[Traditio]

For treatment of the atonement, I recommend Cur Deus Homo by St. Anselm and De Trinitate by St. Augustine (I forget which book...XIII, I think?).

Against those who deny that Christ Our Lord is both God Himself (with respect to His substance) and the Son of God (with respect to His person), I feel as though the following preliminary considerations are in order:

1. For what reason did Christ die on the cross? St. Paul tells us plainly: "A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the first" (1 Timothy 1:15).

Christ died on the cross in order to atone for our sins. Yet, if this is true, then we must admit that if Christ indeed atoned for our sins, then the means must have been well suited to the end. A means which is improportionate to the end cannot attain the end. Therefore, the means must have been sufficient to attain the end, if Christ both came into the world to save sinners and indeed did save sinners.

2. For what reason did sinners need to be saved? St. Paul tells us: "The the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting, in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

Think about what sin is and consider the severity of sin. To sin is to offend a God of infinite majesty. It is to regard the Most High God as Supreme Lawgiver and to break His laws. It is to say to God: "I know that you have commanded me x, but I choose not x!"

How enormously grevious is even the slightest sin? Did not Lot's wife offend the Lord with a single look? And yet that one look merited death (Genesis 19:26). If God commands me to look one way, and I look the other, even in that simple act, I turn my back on a God of Infinite Majesty. And in so doing, I merit infinite punishments. I am infinitely guilty.

So, then, Christ came into the world to save sinners by His Passion, Death and Glorious Resurrection. And yet the means had to be proportionate to the end. And the end was to save sinners, who, through their sins, have merited infinite punishments for themselves.

Are we then to say that Christ was a mere creature? Are we then to say that Christ only was "The Son of God," but not God Himself? Then we are still dead in our sins. We have no hope. We are doomed. No creature, however sinless or good, could possibly atone even for a single sin: the just deserts of even a single sin is infinite punishment. A mere creature, however good or sinless, can only gain finite merits.

If the means was to be proportionate to the end, Christ had to gain infinite merits for us on the Cross. Only infinite merits could atone for infinite guilt and punishment.

But only God could reap infinite merits. Therefore, Christ had to be God Himself.

[csuguy]

You fail to show that Christ had to be God in order for his sacrifice to be meaningful. Indeed, you can't show that for scripture never says any such thing: that is merely a rhetorical position. You blindly assert that Christ, if he wasn't God, couldn't even do away with a single sin if he weren't God - but you have no support for your position and you show a complete misunderstanding of where the power of the cross comes from.

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by csuguy

You fail to show that Christ had to be God in order for his sacrifice to be meaningful. Indeed, you can't show that for scripture never says any such thing: that is merely a rhetorical position. You blindly assert that Christ, if he wasn't God, couldn't even do away with a single sin if he weren't God - but you have no support for your position and you show a complete misunderstanding of where the power of the cross comes from.

It's not a matter of meaningful vs. nonmeaningful (whatever that means). It's a matter of proportionate vs. improportionate means. Only infinite merits can atone for infinite guilt/punishments. But sin merits infinite guilt/punishment. Therefore, Christ, if He was to atone for sin, must have gained infinite merits.

But no mere creature can do that. Therefore, Christ was not a creature with respect to His person, but God Himself.

[csuguy]

Originally Posted by Traditio

It's not a matter of meaningful vs. nonmeaningful (whatever that means). It's a matter of proportionate vs. improportionate means. Only infinite merits can atone for infinite guilt/punishments. But sin merits infinite guilt/punishment. Therefore, Christ, if He was to atone for sin, must have gained infinite merits.

But no mere creature can do that. Therefore, Christ was not a creature with respect to His person, but God Himself.

1. You are assuming, out of nowhere, that only infinite merits can counteract the punishment of death.

2. You are assuming that Christ had to be God in order for his sacrifice to carry infinite merit - as if the value of his sacrifice had to do with him being God vs. being sinless and righteous.

Too many assumptions on your part - and the second one is blatantly false.

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by csuguy

1. You are assuming, out of nowhere, that only infinite merits can counteract the punishment of death.

Actually, the punishment isn't merely death in the sense of physical death. The punishment is spiritual death in the sense of everlasting punishments in Hell (Matthew 18:8; Matthew 25:46). The reason for this is because sin merits infinite guilt and punishment.

Only infinite merits can atone for infinite guilt/punishment.

If you doubt this, then consider the following:

You owe me one million dollars. You pay back $5. You still have more to owe, don't you?

Well look, you owe me an infinite amount of money. You pay me a billion dollars. You still have more to pay back. You always will. It's only if you could give me a payment of an infinite amount of money that you could settle your debt.

But no creature could do that.

2. You are assuming that Christ had to be God in order for his sacrifice to carry infinite merit - as if the value of his sacrifice had to do with him being God vs. being sinless and righteous.

