A perspective on atonement

[phkrause]

fccool, for my understanding that I have come away with, listening to many different pastors, is that Satan actually didn't believe that Jesus would actually go through with allowing himself to die. That at the last minute he would stop it all. I'm not sure that that is biblical, but its what I had always understood. My few cents worth. (wasn't sure how much to give because of the economy .)

pk

[fccool]

Quote:

Christ Himself was not sure that the Father would resurrect Him. When on the cross, He couldn't see the other side of the tomb, because of the sin that He felt was separating Him from the Father.

There's no Biblical support for this. In fact, t directly contradicts what Jesus said himself.

17Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, 18"We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!"

As far as me saying that Christ did not have to die... my point is that He was not obligated to do so. It was His decision, and thinking of "what would have happened" is meaningless in light of God's plan. He did not do it out of some kind of mystical necessity to do so... like a child "has to be sacrificed" to pacify the angry god. I contend that the primary mission was not death... death apart from His life is meaningless. He could have been killed as a baby, and the doctrine of atonement would still worked based on your mentality. His suffering was not physical for the most part, but emotional... as His own people rejected Him and denied Him... the same people who He was willing to die for. The point of inevitable death was that Christ came down and did not exercise His power to judge and kill. Satan urged Him to do just that... even to the point of using his Angels... i.e. "Use your angels to protect you, it'd still be fair, you are not using your own power... that'll catch your fall, or prevent you from dying".

Your point is that God absolutely requires blood for redemption of sin is theologically incorrect, because you misunderstand the symbolics. People mistakenly think that "blood represents the passover". That's partly true, but still missing the point. Biblically (and in ancient civilizations of the time) blood represents life, you can read in Leviticus 17:

Quote:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to effect purgation for your lives..;

I believe that the doctrine is the direct offspring from the Catholic hamartiological view. Why do you think sin resulted in death for humankind? Does sin have some mystical powers? If sin is a choice, can you physically inherit the traits of choices of your parents? Physiologically this is impossible apart from God's involvement.

It was God's "life support" withdrawal that caused death. We are not immortal beings by our own sense of immortality. But in the "Christian mysticism" view of it... sin is a mystical power that causes all death just through one person's decision. If you don't believe that this is the view being held... ask some people in your church, they'll tell you that Adam's sin (directly) mystically infected the planet and physically caused death and suffering and natural changes, and not God's curse because of Adams disobedience. To many Christians, sin is a mystical substance that can be sexually transmitted, and can jump from humans to animals (highly contagious) so fast, that one act of sin infects the entire earth.

I think it's fairly clear that immortality was withheld from Adam and Eve, and their generations ... for disobedience. The subsequent immortality was granted to some antediluvians for their obedience. I suspect there were more than one, although only one case recorded. Granted, it does not mean that they did not sin, but that's besides the point. They've sacrificed, and understood the meaning of what will transpire.

It was God's promise to Eve

[fccool]

.... that her offspring will bring about the balance. Of course she did not understand that it was her distant one, not the immediate one.

It is the withdrawal of God that leaves us on a confused path... and subsequently doing the wrong. Yet, people leave God out of this view, and think that sin is a sexually transmitted disease that is passed on to children... and thus this disease causes them to do EVERYTHING wrong. I don't hold this view. We are born without "life support" and direction of God's word, and thus we are born in sinful nature... that without God's direction will result in our death naturally. Now, if we did went on and accepted God's law and obeyed... then we are on our way to recovery, reconciliation and atonement.

What does Christ's blood represent? It represents our life. Blood in Bible represents life, as I've demonstrated above. Biblically, wages of sin is death... so we are as good as dead without God's life support. Yet, blood also represents God's FORGIVENESS. That's why Biblically, without blood there's no remission of sins. It's an OBJECT LESSON from beginning to the end. It is not some mystical ritual that causes our sins to magically disappear in the eyes of God. God is willing to forgive if you are willing to turn back to Him. Bible is clear on that. In God's order of things, we have to go through Christ for forgiveness, because He is the Creator, and he is the redeemer, and we are accountable TO HIM in the end. He will be the Judge.

[fccool]

fccool, for my understanding that I have come away with, listening to many different pastors, is that Satan actually didn't believe that Jesus would actually go through with allowing himself to die. That at the last minute he would stop it all. I'm not sure that that is biblical, but its what I had always understood. My few cents worth. (wasn't sure how much to give because of the economy .)

pk

It makes sense, but not in the large scale of things. I believe that Satan knows that God is right, but his pride prevents him from acknowledging it. Angels are wise beings, and they have several millenia to figure things out. I believe Satan knew exactly what Christ came to earth for. It was something that he waited for a very long time... a chance for revenge.

