Protestant vs. Catholic Vs. Muslim Cage-Match to the death: why did Jesus [as] die?

[BuffedGuy]

[As a disclaimer: Muslims don't believe that Jesus [as] died, but was rather ascended to the Heavens.]

My question is this, for both Protestants and Catholics: can you please explain why the Messiah Jesus (peace be upon him!) died on the Cross according to your religion? Can you explain the concept of "dying for our sins"? Does believing in Jesus mean all sins are forgiven? Please elaborate on this concept, God-Willing.

[Side note: in this cage-match to the death, we'll be testing for AAS, according to fight club protocol.]

Round 1! Fight!

[D7M]

read St. Thomas' Summa Theologiae III, Q. 46-49

that's my answer

[BuffedGuy]

read St. Thomas' Summa Theologiae III, Q. 46-49

that's my answer

Can you link to the pages or do I have to look it up?

Can you also clarify any differences between Protestants and Catholics on this issue?

[BuffedGuy]

read St. Thomas' Summa Theologiae III, Q. 46-49

that's my answer

I think I found it. Is this it here:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm

?

[BuffedGuy]

This is very long and raises all sorts of arguments and counter-arguments. My question in particular is: Does believing in Jesus [as] mean that all sins are forgiven? Can you elaborate on this concept a bit, or just copy/paste the relevant part?

[Polska]

These sorts of threads should go in this forum:

http://forums.steroid.com/forumdisplay.php?f=89

[JDawg1536]

If I was sober I could do as much. As it is, I'm Roman Catholic and choose to lead a normal existence. I have consumed too much Vodka tonight and will respond to your question at a later time... when the Roman Catholic Church sees fit. Thank you, and God bless Alah to all!

[BuffedGuy]

These sorts of threads should go in this forum:

http://forums.steroid.com/forumdisplay.php?f=89

Well, I don't actually mean to start a cage match. It was tongue-in-cheek. Just wanted to hear some views on this issue. And I also wanted to make sure that Muslims aren't having strawman arguments, considering the fact that most people we preach to don't know the issues that well. Mostly I just wanted to hear Derek's thoughts on issues I hear a lot, but wanted to double-check on. Basically, I want to know if I properly understand the Christian viewpoint, as well as the difference between Protestants and Catholics on this issue.

[rockinred]

Buffed,

The result of sin = death. Just as one man, Adam, brought sin and death into the world, so has one man, Jesus, brought life into the world. we are all decendents of Adam's seed. Now there are many who are spiritually decendents/ of Jesus.

Adam, was perfect and sinned by eating the fruit. What the fruit/sin was is a matter of question, as many believe it would be symbolic of obediance to God. Now, as you know many sacrificed animals, because God has stated that without the shedding of blood their is no remission/covering of sins. A sacrifice of the most unblemished lamb was a act of faith to ask God for forgiveness of your sins.

Now, since every man was condemmed and imperfect, there is no true coverage of sins through a shedding of blood, it can only be symbolic or an act of good will if you will to the Almighty. Well, we believe, that Jesus was perfect like Adam.... and he died for no reason unlike adam, who was deserving of death because of his actions.disobedience. Jesus was not deserving of death, but he did lay down his life as a sacrifice, to offer those who do not want to share in Adams misfortune because of their inherited seed. Now God has offered us a way out of that and to have life the way he intended it to be through Jesus' perfect life and death. Why did he have to die? Because God has always been true and just... he announced death to Adam and his seed because of the sin, so now he will only alter it with a just manner, in the same way.... to show that he is true justice. Not a lamb or imperfect man's shed blood would be able to alter Adam's choice.

He could have just killed Adam, Eve, and Satan and started over, or he could have just left us to our ruine here on Earth, because we are deserving in our evil ways. But, he has a reason for letting things go and he is also showing his love and justice by allowing us to alter the course of death that was sentenced to all of us through Adams seed. Part of his promise is to alter this course through his Son Jesus. To give us all a chance, because many may also say, I never ate the apple like Adam, so now, we have a chance to choose life and not death. He will alter history, not by forcing his will upon our will, but by allowing us a chance. Those who choose life will be brought back to life and all history altered at the apointed time. This time is the time that our God and creator has deemed. As Jesus stated that no one will know when exactly this time is, not the heavens, angels, prophets, not even the son/himself... Only God knows this time. All we can do is try and observe the times as warnings, like weather men observe certain actions and draw conclusions as to what will happen sometime soon.

