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

[darinhouston]

Thank you Brendon. I'm done interacting with JR on this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Homer]

Hi Brenden,

If you want to know a scripture that exclaims how great our sin was here it is: “For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son” Giving His Son would exclaim how great our sins are, 'because' of who He is.

The verse says nothing of the kind. It says that God gave His Son because of His love for man. It says nothing about sin.

If Jesus' death was not for sin it would seem to have been an entirely superfluous demonstration of God's love. But the scriptures plainly declare Christ died for sinners.

“For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust” That exclaims Christ is God, as only God is just.[/quote}

More conjecture. There are many that are "just", even prior to the atonement. Abraham comes to mind...

But this brings to mind Jesus' statement that only God is good. And your response implies that Jesus did not die for Abraham, nor any of the "many that are just". That seems to be a reverse limited atonement.

[TheEditor]

Hi Homer,

I admit to the teaching that Jesus died for us so that in some sense we are reconciled with God. What I am not so cock-sure about is exactly how it works; the nuances, if you will. I have heard preachers and read books that are so certain about it all, that you would think they were reading it directly from the Bible. But, as with most ideas, it is merely an individual's application based upon, to borrow a term from Jesus, 'How they read'. I was just responding to this verse in particular.

And your response implies that Jesus did not die for Abraham, nor any of the "many that are just". That seems to be a reverse limited atonement.

Kind of does in a way. But Abraham 'believed God' and it was counted to him as righteousness. Apparently the belief or trust in God is what justifies. It may be that there is more to this than meets the eye. I have all kinds of ideas, but, like the aforementioned preachers and books, it would just be 'How I read'.

Regards, Brenden.

[mattrose]

There are a # of atonement theories. Some of them probably wouldn't find it "necessary" for "God" to "die" in order for them to work. Of course, those theories might be incorrect.

My view of the atonement is essentially the recapitulation view. God became what we are so that we can become what God is. God became flesh like us so we can become glorified like God. Adam chose his path. It ended in death. We follow that same path. Jesus chose his path. It also included death, but continued via resurrection. It was necessary that Jesus walk the same human path as Adam (without the sin) and come to the same end (death) in order for Him to break new ground on this path (resurrection) so that we who are from Adam can continue on this road through Christ.

I think it was necessary for God to become flesh.
I think it was necessary for death to be overcome.
And I think only God was able to do that.

So, as I posted before, I would answer the question YES.

Had we not fallen, I still think the incarnation would have happened. And I think it would have been enough. But since we fell and subjected ourselves to death, I think it became necessary for the incarnated one to die too. Because we fell, the incarnation had to go deeper still.

[jriccitelli]

The verse says nothing of the kind. It says that God gave His Son because of His love for man. It says nothing about sin. (Editor)

Why would you just give your only child over to be tortured, unless there was no other way?
Its rather lopsided to think we just give away children to be tortured and killed, just to demonstrate love, unless of course there was absolutely no other payment that could have the worth necessary. You don't see it, but it comes when you consider it (or see it in red).

More conjecture. There are many that are "just", even prior to the atonement. Abraham comes to mind... (Editor)

As with much of this, I didn’t feel I needed to restate basic theological principles and precepts. Which Homer quickly observed: none are without sin. Abraham, and all righteous Israelites practiced animal sacrifice for atonement; as well Noah, Job and Enoch may have also. And just as no humans are believed to be without sin: the just came by 'faith', and they all believed ‘God’. Whom I have pointed out exhaustively to almost no avail: ‘The Only God or Deity to whom they all the patriarchs trusted and obeyed, was God. And this was what justified them, and this will never change for them, or for me, and Gods Word agrees’

I don’t think any of those here of who 'do not' believe in the Deity of Jesus share the common basic theological principles and precepts that we who 'do' believe Jesus was God, believe. And it is as I commonly observe: they observe alternate views of the atonement, alternate view points on works and the Law, and yet the three doctrines are interwoven as to be one, so one without the others is impossible.

You gave answers that were satisfying to you. That's fine. But don't take the tack that just because someone doesn't agree with your conclusions they are failing to 'take your bread'. (Editor)

The Word of God is satisfying to me. And it is enough. I can’t re-post the same scriptures over and over that you yourself would not eat. Yet here again; There are clear statements that say: there is “Only One God, One Savior, and One Lord” “The blood of bulls and goats cannot remove sin” “No one is good, except God alone” “No one is without sin” “For to which of the angels did He ever say, you are my Son” “No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him - For the redemption of his soul is costly” “There is no other righteous God and Savior” “So My own arm brought salvation to Me, And My wrath upheld Me”

You can't demand to have word structure or a concept in scripture that isn’t there, while all the time the 'rejection of such an idea' is made plain by the overwhelming text that 'is' there. You can’t logically say: Where does it say: I can’t get drunk on Bud light? I don’t see a scripture that says “don’t get drunk on Bud Light”!

Same thing, all a person can do is show the verses that speak 'against' any other being worthy or an object worthy of removing sin from men. And, the impossibility of sin being removed 'by the contrast of another object with the sin' (as other objects are not that worthy either). Yet the act of substitution is demonstrated to be Gods way from The Law, even back to Adam.

Sounds a bit clerical. In summary, I guess it is agreed then that there is no Scripture that affirms the oft-repeated refrain mentioned in the question. (Editor)

The oft repeated and rephrased question, regards an idea none of us hold, so we have said. And just the same no scripture exists. I don’t think anyone here has said or holds that 'God is harmed' by our sin.

‘My post is really concerning the position that a sin against an infinite God causes an infinite harm to him that can only be repaid by the sacrifice of God Himself’
Why the notion that our sin (great or small) has the capability to harm Him in a way that requires Him to have to come to earth and permit Himself to die? (Darin pg5)

And so we agreed with Darin, and Darin seemed to wonder why we were witnessing to him. Because I do not know how you, Darin and Paidion can conclude to having two Lords and two Saviors, it is our question not Darin’s that was not answered. The continuing commentary seems to be about Paidion’s denial of a debt being paid for sin, which is an argument for the 'need' of a Divine payment, as no other would have any such worth.

[Paidion]

Matt, why say, "I think it was necessary for God to become flesh"? Why not, "I think it was necessary for the only-begotten Son of God to become flesh"?

Or you could say it as John did:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

Nowhere in scripture do we read that God became flesh, or that God died.

[mattrose]

Matt, why say, "I think it was necessary for God to become flesh"? Why not, "I think it was necessary for the only-begotten Son of God to become flesh"?

Or you could say it as John did:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

Okay. I think it was necessary for the unique Son of God to become flesh.

And the Word became flesh... and that Word was God.

[dizerner]

...the Word was God...

And the Word became flesh...

...and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world...

...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you...

This He said, signifying by what death He would die.

And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore.

This is not some damnable heresy, this is the core of the Gospel itself that can give you eternal life... trust me when I say only Satan wants to take away this truth.

[jriccitelli]

Nowhere in scripture do we read that God became flesh, or that God died. (Paidion)

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν (And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us)
As far as I remember, no one here has argued God died. We have explained this already in a long thread.

You can't demand to have word structure or a concept in scripture that isn’t there, while all the time the 'rejection of such an idea' is made plain by the overwhelming text that 'is' there. You can’t logically say: Where does it say: I can’t get drunk on Bud light? I don’t see a scripture that says “don’t get drunk on Bud Light”!... The oft repeated and rephrased question, regards an idea none of us hold, so we have said. And just the same no scripture exists. I don’t think anyone here has said or holds that 'God is harmed' by our sin. (Or that God died. Me, above)

[dizerner]

might be tough to get drunk on bud light either way