Is Christ's sacrifice sufficient for justification or is there more required?


#1

Hello. I’m hoping for some official references from the CCC, CDF or otherwise. Thank you for your help in advance.


#2

CCC references on “justification”.

Justification
conversion precedes, 1989
definition and significance of, 1987, 1989, 1991-92
effects of, 1266, 1990
forgiveness and justice from on high as aspects of, 2018
as the most excellent work of God’s love, 1994
purpose for justifying men, 402, 617, 654, 1987, 1992
ways to receive, 1446, 1996, 2001


#3

Hi

here
is a whole list from the CAF library for you to browse through - complete with Scripture references.

Peace and all that is good

John


#4

The entire matter of ‘justification’ rests on four beliefs
held by Christians:

1 -that man is born in ontological sin [original sin]
said to be ‘inherited’ from Adam.

The faith - said to be the elder faith - of which Christianity
is then said to be the ‘fulfillment’ -teaches no such thing, as original sin.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Original_Sin.html

2 -that a savior, from this ‘original sin,’ was required

The God of Israel had already granted salvation, both to His
chosen people and all people.

beingjewish.com/toshuv/salvation.html

3 -that the God of Israel was not sufficient,
in terms of forgiving personal sin

Yet the God of Israel had already granted forgiveness.

Come now, let us set things right, says the Lord: Though your sins be like scarlet,
they may become white as snow…Is.1:18


Christianity came up with a novelty*, via* Saul of Tarsus:

4 -Adam’s sin created a ‘rupture’ between God and man.
That this ‘rupture’ needed healing ----> atonement [at-one-ment]

Christianity is redundant:

The God of Israel had already granted mercy, forgiveness
and eternal life, not just for His chosen people, but for
all people.

messiah = ‘the anointed’ [as was King David]

messiah does not = ‘savior’

reen12 :tiphat:


#5

I find of interest, those ‘realities’ taken for granted,
by large numbers of people.

Of course a ‘rupture’ existed, between God and all mankind,
as a result of Adam’s sin. [It did? http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif]

For a faith - that relies so heavily on biblical texts -
I find this fascinating - considering that the parent faith taught no such thing
as a spiritual rupture, between God and man, that needed
repair.

Nor did it teach awaiting a ‘savior’ from ontological sin,
nor personal sin. [The God of Israel had already granted forgiveness.]
What ‘need’ for… justification? atonement? [at-one-ment]

The account of man’s fall was written to explain why
life was so hard for human beings. Had something happened?
[labor - by the sweat of a man’s brow, to obtain food,
and the pain of a woman in labor.][/size]

It is the concept of ‘levels of meaning’ that fascinates.
“Finding” things - in the parent scriptures - that are
simply not there, and constructing an entire new religion around same.

"Nuancing’ texts…as guarantor of novel doctrine.

reen12[/size]


#6

Christ’s sacrifice atones completely for our sin. Nothing more is required…although we do need to be open to receiving that grace.


#7

#8

Saul of Tarsus said it most clearly:
“If Christ has not risen, then our faith is in vain.”

Something occured, 20 centuries ago.
Both men and women were willing to be made martyrs -
in defense of their belief in the resurrection of Jesus,
and in their belief that he was a God/man.

For the sake of discussion, I will posit Jesus as God/man -
that he died, and rose again.


What, precisely, has* changed*, in the world? - as a result of
this rising?

When God moves in history, there will be no question about it.
The qualities of the Judaic moshiach are quite specifically stated.

aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp

Nowhere - in the Judaic scriptures, does it speak of a 2nd coming.
Yet Christianity makes much of scriptures. http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

reen12


#9

I’ve heard, over and over again, the descriptive:
‘cafeteria Catholics.’

Yet what more a ‘cafeteria religion’ than Christianity?..

A bit of re-interpreted scripture, a dash of Saul’s imagination [ontological sin]…and voila!

Suddenly, a ‘savior’ is required.

Nevermind that the God of Israel already* granted* forgiveness of sin.
Ignore the novely of Saul’s outright confection - [a rupture that needed repair]…

‘Nuance’ is all, it seems. [They didn’t understand their own
scripture. We do.] http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

reen12


#10

I wasn’t there, 20 centuries ago. I have to rely on the
testimony of those who followed Jesus - as to his resurrection.

Yet when I look at the faith - that Christianity is supposedly
the ‘fulfillment’ of - what do I find? A rejection of the basis
of Christianity. [original sin.]

