Why did Christ have to die for us?

[st_someone]

You said, “Everything real in the Universe is obtained by some kind of payment.” I disagree. It’s a poor generalization. God’s gifts are real and require no payment, otherwise they would not be gratuitous. In fact, much of what you’ve expressed on this thread has little congruence with the apostolic deposit of faith. This would be less astonishing except you claim to be Catholic. It appears I’m not the only one astonished at the rather heterdox statements you’ve made.

What I think the main concern is that someone less catechized in the Catholic faith may read your comments and assume that it is OK for a Catholic to dissent with Catholic doctrine. It’s not a kneejerk reaction to defend the faith against heterdoxy. We seek to ensure that those reading this thread are clear that your comments are your novel interpretations of God’s Word, incongruent with Catholic doctrine.

I recommend you take more time to study what has been handed on to us by the Catholic Church over thousands of years as expressed in Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

God’s gifts are indeed real and none of them has come about without someone paying something for it. As I pointed out, even your birth was an expense for your mother. Because you can’t see it or because you can’t cite it in your CCC you don’t understand it, but if you just look around with your God-given eyes and think about how everything exists at the expense of something else. Everything. Even our Grace from God was purchased by the death of His Son.

Must you evade my points by ganging up on me as being heterodox in a forum where you know you’ll get some more book worms to come to your aide?
I have studied it, perhaps longer than you (20 years of research).
Is there a point you’d like to discuss from the teaching that I"m missing? Please do as I love to learn.

 

[Anna_Scott]

…And thus the problem with labels…

Messiah did not come to put us in perfect little boxes, and yet this is something we find ourselves struggling within today. Ben and ST are seemingly found within the same “box” * and yet they have different points of view about what Messiah’s death meant…and both have validity.

…end the end, I guess it only proves that we are but pieces; parts of the body of Messiah. And we’ll never be whole until He returns to bring us back together.

---

But here’s my explanation: Messiah is NOT just one “thing” but more than one thing, which is why he has so many names. *And as one’s name, so goes their purpose [what was, is, and shall be]. **

Messiah had multiple purposes for his life and his death.

Our High Priest

(As I mentioned a few posts ago) decendents of Aaron were the only representatives of the people of God who were worthy to enter into His sanctuary and offer the blood of a lamb (and also a [scape]goat) to the alter of God for payment of the people’s sins. A lamb’s blood paid the cost (for God’s “forgiving”), while the priest’s sinful hands were laid on a goat, which was then lead into the wilderness and pushed off a jagged ravine (for God’s “forgetting”). This process must continue, as this is the process of paying the sin wage.

Our Sacrificial Lamb

In becoming our lamb and dying, Messiah replaced the literal lamb required for sacrifice. Fortunately, because Messiah is also alive, he continues to be our high priest (our representative in heaven) who offers the sacrifice for whomever will choose to confess their sins. Yet note that “the process” of paying the sin wage has never ceased and must continue until the King returns to destroy sin and death.

Our King (Seed of David)

His bloodline places him in line to receive the earthly throne and to become the king of kings once he returns. Until then we must suffer through life as Messiah has shown us.

Our Suffering Servant

In his life, He served as our example on how to “suffer through life”. The very act of resisting the lure of sin in life is what’s defined as “Suffering”. We believe that he lived a sinless life; what a difficult thing to accomplish for any mere man…but he suffered through the trial of a life down here in satan’s kingdom, and he teaches us to do the same.

[Note: During the temptation of Messiah, satan offered all the kingdoms of the world to Him if He would only bown down to (worship) satan (the Father of Sin), which shows who actually - yet temporarily - owns everything down here.]

---

Those who receive the seal of God; who are identified as God’s children, are those who [Revelation 7:14] “[come] out of the great tribulation”. Lookup the term “tribulation” and you’ll learn that it means endurance, test or trial.

Sin is not Suffering…“Living without sin” is.

Sin is SO aluring and pleasurable, and it’s available to us anywhere; and at any time.

Think about it…How many sinful souls (in our world) actually experience suffering while lost in sin? Because their sinful actions reflect a choice to bown down to the Father of Sin, they are given the world.

By this definition, “Suffering (against sin) has redemptive value; is divine, and leads us along the narrow path of righteousness and marks us with the seal of the Father”.

Joshua27,

You did not designate your religion, but I am guessing by your response that you are part of the Protestant Sector, as am I. However, your claims seem to hold a partial truth.

I do not agree that there is no suffering in sin. I have, indeed, suffered for my sins. Even after we are forgiven, there can still be consequences, as a result of our sinful actions. Everything we think and do, in this lifetime, has a consequence–whether good or bad.

Also, unrepentant sin can distance us from God, in this lifetime, which also creates suffering–a great deal of suffering. I have lived this as well.

Would you provide the source for each of your claims: Scripture, ECF’s, etc.? That would be very helpful.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna

It’s obviously difficult to be concise in this matter, thank God the Catechism provides a beautiful and luminous explanation.