Likewise, I believe that he has known the plan, just like Jeremiah knew the plan (at least in part). He knew that Christ was going to die... and Jeremiah specifically said that it was to die for our iniquities and transgressions. Satan knows the scriptures and he uses them to his purpose. And I contend that he understands the meaning, but he refuses to believe it because of pride. There're surely some examples of that.

[phkrause]

I also think that he know's and knew what was going to happen. But I still think that somewhere in the back of his mind he thought that he could derail what was going to happen.

pk

[fccool]

Derailment was in fact killing Christ by means of turning His people against Him. (you will bruise his hill)

[John317]

Quote:

Christ Himself was not sure that the Father would resurrect Him. When on the cross, He couldn't see the other side of the tomb, because of the sin that He felt was separating Him from the Father.

There's no Biblical support for this. In fact, t directly contradicts what Jesus said himself.

17Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, 18"We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!"

It would contradict it if we said Jesus never could see the other side of the tomb, but what is being said is that WHILE ON THE CROSS, Jesus could not see the other side of the tomb. He had to go strictly by faith, based on the Father's promise. He didn't feel the Father's presence and the load of our sins caused him to feel only separation from God. He went through the sense of separation that sinners will go through when they are destroyed at the end of the 1000 years.

Quote:

Upon Christ as our substitute and surety was laid the iniquity of us all. He was counted a transgressor, that He might redeem us from the condemnation of the law. The guilt of every descendant of Adam was pressing upon His heart. The wrath of God against sin, the terrible manifestation of His displeasure because of iniquity, filled the soul of His Son with consternation. All His life Christ had been publishing to a fallen world the good news of the Father's mercy and pardoning love. Salvation for the chief of sinners was His theme. But now with the terrible weight of guilt He bears, He cannot see the Father's reconciling face. The withdrawal of the divine countenance from the Saviour in this hour of supreme anguish pierced His heart with a sorrow that can never be fully understood by man. So great was this agony that His physical pain was hardly felt.

Satan with his fierce temptations wrung the heart of Jesus. The Saviour could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him His coming forth from the grave a conqueror, or tell Him of the Father's acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that Their separation was to be eternal. Christ felt the anguish which the sinner will feel when mercy shall no longer plead for the guilty race.

It was the sense of sin, bringing the Father's wrath upon Him as man's substitute, that made the cup He drank so bitter, and broke the heart of the Son of God. DA 753

[John317]

I also think that he know's and knew what was going to happen. But I still think that somewhere in the back of his mind he thought that he could derail what was going to happen.

Exactly, just like he still thinks he may be able to. He knows he can delay his death by causing the church to fall spiritually asleep and by causing confusion, etc. He still believes that if He can kill off all of God's people, he can claim the whole world as his own.

There's a sense in which rebellion against God is insane. That's how Satan is.

He knows the prophecies just like a lot of people do. His problem is that he doesn't allow the prophecies and the love of God to dwell in his mind so that he thinks differently. His knowledge enrages him.

[John317]

... Satan knows the scriptures and he uses them to his purpose. And I contend that he understands the meaning, but he refuses to believe it because of pride.

Remember, too, that Daniel 12: 10 says only the [spiritually] wise will understand the prophecies.

It is not just intelligence that helps us understand the Scriptures. It's the Holy Spirit. Obviously Satan lacks the Holy Spirit. In fact, it is probable that God keeps Satan limited in what he knows. "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned." Satan has no spiritual discernment, only selfishness and rage against God and Christ. His hatred and madness cloud his thinking. We give too much credit to him and his demons.

[John317]

As far as me saying that Christ did not have to die... my point is that He was not obligated to do so.

Well, that is certainly true. But that is not what you said in your original posts. Here's what you said:

Quote:

FCCOOL-- The obvious question is then... why did Jesus have to die? Christ did not have to die, if we in fact accepted Him the first time He came and followed Him. He did not come to die, but came to live and to teach the world that rejected God in spirit. ...... Thus it becomes evident that Christ's death does play a major role in atonement, ....... It's not Christ's death that makes our salvation possible.....

So it is true that Jesus did not have to save us. But if Christ wanted to save us, it is clear that the only way that could be accomplished was for Christ to die. The Bible specifically says that-- that it was the plan of God and that God Himself fulfilled the plan.

I find it impossible to believe that God planned and willed for His Son to die when it was unnecessary and He could have saved us without it. I would only believe it was unnecessary if the Bible gave evidence of this, but of course the Bible gives no such evidence. On the contrary, there are a number of verses that say plainly that it "must happen" or that "it had to be that way" because it was according to God's purpose and design [boule] which He destined, decreed, and appointed [hopizo]. Acts 2: 23.

