, no amount of punishment could ever make up for our sins. None, zero. Even if a sinless man were to die for all men, he would still be finite and could not pay for the sins of mankind. Can you understand this?

But God loved us too much to allow this to happen, which is why he made it possible for pay for our sins. Because it is man who sinned, it was man who had to pay the price. But because it was God who was offended, only God can atone for the infinite guilt against him. This is why Jesus had to be true God and true Man, to die as Man to pay for Man’s sins, but as God, offer the infinite atonement necessary to pay for man’s offense against God. Can you understand this?

Now you ask: is it just/fair for God to accept the price paid by Jesus? Of course it is! As we’ve been trying say many many many times now, Jesus WILLNGLY bore our sins. It is fair and just because Jesus is God and everything God does is just. He paid for our sins because he willed to do so. He is God after all. Where man disobeyed, Jesus obeyed and because he was both sinless and God, his obedience surpassed the disobedience of man.

So why did God let him pay the price? Because Jesus wanted to do so, for our sake.

 

[mdcpensive1]

fhansen and porthos11 you are absolutely correct and if I may paraphrase:

What kind of human act can appease a supernatural being – none. It is not the nature of a human act to be on the level of the supernatural. This is one of the reasons why the second person of the Trinity chose the Incarnation. It is the bridge that closes the gap in a sacrifice of love. It is so beautiful and offered for our benefit. I thank God each day at 3 O’clock.

 

[javid]

It’s not a problem; it’s the answer: because we couldn’t pay the price! Sin is out of sync with Reality, with the order of the universe, with the will of God. The wages of sin is death: extermination; there 's no place in God’s creation for disorder/disharmony/injustice. He dies so that we may live, purely gratuitous. Because the flip side would be for no justice to be done at all, for us to continue to live while remaining in our sin, because man can never pull himself out of the pit, we cannot save ourselves, we cannot restore ourselves to grace. Either God ultimately saves us, or we would have to cease to exist. The justice comes, from humanity’s part, when we then turn back to God in recognition of His rightful role as God.

Because justice was lost when man turned away from God, the first act of unbelief, justice is restored when we turn back to Him, in response to His overture, His grace. This is all He asks, at His prerogative. This is the beginning, the first step of justice restored. Man is fully just as he comes to hope in, then, most importantly, to love God. “For these three remain: faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love”. 1Cor 13. We are a work of His from beginning to end, from before the Fall all the way to the end in heaven. He makes us right, only He can justify us, with our cooperation.

The only justice man can possibly have already comes from Him. Man’s justice begins as he comes to recognize and accept that fact. Our paying the price for sin would destroy God’s work, by ceasing our existence. That was never His plan in all this, in His creating us to begin with.

Because we can’t. Because our sins offend an infinitely good and great God, our sins have infinite guilt. Because we are finite creatures, we could NEVER pay the price for our sins. Therefore, we were condemned to hell because nothing unclean can ever enter the presence of God. No matter what we do, no matter what we try, no amount of punishment could ever make up for our sins. None, zero. Even if a sinless man were to die for all men, he would still be finite and could not pay for the sins of mankind. Can you understand this?

But God loved us too much to allow this to happen, which is why he made it possible for pay for our sins. Because it is man who sinned, it was man who had to pay the price. But because it was God who was offended, only God can atone for the infinite guilt against him. This is why Jesus had to be true God and true Man, to die as Man to pay for Man’s sins, but as God, offer the infinite atonement necessary to pay for man’s offense against God. Can you understand this?

Now you ask: is it just/fair for God to accept the price paid by Jesus? Of course it is! As we’ve been trying say many many many times now, Jesus WILLNGLY bore our sins. It is fair and just because Jesus is God and everything God does is just. He paid for our sins because he willed to do so. He is God after all. Where man disobeyed, Jesus obeyed and because he was both sinless and God, his obedience surpassed the disobedience of man.

So why did God let him pay the price? Because Jesus wanted to do so, for our sake.

Dear Fhansen & Porthos11

Why God didn’t give us the ability to pay the price?

But my problem is why God accepted to a sinless one pay it? Is it fair? Yes Lord Jesus Loved us, but why God accepts to a sinless give price instead of the sinner.

 

[javid]

OK, I’m going to give this one more try. I hope this helps you a little more than my answers did.

LINK: "Question 46. The passion of Christ

Article 1. Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race?

Objection 1. It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race. For the human race could not be delivered except by God, according to Isaiah 45:21: “Am not I the Lord, and there is no God else besides Me? A just God and a Saviour, there is none besides Me.” But no necessity can compel God, for this would be repugnant to His omnipotence. Therefore it was not necessary for Christ to suffer.

Reply to Objection 1. This argument is based on the necessity of compulsion on God’s part.

Objection 2. Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. But Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written (Isaiah 53:7): “He was offered because it was His own will.” Therefore it was not necessary for Him to suffer.
**
Reply to Objection 2.** This argument rests on the necessity of compulsion on the part of the man Christ

Objection 3. Further, as is written (Psalm 24:10): “All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth.” But it does not seem necessary that He should suffer on the part of the Divine mercy, which, as it bestows gifts freely, so it appears to condone debts without satisfaction: nor, again, on the part of Divine justice, according to which man had deserved everlasting condemnation. Therefore it does not seem necessary that Christ should have suffered for man’s deliverance.

Reply to Objection 3. That man should be delivered by Christ’s Passion was in keeping with both His mercy and His justice. With His justice, because by His Passion Christ made satisfaction for the sin of the human race; and so man was set free by Christ’s justice: and with His mercy, for since man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature, as was said above (Question 1, Article 2), God gave him His Son to satisfy for him, according to Romans 3:24-25: “Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.” And this came of more copious mercy than if He had forgiven sins without satisfaction. Hence it is said (Ephesians 2:4): “God, who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ.”

