Atontement: Was it "necessary" for God to die?

Man, Sin, & Salvation
dizerner

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by dizerner » Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:58 am

First I answer using logic and reasoning from the Scriptures, but you answer:
I don't think you understand my question. I'm not asking why the atonement was necessary, but rather why such an atonement wouldn't have been effective if it wasn't God Himself who would die. Scriptural argument please.
And even Robby, who pretty much never agrees with me, even admitted that my answer was relevant to the question here.
Hmm, this seems like a totally different question from the stated OP. Nevertheless, it seems that dizerner did answer why the atonement wouldn't be effective if it wasn't God.
Then I appeal from an inspirational and emotional aspect of Scripture and you say:
I love a good sermon, but responding to an intellectual curiosity with a sermon seems a bit condescending.
It just reminds me of the Scripture, We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep. Maybe next time you could instead ask for something to be shown from Scripture explicitly stated such as, "Please show me a verse that says "God needs to be God to die in our place. Do not use any deduction or inference or cross-referencing from many Scriptures, and do not use any inspirational exposition either. I only want a direct verse that says exactly that in clear, unambiguous speech, or I will declare myself right." Could have saved a whole lot of time that way. :|

dizerner

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by dizerner » Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:29 am

TheEditor wrote:My mistake. I assumed one of God's gifts was a sense of humor. :lol:
Nothing vexes me more than having to explain good sarcasm, but I'll do my best. ;)
Well, we don't all have the same humor. I love to laugh I just completely didn't understand. Perhaps God has shortchanged me in that regard, I do not know.
"Hologram"--a reference to Star Trek I suppose. I picture Jesus in the "whatever" dimension watching us humans as we interact. Back in the day when I met a traveling Minister that was overbearing and bombastic, I use to quip to my friends, "I'm sure if Jesus were watching now in a hologram, he would say 'Just like that guy Peter, that's how it's done'".
Certainly Christ would not approve of the content or attitude of many sermons I'm sure. I hope he doesn't feel that way about the things I say.
Jesus' sermons do not come across to me, in general, (unless the occasion warranted it), as being well-described by words such as bombastic, pedantic, stentorian, tumid, pompous, or sententious. The same cannot be said, however, about certain radio preachers who treat their audience as though they are in need of correction akin to the Pharisees. Whenever they are called on it, they say "The gentle Jesus was not so gentle with the Pharisees." Maybe so. But I'm not a Pharisee, you see, and I suspect most here are not. :)
Yes, I've noticed we all do have a tendency to allow Pharisaical attitudes, that kind of "holier-than-thou" air and a desperate need to be God's corrective measure to others. I write it up to a zeal in the flesh without first a desire to go through the refining fire one's self. It's tough to balance that out with a real call to holier living while keeping a right attitude, especially in this politically correct age where it can be difficult to say anything confrontational. If that's what I sound like I definitely need more character work done in me, and I hope others will overlook and be patient with my immaturity.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by TheEditor » Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:12 am

Hi Dizerner,

No correction was intended. Just clarifying my view of radio/tv/pulpit sermonizers of a certain ilk. :)

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by steve7150 » Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:49 am

Colossians 2:14 having blotted out the handwriting in the ordinances that is against us, that was contrary to us, and he hath taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross;

Indeed, doesn't this verse suggest the same type of abolition of the Mosaic law as in Ephesians 2:15 above? The handwriting of these Mosaic decrees, that is, the written law of Moses, was abolished by Christ as far as their application to His disciples is concerned. Christ's disciples were thereafter under the law of Christ.

I don't think the verse has anything to do with the cancellation of a debt.







Paidion,
Since the law couldn't be kept perfectly was it not in effect a debt held against us. All had sinned under the law and we had a sin debt owed to God therefore Jesus was the annointed one who could pay for it on behalf of everyone with his life.