614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. (Cf. Heb 10:10).First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit **in reparation for our disobedience **(Cf. Jn 10:17-18; 15:13; Heb 9:14; 1 Jn 4:10).

615 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”.Jesus atoned for our faults and made **satisfaction **for our sins to the Father.

The Catholic Encyclopedy states :“The word redemptio is the Latin Vulgate rendering of the Hebrew KPR and Greek lutron which, in the Old Testament, means generally a ransom-price. In the New Testament, it is the classic term designating the “great price” (I Cor 4, 20) which the Redeemer paid for our liberation… Satisfaction, or the payment of a debt in full, means, in the moral order, an acceptable reparation of honor offered to the person offended and, of course, implies a penal and painful work. It is the unmistakable teaching of Revelation that Christ offered to His heavenly Father His labors, sufferings, and death as an atonement for our sins”

Thus the offering of Jesus’ life is not a price paid to the devil to redeem sinners but the ransom have been paid to God. Hope this helps

Hello St someone
I see that you claim being Catholic.
Well then how could you could affirm in 1) that Jesus experience (eternal?) separation from his Father? That doctrine is not Catholic (cf the quote from the CCC) and makes no sense (because as you correctly stated the Father and Jesus are one and unique God,who cannot be separated)

1. God is not obliged to do anything. He can obligate Himself, in entering in a covenant, swearing to uphold the term of the convenant but He owes us nothing… All is grace
2. I would be greatly interested to understand how this statement ."When Scipture talks about ransom, it does not refer to the legal payment for sin (eternal damnation) but the personal price Christ underwent to open up the possibility of salvation for the whole world (I Jn 2:2, 1 Tim 2:6) " is, according to your words “It is most clearly in error and Pelagian”…
3. I stated originally :“Christ is called the “offering” Eph 5:2, the “sacrifice” (1 Co 5:7 ) and the “propitiation” Rm 3:25) for sins, not the one who paid the price of eternal damnation for all men’s sins” Where do you see that I make a difference between them (granted they are 3 DIFFERENT words…)
4. I guess I won’t add to the CCC on this point

BenBornAgain,

I appreciate your quotes and comments. The idea that “ransom does not refer to the legal payment for sin (eternal damnation,) but the personal price Christ underwent to open up the possibility of salvation for the whole world,” is foreign to the view of salvation found in many Protestant doctrines–at least the one’s I have encountered.

I’m going to do some more study on this. It is quite obvious that Christ did not suffer eternal damnation for our sins. So, if eternal damnation (whatever that may be) is our penalty for sin, then your quotes seem logical. I have not actually heard anyone in Protestant churches deal with this distinction.

At the same time, I think understanding the definition of “eternal damnation” is important. If the wages of sin is death, and eternal damnation is “eternal death or annihilation” (which I know is not the Catholic view or the view of many Protestants,) then Christ did conquer all the consequences of sin. Christ conquered death.

I do think all of this relates to why Christ had to die for us.

So, can you give me a definition of “eternal damnation”? I think this would help in understanding the accomplishments of Christ’s sacrifice.

I do really appreciate your comments.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Time is a finite entity, part of the created world. “All things past, present, and future” in our finite universe is a whole lot of knowledge, but it is not infinite. So, it is not contradictory to say Christ did not possess unlimited human knowledge, but still knew all things past, present, and future.

Moreover, it’s important to distinguish the various ways in which Christ possessed human knowledge, according to Catholic theology.

I’ll try citing some different references to help clarify…

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, there are three ways in which Christ is said to possess human knowledge:

1. Immediate vision of God (scientia beata)
2. Infused knowledge (scientia infusa)
3. Acquired or experimental knowledge (scientia acquisita, scientia experimentalis)
   We might come to know things by other means (e.g., somebody told me) before we “acquire” such knowledge through our own experience or “experimentally.” So we can say that Christ “learned” through experience that which he already knew by other means.

Angels are said to have “infused knowledge” (finite knowledge given directly from God), which is similar to the kind of knowledge Adam is said to have possessed, since he was created already an adult by God. It is possible Christ possessed “infused knowledge.”

Beatific Knowledge called “immediate vision of God” is rather unique to Incarnate Christ. However, it is akin to the Beatific Knowledge of the saints glorified in heaven who now see God “face to face.”

Christ’s human soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of His existence.

Pope Pius XII affirmed:
“… that knowledge which is called vision, He possesses in such fullness that in breadth and clarity it far exceeds the Beatific Vision of all the saints in Heaven … He enjoyed [such knowledge of vision] from the time when He was received into the womb of the mother of God” (Mystici Corporis (1943), Ott, pg 163).
Dr. Ott states,
According to St. Thomas [Aquinas], [the immediate vision of God] includes…all that knowledge that pertains to the individual who is blessed… [and when applied to Christ,] to the extent that such knowledge was necessary or useful for His vocation as Redeemer… St. Thomas concluded that Christ’s soul already on earth knew in the Divine Essence, all real things of the past, the present and the future, including, of course, the thoughts of mankind. (pg 165)
Only the last kind of knowledge–that is “experimental” or “acquired” knowledge–can be said to have “grown” or “increased” over time for the Incarnate Jesus.

