Theoretical Question

[Redbaron998]

I was speaking to a Protestant Friend of mine about why we as Catholic use Crucifixes. I stated because it was at the Crucifixion, not the Resurrection were sins were forgiven. (Correct me if I am wrong)

Anyways, if Jesus was not resurrected would the sins of the world still be forgiven? (Assuming for arguments sake that his Messiahship (word?) was still valid)

(Yes I know we cant really take apart the Pascal Mystery but for Theoretical curiosity’s sake bear with me)

 

[Apollos]

No. He ***died ***for our sins. Catholics have crucifixes because it’s a reminder that God understands.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Anyways, if Jesus was not resurrected would the sins of the world still be forgiven?

I’m uncomfortable with the wording of the question. Either way, the sins of the world would not have been “forgiven.”

The whole world was *redeemed *by the Sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary (irregardless of the subsequent Resurrection). Redemption is not the same thing as forgiveness. Redemption makes forgiveness possible, but does not invoke it automatically. (The terms “forgiveness” and “redemption” (and “salvation”) are sometimes loosely used interchangeably, so I am speaking in precise terms here.)

All of humanity was *redeemed *by the Cross, but not all sins were *forgiven *(then or now).

Consider, for example, the two criminals who were crucified along with Our Lord. One mocked Jesus, and the other showed him respect. Jesus told the second man that he would be saved. Jesus died before either of the other men, but the other two died not long afterward (John 19:32-33). After Jesus had died, these other two criminals had little opportunity to sin, as both were also hanging on a cross.

If all sins were forgiven at the moment that Jesus died then both criminals would enjoy the same fate (ie, heaven). Thus, it would not matter that one reviled Jesus and the other honored him (both would share the same favorable fate), and it would not have mattered what Jesus assured the second criminal.

However, even though the first criminal (the one who mocked Jesus) was redeemed by Jesus’ death, he (presumably) had no repentance, and no forgiveness. His ultimate fate is not specified, but it looks pretty bad for that guy (though only God knows for sure).

At any rate, I think that very few Catholics associate the Crucifix with the chronology of salvation. It is a reminder of God’s love for humanity.

 

[diggerdomer]

I was speaking to a Protestant Friend of mine about why we as Catholic use Crucifixes. I stated because it was at the Crucifixion, not the Resurrection were sins were forgiven. (Correct me if I am wrong)

The Catholic Church does not specify that it was at the Crucifixion vs. the Resurrection that sins were forgiven. The Catholic Church teaches that in Baptism all sins are forgiven.

Anyways, if Jesus was not resurrected would the sins of the world still be forgiven?

Yes, if that’s what God willed.

(Yes I know we cant really take apart the Pascal Mystery but for Theoretical curiosity’s sake bear with me)

Paschal, not Pascal.

And to be accurate, Catholics do really take a part (not apart) of the Paschal Mystery in every liturgy the Church celebrates.

Hope this helps.

 

[Dysmas1]

Pascal’s Wager?

 

[diggerdomer]

Pascal’s Wager?

yes

 

[DavidFilmer]

Pascal’s Wager?

Uggh. Although this is really getting off-topic, I cringe every time I see that phrase.

Blaise Pascal was a brilliant mathematician, but a mediocre philosopher. His “wager” could be applied to ANY religious belief which includes an afterlife (which is to say, nearly all of them). There is no reason in this “wager” to prefer Christianity over Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism (none of which share the same concept of “God”).

This amounts to an idea that “it is better to believe in *something *than nothing because - hey, there might be something.” While the idea might have some merit in mathematical logic, it has no basis in Catholic doctrine (and Paschal was - notably - a Catholic). The Church has never taught that it is better to believe a false idea of God (something) than to not believe in God at all (nothing).

 

[JRKH]

I was speaking to a Protestant Friend of mine about why we as Catholic use Crucifixes. I stated because it was at the Crucifixion, not the Resurrection were sins were forgiven. (Correct me if I am wrong)

I believe you are wrong in this.
Jesus Mission was to be incarnated, to teach, to suffer, to die, and to rise again. Each part is important in the salvic plan. Each item fulfills some part of the OT prophesies so to remove the resurection as a necessary part of the redemptive equation is wrong.
Specifically the use of the Crucifix reminds us of what Christ suffered for us. It aids us in our understanding and supports us in our efforts to be christlike and to bear our crosses in Love and Humility.

Anyways, if Jesus was not resurrected would the sins of the world still be forgiven? (Assuming for arguments sake that his Messiahship (word?) was still valid)

(Yes I know we cant really take apart the Pascal Mystery but for Theoretical curiosity’s sake bear with me)

Short answer here is - no. Without the resurrection the salvic plan as foretold in the OT would not have been fulfilled. All that was foretold had to come to pass in order for Jesus mission to be successful.

Peace
James

 

[Spirithound]

Anyways, if Jesus was not resurrected would the sins of the world still be forgiven? (Assuming for arguments sake that his Messiahship (word?) was still valid)

I don’t think this is a logically valid question
Jesus was able to die for our sins because He is God.
He also rose from the dead because He is God.
We cannot have someone die for our sins but then not rise from the dead.

If he didn’t rise, at best we would end up where he is…but then, why did he die in the first place?

 

[Regardless]

I was speaking to a Protestant Friend of mine about why we as Catholic use Crucifixes. I stated because it was at the Crucifixion, not the Resurrection were sins were forgiven. (Correct me if I am wrong)

Anyways, if Jesus was not resurrected would the sins of the world still be forgiven? (Assuming for arguments sake that his Messiahship (word?) was still valid)

(Yes I know we cant really take apart the Pascal Mystery but for Theoretical curiosity’s sake bear with me)

I don’t use crucifixes. But your question was about Jesus death.

Only one of the above answers mentions a scripture from the Bible. Here is what God’s word says on the subject:

Rom 5:8: “God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Not, “was resurected for us”)
Matt 20:28. Jesus came “to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.” (“give his life” NIV, KJV, ASV) – A ransom is the price paid for someone’s life. To buy it.
Rev. 5:9 says: “You were slaughtered and with your blood you bought persons for God…”

So Christ “died for us” and “gave his life as a ransom”. The Bible says it was his death, not his resurrection that forgives sins.
Note those versus do not say: “ was resurrected for us”
I hope that helps.

 

[Tomster]

I was speaking to a Protestant Friend of mine about why we as Catholic use Crucifixes. I stated because it was at the Crucifixion, not the Resurrection were sins were forgiven. (Correct me if I am wrong)

Anyways, if Jesus was not resurrected would the sins of the world still be forgiven? (Assuming for arguments sake that his Messiahship (word?) was still valid)

(Yes I know we cant really take apart the Pascal Mystery but for Theoretical curiosity’s sake bear with me)

Catholics use crucifixes because, like the apostle Paul, we preach Christ crucified.

 

[BigDave31]

Catholics use crucifixes because, like the apostle Paul, we preach Christ crucified.

Amen Brother! After converting that is what I tell all my protestant family. Also that Jesus established to eucharist for us telling us to remember my death until I come again!! I love the crucifix as it holds the whole gospel for me.