Now Jesus really died and was dead for 3 days, yet we believe he was resurected and brought back to life as promised to all of us who also believe. If there was no death, then there is no reason for Jesus to have even been here and things to happen the way they did. The prophets have already been here to forewarn man and ask them to return to God. We believe that Jesus was more than a prophet and that is why he is also referred to as the giver of life and savior. He did not perform only prophetic preachings to stear man back to God. There is a messiah that has been prophesized as coming. We believe he is the one while others are still awaiting for that one. He is the only one that can be linked to the seed of David. There are no more records and no one can truly be linked to that seed by birth records. All those records in Jeruselem were destroyed around 70 a.d.

We await to be awakend from the dead/sleep and hope to live in the way that was orininally intended for Adam and all mankind. the only way possible is through our Lord Jesus Christ. Peace be unto you also.

[Matt]

I was born into a catholic family but dont believe jesus died on the cross to save our sins. I do believe there is some kind of higher power (God), evolution just doesnt make any kind of sense to me. I dont believe in any of the prophets from any religion..

[D7M]

I think I found it. Is this it here:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm

?

Yes, that's it. It's lengthy, but worth the read.

My question in particular is: Does believing in Jesus [as] mean that all sins are forgiven? Can you elaborate on this concept a bit, or just copy/paste the relevant part?

So, the soteriological question for the Christian is: Christ did something 2,000 years ago, but how does *that* event become appropriated to the Christian living today? That is, all Christians believe Christ did something meritorious (indeed it was supererogatory) since He was perfect, and his death was freely obediential, but how do we receive the benefits of that act?

Basically, for the Protestant yes, it is simply a matter of fiduciary (saving) faith in the person and work of Christ, by which sins are forgiven. Further that act of fiduciary faith should also be accompanied by an act of contrition and repentance.Nothing else is necessary.

For the Catholic, while faith in the person and work of Christ is necessary condition for forgiveness of sins, it is, at the same time, not a sufficient condition.

The Catholic, on the other hand, would say it is through the instrumental causality of the sacraments that the supererogatory merits of Christ are applied to lives of the believer.

(this is why faith, for the Catholic is faith is necessary, but not sufficient, since the sacraments work ex opere operato that is, they are effective regardless of the ministers' moral state [cf. the Donatist controversy] or the believers' faith. So that a person who goes to communion, but whose faith is weak, will still receive the fullness of the Sacrament--hence, why Catholics employ the 'transsubstantiation to the eucharist, contrary to Calvin's quasi 'consubstantiation'.

So, for the Catholic it is not simply enough to make a mental act of faith , but one must also participate in the sacraments of the Church--that is, the means by which God has ordained to give us grace, and the forgiveness of sins (baptism, confirmation, confession, eucharist, etc).

This was brief. But to further understand the Catholic position, one would need to explain something about Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and sacramentology.

But that hopefully answered your question.

[hugovsilva]

I am not a religious person so my opinion is worth what its worth.

I think many religious people rely on Jesus or God to do whatever they want, that they will be forgiven because of their belief. This doesn't sound right at all. I try to live a righteous life, helping others as much as I can not because of any belief but because I want to feel good about the type of persom I am and have a clean conscience. I commit sins just like anybody else, but my sins have nothing to do with harming others. Maybe vanity and lust are my biggest sins, and in the sin scale they must be low ranking because only my life is affected.

About religion, from what I know, all of them are about doing good and try to teach good principles to all mankind, but the problem with them is that is Man making up the rules and nowadays any religion is not what it was supposed to be. Only this way you can explain why something that was created to bring peace and harmony was preverted and has been the cause of the majority of wars and violent deaths all over the years.

This is why I am not a religious person.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, RockinRed.

Thank you for your response.

Let's say I convert to Christianity. If Jesus [as] died for all my sins, then would not this belief indirectly cause me to be lax with regards to my sins? I mean, after all, everything is forgiven anyways! So why not fornicate and do all those things...Is not this doctrine--that Jesus [as] died for our sins--a blank check for Christians to sin?

EDIT: Two new contenders have entered the ring! OK, let me read your posts, Derek and Hugo.

[BuffedGuy]

Hugo, I agree with your post, and it is exactly the question I asked in my previous post: does not such a belief cause people to be lax in their sins?

