The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ

[Guest]

Paidion,

Positive law or commands have been known as a category at least as far back as Aristotle and today you can find the definition in Black's Law Dictionary. Charles Hodge wrote of the idea in his Systematic Theology. It is a category that was once in rather common use by learned Christians but you rarely hear it referred to today.

Moral law was once known as natural law because what is right morally is more or less understood by everyone, Christian or not. Being of moral character is no proof of faith; many unbelievers are moral people.

On the other hand, positive commands have their basis not in what is right in and of itself, but in the authority of the lawgiver. A good biblical example is God's command regarding the handling of the Arc. No one can see any reason why Uzzah (2 Sam. 6) should not have touched the Arc. He certainly could not have harmed it; he only meant to help. He lost his life as a result.

It takes faith to obey a command when you can not see how it will do any good. (Does this bring to mind some discussion you hear about baptism?)

Even more faith is required when you are sure it will not do any good.

The greatest test of faith comes when a command is faced that you know to be otherwise wrong. You may think God would never do this but He has! He tested Abraham's faith by a positive command - to sacrifice his beloved Isaac! And this an act God had declared to be an abomination!
It is hard to think of a greater test of faith than this.

[Guest]

Thank you for clarification, Homer.

Since positive commands can be expressed negatively and vice versa, I wonder whether a more descriptive categorization would be:

1. Specific commands.

and

2. General or universal commands.

I noticed that each example you have given of a "positive command" is a specific command given to an individual.

Moral commands seem to belong in the second category or "general or universal commands."

I can see why the giving of a specific command which contravened God's universal commands could test the faith of an individual! Indeed, if I were put to this test, I would have to be very sure that the specific command had its source in God before I attempted to carry it out.

You mentioned Uzzah losing his life as a result of touching the arc.
I tried to think of examples in the New Testament record. I remembered that Ananias and Saphira lost their lives after they had claimed to have shared all their property with the brethren, but had lied, and kept back a part for themselves. It is interesting that in this case, God had not even given neither a "specific command" nor a "general command" that they should do so. The sharing of goods had become a Christian practice which was carried out completely at the initiative of the Christians who wished to express their love for one another in this way.

It is noteworthy that the ramifications of disobeying "general commands" are as serious (or more so), than those of disobeying "specific commands".

I Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Paidion, could you clarify what you meant by "power." I'm sure you just meant the Holy Spirit or something of that nature.

Yes, the Holy Spirit, is the source of spiritual power:

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth."

But I was actually thinking of that enabling grace or power that has been made available to us by the death of Christ. Perhaps this is the same thing.

Titus 2:11-14 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, upright, and godly lives in this world, awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 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.

[Guest]

Thank you Paidion for clarifying what you meant by “power.”

In another topic:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=697

I concluded that we hate sin and desire holiness not because we fear death, pain, punishment, or hell; but because I have the “mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16). And Christ had personal convictions against sin because it grieved His Father. The Law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2) keeps us farther from sin than any mere man-made moral law could ever do! Hallelujah!

This may be what Homer is getting at.

But let's stick to the topic of the "Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus."

[_Les Wright]

Quote:
The idea that the sacrifice of Christ saves us from wrath (Rom.3:24-26; 5:9/ 1 Thess.1:10) can hardly be alluding to the power given to us through His self-sacrifice to stop sinning (and thereby to stop incurring wrath), since, as Homer pointed out, the ability to live an exemplary life existed and was seen in some who lived prior to that sacrifice. Whatever power led such people as Job, Zecharias and Elizabeth to live righteously might well be credited with saving them, quite apart from Christ's sacrifice, if the salvation He brought us is merely the ability to live a holy life, and nothing more.


As I have indicated in a previous post, exactly the same reasoning can be used to show that Jesus did not die to forgive people's sins. For Jesus said to the paralytic, "...your sins are forgiven". Jesus hadn't died yet. So forgiveness of sin was possible without His death. Thus his death could not have been for the purpose of forgiveness of sins.