Again citing St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. Ott states, “***the knowledge which Christ acquired through his experimental knowledge was already contained in his [knowledge of vision] and his [infused knowledge], it was new, not in its content, but only in the mode by which Christ attained it. ***Cf. S. Th. III, 2, 2.” (pg. 168).

Consequently, Christ’s human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and from error. (Ott, pg. 165).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 417-475 succintly describe the above doctrine, referencing many of the sources I cited.

The Catechism states, “[the Son of God’s] true human knowledge…could not in itself be unlimited,” and “at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son…by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God”, and “Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.”

itsjustdave1988,

I really appreciate these quotes. This is starting to make sense to me.

This is one more very important issue that has not been explained in the Baptist Church.

I’m going to do more study on this, as well.

You and BenBornAgain have given me much to ponder.

Anna

 

[BenBornAgain]

Hello Anna
The notion of eternal punishment is clearly defined by the Catechism:

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” (Jn 3:14-15) Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.(Mt 25:31-46) To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.( Mt 5:22, 29; 10:28; 13:42, 50; Mk 9:43-48) Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,” (Mt 13:41-42) and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!” (Mt 25:41)

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (Mt 7:13-14)

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth.” (Mt 22:13; cf. Heb 9:27; Mt 25:13, 26, 30-31,46)

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”: 2 Pet 3:9

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.

It is amazing to realize that the very existence of hell is a proof of the love of God. He loves us so much that He does not force us to spend the eternity with Him. It is stunning to realize that we can refuse his love and determine ourselves to rebuke Him for ever…
The very fact that we exist shows that God maintains us right now in existence, all of us, all his creatures. He has created to live eternally and He will not take this gift away.
God who has created us out of love, will always love us, even if we do not answer to his love…

 

[st_someone]

st someone
It is not the topic of the thread but for the sake of it, here we go:

CEC 618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”. But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men. He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]”, for “Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps.” In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries. This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering. Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven

CEC 1521 Union with the passion of Christ. By the grace of this sacrament the sick person receives the strength and the gift of uniting himself more closely to Christ’s Passion: in a certain way he is consecrated to bear fruit by configuration to the Savior’s redemptive Passion. Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus.

Thank the Good Lord I did find a robust Catholic Theologian who knows the scriptures:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=63
He is right on and is saying exactly the same thing I was saying about our so called redemptive suffering.

 

[bpbasilphx]

God, in any of His persons, didn’t “have to do” anything. To say He did “have” to do something means that God is not totally free, but is Himself obliged to obey something higher than Himself.

This is the way He CHOSE to do things.

That’s all that matters.

 

[BenBornAgain]

Thank the Good Lord I did find a robust Catholic Theologian who knows the scriptures:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=63
He is right on and is saying exactly the same thing I was saying about our so called redemptive suffering.

I am glad you are reading Fr Most, he is a very good theologian. I am afraid though that you will find his writings very much on the same line of the Catechism (surprise!).

In fact in the very link you provide, Fr Most states :“Our part in the subjective redemption is had by being like Christ in suffering and other things. God likes this as part of His love of good order” That sounds a lot like “redemptive suffering” isn’t it?

The Church never taught that we can earn our salvation, but you already knew that right?

God bless

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yes, Father William Most is a wonderful “book worm,” who faithfully expounds upon Catholic doctrine. You can browse (and search) from his works, here: The Most Theological Collection.

 

[Joshua27]

Hi again,

There’s been good conversation since I last check the forum *

This reply is to Earnest and Anna (since both replies are in the “spirit” of the same argument). Let me explain what I mean when I say Sin is not Suffering, but living without sin, is suffering .

[Now please read any references I make in context of the chapter in which it’s found, just to show that I’m not cherry-picking verses].

To Sin is to break the Law

Earnest, there is - indeed - something we lose (in terms of “spirit”) when we break the Law, but realize that we (humanity) have already broken the Law in the beginning - the crime has already been committed - as evident when Adam and Eve were suddenly compelled to hide themselves from God [Geneses 3:8].

Time is relative and measured on a different scale to God, so there’s no sin we can commit today that wasn’t already included in the crime we committed in the beginning, namely “Disobedience”. There is only one true crime and that is “breaking the law of obedience”. This is why Messiah reduces all the commandments of God to a single greatest; “Love God” [Matthew 22:37].

Why did Adam and Eve - already without clothing - hide themselves only after they sinned?