Derek: So how would a Protestant answer the question I have raised? And do Catholics believe that all sins are forgiven when they believe in Jesus [as] and do the sacraments? If this is the case, wouldn't the same question apply to Catholics? In other words, if I was a Catholic--and all my sins were forgiven so long as I believed in Jesus [as] and did the sacraments--then isn't it a free pass to sin, since all sins are forgiven anyways due to the sacrifice of Jesus [as]? Or have I misunderstood the Catholic position? (I've never really interacted with Catholics like I have with Protestants, so I might well have misunderstood it!)

[Ernst]

Depends a little on which denomination of Christianity....
If you ask for forgiveness or are told you have it, does this mean you will be forgiven? Well, since Jesus died for your sins, if you TRULY repent (god can tell-- no fooling him) then yes. Seriously though, how many people threw a rock at that kid in gym class and are not truly sorry even tough they were made to say it? To be forgiven you can't just pay lip service to god, you heart must be in the right place.

BTW, I am no longer a practicing anything. I was just raised religiously.

[hugovsilva]

Hugo, I agree with your post, and it is exactly the question I asked in my previous post: does not such a belief cause people to be lax in their sins?

Derek: So how would a Protestant answer the question I have raised? And do Catholics believe that all sins are forgiven when they believe in Jesus [as] and do the sacraments? If this is the case, wouldn't the same question apply to Catholics? In other words, if I was a Catholic--and all my sins were forgiven so long as I believed in Jesus [as] and did the sacraments--then isn't it a free pass to sin, since all sins are forgiven anyways due to the sacrifice of Jesus [as]? Or have I misunderstood the Catholic position? (I've never really interacted with Catholics like I have with Protestants, so I might well have misunderstood it!)

I believe it does.

I think that Catholics feel that they can commit any sin, that as long as they confess and believe in Jesus/God, all of their sins will be forgiven. Seems to me that for a lot of them religion is just a way to clear their conscience for all the sins they have commited, and despite being a bad person you will always have a place in heaven just because you confessed and you believe.

[BuffedGuy]

Depends a little on which denomination of Christianity....
If you ask for forgiveness or are told you have it, does this mean you will be forgiven? Well, since Jesus died for your sins, if you TRULY repent (god can tell-- no fooling him) then yes. Seriously though, how many people threw a rock at that kid in gym class and are not truly sorry even tough they were made to say it? To be forgiven you can't just pay lip service to god, you heart must be in the right place.

BTW, I am no longer a practicing anything. I was just raised religiously.

So wait, I'm confused here. Let's say I'm a Christian and I fornicate with some girl. Now, in order for my sin to be forgiven, do I have to ask God for forgiveness for this act of fornication? What would happen to me if I did NOT ask for forgiveness for this act specifically but just continued fornicating the rest of my life? Let's say I even died whilst in the act of fornication. Now, when my soul is raised up, will I be OK since Jesus [as] died for my sins, which included all those multiple counts of fornication? Keep in mind that in this scenario I am a Christian who believes Jesus to be my savior Lord.

[Ernst]

So wait, I'm confused here. Let's say I'm a Christian and I fornicate with some girl. Now, in order for my sin to be forgiven, do I have to ask God for forgiveness for this act of fornication? What would happen to me if I did NOT ask for forgiveness for this act specifically but just continued fornicating the rest of my life? Let's say I even died whilst in the act of fornication. Now, when my soul is raised up, will I be OK since Jesus [as] died for my sins, which included all those multiple counts of fornication? Keep in mind that in this scenario I am a Christian who believes Jesus to be my savior Lord.

I'm not sure my friend, if you grasp how many denominations of Christianity there are and how much they can differ...

The answer to the above will vary depending on which Christian you ask. You'll likely get answers everywhere from "eternal damnation in the fiery pits of hell" to "all is forgiven."

[D7M]

In the first place, I think it's a facile objection to begin with, Buff.

The same objection can be levied against any religion, including yours...isn't Allah the most merciful? If I were Muslim, committed a sin, and sincerely repented, would Allah not forgive me?

But Ernst is right, it will vary on denomination.

Some protestants say that "once you are saved you are always saved" regardless of the sins you commit.

Catholic would disagree, in your example of fornication, you'd be damned if you didn't repent.

But, like almost every religion, you can repent and be forgiven.