Quote:

It was His decision, and thinking of "what would have happened" is meaningless in light of God's plan.

I don't believe that it is meaningless, for it helps us to see how necessary it was, and that is the very point at issue here. So I see it as very meaningful.

Consider:

1) The mob around the cross taunted Christ by saying that if he was really the Messiah, he could come down from the cross. And it was true. He could have come down.

But what they didn't realize is that if he had come down, they wouldn't have had a chance to be saved, and neither would any of us. So it was love for them and for us that kept Him pinned to that cross.

2) What would have happened if Jesus had refused to allow the Roman soldiers to nail him to the cross? Would we still have been saved? For one thing, it would have meant that Jesus Christ had stepped outside of the will of the Father. The Godhead in that case would have been at odds with itself.

Jesus came to do the Father's will (Hebrews 10: 5-7, 10), and in order to do it, Jesus Christ had to have a human body so that He could die the death of a sinner.

It's obvious from the Bible evidence (to say nothing of the evidence of the Spirit of Prophecy) that we would not have been saved if Jesus refused to die for us; if Jesus had decided that humanity was not worth the cost of suffering and death.

Jesus was humanity's only hope.

Quote:

He did not do it out of some kind of mystical necessity to do so... like a child "has to be sacrificed" to pacify the angry god.

I agree that is a very bad way of explaining it and leads to terrible misunderstandings about both the Father and the Son.

Quote:

I contend that the primary mission was not death... death apart from His life is meaningless.

There was much more involved in Christ's coming here than His death, that's for sure. His life was extremely important. Without His perfect, sinless life, His death would have been without meaning. I agree.

But the Bible makes it clear that both his righteous life AND His righteous death were primary missions.

Remember that most of the Gospels are concerned with last few weeks of His life, the events surrounding His death. That tells us something about the importance of His crucifixion, not only for the writers but for the Holy Spirit who inspired the Gospels.

[John317]

Quote:

FCCOOL--- He could have been killed as a baby, and the doctrine of atonement would still worked based on your mentality.

No, that is not true. I don't believe I have said anything to lead anyone to reasonably draw that conclusion. I definitely don't believe that He could have died as a baby/ That is why God did not allow Satan to destroy the Christ child.

What needed to happen in order for the atonement to "work"?

This gets to the heart of the purpose of His coming as a human being.

Ellen White brings these points out in clear relief, leaving no doubt about what had to happen in order for the atonement, or sacrifice, to accomplish what God planned.

1) Christ had to live a sinless, perfect life while undergoing the severest temptations from His own nature as well as from Satan. He showed that Adam and Eve did not need to Fall. His temptations were far more severe than anything Adam and Eve had to experience.

2) Christ had to be our example of how to resist temptations and live a life for God, showing that humanity connected to God can obey God's law.

3) Christ developed a righteous character, obeying the Father (Hebrews 4: 15; 5: 7-9), so that we can have His righteous character imputed and imparted to us as we live in a faith-based relationship with Him. Christ fulfilled all righteousness FOR US; that is, we must trust in His merits-- all of His righteous deeds and His perfect obedience to God-- which are put to our account. When we place our total trust in Christ, God credits us with all of Christ's deeds, including keeping the Sabbath perfectly, etc. (See Matt. 3: 15; Romans 3: 21-26; 4: 22-25.)

4) Finally, after living a perfect life, He had to die at the hands of sinners, not merely die in his sleep. He certainly could not have died as a baby. Christ's life was an "offering FOR SIN" and He had to bear our iniquities (Is. 53: 10-12). Read whole chapter.

Quote:

His suffering was not physical for the most part, but emotional...

Do you mean spiritual suffering on account of sin and separation? I see that as distinct from "emotional."

Quote:

as His own people rejected Him and denied Him... the same people who He was willing to die for.

Inspiration tells us that Christ knew ahead of time that His "friends" and disciples would desert Him, and that one of his so-called friends-- Judas--would betray him and turn against Him. That did not surprise Him, nor do I believe the evidence is that this was the cause of his greatest suffering and agony.

Jesus died from being separated from the Father on account of the sins He bore-- our sins. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" That was his cry, and it was this which broke His heart and killed Him. It was not the nails or the physical suffering. You are absolutely right about that.

Quote:

The point of inevitable death was that Christ came down and did not exercise His power to judge and kill. Satan urged Him to do just that... even to the point of using his Angels... i.e. "Use your angels to protect you, it'd still be fair, you are not using your own power... that'll catch your fall, or prevent you from dying".

