We still determine our own destiny with the help of God’s grace. No one is compelled to go to heaven or hell.
We do that now, yes, because Jesus made it possible. Before him, were
were compelled to go to hell because of the actions of our ancestor. I think it is pretty clear that the actions of individual human beings (Adam and Jesus)
do in fact affect, or even determine, the eternal destiny of the human race as a whole.
God didn’t come into the picture for Sartre because he was an atheist.
That’s true, but persons did. We claim that God is a person (or rather, three); Sarte made a blanket statement about persons. His statement applies to God as well, whether or not he was considering God when he said it.
More than one Messiah was not predicted nor needed.
That isn’t the argument I’m putting forward here. I’m not suggesting that the God-man should have become incarnate twice, I am suggesting that it seems that perhaps he should have become incarnate at the beginning of humanity,
instead of first century Isreal. Additionally, I am not concerned with what actually happened; I
know that. I’m asking, why
didn’t it happen this way?
If God prevented sin it would defeat the purpose of giving us free will.
You may have a point there. Mytruepower2 argues that the test in Eden is only feasible with a person who has the power to do evil, which God allegedly does not not have. Her reasoning is that in order for a human to have a meaningful relationship with God, there must be a possibility of rejecting that relationship. In the case of humans, rejecting a relationship is equivalent to rejecting what is good, which is not true for God.
The problem here is that, if true, the trinity has no power to reject the relationships among themselves, and that idea seems to contradict the notion that the trinity is the most intimate relationship there is. Either God
does have the power to do evil, God is not equivalent with goodness, or else the inability to reject a relationship does not substantially affect the intimacy of that relationship.
In any case, it seems that God making a choice as man is an action that would not substantially alter the relationship between humanity and God.
Atonement means “at-one-ment”, by means of a scapegoat but with the power of love.
right. By the power of love, Jesus took on the punishment for our sins and died on the cross. that’s what I mean when I say he paid our fine. It might not be the best analogy, but no analogy is perfectly accurately representative of God’s mysteries. If you don’t like the analogy, I’ll drop it.
We can never be worthy of salvation. Nothing we do can merit sharing God’s life in heaven. We are redeemed by the Cross but we saved by our love in response to His love.
I make a distinction between “worthy” and “deserving”, where deserving means that you merit something, and worthy simply means that you “fit” in that place. If you look at it this way, we can be worthy, but not deserving, of heaven.
That is the flawed theory of Utilitarianism which would sacrifice individuals for the sake of the majority. No formula can replace our conscience. God’s Love desires the greatest possible good for everyone. We all have an equal right to life, liberty and happiness.
That’s true enough, but when God can’t secure the greatest good for everyone, (he can’t, if there are actually people in hell.) then I figure he’ll probably have to settle for as many as possible. And, it appears that he can set up scenarios in which the decisions of one person can influence, and even determine, the eternal destiny of the rest of the race. (Again, Adam and Jesus) So, God sets up an initial test that, if the first man passes, everyone is saved, and if he fails, everyone is damned. He takes this risk because he know that in the worst case scenario, he can become incarnate and crucified so that salvation is possible again.
The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience. No one else can ever be responsible for our moral decisions.
that may well be ture, But our eternal destiny
is not based solely on our moral decisions. it is also based on the actions of the representative humans, Adam and Jesus.
That idea is diametrically opposed to the injunction of Jesus that we should take up our cross and follow Him: there is no greater love than to lay down one’s
life for another person.
We get ourselves into spiritual trouble through our own sins, Jesus comes and fixes part of that trouble for us. He laid down his life for us sinners because he loves us. He doesn’t say, “they made their decisions, they’ll get what they deserve.” We **can ** be saved from trouble that we inflict on ourselves.