It simply does not follow that those righteous people of old did not live righteously because of Christ's sacrifice. Could not His sacrifice have effected righteousness even before the event took place?

Hi Paidion,

This is a chapter 1 question. I'm finally taking the time to actually read this thread.

The above is kind of disturbing. I mean, if OT saints could live righteous live's without God's power and if people could be forgiven their sins prior to Jesus' death - then, why'd he die at all? (I sound more like an unbeliever here then a believer I realize)

8For (A)by grace you have been saved (B)through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (C)the gift of God - Eph 2:8

My view is that OT saints we're saved by offering sacrifices, but by God's grace (provided afterwards in Jesus' death) through their faith. (Edited - My main point is that it wasn't offering animal sacrifices that saved them from sin, which is what alot of people seem to think.)

I can't say I ever wondered why power kept people like Job from sinning.. just figured he had more self-control then me I guess.

Hard to be real dogmatic about this stuff though, as it isn't really clear from scripture..

Les

[_Les Wright]

Paul, quoting Psalm 32: 1, 2

Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been sent away and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account. Romans 4:7

Blessed is he whose transgression is taken away, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom Yahweh does not count iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. Psalm 32: 1,2

My understanding of the passages is that when actual sin is removed, it is rendered harmless, and therefore, God will no longer hold it against the transgressor.

So, as I see it, the bottom line is that our sins are indeed covered by the blood of Christ. But they are not covered in the sense that they are made invisible to God so that He no longer sees our sin but Christ's righteousness. (That was my understanding of the covering from fundamentalist teachers).

Rather, when we co-operate with the enabling grace of God made available throught the death of Christ, our sins are covered in the sense that they are rendered powerless. For we, by the grace of God, have forsaken them, and so they are removed. So God will no longer hold us accountable for past sins, but only for our present live sins (unless we forsake them also).

Hi Paidion - now a question/comment from chp2

I have to admit of subscribing to the 'fundamental view' of covering.

However, your view, as expressed above isn't far from mine (and likely most of ours). It seems the basic agreement is that salvation from sin is conditional upon faithfulness to the Lord.

You do bring up some really good points that I haven't really questioned, like

He no longer sees our sin but Christ's righteousness.

A familiar/related teaching, would be that 'God can't have sin in His presence' which always troubled me when I read the book of Job.

Paidion, would you agree that the main point is the pursuit of overcoming sin by the HS in the Christian's lives versus whether or not Jesus' death was an atoning sacrifice or not?

Les

[Guest]

Paidion,

After wading through this again from the start I can see an obvious pattern of assumptions, speculations, guesses, and probables in your reasoning. You deny that Jesus' death was to provide for the forgiveness of sins, both prior to and after the cross, and then speculate that His death somehow empowered people to live righteously prior to the cross! Rather inconsistent!

No matter how good we become it is no credit to us for doing what we should do. We are unworthy servants even when we are obedient.

You seem to understand forgiveness as something that can be given without cost. True forgiveness is costly. Meditating on the parable of the "unmerciful servant" in Matthew 18 in regard to what you have written, I thought at first here is an example of God forgiving freely at no cost, nothing paid. Upon further reflection I realized that the king in the parable paid a great price in forgiving the servant; the king internalized the debt. It cost him ten thousand talents.

In the same way, forgiving us cost God something. The cross was God's self-substitution. He internalized the debt we owed and experienced the curse we deserved, and did it in such a way as to not compromise justice.

[Guest]

Paidion: what are your thoughts on this verse:

“whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed” – Romans 3:25, NKJV

[Guest]

Homer:

The cross was God's self-substitution.

I thought you might like to know what George MacDonald (C.S. Lewis's mentor) had to say about the doctrine of "substitutionary atonement":

MacDonald made reference to the Scripture:

He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.

MacDonald quoted the explanation of proponents of the doctrine"

"[Paul] means that Jesus was treated by God as if he were a sinner, our sins being imputed to him, in order that we might be treated as if we were righteous, his righteousness being imputed to us"

Macdonald went on to say:

That is, that, by a sort of legal fiction, Jesus was treated as what he was not, in order that we might be treated as what we are not. This is the best device according to the prevailing theology, that the God of truth, the God of mercy, whose glory is that he is just to men by forgiving their sins, could fall upon for saving his creatures!