I really don't see the big issue here

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

Funny.

I once asked, "If I went a mass baby raping/murdering spree, and I truly repented in the end, would I go to heaven?"

And the answer I got was yes.


Just another reason I'm not religious...


I think if we live having good morals and values, that in the end, if something does happen, it will be good.

[BuffedGuy]

Peace be unto you, Derek.

In the first place, I think it's a facile objection to begin with, Buff.

The same objection can be levied against any religion, including yours...isn't Allah the most merciful? If I were Muslim, committed a sin, and sincerely repented, would Allah not forgive me?

But Ernst is right, it will vary on denomination.

Some protestants say that "once you are saved you are always saved" regardless of the sins you commit.

Catholic would disagree, in your example of fornication, you'd be damned if you didn't repent.

But, like almost every religion, you can repent and be forgiven.

I really don't see the big issue here

We Muslims believe that God will forgive any and all sins, so long as:

1) You feel guilty for the sin you committed.
2) You pray to God for forgiveness.
3) You cease and desist from the sin immediately.
4) You make sincere intention not to ever do the sin again.
5) You do not go back to the sin.

If a person repents with all of those five conditions met, then we believe that any sin is forgiven, even murder, fornication, etc.

However, if you don't meet those five conditions, then you are liable to be punished for your sins.

But it seems to me that Christianity (at least Protestantism) is saying that you can keep on sinning the rest of your life, without fulfilling any of the above five conditions and you are still forgiven.

So no, I don't think it is the same at all. I as a Muslim have never fornicated because I fear damnation. I don't have any blank check to sin. I could *not* say to myself "Ok, I'll fornicate and then just make repentance after that", because that is a violation of the fourth condition above, namely that the repentance be sincere. And this is stated quite clearly in Islam that when one asks for forgiveness, he must be sincerely repentant and intend in his heart never to commit that sin again, so a person who plans on committing that sin at a later date and just repenting has also violated all the other conditions.

Let me go back to this scenario here:

Let's say I'm a Christian and I fornicate with some girl. Now, in order for my sin to be forgiven, do I have to ask God for forgiveness for this act of fornication? What would happen to me if I did NOT ask for forgiveness for this act specifically but just continued fornicating the rest of my life? Let's say I even died whilst in the act of fornication. Now, when my soul is raised up, will I be OK since Jesus [as] died for my sins, which included all those multiple counts of fornication? Keep in mind that in this scenario I am a Christian who believes Jesus to be my savior Lord.

If a Muslim were to commit fornication all the time, never repent from it, and die whilst fornicating, we are told that such a person will go to hell-fire. Sure, God *might* forgive him and his punishment might be waived due to some other acts of goodness the man does or for some other reason, but the punishment promised for him is hell-fire. In other words, there is a small chance God might forgive him, but it's not guaranteed.

So this would cause a Muslim to be fearful of fornicating, since it leads to hell-fire.

Meanwhile, the Christian would not have any of this fear, because his sins are automatically forgiven due to the act of Jesus [as], regardless of if the Christian feels remorse for his sin, intends to stop his sin, etc.

Unless I am understanding this wrong?

[BuffedGuy]

Funny.

I once asked, "If I went a mass baby raping/murdering spree, and I truly repented in the end, would I go to heaven?"

And the answer I got was yes.

Well, my issue is with the underlined part. It seems that Christianity is saying that a mass-murderer and baby rapist would not even need to be truly repentant at all. Rather, he just needs to believe the Lord Jesus is his Savior. So I don't get that at all.

In regards to the Islamic belief, we believe that if a mass-murderer or baby rapist asks for sincere repentance--fulfilling the five conditions I laid out--and changes his life around 100%, living a life of good for the rest of his years to make up for the evil he did, etc....then yes he could enter Paradise. But I mean it has to be like a complete turn-around 100%.

[D7M]

If a Muslim were to commit fornication all the time, never repent from it, and die whilst fornicating, we are told that such a person will go to hell-fire. Sure, God *might* forgive him and his punishment might be waived due to some other acts of goodness the man does or for some other reason, but the punishment promised for him is hell-fire. In other words, there is a small chance God might forgive him, but it's not guaranteed.

So this would cause a Muslim to be fearful of fornicating, since it leads to hell-fire.

Meanwhile, the Christian would not have any of this fear, because his sins are automatically forgiven due to the act of Jesus [as], regardless of if the Christian feels remorse for his sin, intends to stop his sin, etc.

