J. Warner Wallace recently guest-hosted the radio program, and answered this challenge.
Some atheists are challenging Christianity by claiming that God is immoral. It’s an internal critique of Christianity. In other words, it’s an attempt to take what Christians claim and show that there’s a serious flaw. It doesn’t succeed because it doesn’t take into account a critical claim of Christianity, but here’s how it goes.
The atheist claim is that Christians support the unjust torture and killing of an innocent human being for their crimes. Christians believe it’s immoral to punish innocent people, yet we believe that God punished an innocent man, Jesus, for the crimes the rest of us committed. So they are attempting to say that Christianity’s core belief is immoral, therefore Christianity is an immoral belief system.
The idea that the suffering of this man, Jesus, is not fair because he’s innocent--and notice my words I’m using, an innocent man—is misrepresenting a core claim of Christianity. The claim treats Jesus as just another man. It separates God the Father and Jesus. It treats Jesus as another creature just like the rest of us, though innocent. This claim fails to take into account that Jesus is God.
When Jesus goes to the cross, it’s not another human being like you and me who goes to the cross to die for someone else’s penalty. It’s God Himself that is going to that cross. You see, it’s a category difference.
I think they would be right if, in fact, Jesus was just a man--a good man, a man who didn’t deserve to die--who died for you and I. That would be one kind of claim. But if, in fact, Jesus is who He said He was, and demonstrated He was through the resurrection, God is not punishing an innocent bystander for others. Jesus is clearly something more than one of us. Jesus is part of the triune God. So this is a decision that God has the right to make because He’s offering Himself as the substitute. He’s not punishing a third party; He offers Himself.
That’s the core claim of Christianity that is missing from the objection, and it makes all the difference in the nature of the punishment.
When folks try to categorize or try to describe Jesus as just a man, then this argument, I think, has some emotional power because it sounds like you’re just punishing one of your kids for the other one. But in fact that’s not what’s happening in the crucifixion.
It’s all about what God did for us, not to one of us for the other. It was what God Himself did for us, and that’s a much different claim. That is what Christianity teaches, rather than the way the atheist objection frames it.
And I think, really, it takes that act and it makes it incredibly virtuous, where it may seem at face to be horrific. God has self-sacrificially come to us and given Himself, instead of requiring anything of us. We deserve punishment, but He took it on Himself for us. That’s quite the opposite of being immoral. It’s the most virtuous act of love.
I think the atheist can allow everything said in this post and still press the objection. The problem isn't just that God punishes an innocent man for crimes he didn't commit. The problem is that God, supposedly, is the kind of being that demands Blood to pay for every offense to his honor. When God is slighted by the sin of his creatures, He refuses to forgive until some amount of suffering has occurred. Wallace's message of 'hope' is that God has taken that suffering upon himself rather than dealing it out some of us. Maybe this deals with the superficial concern about God punishing an innocent man, but it does not deal with the deeper concern of the demand for Blood in the fist place.
I suppose Wallace would respond by claiming that if God did not balance out sin with suffering, then justice would not be served. The Great Scales would be unbalanced. I think this reflects an archaic, old testament, eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth notion of retributive justice explicitly condemned by Jesus (in the sermon on the mount and also in the parable of the prodigal son).
Posted by: Arnauld | December 08, 2011 at 06:55 AM
You say "I think they would be right if, in fact, Jesus was just a man--a good man, a man who didn’t deserve to die--who died for you and I. That would be one kind of claim." Why? If this way of thinking is true, than all sacrificial acts are pointless or immoral: the soldier on the battle field, the parent who guards the child, etc.
Posted by: Michelle R. Wood | December 08, 2011 at 08:33 AM
Arnauld, those sound like two different objections to me. I've heard both of them.
