Therefore it does not seem necessary that Christ should have suffered for man's deliverance. Further, as is written ( Psalm 24:10): "All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth." But it does not seem necessary that He should suffer on the part of the Divine mercy, which, as it bestows gifts freely, so it appears to condone debts without satisfaction: nor, again, on the part of Divine justice, according to which man had deserved everlasting condemnation. But Christ suffered of His own will for it is written ( Isaiah 53:7): "He was offered because it was His own will." Therefore it was not necessary for Him to suffer. Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. Therefore it was not necessary for Christ to suffer.
For the human race could not be delivered except by God, according to Isaiah 45:21: "Am not I the Lord, and there is no God else besides Me? A just God and a Saviour, there is none besides Me." But no necessity can compel God, for this would be repugnant to His omnipotence. It would seem that it was not necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race.
Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race? Is Christ's Passion to be attributed to the Godhead?Īrticle 1.Was it fitting for Him to be crucified with robbers?.Did His Passion hinder the joy of fruition?.Was the pain which He endured the greatest?.Was it fitting for Christ to suffer on the cross?.Was there any other possible means of delivering men?.Was it necessary for Christ to suffer for men's deliverance?.
0 kommentar(er)