Unless I am understanding this wrong?

Yes, you are understanding this wrong.

Refer to my above post.

Distinguish between Protestant and Catholic soteriology.

The Catholic view is much the same as the Muslim view. Really. Now, what people practice and what the church actually teaches are two different things....as with any religion.

In terms of the majority of Protestant views, yes, you'd be correct. Not all Protestant denominations will hold the same position on this. But most mainstream Protestants have some sort of view of the "security of salvation", meaning once you make that act of fiduciary faith, you can never be damned, regardless of your sin. This, again, is far from the Catholic position.

keep in mind, all, that I'm not advocating either position here, or attempting to degrade any Christian denomination...simply stating facts.

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

Well, my issue is with the underlined part. It seems that Christianity is saying that a mass-murderer and baby rapist would not even need to be truly repentant at all. Rather, he just needs to believe the Lord Jesus is his Savior. So I don't get that at all.

Well, catholics would need to repent.

[BuffedGuy]

To be clear about the Islamic belief: we Muslims believe that for every act you get certain "points". The least good deed will be counted as +10, and a bad deed counts as -1.

On the Day of Judgment, your good deeds will be weighed against your bad deeds. If your good deeds are greater (keeping in mind that every good is multiplied by 10), then you will go to Paradise. If your bad deeds are more, then you will be sent to hell-fire.

Some of those in hell-fire will then be shown mercy and given "free points" to bump their score into the positive range, then promoted to paradise out of Mercy. But many will have so many negative points that they will stay in hell-fire.

So basically, a Muslim is trying to make sure that on the Day of Judgment, our good deeds outweigh our bad, so this creates a constant struggle to do good deeds and eschew evil.

And of course, the Islamic lexicon doesn't use the word "points", but it does use "units of reward". I just thought it would be easier by using the word "points". We believe that our good deeds are being written in one book, and the evil deeds on another, and on that Day, the two will be weighed against each other.

[D7M]

To be clear about the Islamic belief: we Muslims believe that for every act you get certain "points". The least good deed will be counted as +10, and a bad deed counts as -1.

On the Day of Judgment, your good deeds will be weighed against your bad deeds. If your good deeds are greater (keeping in mind that every good is multiplied by 10), then you will go to Paradise. If your bad deeds are more, then you will be sent to hell-fire.

Some of those in hell-fire will then be shown mercy and given "free points" to bump their score into the positive range, then promoted to paradise out of Mercy. But many will have so many negative points that they will stay in hell-fire.

So basically, a Muslim is trying to make sure that on the Day of Judgment, our good deeds outweigh our bad, so this creates a constant struggle to do good deeds and eschew evil.

yah, well, Catholics have an understanding of condign merit, but it's not quite as juridical as that...that is, there's no counting or point system.

[BuffedGuy]

Well, catholics would need to repent.

Yes, you are understanding this wrong.

Refer to my above post.

Distinguish between Protestant and Catholic soteriology.

The Catholic view is much the same as the Muslim view. Really. Now, what people practice and what the church actually teaches are two different things....as with any religion.

In terms of the majority of Protestant views, yes, you'd be correct. Not all Protestant denominations will hold the same position on this. But most mainstream Protestants have some sort of view of the "security of salvation", meaning once you make that act of fiduciary faith, you can never be damned, regardless of your sin. This, again, is far from the Catholic position.

keep in mind, all, that I'm not advocating either position here, or attempting to degrade any Christian denomination...simply stating facts.

So I guess then my question is for Protestants: does not this belief--"security of salvation"--create a situation that gives a free license to sin?

And with regards to Catholics, my question to Derek is: does a person have to fulfill the five conditions for repentance I stated? Because on tv I have seen that people just sin and then go to the Catholic priest to have their sins forgiven, then go right back to sinning. Of course this is tv, so I'm asking you to clarify. Can someone fornicate, then go to the priest for confession, then go back to fornication, etc, back and forth, and still be forgiven? In other words, is the confession automatically granted without any need to have sincere regret/guilt, sincere intention to stop the sin, etc?

yah, well, Catholics have an understanding of condign merit, but it's not quite as juridical as that...that is, there's no counting or point system.