I'm not sure I'd be completely satisfied with the Trinitarian response, though. After all, even in the Trinity, the Father and Son are distinct persons. So it's a little misleading to say "God sacrificed himself." It's true that Jesus died willingly for our sins, and in that sense, God sacrificed himself. But it's also true that the Father sent the Son to die and that it was the Father's will that the Son die. It even trades on this distinction in the New Testament when it says that "God so loved the world, he gave his only son..." The giving of the Son as a sacrifice is portrayed in John 3 as if it were a sacrifice on the Father's part of have his own beloved son suffer for us. Also, Jesus prayed to the Father that there might be another way, but gave in to the Father's will anyway. So it was one person's will that another person die.
Posted by: Sam | December 08, 2011 at 08:59 AM
Hi Arnauld,
On top of being anti-Reformed and a universalist, are you now also dying the Crucifixion?
Thanks
Posted by: Daron | December 08, 2011 at 09:59 AM
sorry for the lack of typing skills .... that was meant to say "denying the Crucifixion".
Since I'm back to fix this, I might as well follow-up a little bit ....
If you do not deny the historicity of the NT texts, and then affirm that the Crucifixion occurred, are you then saying that it was not necessary? Could God have reconciled man to Himself without the shedding of Christ's blood?
If so, then why did He do it?
Posted by: Daron | December 08, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Arnauld,
The way I read your comment is that you don't like the scales of justice that God has put in place. Since you don't like it, then you feel perfectly fine telling the creator of the cosmos that you know better.
If blood is an exorbitant price for the sins of all mankind, what is the appropriate price?
Posted by: Brian | December 08, 2011 at 11:59 AM
Arnauld writes: "I think this reflects an archaic, old testament, eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth notion of retributive justice explicitly condemned by Jesus (in the sermon on the mount and also in the parable of the prodigal son)."
Ahh, but the judgment that the crucifixion was immoral depends precisely on the same idea of retributive justice. That is, the atheist is implying that if Jesus had been guilty then he would have deserved to be punished. That's retributive justice.
If this is not what the atheist is assuming, then it is difficult to know on what grounds he can make his judgment.
Posted by: Francis J. Beckwith | December 08, 2011 at 12:00 PM
Hi Daron
I am non-Reformed and a universalist (and also your Brother in the Lord ;) ). I do not deny the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth - I don't know why anyone would. I think that is quite well supported even without scripture. Anyway, you ask some good questions. Was the crucifixion of Jesus necessary in order to redeem mankind? I think that in fact it IS a part of how God chose to enact our redemption, but no I suppose I don't think it was necessary. Suppose that there are other rational creatures somewhere in our universe (I assume you don't think there is anything in Christianity that rules that possibility out). Suppose that some of them are improperly related to God. Must it be the case that God the Son becomes incarnated in that alien race as well and dies by being nailed to a wooden cross? I don't see any reason to think that God could not enact their redemption in some other way.
So why didn't he do it in some other way for us? I have no idea. I will say this, however: I think it a mistake to view the Incarnation as primarily a response from God to the problem of human sinfulness. Christ came to visit us to show us the Father, to proclaim the coming of His kingdom. I don't think that he came in order to die on a cross. WE killed Jesus and it was a wicked sinful action that God had no part in. Now, given that we did so, God might use it in a special way in the project of our redemption, but I think we miss out on a lot of importance if we think of the Incarnation primarily as God's solution to the problem. It is not crazy to me to think that God would have become incarnate even if we had never sinned.
This is speculation but the more important point is that I can affirm the Atonement and affirm that the crucifixion of Jesus was an integral part in it while at the same time rejecting the penal substitution model that has taken such firm grasp of so many Christians. Suffering in no way "makes up for", "reconciles" or "restores to balance" the damage done by sin. The only way to gain victory over sin is to make the sinner himself its executioner.
Posted by: Arnauld | December 08, 2011 at 02:35 PM
Francis
Not sure I follow but I was hoping to make clear how the immorality objection can apply without eye-for-eye theology. It is an objection TO that concept of 'justice'. Think of it as a dilemma: If God demands suffering to balance out sin, then either it is because Justice requires an eye for an eye (a result that, I say, Jesus condemned), or it is because God is so concerned with his own honor that he can bear to be slighted only by repaying each slight with suffering (which, again, is NOT the Father whose kingdom Jesus proclaimed).
