I plan to publish it for discussion in short installments as Catholic-Orthodox caucus threads. All Christians as well as non-Christians are very welcome, but I ask all to maintain the caucus discipline: no interconfessional attacks, no personal attacks, and no off-topic posts. Avoid mentioning confessions outside of the caucus for any reason.
Previous: Cur Deus Homo III-V
The summary:
A skeptical mind finds Christianity illogical. If God is omnipotent, he could release man from the bondage of sin by his Divine will. If, despite that, God chose to send His Son to suffer and die in order to release man, then God did not choose the easiest way to do it and is not wise.
Possibly, God wanted to convict the devil of an injustice before conquering him by Divine power. But both the devil and man in justice should serve God. As the devil and man conspired against God, no further fault needs to be found in the devil than his role in the Fall. They are two disobedient servants.
Possibly, God wanted the devil to torment man as punishment. But that task would not exhonerate the devil, because the devil does not torment man out of obedience to God, but rather the torment is a natural consequence of his disobedience.
Further, there is no contract that God had to honor with respect to the devil, because the torment for sin is something man owes not the devil but God Himself.
The answer to the skeptic is rooted in the dual nature of Christ. The suffering of Christ was fully the will of Jesus the Man; God did not will it:
the Father did not compel him to suffer death, or even allow him to be slain, against his will, but of his own accord he endured death for the salvation of men.
-- How so? -- the skeptic retorts. Wasn't Jesus obedient to the Father?
The answer, only sketched today, will be elaborated upon in the next installment.
keep alive