Protestants typically assert all 3 of the following to be true

The thing is the substitution/satisfaction theories only make sense if you're willing to totally accept the Old Testament creation narrative as being entirely literal.

I don't understand how you reached that conclusion. Care to elaborate?

At least two reasons:
1. It supposes the Christ acted a substitute, taking the punishment we merited for sinfulness, when Christ's suffering was finite, and the punishment we supposedly merit was infinite.
2. It stands in contrast to every human's intuitive, and indeed the Bible's sense of justice, that the guilty themselves deserve punishment. Some other innocent person can't die for you. You still deserve wrath.

The Catechism as I remember it, is quite vague on how exactly the atonement happens, merely stating that it does happen.
But I'm not Catholic in any event.

No we don't

1. Was the suffering and death of Christ- God himself- necessarily finite in nature?
2. No man can take the punishment of another man, because all are guilty. Christ himself was sinless, and thus able. He could pay the debt because he, alone of all, was not in debt himself, but full of merit.

>unironically arguing about meaningless bullshit that doesn't matter because it doesn't exist
Jesus Christ.

Human sin comes from concupiscence, which is foreign to human nature. Original sin [Eastern Orthodox theology doesn't share the Western conception of original sin, but its stance on the effects of sin entering the world through *the* original sin follows the same way] introduced concupiscence to human nature. This is the cause of man's revolt against God that demands some kind of propitiation.

So you need an original un-sinful human nature (no theology admits that God may have created humanity with an innately sinful nature) where the human lusts, desires, and in general 'sinful' characteristics are not at all present -- obviously this demands a literal, instantaneous creation described in the Old Testament.

All of Catholic theology is based on Aquinas' teleological conception of morality which is really at root about what human action *would* have been like in the Garden of Eden, and deviations from this being "disordered" from God.

1. It was finite in duration so yes.
2. I would suggest you read Ezekiel 18:20.

A lot of fundamental Catholic theology isn't necessarily in the Catechism. I don't believe the Church demands the faithful have a particular view of the atonement, but its theological framework accepts Aquinas' variation on Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Which *isn't* PSA, but it related to it in many respects and it's from Anselm's theory that PSA later developed.

oh look a religion thread
why can't you god botherers all just fuck off

Source?

>when Christ's suffering was finite, and the punishment we supposedly merit was infinite
Christ's sacrifice has infinite merit but finite application. The blood of God is of infinite value, but it was only expelled for his people.
>and indeed the Bible's sense of justice, that the guilty themselves deserve punishment
Not really. It is the fulfillment of the burnt animal sacrifice, and also prefigured in the Abraham's (almost) killing of Isaac.

>2. I would suggest you read Ezekiel 18:20.
You're taking this in isolation from the fact of Christ voluntarily taking the sins of others upon himself, and the ones being saved being regenerated into righteous beings. Contextually that passage is not about what you are trying to use it for.

>The blood of God is of infinite value, but it was only expelled for his people.

I'm not sure what tradition you approach this from but Catholic doctrine states:
>The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."

Reading the entirety of Ezekiel 18 is just one gigantic BTFO of Protestantism and it's doctrines of inherited sin, sentence after sentence.

That's fascinating but irrelevant.
It is not. It is stating that a man will not be condemned for the sins of his father if the man is just, repents of his sins, and has a "new heart and new spirit" (v31).

Christ's merits cannot be credited to any other person. "The righteousness of the righteous shall be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him"

Do you subscribe to the idea that any amount of wickedness makes one worthy of hell?

Religion is just as bad as capitalism. What a crock of shit.

>So you need an original un-sinful human nature (no theology admits that God may have created humanity with an innately sinful nature) where the human lusts, desires, and in general 'sinful' characteristics are not at all present -- obviously this demands a literal, instantaneous creation described in the Old Testament.
What why?

>these 3 cannot all be true simultaneously
Only if you make other assumptions, you never stated God decides who goes to hell.