Here’s the example to show that we’ve already lost something; something we once possessed…something we haven’t had since then. And if “what is in heaven so must be on earth”, then what we’ve lost is akin to a form of clothing or covering we once had. We once wore the glory of God as our clothing…but ever since breaking the Law, truly we’ve been naked.

Every Law has a Price to pay when broken

Let’s take the speeding law as an example:

We all know the law when it comes to speeding. The law says, “stay within the speed limit of the zone you’re driving in” [or what?] “…or you will (1) pay with a fine or time in jail and (2) the authorities will (potentially) take your car away”.

So we struggle - and we suffer - to follow the Law; to get back what we’ve lost.

Notice what you’ve said, Anna.

I have, indeed, suffered for my sins. Even after we are forgiven, there can still be consequences

True! Humanity was given the Law: “be obedient to God, your Father” [or what?] “…or I will strip you naked (or take your glory) and you will pay with your life”. Humanity’s glory has since been taken away (as a consequence) and we are sentenced to death (as a consequence).

By Law, all man(kind) is obligated to suffer the consequenses of our crime. Man(kind) does not suffer the crime. In other words, as a whole we are not victims, but perpetrators. We are all counted together…and must die. Notice that in all references to the people of God, they are treated as a single body or nation or people or woman who is unfailthful [Jeremiah 3:8].

The Messiah has come to Fulfill the Law for those who believe, but for those who don’t believe…they are required to fulfill the law themselves

Now in all the generations that has followed Adam & Eve, we’ve received, from them, characteristics, traits and knowledge…but not our original clothing [spiritual glory]…(truly) it’s been taken from us and is gone forever. Next, the law requires that we all die; to pay with our lives…But, The Messiah has come to (1) offer to pay the fine on our behalf, and (2) help reclothe us in glory.

We all must die because [Romans 6:23] the wages (cost/price) of sin is death. But the Messiah * gave himself as ransom (payment) only* for any who would believe so that [John 3:16] whoever believes in His love offering will not (themselves have to) perish [or pay the cost/price], but have everlasting life. This payment is not for all by default, but only for those who accept it. Otherwise, they (who do not accept it) will pay their own fine.

"So what is left for those of us who accept the offer? What are we to do now?"

We each are required to make ourselves worthy for when the Messiah returns with his reward; The Glory…which is only available to the Resurrected, as (again) these bodies have lost it forever.

Future Glory = Obedience to God now = an “Endurance” = The “patience” of the saints

The Messiah says He will come with His reward; it’s a reward for suffering as The Messiah suffered.

• For even hereunto [to suffer] were ye called: because Christ also suffered* for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow in his steps: 22 who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.

Christ gave us an example to follow…that example was to suffer, but does this verse say that “to suffer is to sin”? No.

Truly, the verse says that (a) Christ did not sin, and yet it also says (b) “he suffered” and that (c) “we should follow in his footsteps”.

…Then is “suffering” to die like Chist died, if we believe that he already died for us? No.

We are charged to live life sinlessly; to live life obediently…that is the struggle.

[Revelation 14:12] Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that (1) keep the commandments of God, and (2) the faith of [Messiah].

The word “patience” is equated to “endurance”. Truly, the meaning of the word patience is “to endure; to suffer through”.

The patience - the endurance - is to suffer live without sin in this kingdom that is owned by satan’s, the father of sin.*

 

[Joshua27]

“be obedient to God, your Father” [or what?] “…or I will strip you naked (or take your glory) and you will pay with your life”.

I don’t want to word it this way, or it could lead to the wrong Idea. Let me reword it:

“be obedient to God, your Father” [or what?] “…or you will be stripped naked (or you will lose your glory) and you will forced to pay with your life”.

It’s interesting that in Genesis 3:9 God walks in the garden as asks “where are you Adam?” as if he didn’t recognize the spirit of Adam anymore.

---

To Earnest: I don’t understand where in my reply I convey being alone, other than if you’re refering to me when I say I haven’t a label.

To Anna: You will find that there are times when I sound like one group…and there are times when I sound like another.

To All: My label; my “church” is anyone who will strive with God as I do, as that is the meaning of the name Israel [Yi sra el]; as that is the only church God sees [anyone who will call themselves His children]. If that is you, then you are family.

“Yi” = He
“sra” (sara) = to struggle; to strive
"El = God

Taken from the time when Jacob struggled with the Angel of God, and his name was then after changed to Israel.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Hi again,

There’s been good conversation since I last check the forum *

This reply is to Earnest and Anna (since both replies are in the “spirit” of the same argument). Let me explain what I mean when I say Sin is not* Suffering, but living without sin, is suffering .

[Now please read any references I make in context of the chapter in which it’s found, just to show that I’m not cherry-picking verses].

To Sin is to break the Law

Earnest, there is - indeed - something we lose (in terms of “spirit”) when we break the Law, but realize that we (humanity) have already broken the Law in the beginning - the crime has already been committed - as evident when Adam and Eve were suddenly compelled to hide themselves from God [Geneses 3:8].