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Original_Sin.html

Saul was a brilliant man.
One cannot read what he wrote, without noting this fact.

He was brilliant enought to understand, as perhaps Peter did not,
that there was no basis - in the Hebrew Scriptures, for a "savior.'
Messiah, yes. Savior, no.

messiah = the anointed, as was King David.
messiah does not = ‘savior.’

The God of Israel is savior.

Saul constructs a ‘reason’ - for a savior…who was awaited by no one.

reen12


#11

And what of the ‘fruits’… of this new religion - claimed to be
based on the fulfillment of an earlier faith?

*Perhaps I might find testimony - to the effect that Jesus rose- more credible *
…based on what flowed from this new religion.

Yet what did flow - from the claim that a man was a God/man, who
was needed by human beings, to save them from a sin ‘inherited’ from Adam?
A sin in man’s very being [ontological sin].


I look more closely at this, trying to decide whether the testimony,
as to his rising, is credible - based on the teachings which followed…

A doctrine is taught [original sin] - that leaves one with no certainty,
as to the eternal destination of an infant, unbaptized, who dies.

[Augustine speculated, at one point, that such
infants shared the ‘positive misery of the damned.’]

The point is* not* that the church never taught this thought of Augustine.
The point is that the theology of ‘original sin’ made
such thought possible.

Even in our own day, the church is still ‘hoping’ that God
will have ‘mercy’ on these infants.

Vatican website. CCC # 1261.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Mercy…on infants, who can’t even talk yet.
Hope…that these infants are ‘saved.’

And this teaching flows from a religious group, which claims that a
God/man is the ‘fulfillment…’

reen12


#12

In conclusion, let me get this straight. A question apparently remains, about whether
or not an unbaptized infant goes straight to the heart of God.

Vatican website. CCC # 1261.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

This is 'fulfillment?" This is 'saving?'
This reflects ‘reality’ - vis a vis Godhead?

That he came to earth so that man could start worrying about the
eternal fate, of an unbaptized infant, who dies - before laved with saving waters?

Uncertainity - about the eternal destination of unbapitzed infants, who pass away…?


I turn to the Hebrew Scriptures… that the God/man claims to fulfill.

Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child of her womb?
Even should she forget, I will never forget you.
See? Upon the palms of My hands I have written your name. [Isaiah 49]

Did Jesus rise from the dead? I wasn’t there.
I have to rely on the testimony of those who state that he did.

Yet when I look at what has flowed - from the teaching of this
new religion, I find no reason, whatever, to accept such a claim.

The mercy and the forgiveness and the eternal life -
granted by the God of Israel, rings clear and certain.

Even should she forget, I will never forget you.
See? Upon the palms of My hands I have written your name. [Isaiah 49]

Come now, let us set things right, says the Lord: Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow…Is.1:18

reen12


#13

If more were not required, then wouldn’t everybody be saved?


#14

I think that I understand your question, VociMike.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, salvation was set in national context ----
God saving His chosen people.
All the calls of the prophets for Israel to 'turn back to Him,'
were calls to His chosen people…not to particular human beings.
Did individual human beings, members of His chosen people, sin?
Of course they did. Yet God address Israel as a whole people.

The book of Isaiah is full of this reality.

This is what I found of great interest.
Christians take for granted - as if there were never any question
about it…that individual human beings need ‘saving’ from
original sin.

Who will save me?

Yet that was not at all what the God of Israel was saying…
in terms of salvation. God address Israel as a whole, through
the prophets.

Did God address individuals, in the Hebrew Scriptures? Yes He did.
Yet on the whole, God addresses the sins of His chosen people -
as a nation among nations.

reen12


#15

If a Christian says “I am saved by Jesus,” this makes,
literally, no sense, in the view of His chosen people.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, God had already granted forgiveness,
mercy and eternal life. The God of Israel is Savior.

The dominant teaching, of Judaism, rejects the notion of
’original sin.’ No original sin, no need for a savior from same.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/…ginal_Sin.html

To the question: Who will save me, then?
The God of Israel already saves.

A person - not a member of His chosen people,
is saved by God - if that person will acknowledge Him
as the One God, and observe the natural law - that
God has placed in the hearts of human beings.
Man is born innocent, not in some ‘ontological’ sin.

In the West, where Christianity remains the dominant religion,
it is taken for granted that man needs ‘saving’ from both
original and personal sin.

reen12


#16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.