This is per se nota/analytic. The predicate is contained in the subject. If you understand the meaning of the terms "infinite" and "creature," then it follows trivially that no mere creature can gain infinite merits. Every creature is finite.

[csuguy]

Originally Posted by Traditio

Actually, the punishment isn't merely death in the sense of physical death. The punishment is spiritual death in the sense of everlasting punishments in Hell (Matthew 18:8; Matthew 25:46). The reason for this is because sin merits infinite guilt and punishment.

Actually, the spiritual death is even more final than physical death: for not only is your body destroyed, but also the soul. Hell isn't a place of torture but of destruction

Matthew 10:28

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Only infinite merits can atone for infinite guilt/punishment.

There's your assumption again.

If you doubt this, then consider the following:

You owe me one million dollars. You pay back $5. You still have more to owe, don't you?

First off, those are finite amounts.

Second off, consider that you owe me an infinite amount of money. You can keep giving me money for an infinite amount of time in infinite amounts, but it will never erase the debt - which has no end.

Clearly your analysis fails on both accounts.

Well look, you owe me an infinite amount of money. You pay me a billion dollars. You still have more to pay back. You always will. It's only if you could give me a payment of an infinite amount of money that you could settle your debt.

No - actually a infinite payment would not cancel out an infinite debt - for an infinite debt would, by definition, have no end.

But no creature could do that.

Again, you don't seem to realize that the value of Christ's sacrifice on the cross has to do with his being sinless and righteous - and nothing to do with his divinity.

This is per se nota. If you understand the meaning of the terms "infinite" and "creature," then it follows trivially that no mere creature can gain infinite merits. Every creature is finite.

Incorrect. Merit has nothing to do with what one is, but rather with what one does.

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by csuguy

You fail to show that Christ had to be God in order for his sacrifice to be meaningful. Indeed, you can't show that for scripture never says any such thing: that is merely a rhetorical position. You blindly assert that Christ, if he wasn't God, couldn't even do away with a single sin if he weren't God - but you have no support for your position and you show a complete misunderstanding of where the power of the cross comes from.

Well said.

You said it before I did, good.

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by Traditio

It's not a matter of meaningful vs. nonmeaningful (whatever that means). It's a matter of proportionate vs. improportionate means. Only infinite merits can atone for infinite guilt/punishments. But sin merits infinite guilt/punishment. Therefore, Christ, if He was to atone for sin, must have gained infinite merits.

But no mere creature can do that. Therefore, Christ was not a creature with respect to His person, but God Himself.

Just buttin' in.

Could you show, from scripture, that the messiah, the anointed one, had to be God?

Wasn't Jesus of Nazareth anointed by God?

Acts 10:38

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by Traditio

Actually, the punishment isn't merely death in the sense of physical death. The punishment is spiritual death in the sense of everlasting punishments in Hell (Matthew 18:8; Matthew 25:46). The reason for this is because sin merits infinite guilt and punishment.

Only infinite merits can atone for infinite guilt/punishment.

If you doubt this, then consider the following:

You owe me one million dollars. You pay back $5. You still have more to owe, don't you?

Well look, you owe me an infinite amount of money. You pay me a billion dollars. You still have more to pay back. You always will. It's only if you could give me a payment of an infinite amount of money that you could settle your debt.

But no creature could do that.



This is per se nota/analytic. The predicate is contained in the subject. If you understand the meaning of the terms "infinite" and "creature," then it follows trivially that no mere creature can gain infinite merits. Every creature is finite.

Let me try this again.

Just buttin' in.

Could you show, from scripture, that the messiah, the anointed one, had to be God?

Wasn't Jesus of Nazareth anointed by God?

Acts 10:38

"How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."

oatmeal

[oatmeal]

Originally Posted by oatmeal

Let me try this again.

Just buttin' in.

Could you show, from scripture, that the messiah, the anointed one, had to be God?

Wasn't Jesus of Nazareth anointed by God?

Acts 10:38

"How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."

oatmeal

Hey you,

Do you think he'll read Romans 5:15?

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

Or how about I Corinthians 15:21?

"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

What do u think?

Will he read and believe?

Will he take the words in those verses to heart?

Give him that opportunity.

oatmeal

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by csuguy

Actually, the spiritual death is even more final than physical death: for not only is your body destroyed, but also the soul. Hell isn't a place of torture but of destruction

Matthew 10:28

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

1. Christ clearly says in the Matthew passage that I gave that the punishments for evil-doers will be everlasting.

2. I don't need the Scriptures to know that I merit eternal punishments. I can know this from reason alone. I perceive that I offend a God of infinite majesty. In so doing, I merit infinite guilt/punishments. To be punished everlastingly is a greater punishment than to "blink out of existence," so to speak. Therefore, if God is just, He will grant the punishment that is most deserved. Therefore, He will not blink the damned out of existence, but they will be punished everlastingly. That is what we deserve.

There's your assumption again.

