God's mercy and justice

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:26 am

I think the whole argument seems to boil down to this. Some take symbolic language literally and others try to understand the meaning behind the symbols and attempt to reconcile them with the nature of God that was revealed in the life of Jesus. I am in the latter camp.

Todd, Do you think God had anything to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD?

Post by **_TK** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:49 am

One point that really hasnt been brought up is the fact that Jesus is GOD (sorry Emmett) so it's not exactly like a father punishing a child for something someone else did. Jesus was "in on" the plan from the beginning. God the Father didnt "murder" anybody. Jesus is alive.

TK

Post by **_Father_of_five** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 8:50 am

Jesus was not killed by some "righteous" act of God. He was killed by the most extreme example of human injustice possible. The Son of God, a teacher of righteousness who went about healing the sick and building up the downtrodden, who forgave sinners and taught against violence, was murdered like a common thief. This is not Godly justice - just the opposite: it is human injustice. The very idea is a barrier to faith for many people.

Secondly, how can God be "satisfied" with human sinfulness if it continues. Atonement theology proposes that one unrighteous act makes God satisfied with human sinfulness. It makes no sense. God is not satified until we repent and purge the sin from our lives - this is the "taking away" of sins that results from Jesus' death. God wants us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:22). Atonement theology suggests that this is not necessary because Jesus paid for our "past, present and future" sins.

Gal 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

Paul says that what counts is a new creation - a changed life. A life that has been renewed through repentence and following "the way."

This is how the death of Jesus brings satisfaction to God - not through an unrighteous act - but through the changed lives of those who follow Christ in faith. It is through these changed lives that teachings of Jesus about the Kingdom of God become reality in our world.

All of the scriptures that Derek has brought up can be understood within this framework (IMHO).

Todd

Post by **_Homer** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:31 am

Secondly, how can God be "satisfied" with human sinfulness if it continues. Atonement theology proposes that one unrighteous act makes God satisfied with human sinfulness. It makes no sense. God is not satified until we repent and purge the sin from our lives - this is the "taking away" of sins that results from Jesus' death. God wants us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom 12:22). Atonement theology suggests that this is not necessary because Jesus paid for our "past, present and future" sins.

We seem to have a false caricature of the OSAS doctrine. Understandable, perhaps, but not the belief of Christians I know. Paul rebuked the idea that a disciple of Jesus can continue in sin.

I think Peter sums up the position of Todd and Emmet pretty well, 1 Peter 2:6-8:

6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
“ The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”
8 and
“ A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

And Paul, Romans 9:30-33:

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“ Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

The atonement is a big stone of stumbling indeed.

Post by **_Father_of_five** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:04 pm

Homer wrote:I think Peter sums up the position of Todd and Emmet pretty well, 1 Peter 2:6-8:

6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,
“ The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”
8 and
“ A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.

Homer,

I'm sure you didn't mean it but it appears that you equated Emmet and me with those who are "disobedient" and "reject" Christ. I assure you that this discussion is only about how we understand the death of Christ - a point of doctrine.

I admire all the participants in this forum who are willing to discuss these issues with conviction.

Todd

Post by **_Father_of_five** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:23 pm

STEVE7150 wrote:Todd, Do you think God had anything to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD?

He allowed it to happen, just as He allowed Christ to be crucified.

Todd

Post by **_Christopher** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:57 pm

Hi Todd,

you wrote:

Jesus was not killed by some "righteous" act of God. He was killed by the most extreme example of human injustice possible. The Son of God, a teacher of righteousness who went about healing the sick and building up the downtrodden, who forgave sinners and taught against violence, was murdered like a common thief. This is not Godly justice - just the opposite: it is human injustice. The very idea is a barrier to faith for many people.

It sounds like you're saying that it wasn't God's purpose to send Jesus to die for humanity. Like it was some tragic and unfortunate thing that happened. If that's so, how would you reconcile that with statements that Jesus made about His "hour"? Like this one:

John 12:27-33
27 "Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify Your name." Then a voice came from heaven, saying, "I have both glorified it and will glorify it again." 29 Therefore the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to Him." 30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die.
NKJV

Just curious how that would square with your view.

Post by **_Father_of_five** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:52 pm

Christopher wrote:Just curious how that would square with your view.

Christopher,

Although I don't believe that God was the perpetrator of Jesus' death, I do believe that both He and Jesus knew from the beginning that it would happen and that His death and subsequent resurrection would serve as "The Way" to overcoming sin in our lives.

As Emmet has so elequently pointed out, man's insensitivity to sin is overcome when we realize that sin leads to death - a fact that Christ's death is the ulitimate example. I am reminded of this prophecy....

Zec 12:10
"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

When one "looks" at the crucified Christ and "mourns and grieves," the transformation of the heart and the renewing of the mind through the work of the Holy Spirit can begin.

Todd

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:32 pm

Although I don't believe that God was the perpetrator of Jesus' death, I do believe that both He and Jesus knew from the beginning that it would happen and that His death and subsequent resurrection would serve as "The Way" to overcoming sin in our lives.

Todd, it is the way after one has received imputed righteousness through Him . The same way as in the OT tabernacle system in which we obtained clean hands and a pure heart through the shedding of blood.
It may seem unappealing but the shedding of blood was necessary to God to permit us to be in right standing before him. And i believe Jesus said it was NECESSARY for him to suffer and die and rise on the third day. Jesus did'nt describe his crucifixion as an unfortunate event but as a NECESSARY event.
Not just as an example and not only to deliver us from sin but also as a PAYMENT as in "eye for an eye" for the sins of the world as only He could do by standing as a substitute for the world because the "wages of sin is death" but the gift of God is life.

Post by **_Christopher** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:48 pm

Hi Todd,

Although I can appreciate your sentiment and your reasoning, I don't think your view takes into account all the scriptural data. Jesus spoke of his suffering as a "must" (Mk 8:31, 9:12, Lk 9:22, 17:25) and rebuked Peter for opposing the plan (Mt 16:23).