Objection 4. Further, the angelic nature is more excellent than the human, as appears from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). But Christ did not suffer to repair the angelic nature which had sinned. Therefore, apparently, neither was it necessary for Him to suffer for the salvation of the human race.

Reply to Objection 4. The sin of the angels was irreparable; not so the sin of the first man (I, 64, 2).

On the contrary, It is written (John 3:14): "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting."

I answer that, As the Philosopher teaches (Metaph. v), there are several acceptations of the word “necessary.” In one way it means anything which of its nature cannot be otherwise; and in this way it is evident that it was not necessary either on the part of God or on the part of man for Christ to suffer. In another sense a thing may be necessary from some cause quite apart from itself; and should this be either an efficient or a moving cause then it brings about the necessity of compulsion; as, for instance, when a man cannot get away owing to the violence of someone else holding him. But if the external factor which induces necessity be an end, then it will be said to be necessary from presupposing such end–namely, when some particular end cannot exist at all, or not conveniently, except such end be presupposed. It was not necessary, then, for Christ to suffer from necessity of compulsion, either on God’s part, who ruled that Christ should suffer, or on Christ’s own part, who suffered voluntarily. Yet it was necessary from necessity of the end proposed; and this can be accepted in three ways. First of all, on our part, who have been delivered by His Passion, according to John (3:14): “The Son of man must be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” Secondly, on Christ’s part, who merited the glory of being exalted, through the lowliness of His Passion: and to this must be referred Luke 24:26: “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory?” Thirdly, on God’s part, whose determination regarding the Passion of Christ, foretold in the Scriptures and prefigured in the observances of the Old Testament, had to be fulfilled. And this is what St. Luke says (22:22): “The Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined”; and (Luke 24:44-46): "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning Me: for it is thus written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead.""

Dear Talstar

I know it was necessary, Question is: Is it fair?

 

[Telstar]

Dear Talstar

I know it was necessary, Question is: Is it fair?

Welcome back, javid.

In my own personal opinion, I don’t think it was ‘fair’ for Jesus to suffer the way He did for me, or for the rest of mankind. But, the point is that it was the only possible way that we could ever be reconciled with God, because there is nothing that any mere human being could ever do, to pay the debt that we all owe to God. To put that debt into a more modern perspective, it would be like someone handing me a bill for a trillion dollars for something I did, and telling me that I had to pay it or go to jail for the rest of my life (i.e. forever). There is no possible way that I could ever pay it, so I would have to go to jail ‘forever’, unless some very rich person paid it for me, out of the goodness of their heart.

So, unfortunately, it was necessary for Jesus to ‘pay the bill’ for all of us, because we just don’t have any other means of paying it, ourselves. He did it out of love for us. Why? I can’t begin to understand it, but I’m very glad He did. But, as I’ve said before, we still have to do what He asked of us, before we are considered to be ‘debt free’. We still have to hold up our end of the bargain, but we got the easy part of it. Jesus did all the ‘heavy lifting’ for us.

 

[fhansen]

-]/-]

Dear Fhansen & Porthos11

Why God didn’t give us the ability to pay the price?

But my problem is why God accepted to a sinless one pay it? Is it fair? Yes Lord Jesus Loved us, but why God accepts to a sinless give price instead of the sinner.

Because He loves us and we were lost, no hope of being found. And because Jesus is God. And because God knows the beginning from the end-He knew that man would fall before even creating him-and that He’d have to help man recover in order for him to regain his place. But man must still play his part; his justice isn’t restored until he turns back to God, accepting forgiveness and the rightful place of a God as his God again.

 

[javid]

-]/-]

Because He loves us and we were lost, no hope of being found. And because Jesus is God. And because God knows the beginning from the end-He knew that man would fall before even creating him-and that He’d have to help man recover in order for him to regain his place. But man must still play his part; his justice isn’t restored until he turns back to God, accepting forgiveness and the rightful place of a God as his God again.

Dear fhansen

You said this ever and ever, And I mus say you again:

1.My problem is not on Love, but on Justice

2.ِDo you mean God’s love can stop his Justice?

 

[javid]

Welcome back, javid.

In my own personal opinion, I don’t think it was ‘fair’ for Jesus to suffer the way He did for me, or for the rest of mankind. But, the point is that it was the only possible way that we could ever be reconciled with God, because there is nothing that any mere human being could ever do, to pay the debt that we all owe to God. To put that debt into a more modern perspective, it would be like someone handing me a bill for a trillion dollars for something I did, and telling me that I had to pay it or go to jail for the rest of my life (i.e. forever). There is no possible way that I could ever pay it, so I would have to go to jail ‘forever’, unless some very rich person paid it for me, out of the goodness of their heart.

So, unfortunately, it was necessary for Jesus to ‘pay the bill’ for all of us, because we just don’t have any other means of paying it, ourselves. He did it out of love for us. Why? I can’t begin to understand it, but I’m very glad He did. But, as I’ve said before, we still have to do what He asked of us, before we are considered to be ‘debt free’. We still have to hold up our end of the bargain, but we got the easy part of it. Jesus did all the ‘heavy lifting’ for us.

ِDear Talstar

Thank you

But do you mean that almighty God couldn’t find another way? (I think it is better to say it was the best way)

On the other hand, Do I must believe that when injustice is the only way, we must consider it as justice?

Best Regards