Time is relative and measured on a different scale to God, so there’s no sin we can commit today that wasn’t already included in the crime we committed in the beginning, namely “Disobedience”. There is only one true crime and that is “breaking the law of obedience”. This is why Messiah reduces all the commandments of God to a single greatest; “Love God” [Matthew 22:37].

Why did Adam and Eve - already without clothing - hide themselves only after they sinned?

Here’s the example to show that we’ve already lost something; something we once possessed…something we haven’t had since then. And if “what is in heaven so must be on earth”, then what we’ve lost is akin to a form of clothing or covering we once had. We once wore the glory of God as our clothing…but ever since breaking the Law, truly we’ve been naked.

Every Law has a Price to pay when broken

Let’s take the speeding law as an example:

We all know the law when it comes to speeding. The law says, “stay within the speed limit of the zone you’re driving in” [or what?] “…or you will (1) pay with a fine or time in jail and (2) the authorities will (potentially) take your car away”.

So we struggle - and we suffer - to follow the Law; to get back what we’ve lost.

Notice what you’ve said, Anna.

True! Humanity was given the Law: “be obedient to God, your Father” [or what?] “…or I will strip you naked (or take your glory) and you will pay with your life”. Humanity’s glory has since been taken away (as a consequence) and we are sentenced to death (as a consequence).

By Law, all man(kind) is obligated to suffer the consequenses of our crime. Man(kind) does not suffer the crime. In other words, as a whole we are not victims, but perpetrators. We are all counted together…and must die. Notice that in all references to the people of God, they are treated as a single body or nation or people or woman who is unfailthful [Jeremiah 3:8].

The Messiah has come to Fulfill the Law for those who believe, but for those who don’t believe…they are required to fulfill the law themselves

Now in all the generations that has followed Adam & Eve, we’ve received, from them, characteristics, traits and knowledge…but not our original clothing [spiritual glory]…(truly) it’s been taken from us and is gone forever. Next, the law requires that we all die; to pay with our lives…But, The Messiah has come to (1) offer to pay the fine on our behalf, and (2) help reclothe us in glory.

We all must die because [Romans 6:23] the wages (cost/price) of sin is death. But the Messiah * gave himself as ransom (payment) only* for any who would believe so that [John 3:16] whoever believes in His love offering will not (themselves have to) perish [or pay the cost/price], but have everlasting life. This payment is not for all by default, but only for those who accept it. Otherwise, they (who do not accept it) will pay their own fine.

"So what is left for those of us who accept the offer? What are we to do now?"

We each are required to make ourselves worthy for when the Messiah returns with his reward; The Glory…which is only available to the Resurrected, as (again) these bodies have lost it forever.

Future Glory = Obedience to God now = an “Endurance” = The “patience” of the saints

The Messiah says He will come with His reward; it’s a reward for suffering as The Messiah suffered.

• For even hereunto [to suffer] were ye called: because Christ also suffered* for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow in his steps: 22 who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.

Christ gave us an example to follow…that example was to suffer, but does this verse say that “to suffer is to sin”? No.

Truly, the verse says that (a) Christ did not sin, and yet it also says (b) “he suffered” and that (c) “we should follow in his footsteps”.

…Then is “suffering” to die like Chist died, if we believe that he already died for us? No.

We are charged to live life sinlessly; to live life obediently…that is the struggle.

[Revelation 14:12] Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that (1) keep the commandments of God, and (2) the faith of [Messiah].

The word “patience” is equated to “endurance”. Truly, the meaning of the word patience is “to endure; to suffer through”.

The patience - the endurance - is to suffer live without sin in this kingdom that is owned by satan’s, the father of sin.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

This reply is to Earnest and Anna (since both replies are in the “spirit” of the same argument). Let me explain what I mean when I say Sin is not Suffering, but living without sin, is suffering .

Sin is suffering because it results in the loss of inner peace in ones conscience that comes from the Holy Spirit. Sin is also a slavery that leads deeper into sin. This makes no sense to those who avoid this suffering by constant activity, denial, by pleasing themselves physically or emotionally by the very sin that is causing the lack of inner peace. This Spirit is the “life” Jesus talks about in John 6:55. It is naive to think that those hooked on drugs, sex, hate, or selfishness are having a good time.

In the Catholic theological Tradition, sin results in the loss of God’s Grace, that is freely given but is rejected by the act of sinning. This is based on that which separates Catholic and Protestant theology, grace covering human nature or grace perfecting human nature. Luther rejected the Scholastic methodology of nature and of grace perfecting it as well as rejecting even our participation in this act of God’s Grace. You seem to also not go as far as Luther in your post but you don’t have the Catholic theological base either. Catholics base their rule of faith on the Church, as it says in the Bible, “the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth”. If Peter is the “rock”, then the Church is the true Church started by Jesus and it has the authority to do as she does. This is for you to accept or reject.