I know you don't believe in the atonement in this way but this doesn't contradict the Holy Spirit later coming and empowering man to overcome sin.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by robbyyoung » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:27 am

steve7150 wrote:Since the law couldn't be kept perfectly was it not in effect a debt held against us. All had sinned under the law and we had a sin debt owed to God therefore Jesus was the annointed one who could pay for it on behalf of everyone with his life.
Hi steve7150 and God Bless,

The Law was a Covenant between YAHWEH and O.T. Israel. Likewise, "A Marriage" - thereofore, I don't think "debt" is an appropriate depiction of the relationship. I could be wrong, but as of now I'm just thinking out loud ;) .

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by Paidion » Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:59 am

Steve7150 wrote:All had sinned under the law and we had a sin debt owed to God therefore Jesus was the annointed one who could pay for it on behalf of everyone with his life.
I just don't see it this way, Steve. The law of Moses is not the standard for judging sin. If it were, it would, for example, be sin to light a fire in our wood stoves on the Sabbath day, starting as sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. I see sin as that which we do that harms ourselves or other people. We have to be delivered from it.
George MacDonald wrote:Not for any or all of his sins that are past shall a man be condemned; not for the worst of them does he need to fear remaining unforgiven. The sin in which he dwells, the sin of which he will not come out. That sin is the sole ruin of a man. His present live sins, those sins pervading his thoughts and ruling his conduct; the sins he keeps doing, and will not give up; the sins he is called to abandon, but to which he clings instead, the same sins which are the cause of his misery, though he may not know it --- these are the sins for which he is even now condemned. (The Hope of the Gospel, Ch 1, Salvation from Sin)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by Homer » Thu Apr 02, 2015 9:56 am

Old Testament professor Gary Anderson comment:
I was reading a Qumran text called the Damascus Covenant, and I noticed several instances in which the scroll described forgiveness of sins using a Hebrew verb that in the Hebrew Bible never has that meaning. The scroll used the verb 'azab, which generally means "to forsake." It struck me as quite odd.

As I pondered it, I realized that the Aramaic verb for "forgiven" means exactly that. It means "forsake" in the literal sense, because in Aramaic to forgive a sin is to remit what you have coming to you in the sense of a debt. You're forsaking an obligation. Someone who holds a debt over someone else technically can collect that debt whenever he wishes. And if by dint of merciful circumstance he decides not to collect, he forsakes or abandons that right.

For me this was an epiphany. What we're witnessing in that little Qumran text is a new way of thinking about sin and forgiveness. It's not found anywhere in the Old Testament, but, strikingly enough, it becomes quite common in the New.

I was well aware of the long discussion of the variance of the Lord's Prayer in the New Testament. Matthew uses a Greek idiom that corresponds with the Aramaic—that is, to remit a debt-—whereas it's changed in Luke to "forgive our sins," so that the Lord's Prayer will sound more intelligible to a Greek audience. And there you really have the same thing. The modern reader of the Bible in translation doesn't have any feeling for this, but in first-century Greek, sins were not thought of as debts, nor was forgiveness thought of as a remission or non-collection of a debt. When the New Testament has Jesus speak that way [of sins as debts], it's telegraphing to the intelligent reader that Greek is not this guy's native tongue. His native tongue is Hebrew or Aramaic.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by steve7150 » Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:07 am

I just don't see it this way, Steve. The law of Moses is not the standard for judging sin. If it were, it would, for example, be sin to light a fire in our wood stoves on the Sabbath day, starting as sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. I see sin as that which we do that harms ourselves or other people. We have to be delivered from it.







Didn't Paul say that if not for the law we would not know what sin is and James said if we break one law it's the equivalent of breaking the entierty of the law.
If breaking the law is not sin then what is it?
RE your example , my understanding of the law is that there are ritual laws which you gave an example of and there are moral laws which if broken constitute sin.
My understanding of sin biblically speaking is that it means "missing the mark" , the mark being God's law.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by steve7150 » Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:15 am

Hi steve7150 and God Bless,

The Law was a Covenant between YAHWEH and O.T. Israel. Likewise, "A Marriage" - thereofore, I don't think "debt" is an appropriate depiction of the relationship. I could be wrong, but as of now I'm just thinking out loud .








