Why did Christ have to suffer and die?
#11
(04-10-2010, 09:41 PM)Lagrange Wrote:
(04-10-2010, 02:05 PM)randomtradguy Wrote:
(04-03-2010, 08:42 AM)Lagrange Wrote: The question depends largely on what you intend to ask by the question? Obviously, the short and obvious answer is yes, i.e.: since the fall of Adam, it was always God's will that the Incarnate Word would suffer and die to redeem us.

1) Regarding the remission of sin. No it was not intrinsically necessary that Christ suffer and die, because God could have, through His Omnipotence, pardoned the sins of men even without satisfactory atonement. Not only was Christ's suffering and death not inherently necessary in this regard, but the Incarnation itself also.

2) However, if a satisfactory atonement was to occur, then it was absolutely necessary that the Incarnation occurred. Because sin is an infinite offence (being a rejection of the Infinite Good), it requires an infinite merit in atonement. Now no creature can gain infinite merit. Therefore, for man to atone for sin, it was necessary for God to assume that nature, and perform actions (which are actions of a Divine Person, infinite in merit) on behalf of human nature. Hence man repays the debt, through the God-Man. This is fitting because it aptly reflects both God's Infinite Justice and Mercy.

3) However, in theory, any small action of Jesus Christ (which is infinite in merit by definition) would in theory be sufficient to atone for all sins. Hence the extent to which He suffered was truly not of necessity, but out of burning charity to demonstrate the horror of sin, solidarity with men in their sufferings, and just to impress upon usthe extent of God's love and concern for us. God stoops so low just to for us to find more reasons to love Him. Hence the Passion and Death of Christ were the principal acts of His Life set aside as it were and offered to God as an atonement. And that is why it is said that His Sacrifice is super-abundent, i.e.: it goes above what is required to achieve our Redemption. And that's a signal for Christians too, not just to fulfill strict obligations, but of going beyond that in zeal for God's glory and His will. 

4) If by ransom theory you mean that God purchased ownership of the human race back from the devil, then it certainly isn't true. Even though Satan acquired did acquire a certain dominion by Adam's fall, it was qualified, and only occurred via the permissive will of God (and such dominion could have been taken away just like that thanks to God's omnipotence). 

( I'm indebted to Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma in which I read some time back concerning these issues. )


Now don't the "Orthodox" believe in the ransom theory? They say the Fathers teach the ransom theory. but we say the "Orthodox" are wrong. so who's right?, and why? Patristic quotes would help.

Depends what you mean by the term ''ransom''. Of course, anyone can speak about the dominion of the devil being ''taken away'' following the Redemption of Christ. So in a certain sense ''ransom'' can be a correct term, i.e.: God is restoring what was lost. However, no Orthodox will go the extreme and take ''ransom'' to mean that God has to bargain with the devil. That's just silly and it's heresy, because God is omnipotent. And when it comes to the Church Fathers, care must be taken not to twist their words out of their context, e.g.: evocative terms sometimes should be taken in a literalist sense, but in an analogous way.


Thanks, Lagrange. As much as I know that God so loved the world He gave His only Son etc, it doesn't tell me why the Atonement was needed and, basically, how the Atonement works. That is what I've been searching for for years.
Pax

Reply
#12
(04-12-2010, 07:49 PM)randomtradguy Wrote: Thanks, Lagrange. As much as I know that God so loved the world He gave His only Son etc, it doesn't tell me why the Atonement was needed and, basically, how the Atonement works. That is what I've been searching for for years.
Pax

This is also what I need to know.

I really appreciate everyones posts though!
Reply
#13
I believe there are a lot of reasons for His difficult experience.
1)  When you read the Gospels, what you see is, He did things His way, not His Father's way (which is UNOBTRUSIVELY).  This got our Lord into trouble in his own community.
2) When you look at Galactic history, one learns that God has given up Universal Acclamations in order to perfect this planet and this system.  God has already sacrificed everything before; so it's meet and right for His Son to make sacrifices also.
3) The notion of sacrifice itself needed to be articulated, as to metes and bounds.  Sacrifice of the young and innocent is wrong; so is sacrifice of the gifted to serve the corrupted. 

There are positive sacrifices that serve as lessons in role modeling; and there are hideous sacrifices that display cruelty and violence unnecessarily.  Such limits are being explored and experienced here and now in  Satan's domain, before and only until the end of this Dispensation.  Sometimes in the winter when everybody's hungry, it works to sacrifice a live animal and eat it, so that neither the animal nor the humans will starve.  Sacrifice is LIKE THAT.  It takes mature judgment; but done in haste and carelessly or by ideology, sacrifice is a cruel substitute for the experience of Life.

Jesus' Life helps us set the boundary between appropriate and inappropriate sacrifices.  He was essentially an innocent, helpful, decent soul--a dissident, YES!--but kindly and doing right by his behaviors.  He showed us that sacrificing ourselves for Right did not harm our Souls; but that it invokes Justice and serves as a reminder of Right Versus Wrong that is essentially LOST in our current generation of globalist and occult ideologies.

And when it's all said and done, and Satan is gone : "... for the meek themselves shall inhabit the earth; and they shall find their exquisite delight in the abundance of Peace."  Psalm 37  and "Happy are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth," Matthew 5.

I hope my ramblings don't offend. I'm just speaking off the cuff from what makes sense to me.  : )  EEWC
Reply
#14
(04-14-2010, 11:26 PM)No3456 Wrote: I believe there are a lot of reasons for His difficult experience.
1)  When you read the Gospels, what you see is, He did things His way, not His Father's way (which is UNOBTRUSIVELY).  This got our Lord into trouble in his own community.

???

"I cannot of myself do anything. As I hear, so I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of Him that sent Me" (John 5:30).

"Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent Me" (John 6:38).

Our Lord got into trouble because the Jews who did not believe in Him misread the law and also lied about Him. They tried to "insnare Him in His speech", tempt Him, and accused Him of casting out devils by the power of the prince of devils.
Reply
#15

Yep.  Correct.

The distance between their theoretical dogma and their practices was so great,

misunderstandings dominated; and the Son of God came to complete rejection.

So now what? 

Do we stand with Truth and God, or do we compromise to make ourselves acceptable to preferences of those who rule over us?


:shrug:

Reply
#16
I've heard it said or read it something that man needed Christ's example of suffering and death to follow. God doesn't need it. It is man who needs Christ. Even God doesn't need man, but man need God.
There is also the teaching that an infinite offense, sin, can only be repaired by an infinite sacrifice.
Reply
#17

Possibly all true.  I'm still working on this line of thought.  : )

However, for God to keep His attention focused on this tiny orb in the middle of Creation is certainly a sacrifice [of the Rest of it] on HIS Part.

Seems to me.


Emily
Reply
#18
(04-12-2010, 09:00 PM)SinfullyLate Wrote:
(04-12-2010, 07:49 PM)randomtradguy Wrote: Thanks, Lagrange. As much as I know that God so loved the world He gave His only Son etc, it doesn't tell me why the Atonement was needed and, basically, how the Atonement works. That is what I've been searching for for years.
Pax

This is also what I need to know.




I really appreciate everyones posts though!


Actually, Lagrange's first post covered it well; particularly item "2)" in his list of 4.  But if I may. . .

To "atone" means to make amends or reparation.  Atonement for sin is needed because... well, God commands it.  We know God is merciful, because he forgives.  We also know God is just, and justice dictates that amends must be made.  The example often given: If I throw a baseball through your window, you may forgive me for breaking it (mercy)... but you'll want me to pay to repair it, too (justice).

When speaking of "Atonement," one can look to the Old Testament (Leviticus comes to mind) and read about sacrificing/immolating various animals: calves, rams, goats, oxen (and without blemish at that!)  Why?  To atone for sin.  For example, from Leviticus, Chapter 4:

Quote:1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Say to the children of Israel: The soul that sinneth through ignorance, and doth any thing concerning any of the commandments of the Lord, which he commanded not to be done: 3 If the priest that is anointed shall sin, making the people to offend, he shall offer to the Lord for his sin a calf without blemish. 4 And he shall bring it to the door of the testimony before the Lord, and shall put his hand upon the head thereof, and shall sacrifice it to the Lord. 5 He shall take also of the blood of the calf, and carry it into the tabernacle of the testimony.
A victim without blemish... the sacrifice... and the blood.



Leviticus also calls for Yom Kippur, the holiest day for Jewish people.  Yom Kippur is commonly translated as: the day of atonement.  But another translation, arguably more literal, is: the day of covering over; which, in retrospect, is pretty much all they could do back then.  We now know/believe that anything man does ALONE to satisfy for sin is inadequate.  Meritorious?  Perhaps... but certainly not satisfactory.  The only sacrifice that truly satisfies or atones for sin is the sacrifice of the Lamb of God; which occurred at Calvary 2,000 years ago and continues to occur at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass today, and which had/has the Victim without blemish... the Sacrifice... and the Precious Blood.

Reply
#19
(04-21-2010, 07:13 PM)AndreasAngelopolitanus Wrote:
(04-12-2010, 09:00 PM)SinfullyLate Wrote:
(04-12-2010, 07:49 PM)randomtradguy Wrote: Thanks, Lagrange. As much as I know that God so loved the world He gave His only Son etc, it doesn't tell me why the Atonement was needed and, basically, how the Atonement works. That is what I've been searching for for years.
Pax

This is also what I need to know.




I really appreciate everyones posts though!


Actually, Lagrange's first post covered it well; particularly item "2)" in his list of 4.  But if I may. . .

To "atone" means to make amends or reparation.  Atonement for sin is needed because... well, God commands it.  We know God is merciful, because he forgives.  We also know God is just, and justice dictates that amends must be made.  The example often given: If I throw a baseball through your window, you may forgive me for breaking it (mercy)... but you'll want me to pay to repair it, too (justice).

When speaking of "Atonement," one can look to the Old Testament (Leviticus comes to mind) and read about sacrificing/immolating various animals: calves, rams, goats, oxen (and without blemish at that!)  Why?  To atone for sin.  For example, from Leviticus, Chapter 4:

Quote:1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Say to the children of Israel: The soul that sinneth through ignorance, and doth any thing concerning any of the commandments of the Lord, which he commanded not to be done: 3 If the priest that is anointed shall sin, making the people to offend, he shall offer to the Lord for his sin a calf without blemish. 4 And he shall bring it to the door of the testimony before the Lord, and shall put his hand upon the head thereof, and shall sacrifice it to the Lord. 5 He shall take also of the blood of the calf, and carry it into the tabernacle of the testimony.
A victim without blemish... the sacrifice... and the blood.



Leviticus also calls for Yom Kippur, the holiest day for Jewish people.  Yom Kippur is commonly translated as: the day of atonement.  But another translation, arguably more literal, is: the day of covering over; which, in retrospect, is pretty much all they could do back then.  We now know/believe that anything man does ALONE to satisfy for sin is inadequate.  Meritorious?  Perhaps... but certainly not satisfactory.  The only sacrifice that truly satisfies or atones for sin is the sacrifice of the Lamb of God; which occurred at Calvary 2,000 years ago and continues to occur at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass today, and which had/has the Victim without blemish... the Sacrifice... and the Precious Blood.

Thanks, that helps a lot. But one might argue that the constant demand for blood and sacrifice makes God a bloodthirsty God.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)