I agree, that had to be a great temptation, to use His power to avoid suffering and death. In fact, I think that was a greater temptation than we can imagine or ever experience. His knowing that He did not have to put up with that degradation and pain but could stop it at any point-- it had to be tempting to His humanity, which naturally revolted against dying.

Quote:

Your point is that God absolutely requires blood for redemption of sin is theologically incorrect, because you misunderstand the symbolics. People mistakenly think that "blood represents the passover". That's partly true, but still missing the point. Biblically (and in ancient civilizations of the time) blood represents life, you can read in Leviticus 17:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have assigned it for you upon the altar to effect purgation for your lives..;

I don't misunderstand that point at all. In fact, I have already discussed that. Yes, the blood represents life. Saying that Jesus shed His blood for us means that the God-Man gave His life for us. He underwent death and separation from the Father. When we read that Jesus pleads His blood-- "Father, My blood, My blood"-- it means that Jesus is pleading the value of the life that was sacrificed and given for the life of the world.

[John317]

Great topic and great discussion, fccool.

[phkrause]

kind of like when you read in the bible in revelation that after the 1000 years when the wicked are resurrected satan gets them all together again making all believe that they can still over take God and the Holy City. It seems to me that he still doesn't get it.

pk

[John317]

This is taken from the book, Seventh-day Adventists Believe, An Exposition of the Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Chruch--

I'd be interested to know if it represents your thinking on the Atonement. Notice that the author addresses the issues both of the perversion of the concept of Atonement and of the necessity of Christ's death--

Quote:

Christ's Ministry of Reconciliation

The good news is that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). His reconciliation restores the relationship between God and the human race. The text points out that this process reconciles sinners to God, not God to sinners. The key in leading sinners back to God is Jesus Christ. God's plan of reconciliation is a marvel of divine condescension. He had every right to let humanity perish.

As we have already noted, it was God who took the initiative in restoring the broken relationship between humanity and Himself. "When we were enemies," Paul said, "we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (Rom. 5:10). Consequently "we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation" (Rom. 5:11).

The process of reconciliation has been associated with the term atonement. "The English word 'atonement' originally meant 'at-one-ment, ' that is, a state of being 'at one, ' or in agreement. Accordingly 'atonement' denoted harmony of a relationship, and when there had been estrangement this harmony would be the result of a process of reconciliation. Understood in terms of its original meaning, 'atonement' properly denotes a state of reconciliation that terminated a state of estrangement."2

Many Christians limit the term atonement exclusively to the redeeming effects of Christ's incarnation, suffering, and death. In the sanctuary services, however, atonement not only involved the killing of the sacrificial lamb but also included the priestly ministering of its shed blood in the sanctuary itself (cf. Lev. 4:20, 26, 35; 16:15-18, 32, 33). According to this Biblical usage, then, atonement can refer to both Christ's death and His intercessory ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. There, as High Priest, He applies the benefits of His complete and perfect atoning sacrifice to achieve the reconciliation of humans to God.3

Vincent Taylor also observed that the doctrine of atonement has two aspects "(a) the saving deed of Christ, and ( the appropriation of His work by faith, both individual and communal. These two together constitute the Atonement." From this insight he concluded that "atonement is both accomplished for us and wrought in us."4

This chapter focuses on the atonement as it relates to the death of Christ. The atonement associated with His High Priestly ministry will be discussed later (see chapter 23 of this book).

Christ's Atoning Sacrifice

Christ's atoning sacrifice at Calvary marked the turning point in the relationship between God and humanity. Though there is a record of people's sins, as a result of the reconciliation God does not count their sins against them (2 Cor. 5:19). This does not mean that God dismisses punishment, or that sin no longer arouses His wrath. Rather, it means that God has found a way to grant pardon to repentant sinners while still upholding the justice of His eternal law.

Christ's Death a Necessity. For a loving God to maintain His justice and righteousness, the atoning death of Jesus Christ became "a moral and legal necessity." God's "justice requires that sin be carried to judgment. God must therefore execute judgment on sin and thus on the sinner. In this execution the Son of God took our place, the sinner's place, according to God's will. The atonement was necessary because man stood under the righteous wrath of God. Herein lies the heart of the gospel of forgiveness of sin and the mystery of the cross of Christ: Christ's perfect righteousness adequately satisfied divine justice, and God is willing to accept Christ's self-sacrifice in place of man's death."5

Persons unwilling to accept the atoning blood of Christ receive no forgiveness of sin, and are still subject to God's wrath. Said John, "'He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him'" (John 3:36).