I oversimplified with the point system. There is no such wordage as "point system" in the Islamic texts. But yeah, we do believe that every good deed is worth ten times as much as an evil deed, and then the two books will be weighed on the Day of Resurrection. I guess I shouldn't have been so free with my point system analogy.

[BuffedGuy]

Derek, another follow-up question: Protestants say that Jesus [as] died for our sins, and that is where they get their belief in "security of salvation."

So then my question for you as a Catholic is: why did Jesus [as] die on the cross? Did he not take away our sins for that? If so, then why would you disagree with the Protestant view? What then was the purpose of Jesus's crucifixion?

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

Catholic confession is a joke.
My friends would go and the father would tell them, "Now you need to go do 30 hail marys and 50 our fathers (prayers) ...


lol

now we can go back to sinning

[D7M]

So I guess then my question is for Protestants: does not this belief--"security of salvation"--create a situation that gives a free license to sin?

maybe Amcon will be along soon to answer that...

And with regards to Catholics, my question to Derek is: does a person have to fulfill the five conditions for repentance I stated? Because on tv I have seen that people just sin and then go to the Catholic priest to have their sins forgiven, then go right back to sinning. Of course this is tv, so I'm asking you to clarify. Can someone fornicate, then go to the priest for confession, then go back to fornication, etc, back and forth, and still be forgiven? In other words, is the confession automatically granted without any need to have sincere regret/guilt, sincere intention to stop the sin, etc?

Catholic theology teaches that the three aspect of a successful repentance from sin are: confession, contrition (sorrow for sin), repentance (a sincere desire not to return to the sin).

The purpose of the sacrament of confession is to forgive sins (except original sin, that is done in baptism). Now if someone persists in their sin, but is truly repentant, yes, they can still be forgiven.

The church realizes we are fallen and imperfect. It's impossible to never sin. So, yes, you need sincere repentance to be forgiven, but because of human nature, we can still be forgiven if we commit the sin again.

[D7M]

Catholic confession is a joke.
My friends would go and the father would tell them, "Now you need to go do 30 hail marys and 50 our fathers (prayers) ...


lol

now we can go back to sinning

I actually agree with this...

It really has lost any importance since they stopped giving out severe penances like they did in the early church

[D7M]

Derek, another follow-up question: Protestants say that Jesus [as] died for our sins, and that is where they get their belief in "security of salvation."

Um, not really, it's more that they confuse the issue between condign and congruent merit.

So then my question for you as a Catholic is: why did Jesus [as] die on the cross? Did he not take away our sins for that? If so, then why would you disagree with the Protestant view? What then was the purpose of Jesus's crucifixion?

It's the same, both (protestants and catholics) agree that Christ died for our sins.

The point of contention is *how* those merits are applied to us, as I said above.

[BuffedGuy]

Catholic confession is a joke.
My friends would go and the father would tell them, "Now you need to go do 30 hail marys and 50 our fathers (prayers) ...


lol

now we can go back to sinning

^^^That is how it looks to me as an outsider. But I am going to be fair and say that what Derek says here:

Catholic theology teaches that the three aspect of a successful repentance from sin are: confession, contrition (sorrow for sin), repentance (a sincere desire not to return to the sin).

^^^What he said there works for me. The fact that people take repentance as a joke has more to do with the people than the religion. I don't think a religion should be judged by some adherents, just like Islam shouldn't be judged for what the extremists do. If the religion teaches that sin is only forgiven if one is contrite and truly repentant, then I don't think that such a belief is problematic at all.

In other words, I declare the Catholics clear on this issue. *hits gavel*

Now it is only the Protestants who need to clarify their position on this issue.

I actually agree with this...

It really has lost any importance since they stopped giving out severe penances like they did in the early church

What were severe penances?

[D7M]

What were severe penances?

well, people took sin more seriously then, too.

penances like severe fasting, pilgrimages, etc

the medieval monastic tradition was even more severe, including things like self flagellation, hair shirts (yes, some monks still use them!)...

[BuffedGuy]

Um, not really, it's more that they confuse the issue between condign and congruent merit.

Explain. I had to look up the word "condign" and I still don't get what you mean.

It's the same, both (protestants and catholics) agree that Christ died for our sins.

The point of contention is *how* those merits are applied to us, as I said above.

