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

Man, Sin, & Salvation
steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by steve7150 » Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:05 pm

but was Adam sinless before the Fall?
darinhouston










This would be a good topic.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by jriccitelli » Sun Apr 19, 2015 2:33 pm

So we had another thread based on this question, but it was easily answered:
Adam was sinless. Yes. But he did sin. Angels were perfect too, I suppose, but they do eventually sin, or are capable of sin.
Jesus never did sin, and I believe that He would not sin because Jesus is a perfect Spirit, and Spirit is ultimately what we truly are. We by contrast are completely of this earth and our spirit also is created and willing to sin. Our spirit is weak, His is not. He is from above:
'And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world' (John 8:23)
There is a difference between willing to sin, and not willing to sin.

There is a difference between obedience and able.
There is a difference between something able and something unable. (My answer from Darins 'Was Adam sinless? thread pg1)
Adam did sin. So the point remains the same: We need a sacrifice for sins, and as we read on we learn we needed a better sacrifice for sins than animals, especially if we are going to change the heart of the sinner.
Dzirner, you mention that you can't read the Scripture without getting a sense for God's Holiness. I agree, but the extent to which I acknowledge my wretchedness in the shadow of a Holy God doesn't address the question of His Holiness being affected by even the sum total of all human wretchedness. (Atonement thread, Darin, pg 6, Mar 31)
Darin, you have repackaged this argument a number of ways, but who exactly said this?

This whole thread seems to be based on a statement that no one here has suggested. I wouldn’t care but you pretty much demanded someone come up with a verse or argument to support it, all the while saying we don't get it, and therefore this validates your proposal that it wasn't 'necessary' for God to die, which we agreed was not our argument, yet you seem to claim a victory, and say something like this:
'I guess that's because I'm so odd... ;) Seriously, why not debate something so foundational that people quote so dogmatically without Scriptural support? I'd say the position that "our sin is so great compared to God's infinite holiness that God Himself had to die" is a pretty bold statement to make' (Darin, bottom of pg11, Apr 7)
Again, no one here is 'quoting, being dogmatic, or making this bold statement'.

You wrote: "our sin is so great ---- compared to God's infinite holiness ----- that God Himself had to die"
You put the argument above together from two precepts, make it as if we made the statement, you have concluded the answer yourself, and expect we should prove it, all the while its 'your' own argument.

We believe 'our sin is so great' and 'God alone is infinite in holiness' but we do not believe this necessitates, nor have we argued 'that God himself had to die' (this also is your premise, we have argued here that God did not die). God did not 'have' to offer a sacrifice for us, this was not commanded of God, it was commanded of us. The offering was originally and always to be 'to' God. Yet God did 'promise' to Abraham He would provide a sacrifice for atonement. Reading on we learned that sacrifices did not make the worshipper Holy, and that the blood of bulls and rams did not please God, and neither did they remove sins. And like we said God looked around and found no one worthy, all of heaven looked around and found no one worthy, and that's because all of heaven knows there is no one worthy and good but God: Yet 'the sacrifice must be Holy and without sin'. God was refusing their sacrifices, the priesthood was corrupt themselves, man could not atone for himself or for others, none were found worthy, Israel was without hope, and we were without hope, this is the situation. So with the demand for Holiness, and an uncorrupted priesthood, and the need for a better sacrifice, we needed a Savior, not another man.

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

Re: Atontement: Was it

Post by TheEditor » Sun Apr 19, 2015 3:23 pm

Again, no one here is 'quoting, being dogmatic, or making this bold statement'.

You wrote: "our sin is so great ---- compared to God's infinite holiness ----- that God Himself had to die"
You put the argument above together from two precepts, make it as if we made the statement, you have concluded the answer yourself, and expect we should prove it, all the while its 'your' own argument.

We believe 'our sin is so great' and 'God alone is infinite in holiness' but we do not believe this necessitates, nor have we argued 'that God himself had to die' (this also is your premise, we have argued here that God did not die). God did not 'have' to offer a sacrifice for us, this was not commanded of God, it was commanded of us.


Hi JR,

I think if you take the totality of your posts on the subject, you will see this is what you have intimated. In fact, just a few posts back you made the assertion that alternative views of the Atonement were necessitated by a low Christology. When I pointed out to you that all variants of the Atonement other than Substitution were proffered by trinitarians, you had no response. I think Darin's question is valid. Your saying you are unaware of anyone making such an argument, when it is ubiquitous in trinitarin circles, demonstrates a degree of disingenuousness, in my opinion.

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]

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

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

Post by darinhouston » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:20 am

I will go further and say that if you haven't made this argument, then I'm not asking you to defend it. Whether you have or not, others have, and if you want to defend our criticize it, great. But don't be offended by the question if it doesn't apply to your position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post Reply

Return to “Anthropology, Hamartiology, Soteriology”