Therefore, the cross is a demonstration of both God's mercy and His justice. "God presented him [Christ] as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies the man who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:25, 26, NIV).

What Does the Atoning Sacrifice Accomplish? It was the Father Himself who presented His Son as "a sacrifice of atonement" (Rom. 3:25, NIV; Greek, hilasterion), "a propitiation" (KJV, NKJV), "an expiation" (RSV). The New Testament use of hilasterion has nothing to do with the pagan notion of "placating an angry God" or "appeasing a vindictive, arbitrary, and capricious God."6 The text reveals that "God in His merciful will presented Christ as the propitiation to His holy wrath on human guilt because He accepted Christ as man's representative and the divine Substitute to receive His judgment on sin."7

From this perspective one can understand Paul's description of Christ's death as "an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling aroma" (Eph. 5:2; cf. Gen. 8:21; Ex. 29:18; Lev. 1:9). "Christ's self-sacrifice is pleasing to God because this sacrifice offering took away the barrier between God and sinful man in that Christ fully bore God's wrath on man's sin. Through Christ, God's wrath is not turned into love but is turned away from man and borne by Himself."8

Romans 3:25 also reveals that through Christ's sacrifice sin is expiated or purged. Expiation focuses on what the atoning blood does to the repentant sinner. He experiences forgiveness, removal of personal guilt, and cleansing from sin.9

Source: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/index.htm

[John317]

The Atonement, Continued

Christ the Vicarious Sin-bearer. The Scriptures present Christ as the "sin-bearer" of the human race. In profound prophetic language Isaiah stated that "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities;... and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.... It pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief, ... [He was] an offering for sin, ... and He bore the sin of many" (Isa. 53:5, 6, 10, 12; cf. Gal. 1:4). Paul had this prophecy in mind when he said, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3).

These texts point to an important concept in the plan of salvation: The sins and guilt that have defiled us can be transferred to our Sin-bearer, making us clean (Ps. 51:10). The sacrificial ceremonies of the Old Testament sanctuary revealed this role of Christ. There, the transfer of sin from the repentant sinner to the innocent lamb symbolized its transfer to Christ, the Sin-bearer (see chapter 4 of this book).

What is the Role of the Blood? The blood played a central role in the atoning sacrifices of the sanctuary service. God made provision for the atonement when He said, "'The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you...to make atonement for your souls," (Lev. 17:11). After the killing of the animal the priest had to apply its blood before forgiveness was granted.

The New Testament reveals that the Old Testament ceremonies for obtaining forgiveness, purification, and reconciliation through substitutionary blood were fulfilled in the atoning blood of Christ's Calvary sacrifice. In contrast to the old ways, the New Testament says, "How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the Living God!" (Heb. 9:14, NIV). The shedding of His blood accomplished the expiation for sin (Rom. 3:25 RSV). John said that because of His love, God "sent His Son to be the propitiation [hilasmos] for our sins" (1 John 4:10; "expiation" RSV; "an atoning sacrifice" NIV).

In summary, "God's objective act of reconciliation has been accomplished through the propitiating and expiating blood (self-sacrifice) of Christ Jesus, His Son. Thus God 'is both the provider and the recipient of the reconciliation.'"10

Christ the Ransom

When human beings came under the dominion of sin they became subject to the condemnation and curse of God's law (Rom. 6:4; Gal. 3:10-13). Slaves of sin (Rom. 6:17), subject to death, they were unable to escape. "No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him (Ps. 49:7, NIV). Only God is invested with power to redeem. "'I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death'" (Hosea 13:14). How did God redeem them?

Through Jesus, who testified that He "'did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many'" (Matt. 20:28, see 1 Tim. 2:6), God "purchased" the church with "His own blood" (Acts 20:28). In Christ "we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins" (Eph. 1:7; cf. Rom. 3:24). His death was to "redeem us from every lawless deed and purity for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works" (Titus 2:14).

What Did The Ransom Accomplish? Christ's death ratified God's ownership of humanity. Said Paul, "You are not your own; you were bought at a price" (1 Cor. 6:19, 20, NIV; see also 1 Cor. 7:23).

Through His death, Christ broke the dominion of sin, terminated the spiritual captivity, removed the condemnation and curse of the law, and made eternal life available to all repentant sinners. Peter said believers were redeemed from "aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers" (1 Peter 1:18). Paul wrote that those delivered from the slavery of sin and its deadly fruit are now in the service of God with its "fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life" (Rom. 6:22).

To ignore or deny the ransom principle would be "to lose the very heart of the gospel of grace and to deny the deepest motive of our gratitude to the Lamb of God."11 This principle is central to the doxologies sung in the heavenly throne room: "'You were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth'" (Rev. 5:9, 10, NIV).