Forgive me for my analogy, and I'm not trying to be crass here--just trying to understand the issue. (Keep in mind that I made a pretty crass analogy with the "point system" thing earlier, just to make the issue easier to understand.) So basically, it's like you have a voucher, but you can only redeem the voucher if you fulfill certain conditions? In other words, Jesus [as] died for our sins, but in order for us to utilize that act, we need to ask for repentance, and once we do that, then Jesus's sacrificial act can be applied to us, taking away our sins?

Have I understood this correctly?

Because if I have, I think this position is even more problematic than the Protestant view. And I'll tell you why I think so...Throughout the Bible, people ask God for forgiveness for their sins. For example, Moses [as] asks God for forgiveness and is granted it. Moses [as], in the Old Testament, committed murder. But he was forgiven for that. And there are many other countless examples of people simply asking God directly for forgiveness--and God forgiving them--long before Jesus [as] was born.

So it seems that from a Biblical standpoint, God can just forgive a person, without there being any need for His Son to be sacrificed.

If the sins of all the humans before Jesus [as] was born could be forgiven by God just like that, then why the sudden need to have Jesus [as] die for our sins? In other words, it seems like it was a superfluous act, since God would have forgiven us directly anyways--just like He had been doing for hundreds of generations aforetime?

Going back to the voucher example...it's like getting a voucher for $10 off, but then when you go to the store you find out that everyone is getting $10 off, even without the voucher. So then--if that is the case--there is no need to mail people $10 vouchers.

To reiterate just to be extremely clear--if God was forgiving sins long before Jesus [as] was even born--and sins like murder, fornication, etc.--then why couldn't He just forgive our sins now directly? It seems that the entire need for God to send His Son to die for our sins--as explained in RockinRed's post--seems superfluous.

Let me know how you'd respond to this.

[BuffedGuy]

Here, in Numbers 14:19-20, Moses [as] asks God for forgiveness and is granted it:

"'By your great love, please forgive these people's sins, as you have been forgiving them from the time they left Egypt until now.' The LORD said, 'I forgive them, as you have asked.'" (Numbers 14:19-20)

So he just prayed to God and was forgiven. No sacrifice. Nothing.

Why can't God just forgive a sin? I don't understand why someone must be sacrificed. It doesn't make sense to me for two reasons:

The first reason I've already stated...people asked God for forgiveness throughout the OT and got it, just by asking for it.

The second reason is that even if you say that God must punish because God is Just, what kind of justice is it to punish someone else for a sin of another? Isn't that the antithesis of justice? Even in the Bible, it says that the son shall not bear the burden of sin from the father, and the father won't bear of the son, etc.

Let's say I commit murder and the sheriff of the town arrests me. But he says to me: "I'm going to forgive you, and just kill my neighbor instead, which will excuse you from your murder." I mean, how does this make sense? Is not one of the basic principles of justice--as affirmed in the Bible itself--that no soul shall bear the burden of another? That only the guilty party shall be punished?

If a third person is killed, I don't see how that evens out the scales at all?

Yes, I can understand if the sheriff says: "Well, I know you only murdered the person because he raped someone close to you, so I am going to grant you pardon." Sure, makes sense. Just as easy as that. Why the need for the sacrificial lamb?

But in any case, I guess my second argument is very polemical. I'd really like you to address the first argument, namely why it is that God forgave people in the OT when they just asked for it, so why the need to have His son killed for the sin of people when He could just forgive them straight away anyways?

[D7M]

Explain. I had to look up the word "condign" and I still don't get what you mean.

condign merit is the justice that is given based on an individual's actions (this would be like the good deeds we perform while in a state of grace).

congruent merit is when justice is given to someone because of the actions of someone on the behalf of another (think here of the sacrifice of Christ)

some protestants hold that condign merit is unnecessary, since Christ's sacrifice was complete congruent merit

Forgive me for my analogy, and I'm not trying to be crass here--just trying to understand the issue. (Keep in mind that I made a pretty crass analogy with the "point system" thing earlier, just to make the issue easier to understand.) So basically, it's like you have a voucher, but you can only redeem the voucher if you fulfill certain conditions? In other words, Jesus [as] died for our sins, but in order for us to utilize that act, we need to ask for repentance, and once we do that, then Jesus's sacrificial act can be applied to us, taking away our sins?

Kinda. analogies are always imperfect, right.

That's probably a good analogy for protestant soteriology, but not catholic. Remember faith for a catholic is a necessary but not sufficient condition to the process of salvation.

but, you're getting warmer, buff.