MacDonald then referred to this as "the most contemptible of false doctrines".

[Guest]

Paidion: what are your thoughts on this verse:

“whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed” – Romans 3:25, NKJV

A great question, Loaves! And a very important one.
Did I neglect to post chapter 2 of my booklet? The meaning of the Greek words is explained in that chapter.

In brief, "propitiation" is a mistranslation of "hilastarion". The verbal form of the Greek word is "hilaskomai" and means "to be merciful" as in "God be merciful to me a sinner."
Thus the noun should be translated as "means of mercy". And what a mercy it is that Jesus should die to enable us, not to be merely "positionally righteous" but actually righteous!

The Greek word for "righteous" is "dikaios". The Greek word translated as "justify" is "dikaioo" I think you can see from the construction that the latter is the verbal form of the word. The word for "righteousness" is "dikaiosuna"

Any good lexicon will give not only "justify" as the meaning of "dikaioo" but also "render righteous" or "make righteous".

I have shown that all the scriptures give essentially the same reason for Jesus' death. For example, Peter who said that He died that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. I believe in the passage you quoted, this is the meaning of "dikaioo"

Let's look at the passage in its context with the words translated in the way I have suggested:

24 they are made righteous by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God put forward as a means of mercy by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins;
26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he makes righteous him who has faith in Jesus.
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith.
28 For we hold that a man is made righteous by faith apart from works of law.

I believe that this passage gives the true reason Jesus died for us. His death is "redemption" for us because it saves us from sin. It fixes us up.
If you take a pair of shoes to a shoemaker to be repaired, and he cannot do it, he may tell you that the shoes are "beyond redemption".

When did God "in his forbearance pass over former sins"? ---- It was under the old Covenant. But "at the present time", under the New Covenant, God, who is righteous, makes righteous those who have faith in Jesus. Instead of God letting us off the hook, as He did in the old days when the Israelites sacrificed to Him, He now enables us through the grace of Christ to become righteous. God want real righteousness. Here is another passage that contrasts God's dealing with sin now, as compared with His ways under the Old Covernant:

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent.

Yes, God wants real righteousness, not a pretending righteousness.
God's intention is not merely to forgive us, but to enable us to be actually righteous.

Shower O heavens from above and let the skies reign down righteousness. Let the earth open, that salvation may sprout forth, and let it cause righteousness to spring up also; I, Yahweh, have created it. Isaiah 45:8

Faith is the means for appropriating the enabling grace of Jesus to become righteous.

This "becoming righteous" is a process that is called "salvation". As we become righteous, and are conformed to the image of the Son, we have no grounds for boasting, for we cannot become righteous by self-effort, or by trying to keep the Mosaic law. The only way to righteousness, is by trusting Christ to enable us. That is the very reason He died for us. And this faith must be maintained. For:

For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end. Hebrews 3:14

[Guest]

Paidion,

You said:

we cannot become righteous by self-effort

Is our becoming righteous effortless on our part? Do we just relax and let Jesus do the work ( a la Bob George)? Or is it a great struggle as Paul described (I beat my body, etc.). How, in your view, does our being righteous or good persons differ from all non-Christians if God does not impute something to us we do not have?

If on judgement day God lined up every person who ever lived in a row with the absolute worst sinner at the left end and the most righteous to the right, I do not believe there would be any discernable difference between any two people along the line in regard to their works or goodness. In fact, there would probably be many unbelievers ranked higher than many of the Christians and interspersed among them. Yet Jesus informs us it will be easy to draw the line, make the cut if you will, between the saved and the lost. As easy as separating sheep from goats - very easy. How will God, according to your theory, divide them; on what grounds?

I believe the works that God regards as righteous are so because they have the meaning of faith, trusting faith, in Messiah. John 6:28-29