Source: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/index.htm

[John317]

Consider the statement:

Quote:

For a loving God to maintain His justice and righteousness, the atoning death of Jesus Christ became "a moral and legal necessity." God's "justice requires that sin be carried to judgment. God must therefore execute judgment on sin and thus on the sinner. In this execution the Son of God took our place, the sinner's place, according to God's will. The atonement was necessary because man stood under the righteous wrath of God. Herein lies the heart of the gospel of forgiveness of sin and the mystery of the cross of Christ: Christ's perfect righteousness adequately satisfied divine justice, and God is willing to accept Christ's self-sacrifice in place of man's death."5

...... The shedding of His blood accomplished the expiation for sin (Rom. 3:25 RSV). John said that because of His love, God "sent His Son to be the propitiation [hilasmos] for our sins" (1 John 4:10; "expiation" RSV; "an atoning sacrifice" NIV).

Does sin require expiation or could God simply have forgiven mankind without Christ's death?

Is the Qur'an correct to say that God does not require the death of Christ in order to forgive sin.

[fccool]

I think that "what ifs" are meaningless pondering in this case. Kind of "what if Adam did not sin". It's not a matter of "what ifs". I suspect there's much more going on in the background than we can imagine.

I'd like to ask these questions when I get to finally meet God face to face.

My point is that the way atonement presented today does not portray God in the best light, especially when the doctrine of the eternal torment in hell gets mixed in. People get hung up on blood and death, when it was not the focus of the Christian message originally.

Did Christ have to die for our sins? No. Did Christ have to come and die for us to be saved. Absolutely! So, don't misunderstand me. Christ was not under obligation to do anything. It was a voluntary act of God's love. That was my point.

Yet, at the same time people misunderstand the part that we play in salvation i.e. "work out your own salvation with fear and diligence". Yet, this is impossible without Christ reaching out to humanity to extend the forgiveness.

Again, I believe that whatever God does in this case, be it the sacrifice of the lamb, or even Christ's death... it's symbolic of something larger... love and forgiveness. There are different levels of symbolisms in the Bible. Cross in itself is a symbol, just like blood is a symbol of something bigger. I don't believe that blood shed is what God desires. Everything that is done is to win our minds... and that's what the battle really is about.

To really drive the point home... Christ's death does not atone unrepentant sinner... someone who rejects Christ in action and in words. Bible is clear on that subject. So, for forgiveness there has to be two parties involved.

1) Christ extending forgiveness.

2) Humanity accepting forgiveness.

Christ death is a symbol of extending forgiveness. The most grand gesture that you can make... "I'll die for you to come back to me". Otherwise the humans would not have chance at repentane. That's why God uses "shocking symbols" and deals with sacrifices, because it is a matter of life and death.

Yet, I don't think that Christ was absolutely obligated to die for our sins. But, I agree with you that if there was other way, God probably would have used it. But it does not mean that there was no other way. To say that is to limit God's power. We can conclude that it was the best way, but I doubt that it was the only. If you think that it was the only way, please explain why you think so.

[John317]

My point is that the way atonement presented today does not portray God in the best light, especially when the doctrine of the eternal torment in hell gets mixed in. People get hung up on blood and death, when it was not the focus of the Christian message originally.

Did Christ have to die for our sins? No. Did Christ have to come and die for us to be saved. Absolutely! So, don't misunderstand me. Christ was not under obligation to do anything. It was a voluntary act of God's love. That was my point.

Compare your statement above that is highlighted with the statements below. (I completely agree with your above statements.)

I would have agreed with you immediately if I had seen you say this in your first posts. You didn't say His death was necessary in order for us to be saved. You said, "It's not Christ's death that makes our salvation possible". This is the statement that I believe is opposed by the Bible evidence.

Do you still stand by the following statements which you made on your first post?

Quote:

The obvious question is then... why did Jesus have to die? Christ did not have to die, if we in fact accepted Him the first time He came and followed Him. He did not come to die, but came to live and to teach the world that rejected God in spirit. Thus it was a grand gesture by God to come down to our level. Ironically, the rejection by his own people lead to His death, which He knowingly was willing to endure in order to demonstrate His love. From God's knowledge of future... His death was unavoidable, and predicted. Thus God pointed this out through symbols in the Bible, again and again and again. The message was not merely... "kill the lamb so that your sins would be forgiven", but "YOUR DISOBEDIENCE CAUSE INNOCENT TO DIE".

