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

[mattrose]

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.

But is it really a LESSER thing to say the Son of God had to die? The Lord?

Is your main issue with how utterly sinful some Christians think we are?

Or

Are you really saying that's it's not as a big a deal for the Son of God to die than God Himself?

Please know my tone is not antagonistic. I'm just trying to understand this issue.

[TheEditor]

Hi Matt,

I'll just toss this in and let Darin answer as he sees fit. My opinion on the Ransom/Atonement would be as follows:

If I believed (and I am not so certain that I do) a "corresponding ransom" (1 Timothy 2:6) was the necessary instrument to accomplish atonement, the as I read, the price paid would need to be at least what was lost, but not necessarily more. Adam as a perfect man lost his life and the potential race in his loins; Jesus, as the "last Adam" had a perfect human life, and he laid it down, along with the potential human life in his loins, as a Ransom. Jesus paid or bought back exactly what Adam lost. Another way of phrasing it was that Jesus ransomed Adam and therefore all that would come out of Adam.


So, from my perspective, if strict justice was/is the standard, then what I have outlined above would be all that is required. I believe the Ransom/Atonement to be an amalgam of a few views, not just one view alone.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

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.

All right Matt; I agree with all of the above.

For John 1:1 is not affirming that the Word was THE God, but that the Word was "God stuff", in other words "divine" or "being of the same essence as the Father."
But by calling the Son "God," Modalists are affirming that He and the Father are the same Individual, and since Trinitarians use the same language, they suggest this also. I know that true Trinitarians believe in three divine Individuals, and I think to make this clear, they should not use the terms "God" and "Son of God" interchangeably. For to most people, the term "God" refers to the Father, and to refer to the Son with that term is confusing. Even little children in Sunday school speak of "God and Jesus." These children seem to be more clear on the matter than some adults.

[darinhouston]

These children seem to be more clear on the matter than some adults.

Yes, they do.

[darinhouston]

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.

But is it really a LESSER thing to say the Son of God had to die? The Lord?

Is your main issue with how utterly sinful some Christians think we are?

Or

Are you really saying that's it's not as a big a deal for the Son of God to die than God Himself?

Please know my tone is not antagonistic. I'm just trying to understand this issue.

I guess I don't see it as a "lesser" thing -- just different, and truth doesn't only matter when it's "more" of a big deal or "less" of a big deal depending on the issue at hand. I'm not saying here that Jesus isn't God -- that's for other threads -- and to do so wouldn't even necessarily denigrate the sacrifice. However, when we say that man's sin (gross as it is) is such an affront to God that only His own death can satisfy the harm done we aren't standing on any revelation that I'm aware of sufficient to make such a bald assertion. When that is then used to confirm other doctrines, I think one should back up to the premise and consider the premise itself. If that premise is false, we can then honestly assess other premises. But, this is only meant to explore the basic premise, not to consider the separate claim that might flow from (though not necessarily depend upon) this premise.

I might make exactly the opposite proposition -- that our sin is offensive to God, but that it doesn't change Him or require anything of Him, and that His sacrifice was out of love for us, not out of some necessity due to what we did to Him.

To put it differently, the question isn't whether Jesus is God (there are plenty other proofs to be discussed in other threads). It's whether the severity of our sin against God can be used to prove that Jesus was necessarily God.

[robbyyoung]

For John 1:1 is not affirming that the Word was THE God, but that the Word was "God stuff", in other words "divine" or "being of the same essence as the Father."

Hi Paidion,

This is where I believe common ground can be attained. I touched upon this earlier in the post (http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... =20#p68312), however, it never really materialized into a viable answer; since Darin was only focused on "The God", if I'm not mistaken.

Yeshua can be everything that is divine, but He IS NOT The Father. Unless people have a problem with other divine beings, titled as God or Elohim, Yeshua - as God, did die; but His and our Father did not.

God Bless.

[mattrose]

I know that true Trinitarians believe in three divine Individuals, and I think to make this clear, they should not use the terms "God" and "Son of God" interchangeably. For to most people, the term "God" refers to the Father, and to refer to the Son with that term is confusing. Even little children in Sunday school speak of "God and Jesus." These children seem to be more clear on the matter than some adults.

Maybe this is where some of our back&forth on this subject comes from.

In my circles, we believe that both the Son and the Spirit can rightly be called God... but that doesn't mean we NORMALLY refer to them as such. The only time that really comes up is if you're in a discussion about the deity of Christ or the Spirit. Normally, the term God refers to either the Father or the Trinity. The Son is usually referred to as Jesus (or the Son, or Christ). The Spirit is usually referred to as the Spirit. Essentially, I use the same language in practice as the kids you are describing (with the possibility exception of my phrase 'or the Trinity').

Very rarely do I use the term GOD when I'm referring ONLY to Jesus or the Spirit. Perhaps you are used to people who do this frequently and wish they were a little more clear in their language.

[jriccitelli]

Darin, I have never used such an argument for Jesus' Diety, and It may have been said by who (?) But I have not seen it in my Theology books, so... But on the other hand taking up the cross so to speak, was Jesus a perfect sacrifice? If He was, He could not have been a only a man, He had to be 'something' perfect in human form and flesh. A man, and I would believe angels included, cannot be called perfect and without sin, as Satan demonstrated. That thinking seems to violate the definition of the Holy and what is created.

[robbyyoung]

A man, and I would believe angels included, cannot be called perfect and without sin, as Satan demonstrated. That thinking seems to violate the definition of the Holy and what is created.

Hi JR.,

No one is saying Yeshua isn't divine or deity.
If you believe He and His Father are the same individual, that's something to be debated, but if you do not, then The God did not die.

God bless.


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

[darinhouston]

Darin, I have never used such an argument for Jesus' Diety, and It may have been said by who (?) But I have not seen it in my Theology books, so... But on the other hand taking up the cross so to speak...

I've heard it all my life, and allusions in our Trinity discussions -- I'll try to keep my eyes open for you, but doing a quick search on the Trinity thread I found this which comes close...

Jose, who is Jesus to you then. Is He a created being, or is he God?
The one thing that would cut them to the quick in understanding what God the Father actually sacrificed' (Brenden)

In the story of Abraham, Abraham was sacrificing his own son. And this is what happened at the Crucifixion. Once we realize Jesus is also the Judge, Creator and God Himself. He who wrote the Law, and who made death the penalty for sin, also takes the penalty for sin Himself, in our place. God is both the Son and the Father, and they are One God. So it can be said that God offered the sacrifice of Himself, unto Himself, to save us. He is both The Priest and The Sacrifice. No One else could do this, unless they were two in One.

...was Jesus a perfect sacrifice? If He was, He could not have been a only a man, He had to be 'something' perfect in human form and flesh. A man, and I would believe angels included, cannot be called perfect and without sin, as Satan demonstrated. That thinking seems to violate the definition of the Holy and what is created.

Yes, but why do you think this is so? This surely belongs in another topic, but was Adam sinless before the Fall?