Earnest, there is - indeed - something we lose (in terms of “spirit”) when we break the Law, but realize that we (humanity) have already broken the Law in the beginning - the crime has already been committed - as evident when Adam and Eve were suddenly compelled to hide themselves from God [Geneses 3:8].

Time is relative and measured on a different scale to God, so there’s no sin we can commit today that wasn’t already included in the crime we committed in the beginning, namely “Disobedience”. There is only one true crime and that is “breaking the law of obedience”. This is why Messiah reduces all the commandments of God to a single greatest; “Love God” [Matthew 22:37].

Adam and Eve were disobedient and thus sinned, resulting in a separation of God’s Grace from their human nature. This makes us reliant only on our human nature unless we accept this Grace from God freely offered and given by the Church, from Jesus, in the Sacraments.

Obedience in general is acted out by particular instances of acceptance. Acceptance of grace, of penance, of suffering, and overall, of Jesus in general. Jesus fulfills the commandments, not reducing them, with the love of God and the love of neighbor as oneself. Again, it is simplistic to see a reduction in God’s saving action instead of a higher truth of fulfillment. This is what the Church does and what we ourselves, in our human nature alone, cannot do.

Why did Adam and Eve - already without clothing - hide themselves only after they sinned?

Here’s the example to show that we’ve already lost something; something we once possessed…something we haven’t had since then. And if “what is in heaven so must be on earth”, then what we’ve lost is akin to a form of clothing or covering we once had. We once wore the glory of God as our clothing…but ever since breaking the Law, truly we’ve been naked.

This covering is the outward manifestation of the inward change of Grace that perfects human nature. This is what was lost in the Garden at the fall and is passed on to us. God’s Spirit in us fully is the redemption we seek. A covering is not consistent with a perfection that will occur after our resurrection. A unified perfection seems to be congruent with Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven”. A covering leaves our human nature intact, thus fallen, instead of perfected. This Catholic view seems to make much more sense.

We are charged to live life sinlessly; to live life obediently…that is the struggle.

[Revelation 14:12] Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that (1) keep the commandments of God, and (2) the faith of [Messiah].

The word “patience” is equated to “endurance”. Truly, the meaning of the word patience is “to endure; to suffer through”.

The patience - the endurance - is to suffer live without sin in this kingdom that is owned by satan’s, the father of sin.

The struggle is to accept the Grace of God despite the fallen human nature, concupiscence, that fights against that which we know we should do: Romans 7:23 “But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members”. Life is a struggle no matter what, but the inner life of the Spirit is that which those persecuted saints, who gave up their lives instead of losing this Spirit, attest to. They gave up their lives for something “good” they had, not for more suffering. Suffering is not good in and of itself but is only good for a higher “Good” that is God and His Will. This is Catholic theology.

We can come up with a myriad of different interpretations, but the one that leads to the fullest truth and that does not lead us astray, is the one put forth by the Catholic Church.

 

[Bill_Pick]

As I am about to head off to confession. Yay! I was thinking about things, and wanted to know what everyone thought the reason that Christ had to die for us was? Also, how did dying back then, actually save us here now, in this time?

Talk away!

For the sins of the world

 

[Anna_Scott]

Sin is suffering because it results in the loss of inner peace in ones conscience that comes from the Holy Spirit. Sin is also a slavery that leads deeper into sin. This makes no sense to those who avoid this suffering by constant activity, denial, by pleasing themselves physically or emotionally by the very sin that is causing the lack of inner peace. This Spirit is the “life” Jesus talks about in John 6:55. It is naive to think that those hooked on drugs, sex, hate, or selfishness are having a good time.

In the Catholic theological Tradition, sin results in the loss of God’s Grace, that is freely given but is rejected by the act of sinning. This is based on that which separates Catholic and Protestant theology, grace covering human nature or grace perfecting human nature. Luther rejected the Scholastic methodology of nature and of grace perfecting it as well as rejecting even our participation in this act of God’s Grace. You seem to also not go as far as Luther in your post but you don’t have the Catholic theological base either. Catholics base their rule of faith on the Church, as it says in the Bible, “the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth”. If Peter is the “rock”, then the Church is the true Church started by Jesus and it has the authority to do as she does. This is for you to accept or reject.

Adam and Eve were disobedient and thus sinned, resulting in a separation of God’s Grace from their human nature. This makes us reliant only on our human nature unless we accept this Grace from God freely offered and given by the Church, from Jesus, in the Sacraments.

Obedience in general is acted out by particular instances of acceptance. Acceptance of grace, of penance, of suffering, and overall, of Jesus in general. Jesus fulfills the commandments, not reducing them, with the love of God and the love of neighbor as oneself. Again, it is simplistic to see a reduction in God’s saving action instead of a higher truth of fulfillment. This is what the Church does and what we ourselves, in our human nature alone, cannot do.