The entire sacrificial and passover system points out just that. Not God's thirst for blood and substitutionary death... but that we killed our Savior, who being God, was willing to simply let us do it ... so that few of us later on could look back on it, see it and change our mind touched by this love. And THIS IS the true AT-ONE-MENT... not the act of murder of innocent God-man in order to satisfy God's sense of "revenge" (justice) . Thus it becomes evident that Christ's death does play a major role in atonement, and still consistent with the view of substitutionary death. Yet, it is not what "evangelicals" make it out to be.

After all, without God all of us will die, and we are hopelessly lost without God's Word that Jesus came down to teach us not only in speech, but by example. Yet, I think that many times we go on focusing on death, rather than life of Christ. It's not Christ's death that makes our salvation possible.

[John317]

I think that "what ifs" are meaningless pondering in this case. Kind of "what if Adam did not sin". It's not a matter of "what ifs". I suspect there's much more going on in the background than we can imagine.

I'd like to come back for a few moment to something you said in your first post--

Quote:

Christ did not have to die, if we in fact accepted Him the first time He came and followed Him.

Isn't that a "what if"?

My answer to that is that Christ had to die [shed His blood; give His life] in order for any human being to be forgiven and saved.

Do you agree? Without His death, you and I could not possibly have been saved.

Quote:

Christ's death does not atone unrepentant sinner... someone who rejects Christ in action and in words. Bible is clear on that subject. So, for forgiveness there has to be two parties involved.

1) Christ extending forgiveness.

2) Humanity accepting forgiveness.

Christ death is a symbol of extending forgiveness....

Christ's death was an atonement for every man, woman, and child ever born on the face of the globe. It was sufficient for ALL sin. The tragedy is that most of humanity will be lost because they didn't accept God's offer of forgiveness in Christ. It's been compared to a billionaire who fills hundreds of people's accounts with a million dollars, but only a few take the trouble to go to the bank and use the accounts.

God has already shown in Christ that He forgives us for our sins and rebellion, but that forgiveness is not affective if we reject it and go on sinning and rebelling.

It would be kind of like the governor offering a prisoner forgiveness and freedom, only to have the prisoner reject the offer and continue committing crimes.

In Christ, God has freely forgiven all humanity (Rom. 3: 21-26), but that forgiveness is only operative if accepted by faith and acted upon. God's love and forgiveness unconditional, but it can be rejected. God respects our choices, and He won't force anyone to be saved.

Quote:

Yet, I don't think that Christ was absolutely obligated to die for our sins.

(Christ, of course, did not die due to "obligation." "He endured the cross for the joy that was set before Him, despising the shame," incredible as that is!!!! Heb. 12:2.) He was "obligated" to die for our sins-- that is, He HAD TO DO IT-- to the extent that this was the Father's will for Him, and there was no other way for humanity to be saved. Therefore, if Christ wanted any humans to be saved, He had to die.

This is because God could not have simply forgiven Adam and Eve and their posterity. That was the reason for the agreement between Father and Son-- there was no other way to save mankind, except by God, the Creator, becoming human and dying. Why that had to be could be made the subject of another, separate thread devoted to answering that very important question.

Quote:

But, I agree with you that if there was other way, God probably would have used it. But it does not mean that there was no other way. To say that is to limit God's power.

But wouldn't you agree that there are some things that even God cannot do?

For instance, is God able to force people against their will to be saved, yet at the same time honor their freedom of choice?

I don't see any way around the conclusion that if there was any other way to save us-- apart from the suffering and death of His beloved Son--He wouldn't have willed His Son to suffer and die.

Quote:

We can conclude that it was the best way, but I doubt that it was the only. If you think that it was the only way, please explain why you think so.

Let's say God has choice A) and as ways of saving mankind with the same results. Choice A) is by the death of Christ, whom God loves infinitely. Choice is by an alternative which doesn't require the Son to die.

Given the above choices, can you think of any reason that God would choose A)?

By the way, doesn't God's choice to give up His Son whom He loves infinitely demonstrate that He also loves mankind infinitely.

[John317]

... why did Jesus have to die? Christ did not have to die, if we in fact accepted Him the first time He came and followed Him. He did not come to die, but came to live and to teach the world that rejected God in spirit...

You bring up an interesting point here.

The Bible actually shows that the Jews could have accepted Christ, in which case the death of Christ would have occurred in a completely different way.

This is important because it demonstrates that God didn't force the Jews to reject the Messiah. That was a genuine choice on their part.

Yet Christ would still have had to die.

If you check out Deut. 28, God gave the Jews a choice between blessings and curses, and these choices were real and genuine. It's a great tragedy that they went the way they did, but it was not something God made happen.