Hi Robby,
My understanding is that the law is a part of the Covenant. Israel responded to Yahweh and said they would keep the law. If the penalty for sin is death and all have sinned under the law then everyone owed something to God for their life. If they owed something to God is that not a debt. Was not that debt created by sin? Didn't Jesus pay that debt? I'm not saying it's all he did, but isn't forgiveness through Jesus something referred to several times in the NT?

dizerner

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by dizerner » Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:48 pm

Didn't Paul say that if not for the law we would not know what sin is and James said if we break one law it's the equivalent of breaking the entierty of the law.
Yes, the law's purpose was to symbolically show man he falls short of a standard God has, of morality and spiritual purity. Hebrews gives us a clue that the ritual and ceremonial law was a symbolic reality of spiritual truths, so that, for example, unclean and clean animals were representative of something more than just that some animals were bad somehow. It was not a mistake, nor was it an indicator of morality, it was a symbolic rite. The way Paul often uses the law though is emphasizing the moral aspects of it, loving God and neighbor, and living the way one ought.

The two verses you quote here are very important, because they are meant to show the height and purity of God's standard that made the death and blood of Christ necessary—a standard of spiritual perfection no human being can attain, yet God requires. This is why by any means necessary we must be found in Christ as our righteousness. People sometimes don't like the injustice of getting righteousness as a free gift, so they do as Paul said in Galatians 2, they "rebuild that which [God in Christ] destroyed" as a system of self justification. This is, effectively, to reduce and demean the strength and extent of the Work of Christ, for now something is accompanied along with it that is meritorious.

But what of all the preached moralism in the Bible as works that we do? A grace preacher sees that as the new life Christ produces in us by his Work, not as something we could ever decide to do in our willpower, or accomplish through our effort and strength. We die to the idea of a righteousness attained this way, when we see our old selves judged and crucified in Christ. Paul says if we do the greatest moral deeds, but have no love, it profits us nothing. How can we judge how much real love we have? To me that is a conundrum. When I look around at the human race, even the greatest love seems tainted with some wrong motivations. Where do we find the truest, purest love? We can only see it in the truest, purest creature making the purest sacrifice; only Christ contains true love.

Thus the purpose and function of the law is always to show us our spiritual bankruptcy which is meant to drive us to faith in grace bringing righteousness and sanctification as a free gift working in us by another person's power, the power of the Holy Spirit, and not the power of our own selves, and the resources we contain. Sadly, what often happens is, because people realize they can't throw grace out altogether because everybody needs some forgiveness and help, they end up mixing self-works with God's grace and producing a kind of hybrid Gospel where Christ does some of it, and we do the rest. If we, however, are not trusting completely in Christ, then logically we must be trusting in ourselves. The sanctification in our life does not ever come from our determined efforts to make it happen, but our choice to believe and trust in God to do through Christ in us what we could never.

The other side of the ditch to fall in is "sloppy grace" where teachers tell us we don't need that sanctification, but we can just be happy without a true faith that God actually will sanctify us, and hence be happy living in sin. We can't limit what miracle God can do in our life, regarding sanctification, that he might truly make us holy, which so often in our condemnation and weakness, feels impossible; but we can't allow our pride to think that without the Cross-work applied to us, we could achieve pure moral works or attain in our own power the perfect righteousness God demands. So God is at work in us, and this is the emphasis of the New Covenant. Even in the Old Covenant I believe there was available through a symbolism of the coming Christ a righteousness that comes by faith and accompanying grace—and when we see the law in any sense, moral or ceremonial, as a means God put in place to show us how to be righteous, we stumble at the stumbling stone, because it removes the necessity of Christ dying and rising again on our behalf.

The law was always meant to show us our need of grace.

Post Reply

Return to “Anthropology, Hamartiology, Soteriology”