If it is an assumption, it seems like a strong one. It seems pretty intuitive. The finite is incommensurate to the infinite. Debts must be paid. The debt is infinite. Therefore, a finite payment is incommensurate to the infinite debt.

First off, those are finite amounts.

Yes.

Second off, consider that you owe me an infinite amount of money. You can keep giving me money for an infinite amount of time in infinite amounts, but it will never erase the debt - which has no end.

False. It is true that I could give you finite amounts of money for an infinite amount of time, and it would never erase the debt. Thus, if we "do not enter the door of God's Mercy, we must enter the door of God's Justice,"* and the due debt of justice which we owe is infinite. We are finite, and therefore only can receive punishments finitely. Therefore, we must pay this debt of punishment everlastingly, if we do not seek refuge in the great mercy of God.

This is our due.

However, you speak falsely when you say that we could pay infinite amounts of money for an infinite amount of time, and an infinite debt would never be repaid. Here, you fail to grasp what an infinite payment would be. You assert that an infinite debt is limitless, but you fail to note that an infinite payment likewise is without limit. A single infinite payment would suffice for an infinite debt. If you say that an infinite payment is not enough, then you are misunderstanding the terms under discussion. You're conceiving the infinite payment as being a finite one.

*This is a quote from memory from St. Faustina.

No - actually a infinite payment would not cancel out an infinite debt - for an infinite debt would, by definition, have no end.

An infinite payment likewise would have no end. That's why it alone is sufficient for an infinite debt.

Again, you don't seem to realize that the value of Christ's sacrifice on the cross has to do with his being sinless and righteous - and nothing to do with his divinity.

Let Him be as sinless and righteous as you please. If He is not God, He is but a finite creature, and so the merits which He gains through his sinlessness, righteousness, etc. remain finite. Anything finite is incommensurate to an infinite debt of guilt/punishment.

Incorrect. Merit has nothing to do with what one is, but rather with what one does.

And a finite creature cannot gain infinite merits.

But merit sometimes can have something to do with what one is, insofar as what one is relates to what one does. In this case, God's act of dying on the cross was an act that gained infinite merits.

[csuguy]

Originally Posted by Traditio

1. Christ clearly says in the Matthew passage that I gave that the punishments for evil-doers will be everlasting.

The 2nd death is eternal - it is complete destruction from which one will never come back

2. I don't need the Scriptures to know that I merit eternal punishments. I can know this from reason alone. I perceive that I offend a God of infinite majesty. In so doing, I merit infinite guilt/punishments. To be punished everlastingly is a greater punishment than to "blink out of existence," so to speak. Therefore, if God is just, He will grant the punishment that is most deserved. Therefore, He will not blink the damned out of existence, but they will be punished everlastingly. That is what we deserve.

More empty assertions.

If it is an assumption, it seems like a strong one. It seems pretty intuitive. The finite is incommensurate to the infinite. Debts must be paid. The debt is infinite. Therefore, a finite payment is incommensurate to the infinite debt.

An infinite payment cannot pay off an infinite debt, you don't know what you are talking about. Take a calc course sometime - adding/subtracting infinity is not the same as adding/subtracting a finite #.

False. It is true that I could give you finite amounts of money for an infinite amount of time, and it would never erase the debt. Thus, if we "do not enter the door of God's Mercy, we must enter the door of God's Justice,"* and the due debt of justice which we owe is infinite. We are finite, and therefore only can receive punishments finitely. Therefore, we must pay this debt of punishment everlastingly, if we do not seek refuge in the great mercy of God.

You are now contradicting yourself: you insist that Christs merit had to be infinite and now you turn around and say it doesn't have to be infinite.

However, you speak falsely when you say that we could pay infinite amounts of money for an infinite amount of time, and an infinite debt would never be repaid. Here, you fail to grasp what an infinite payment would be. You assert that an infinite debt is limitless, but you fail to note that an infinite payment likewise is without limit. A single infinite payment would suffice for an infinite debt. If you say that an infinite payment is not enough, then you are misunderstanding the terms under discussion. You're conceiving the infinite payment as being a finite one.

*This is a quote from memory from St. Faustina.

An infinite payment likewise would have no end. That's why it alone is sufficient for an infinite debt.

An infinite debt has no end - so no matter how much you try to pay it off it is axiomatically without end. It doesn't matter that you keep paying without end - it won't affect the infinite nature of the debt.

Let Him be as sinless and righteous as you please. If He is not God, He is but a finite creature, and so the merits which He gains through his sinlessness, righteousness, etc. remain finite. Anything finite is incommensurate to an infinite debt of guilt/punishment.

Merit is not based upon what one is but what one does - his status as creature/God is irrelevant.

And a finite creature cannot gain infinite merits.

So says Traditio

But merit sometimes can have something to do with what one is, insofar as what one is relates to what one does. In this case, God's act of dying on the cross was an act that gained infinite merits.

Circular Logic