God's omnipotence is implied

But what is omnipotence?

Whatever understanding one has of omnipotence, it surelt includes control over souls.

a greek word meaning all powerful

But can God create a soul he can't send to hell

>Once I met an old man who lived near Seattle. I had been sitting near the sea, much inspired by the vastness of divinity. After that inspiration subsided I felt hungry, and went to the farmhouse of this man, seeking to buy some cherries. The rosy-cheeked man looked very happy, and showed me kind hospitality. A divine impulse then came over me, and I said to him, "Friend, you look happy, but there is a hidden suffering in your life." He asked, "Are you a fortune-teller?" I answered, "No, but I tell people how to improve their fortunes."

>He then said, "We are all sinners, and the Lord will burn our souls in hell-fire and brimstone."

>I replied, "How could a man, losing his body at death and becoming an invisible soul, be burned by fire created by material brimstones?" He surprised me by repeating angrily, "We will certainly burn in hell-fire." I said, "Did you get a telegram about this from God, that He will burn us in hellfire?" At this the old man became even more agitated.

>To mollify him, I changed the subject and said, "What about your unhappiness over your wicked son?" He was surprised at my words and acknowledged that he was helpless to correct his son, whom he deemed incorrigible. This sorrow remained as a burning fire at the back of his mind. I said, "I have a remedy that will absolutely cure this situation." The old man's eyes gleamed with joy as he smiled. I, then, with a mysterious attitude as if about to reveal the grand solution, whispered to him, "Have you got a very big oven with a broiler?"

>"Why, yes," he said. Then, suspiciously he asked, "Just what are you getting at?"

>"Don't worry," I said reassuringly. "What I'm proposing will end all your sorrows."

>Somewhat mollified, he said, "Go on."

>"Now then," I continued, "Heat that oven, with the broiler, to red-hot temperature. Do you have some strong rope and two trusted friends who would not repeat anything against you?" Again he said, "Why, yes." Then I said, "Call your son here. With the help of your friends, bind him hand and foot, and slip him into the red-hot oven."

>The old man was furious! Shaking his fist at me, he shouted, "You blackguard! Who ever heard of a father burning his son, no matter how wicked?"

>I then spoke soothingly, "That is exactly what I wanted to tell you. Where did you, who are human, get this instinct of love except from the Divine Father? Even a human father cannot stand the cruel thought of roasting his own son alive to put him, or himself, out of misery. How could you think the Divine Father, who has infinitely greater love than you, and who created parental love, would burn His own children with hell-fire and brimstone?"

>The old man's eyes filled with tears of repentance as he said, "I understand now that the Heavenly Father is a God of love!"

>We punish ourselves by our own evil actions, and reward ourselves by our own good deeds.

>Sin cannot change the soul. We, who are made in the image of God, can be lost in the jungles of an evil environment for a while, but no amount of sin can change our eternal, divine nature. Sin is a crust which hides the perfect soul, made eternally in the image of God. When that crust is dissolved by meditation, the perfection of the soul is revealed at last.

>When God sees that a soul, by the misuse of free will and bad company, has lost itself in the forest of egotism, He becomes very concerned for him, and sends him spiritual aid to bring him back into His fold of divine, virtuous living. He helps souls to reincarnate in places where they can work out their karmas and liberate their souls by meditation and wisdom. All souls on earth belong to the fold of God; the Invisible Shepherd ever looks after them.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Galatians 6:7)

Is God capable of making himself incapable?

Yes, why not?
It's Latin actually.

No.

Ransom Theory is the only one that makes sense but it's heretical. You're supposed to believe that somehow Satan is a serious threat at the same time as God being all-powerful.

B-but I don't want Christ to suffer for me desu

Yes, god isn't limited to your gay classical "excluded middle" logic.

>religion
>logic

if you have been thinking about this since you were six then you have wasted the last seven years of your life.

Example theory makes the most sense, and it’s also true.