This covering is the outward manifestation of the inward change of Grace that perfects human nature. This is what was lost in the Garden at the fall and is passed on to us. God’s Spirit in us fully is the redemption we seek. A covering is not consistent with a perfection that will occur after our resurrection. A unified perfection seems to be congruent with Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven”. A covering leaves our human nature intact, thus fallen, instead of perfected. This Catholic view seems to make much more sense.

The struggle is to accept the Grace of God despite the fallen human nature, concupiscence, that fights against that which we know we should do: Romans 7:23 “But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members”. Life is a struggle no matter what, but the inner life of the Spirit is that which those persecuted saints, who gave up their lives instead of losing this Spirit, attest to. They gave up their lives for something “good” they had, not for more suffering. Suffering is not good in and of itself but is only good for a higher “Good” that is God and His Will. This is Catholic theology.

We can come up with a myriad of different interpretations, but the one that leads to the fullest truth and that does not lead us astray, is the one put forth by the Catholic Church.

Beautifully written.

I’m sorry, Joshua27, but I agree with Earnest Bunbury.

Anna

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Beautifully written.

I’m sorry, Joshua27, but I agree with Earnest Bunbury.

Anna

Thanks, but I agree with the Church. You don’t indicate if you are Catholic, just a disenchanted Protestant. Get the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read through it; there you will begin to see the true faith, along with reason, that I missed by being raised and educated in Protestant leanings. It just made no sense, there had to be a deeper truth and I found it in Catholic theology. I hope Mr. Joshua27 will too.

 

[Joshua27]

Sin is suffering…Sin is also a slavery that leads deeper into sin…This Spirit is the “life” Jesus talks about in John 6:55. It is naive to think that those hooked on drugs, sex, hate, or selfishness are having a good time.

Sin is a choice to break the Law, Earnest…And there are consequenses to all choices, whether temporary (physical) or permanent (spiritual). And all sin is the same choice against obedience. Adam & Eve had a choice; they were not forced to eat the fruit. Addicts have choice. Satan did not force them to sin…he tempts.

Unfortunately, we [humanity] are more comfortable with a truth that says “we are victims and not to blame for our sin.” Such a view is accepted by most because it allows us to avoid the mirror; avoid responsibility.

In the Catholic theological Tradition, sin results in the loss of God’s Grace

“God never took away his grace. He cared [so loved the world] enough to send His Son because of grace. He could’ve distroyed us and started over.”

…that is freely given but is rejected by the act of sinning.

Notice what you just wrote. Sin is an act; our act; our action (choice).

Luther rejected the Scholastic methodology of nature and of grace perfecting it as well as rejecting even our participation in this act of God’s Grace. Catholics base their rule of faith on the Church, as it says in the Bible, “the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth”.

[1 Timothy 3:15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

This is your reference, but if this is true - that the Catholic Church follows the rules of faith - you miss Timothy’s full message. Let’s read in context:

[1 Timothy 3:12-15] Let the deacons (priests) be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is [Messiah]. 14 These things write I unto thee [about deacons (priests)], hoping to come unto thee shortly; 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

But the Catholic Church doesn’t allow deacons (priests) to marry.

If Peter is the “rock”, then the Church is the true Church started by Jesus and it has the authority to do as she does. This is for you to accept or reject.

Well true history would surprise you, Earnest. Peter is the rock…who holds the keys of Messiah’s church, but there were a few twists and turns in the story before we reach today’s Church.

Adam and Eve were disobedient and thus sinned, resulting in a separation of God’s Grace from their human nature. This makes us reliant only on our human nature unless we accept this Grace from God freely offered and given by the Church, from Jesus, in the Sacraments.

Notice that you speak of “choices”, Earnest. This is the very act of suffering as Messiah suffered; to choose God beyond our “natural” inclination (if you will) of sinning. You disagree what I’ve said and yet say the same thing in another way.

…This is what the Church does and what we ourselves, in our human nature alone, cannot do.

Again, who said anything about being alone? The only thing I can conclude is that you mean “without the Catholic Church”?

Matthew 22:30 “For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven”.

If you’re going to quote scripture for your benefit, please do so in context to know what Messiah was talking about. The conversation starts at Matthew 22:24 and ends at Matthew 22:32. Please - everyone - read what exactly Messiah is talking about before assuming. Messiah is speaking very practically about the Law.

The struggle is to accept the Grace of God despite the fallen human nature, concupiscence, that fights against that which we know we should do…Suffering is not good in and of itself but is only good for a higher “Good” that is God and His Will.

I like the way you explain your point, but the current definition of suffering; the one you understand as “pain, etc.” is not the definition of “suffering” used by Messiah.

From the lips of the One who gave the Keys to Peter:

[Matthew 19:13-14] Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them [the kids]. 14 But [Messiah] said, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Notice that the meaning of “suffer” - taken from the past language of the bible - is to “endure”. So let’s reread.