I'm still wondering if you know all this already and are just baiting me....

Because if I have, I think this position is even more problematic than the Protestant view. And I'll tell you why I think so...Throughout the Bible, people ask God for forgiveness for their sins. For example, Moses [as] asks God for forgiveness and is granted it. Moses [as], in the Old Testament, committed murder. But he was forgiven for that. And there are many other countless examples of people simply asking God directly for forgiveness--and God forgiving them--long before Jesus [as] was born.

So it seems that from a Biblical standpoint, God can just forgive a person, without there being any need for His Son to be sacrificed.

If the sins of all the humans before Jesus [as] was born could be forgiven by God just like that, then why the sudden need to have Jesus [as] die for our sins? In other words, it seems like it was a superfluous act, since God would have forgiven us directly anyways--just like He had been doing for hundreds of generations aforetime?

Going back to the voucher example...it's like getting a voucher for $10 off, but then when you go to the store you find out that everyone is getting $10 off, even without the voucher. So then--if that is the case--there is no need to mail people $10 vouchers.

To reiterate just to be extremely clear--if God was forgiving sins long before Jesus [as] was even born--and sins like murder, fornication, etc.--then why couldn't He just forgive our sins now directly? It seems that the entire need for God to send His Son to die for our sins--as explained in RockinRed's post--seems superfluous.

Let me know how you'd respond to this.

well, this is an objection that can be delivered to both catholics and protestants, right?

And it's not novel either. this was St. Anslem's problem, too. when he wrote the Cur Deus Homo he was involved with polemics with the Jews of his day who questioned the "necessity" of the Incarnation.

But, imo, Anselm never successfully answered them. He was still in the process of moving theology from a symbolic apprehension to a systematic one. It wasn't until the genius of Aquinas that we see a comprehensive account of the "necessity of the Incarnation" could be given.

That being said, if you're not a believer, I can give you all the reasons in the world, but it won't make sense to you.

just like if someone was an atheist, and you tried to prove to them God exits. You could give logical, complex arguments, but without faith, the person won't believe.

now, a Christian would say that yes, the Old testament prophets were forgiven, but they were not admitted to paradise, because it was not until Christ's resurrection that the gates of heaven were opened.

But since I have laundry to do, and chicken to eat, I'm just going to link you to Aquinas' answer: http://newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm#article2

[D7M]

But in any case, I guess my second argument is very polemical. I'd really like you to address the first argument, namely why it is that God forgave people in the OT when they just asked for it, so why the need to have His son killed for the sin of people when He could just forgive them straight away anyways?

but they didn't always

the primary way of forgiveness of sins in OT Judaism was via sacrifice.

sure, there were isolated cases of forgiveness without sacrifice, but the standard way was sacrifice.

This is just basic OT Judaism, which is why Christians claim to be the fulfillment of the law, as Christ was the perfect sacrifice of which no more were needed.

[rockinred]

Peace be unto you, RockinRed.

Thank you for your response.

Let's say I convert to Christianity. If Jesus [as] died for all my sins, then would not this belief indirectly cause me to be lax with regards to my sins? I mean, after all, everything is forgiven anyways! So why not fornicate and do all those things...Is not this doctrine--that Jesus [as] died for our sins--a blank check for Christians to sin?

EDIT: Two new contenders have entered the ring! OK, let me read your posts, Derek and Hugo.

Buffed,

It is not an excuse for lawlessnes... but, let me ask you a question first. Maybe the answer lies in the question. If you do not convert to Christianity and live a life according to any way that promotes good deeds, can you work your way into heaven or can your works be looked upon as good and riteous? will the Almighty not look upon you as dirty, no matter how much you claim you are without defile? Can you live a life without sin? Is a man capable of doing so? You cannot decieve God who sees the inner being.

Now, I am sure you will agree that no man has pure thoughts and inequity does not enter his mind, right? your questions answer lies within the answer of this question... can a man or you be pure and without sin?

[rockinred]

there is a key point in all of this has been lost. The payment of sin is death.... you die, how can that be altered? Only through Jesus' death has that been altered...

you sin, you repent, you don't get to keep living... I think that is where many theologians lose grasp of what Jesus' death really means.... people try to rationalize without the premise or base of what is being said. the payment of death is sin, period. We all die and that is a fact. you cannot change that with good deeds that stack up against your bad deeds.