The prediction of Christ's death in Daniel 9: 24-27 shows that it wasn't necessary for the Jews to kill Him. God gave the Jews 70 weeks of years (490 years) to accept the Messiah, and they might have chosen to accept Him.

Zechariah and other prophecies in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel show that there were other ways in which the Messiah's death could have come about. The Gentiles could have been responsible for His death instead of the Jews. But in any case, Jesus would have been killed and resurrected. That was settled and had to happen. It happened because of the decision that the Father and Son came to even before the Fall of Adam and Eve.

This decision, or counsel, is referred to in Acts 2: 23-- "the deliberate intention and foreknowledge of God"-- and in Acts 4: 28.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

28 to do whatever Thy hand and Thy counsel did determine before to come to pass.

See also Acts 17: 3:

3 "explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, 'This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.'"

The New Jerusalem reads, "it was ordained that the Christ should suffer and rise from the dead."

Ellen White saw the "counsel of peace" in vision and wrote about it--

Quote:

The Father and the Son in consultation decided that Christ must come to the world as a babe, and live the life that human beings must live from childhood to manhood, bearing the trials that they must bear, and at the same time living a sinless life, that men might see in Him an example of what they can become, and that He might know by experience how to help them in their struggles with sin. He was tried as man is tried, tempted as man is tempted. The life that He lived in this world, men can live, through His power and under His instruction. . . . Reflecting Christ (1985), page 16, paragraph 5

[fccool]

John, you are reading Christ death from the perspective of a person located in 2009 BC. With such perspective it's hard to understand the idea of "predetermination".

Does God pre-determine things in a sense that he controls every chess piece on the board? Or could it be that he foresees things and makes proper adjustments in advance?

Based on your view, it's the former... and I'm sure there is some truth to it. I honestly would say that I don't know, but I tend to think that it is a bit of both. God does not merely see advanced time. If I predict something and I do it flawlessly... I predicted the future. I believe that this is the case for God, even outside of the linear time.

The word "atonement" did not even exist in English language prior to 16th century. Tyndale coined it to overcome the "limitation" of "reconciliation" term in NT, and "sin offering" in OT.

So, instead of interpreting the "sin offering" as a gesture from both sides that recognize the need for reconciliation... the interpretation becomes such that THE OFFERING ITSELF is reconciliation. Do you see what I'm saying? There are plenty of suicide bombers in the world (granted that they are not sinless), and there are plenty of animals being sacrificed likewise. The act of death in itself does not result in reconciliation. It is the act of Father's (and Son's) forgiveness that does.

Now, we can argue that payment by our own death satisfies God's justice (i.e. we deserve to die... we die and thus justice is accomplished)... and thus subsequent forgiveness. But it does not make sense in that case to forgive a dead person. What good is it?

Now, does forgiveness results from death, or from obedience? You would argue that it results from Christ's death. I would argue that it is from obedience after knowing of Christ's love who was willing to go through death to "cause us" to obey.

Secondly, I think that it's important to remember that Christ IS the Creator, and likewise He is the judge. Who are we accountable to? I really think people misunderstand Trinity as three separate persons (many times ... human formed beings) of God, instead of seeing it as functions that Godhead performs and the ways that They reveal Themselves to us. God is omniopresent... means All three of them... not simply the Father.

[John317]

John, you are reading Christ death from the perspective of a person located in 2009 BC. With such perspective it's hard to understand the idea of "predetermination".

Does God pre-determine things in a sense that he controls every chess piece on the board? Or could it be that he foresees things and makes proper adjustments in advance?

No, I don't think God controls every chess piece. He honors our freedom and doesn't control us in that way. His foreknowledge doesn't interfere with our freedom any more than watching a film of Kennedy's assassination causes it to happen even though you know precisely what is going to happen.

Some things God simply knows about; but other things He fulfills or brings about or causes to happen. For instance, he will cause the Second Coming. He doesn't cause people to be lost or saved, but He will bring about the end of sin and Satan.

And yes, I agree that in many instances he foresees things and makes the proper adjustment. However, it appears from the Bible that the Godhead did make the decision that Christ must die for the sins of the world so we might be saved. (By the way, if the Father had come and died, nothing would have been changed. Jesus and the Father have equal love for us.)

What do you think?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Dumb question: Could the Holy Spirit have died?

[fccool]

I don't dispute that... but again... this decision was more of an adjustment to our disobedience... not for the sake of the decision. I don't think that sinful mankind was the original plan.

[there buster]

Quote:

Dumb question: Could the Holy Spirit have died?

Doesn't strike me as a dumb question, especially given John317's statement about the Father dying.

However, I don't think that's a question to which any real answer is possible.