[Matthew 19:13-14] Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them [the kids]. 14 But [Messiah] said, “Endure little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for such is the kingdom of heaven.”

To Suffer is To Endure. Messiah wants us to suffer against Sin; against our rebellious nature to break the Law. In that endurance - the same The Messiah endured - we make ourselves worthy, NOT by our own strength, but through the 2 Keys of the Kingdom:

[Rev.14:12]

1. Obedience of the Law
2. Faith in and of Messiah

 

[Joshua27]

Thanks, but I agree with the Church. You don’t indicate if you are Catholic, just a disenchanted Protestant. Get the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read through it; there you will begin to see the true faith, along with reason, that I missed by being raised and educated in Protestant leanings. It just made no sense, there had to be a deeper truth and I found it in Catholic theology. I hope Mr. Joshua27 will too.

It’s unfortunate that Earnest would still rebuke you, Anna, even though you’ve expressed agreement with him. Such as the Pharisees did in Messiah’s time against the Harlot, the Tax Man, etc…

Interestingly enough, the Religious Authority of Messiah’s day NEVER agreed with anything He said because everything he spoke sounded so contrary to their interpretation of doctrine and tradition, and - in fact - they called him the equivalent of a heretic, eventually seeking his death.

…Oh, how history repreats itself…

Narrow is the path [meaning only very few walk it]. The hardest thing to accept is the truth, while the easiest is a lie.

Matthew 7:13

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many [people] there be which go in there at.

Know this, Anna: The Father and Messiah would never rebuke you for the wrong label because - regardless - your heart seeks the truth. Pray for confirmation of the Truth, whether it is revealed as what I’ve shared or what Earnest has shared.

 

[Anna_Scott]

It’s unfortunate that Earnest would still rebuke you, Anna, even though you’ve expressed agreement with him. Such as the Pharisees did in Messiah’s time against the Harlot, the Tax Man, etc…

Interestingly enough, the Religious Authority of Messiah’s day NEVER agreed with anything He said because everything he spoke sounded so contrary to their interpretation of doctrine and tradition, and - in fact - they called him the equivalent of a heretic, eventually seeking his death.

…Oh, how history repreats itself…

Narrow is the path [meaning only very few

walk it]. The hardest thing to accept is the truth, while the easiest is a lie.

Matthew 7:13

Know this, Anna: The Father and Messiah would never rebuke you for the wrong label because - regardless - your heart seeks the truth. Pray for confirmation of the Truth, whether it is revealed as what I’ve shared or what Earnest has shared.

Yes, I noticed the rebuking from Earnest, even after I agreed with him. It doesn’t really matter if anyone agrees with me. Happens frequently.

I do pray for discernment and that God will reveal His truth to me.

I’m not easily swayed or easily offended.

Anna

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Yes, I noticed the rebuking from Earnest, even after I agreed with him. It doesn’t really matter if anyone agrees with me. Happens frequently.

I do pray for discernment and that God will reveal His truth to me.

I’m not easily swayed or easily offended.

Anna

Thanks, but I agree with the Church. You don’t indicate if you are Catholic, just a disenchanted Protestant. Get the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read through it; there you will begin to see the true faith, along with reason, that I missed by being raised and educated in Protestant leanings. It just made no sense, there had to be a deeper truth and I found it in Catholic theology. I hope Mr. Joshua27 will too.

This may look like a rebuke only if taken as such, but I must say that it isn’t, and is so far from what I wanted to convey that I think my posting here is a waste of time.

This was my intent:

“Thanks” is just that, Thank you.

“I agree with the Church”, this means I am not taking credit.

“You don’t indicate if you are Catholic”, means your posts indicate a certain Catholic sensibility, like someone new to the faith or considering it closely. This was actually a compliment.

“just a disenchanted Protestant” is Anna’s wording in the corner of the box where it says “Religion”.

“Get the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read through it; there you will begin to see the true faith, along with reason, that I missed by being raised and educated in Protestant leanings”. This is what I did and it helped me. It saddens me that people take words emotionally and not for what they are. This is how the words of the Bible can be misused, emotionally.

“It just made no sense, there had to be a deeper truth and I found it in Catholic theology. I hope Mr. Joshua27 will too”. I was hoping that a deeper sense of theology was what everyone wanted. It seems to me that we receive the truth from God and we won’t have the fullness of this truth until heaven, thus we could always use more study and the Catechism is the way I would recommend this. This is a Catholic site so I don’t think that I am off base here.

Take this post as you wish, positively as I intend all my posts, or negatively. This view is usually in the eye of the beholder since I had no animosity toward anyone in posting and the taking it as such is wrong.

I’ve been thinking for a while that this forum is a waste of time, very few seem to wish to learn and often take posts erroneously as an attack on their positions and themselves personally. This will be my last post for a very long time. I wish all those of good will the best.

Earnest Bunbury.