Penal Substitution

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

Summary: Jesus didn't have to, He could reconcile us without death. He was showing His love for us.

Do the good folks participating in that discussion adhere to the Protestant theory of penal substitution? 

The questions were asked in the context of penal substitution, which assumes that Jesus had to die in order to satisfy God's demand for justice. 

Obviously the Church teaches something different.

Good day.

[Ice_nine]

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

This discussed at another message board:

http://forums.avemariaradio.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=164612

Summary: Jesus didn't have to, He could reconcile us without death. He was showing His love for us. 

 

One in nature,  yes. One in person, nyo. 

 

The Father knew about the Crucifixion from all eternity. Was He, then,  suffering from all eternity? 

Maybe? God is outside of time. Christ took on the flesh of man and entered into our space and time and suffered during a slice of human history, but He still suffers today according to writings of many saints. In addition Mary was, as I understand, able to be conceived without original sin, because of Christ's sacrifice, although it had not yet happened yet in time.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I dunno if this works. It would seem that we should then conclude that Mary Magdalene had it worse than Jesus, because she witnessed his crucifixion.

And we would seemingly still be left with the Muslim guy's response in the video. If the Father is loving and all powerful why wouldn't he prevent Jesus from being crucified, and find some other means of saving mankind? Why wouldn't he just forgive mankind for our sins without having someone die, as in the parable of the prodigal son?

If I were on the couch I would probably say something like "The Church does not teach that the Father punishes Jesus instead of punishing us for our sins, in order to satisfy his demand for justice. That theory of the atonement was developed by Protestants during the reformation, and is incorrect."

I'm on my kindle and was also on it for my last post. Not the ideal device for in depth analysis.

The mystery of the cross is in exhaustible. There are certainly many reason God chose to save us in the matter he did. You won't get a succinct response to that question. My response was not exhaustive. I was just pointing out that parents would almost always choose to switch places with their suffering child. I think Mary would have gladly switched places or thrown herself on Christ's body to shield him from the lashes. But she knew that it was the will of the Father ( and of the Son, as their wills are in unison)

In summary I meant to say that the Father was certainly not impassively looking on from a distance while His son was being murdered. It had to have "hurt" him too, in some way, as Christ was and is his dearly beloved son

[Jack4]

11 hours ago, Peace said:

Do the good folks participating in that discussion adhere to the Protestant theory of penal substitution? 

What are you referring to by "that discussion"? 

 

Quote

The questions were asked in the context of penal substitution, which assumes that Jesus had to die in order to satisfy God's demand for justice. 

Obviously the Church teaches something different.

Good day.

Yes. I was just answering the question I had quoted,  from the Catholic perspective. 

10 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

God is outside of time. Christ took on the flesh of man and entered into our space and time and suffered during a slice of human history, but He still suffers today according to writings of many saints. In addition Mary was, as I understand, able to be conceived without original sin, because of Christ's sacrifice, although it had not yet happened yet in time.

Can you explain in more detail please? English is not my first language, sorry.