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

darinhouston · Post by **darinhouston** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:56 am

Putting the trinitarian issues aside of whether God did Himself actually die on the cross when His Son laid down His life, please discuss the Scriptural arguments as to whether it was REQUIRED that God lay down His own life to atone for our sins.

Let's assume for the moment that Jesus was in every conceivable way "God" Himself, and that God did choose to die on the cross in human form, was it necessary to satisfy some divine decree or law of nature or other reason? Or was it merely His good pleasure to do so?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

robbyyoung · Post by **robbyyoung** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:40 am

Hi Darin,

The short answer is; the atonement was necessary, for God decreed it and obligated Himself to it. The scripture reference is in Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." God has always provided for mankind in order to restore that broken relationship.

God Bless.

Homer · Post by **Homer** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:41 am

Hi Darin,

You wrote:

was it necessary to satisfy some divine decree or law of nature or other reason?

For starters I would say that there is no reason outside of God, nor can there be for He answers to no one and there is no force, power, etc. that He must respond to.

dizerner · Post by **dizerner** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:14 am

The soul that sins must die, all have sinned. That's a simple equation. Could anyone else but Christ take our place? His is the blood of an eternal covenant. Come unto me all who are thirsty. I've laid out elsewhere reasons why I believe only the divine could "bridge the gap" or reconcile the fallen creature with the infinitely holy God. The price to pay was simply too big. Could an angel do it? How could he stand in for mankind, how could he pay a big enough price. Could a man do it? How could he avoid his contaminated origin. This was a sacrifice, a blood sacrifice for sins. The New Testament authors clearly acknowledged the spiritual type and shadow inherent in sacrificing an animal, yet that it could clearly and obviously never accomplish it's purpose in and of itself. Rather it symbolized something, it stood in for something. Hebrews gives us some clues about redemption in Christ. There were a few major factors that had to be met. Share in the same flesh and blood, yet be without sin. Overcome the power of death that had bondage over all flesh. How? By fulfilling the covenant of Law, the covenant God has sworn in his power and holiness: "If you eat, you shall die." There really was no way around it. If you eat, you will die.

There's many Scriptures showing the divinity that had to be inherent in Christ to accomplish the breadth and scope of his intercessory work. Live a perfect life, die a perfect death, resurrect by the power of the infinite, intercede for the people for whom he died, release the Holy Spirit to indwell us and connect us to the work of Christ. Christ left father and mother to join in one flesh with humanity, and God was in him reconciling the world to himself. This is the Gospel that it seems so often gets robbed from the very churches that are suppose to be Christ's bride, but end up immersed in empty religious terminology with no living relationship. Was it "necessary" for God to die? If redemption were to be accomplished among a race that broke God's Holy Law, it would be the only way. Did Christ have to do it? No he clearly was not compelled. Why did the consequences of rebellion in sin have to be so severe? It's due to the nature of God and the nature of sin.

We might assume God could simply skip the whole thing. You could not convince me that God wanted sin to happen, that God wanted to suffer or his creation to suffer. It's the price of freedom in the economy of creation. Could God theoretically make us be able to reject him with lesser consequences, or at least only consequences that affected ourselves and not others? I suppose, being above logic, we could speculate anything was possible for him, but that's difficult to know. I'd like, at least, the chance Adam and Eve had. I've never experienced that paradise or had a simple command to obey. I'd like God to make it so his creation could not fail or fall, or just punish each creature alone, or even not punish at all. We could conceive of many, many, many different scenarios besides this current one that Scripture indicates.

darinhouston · Post by **darinhouston** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:30 am

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.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

darinhouston · Post by **darinhouston** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:43 am

This is related to the antithetical argument by many supporting eternal torment that sin against an infinite God requires an infinite punishment . I don't see either in Scripture, and the philosophical arguments I've heard seem conclusory and to beg the question.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TheEditor · Post by **TheEditor** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:21 pm

Hi Darin,

I'll give my two cents, for what it's worth. I can find no Scriptural requirement that God needed to die. Some will dismiss my conclusion on the basis that I am not (currently) a trinitarian. However, I don't think one needs to be a non-trinitarian to come to this conclusion. Indeed, most if not all interpretations of the Atonement in Christian thought come from trinitarians, and this includes those outside the popular Substitutionary Atonement camp. I think that if you are going to be an advocate for the latter, then all you would need to satisfy strict justice would be a perfect man. Adam (a perfect man) sinned = The Last Adam (a perfect man) lived sinlessly and bought back what Adam lost. Adam lost himself and all those in his loins. Jesus sacrificed his own life and all future life in his loins, should he have chosen to live a sinless life on earth and father children.

But I am not convinced that the strict, legal expiation model is the correct one.

Regards, Brenden.

robbyyoung · Post by **robbyyoung** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:27 pm

darinhouston wrote: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.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

God bless.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Robby Young
U.S. Army Retired

Paidion · Post by **Paidion** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:35 pm

Darin wrote:Putting the trinitarian issues aside of whether God did Himself actually die on the cross when His Son laid down His life, please discuss the Scriptural arguments as to whether it was REQUIRED that God lay down His own life to atone for our sins.

How can I put aside the issue of whether God Himself died on the cross, when the idea is nonsensical? If God died, then He's dead, and can't make Himself alive again. However, I will "put it aside" in the sense that I won't use this thread as a springboard to argue against this nonsense. I will rephrase the question to make it, "Was it necessary for the Son of God to die?"

I don't believe, like some in this forum, that someone had to "take our place" and presumably our punishment. This idea is nearly as nonsensical as the idea that God died.

George MacDonald wrote:They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin. (Unspoken Sermons III, Righteousness)

So the question for me is, "Was it necessary for Jesus, the Son of God, to die?" Yes. Certainly it was necessary, or He would not have undergone death. He prayed to his Father, "O my Father, if possible, let this cup [of suffering and death] pass from me!" (Matt 26:39). And the Father didn't release His Son from suffering and death. So it seems it was not only necessary for Jesus to suffer and die, but impossible for it to be otherwise—that is, if the purpose of God were to be realized.

So clearly it was necessary for the Son of God to die. But is that the end of the story? Does that satisfy you, Darin, that the answer to Jesus' prayer showed that it was necessary? I suspect that there is a hidden question within the title of this thread—"WHY was it necessary for the Son of God to die?" Peter, Paul, and the writer to the Hebrews answer that question plainly:

Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Heb 9:26 ...he has appeared once for all at the end of the age for the abolition of sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Many cannot accept these reasons for the death of the Messiah. They make statements such as, "No one can be sinless! So this must mean that God IMPUTES rightousness to me because of Christ's death."
No. It doesn't mean that at all. It doesn't mean that through his death Messiah imparted to us "imputed" righteousness but rather that through his death, He made possible ACTUAL righteousness. We must coöperate with his enabling grace in order to appropriate this REAL righteousness. Further more, the attainment of this righteousness is a process. This process is known as "salvation from sin," and continues throughout our lives. The process begins when we entrust our entire being to Messiah Jesus. And Paul wrote:

I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Philippians 1:6)

So in the day of Jesus Christ, the process will be complete for all those in whom the process has begun. This is all made possible by the enabling grace which God made available through his Son's death:

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)

darinhouston · Post by **darinhouston** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:42 pm

I tend to agree, Brenden. I'm looking for reasons to believe otherwise. I also don't buy the argument as compelling eternal torment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Narrow Path Ministries