Posted by: Arnauld | December 08, 2011 at 02:44 PM
I'm not the atheist in the OP.
I wonder if any of you have ever paid yourself for something.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | December 08, 2011 at 03:01 PM
Arnauld, , you said, "WE killed Jesus and it was a wicked sinful action that God had no part in." I don't know your position on the authority of the Bible, but what do you make of passages like Acts 4:27-28 where it says that Jesus being crucified was what God's purpose predestined to occur? If God had a purpose in it and predestined it, then God did have a part in it, didn't he? And what about the scene where Jesus prays that the Father take the cup from him, but then says, "yet not my will, but yours be done" (Luke 22:42)? Wasn't it the Father's will that Jesus be crucified?
Posted by: Sam | December 08, 2011 at 03:35 PM
@Michelle R Wood: I think Jim's point is that God actually paid the sacrifice himself, making it a noble act of self-sacrifice, not the cruel punishment of an innocent man.
His words "if in fact, Jesus was just a man..." etc. are meant to point out that it was God Himself that made the sacrifice, not God sacrificing someone else. Jim's point was not that the sacrifice of an ordinary man is cruel or immoral, rather that sacrificing someone else could be seen as such. Here we have God sacrificing Himself.
The examples of sacrifice you give - on the battle-field, gusrding children - are therefore in the same vein as Christ's crucifixion, i.e. self-sacrifice for the good of others and therefore not immoral or pointless at all. Quite the contrary actually.
Posted by: Marc | December 08, 2011 at 05:58 PM
Hi Arnauld, I'm with Sam, by what source do you inform yourself about the things you speak of? I think it's good that you affirm some of what are considered "essential" beliefs in the faith, but historic Christianity argues strenuously for foundations that you disregard with seeming ease. I'm talking about the historic Church's high regard for the biblical revelation, ie, it's infallibility and inerrency.
It seems to me that you are comfortable with picking and choosing which scriptures will be authoritative in your system of thought, which really places you in the captians chair of authority as you sit in judgement on it.
This same perogative only serves to divest you of any real sense of compelling argumentation since you are admittidly only espousing OPINION. As such, why should anyone be compelled to agree with you, and even then if your proselytizing is successful, you haven't argued for Christianity, you've argued for Arnauld-ianity.
Posted by: Brad B | December 08, 2011 at 06:17 PM
Hi Arnauld,
Thanks for your response. Everyone else, I agree with all your responses to Arnauld.
Arnauld, the penal version of the substitutionary model is one model and, of course, not the only one. But we don't have to decide which is most likely to be true, or the most true, to investigate these claims of yours.
You say the Crucifixion is a fact. I am glad of that. And that Jesus was the Incarnation of the One God. I appreciate that as well.
But you say His Crucifixion was not necessary. How can that be? How is it that God allowed this atrocious torture of His one unique Son if it were not necessary? You guys constantly warn about theologies that make God a monster in your eyes and then you offer one in which He would allow this torture and evil to befall the only innocent Person in history and that it was not necessary to do so?
Then we have the problem pointed to above, that this was not merely something God allowed, but what He decreed, foretold, and predestined it. As I keep asking you guys, why was Jesus the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world if this was not God's original plan? We've had people call this poetry and deny the Revelation translation, but the claim is not found only in Revelation. And, as also was pointed out, it was God's explicit will that Jesus go to the Cross, that He be handed over, and that He not be rescued.
Crucifixion, of course, requires shedding of blood. And it does appear that it was necessary for our redemption and salvation:
We can sum it up quite nicely from Colossians 1, even your question about aliens on other planets:
Posted by: Daron | December 08, 2011 at 08:23 PM
Hello
I need to limit myself to one post a day so I can't respond to everyone - I apologize for that. I'm not dodging you ;)
I can appreciate how my "Arnauldism" looks like nothing but sheer arrogance to many of you, and it is something that concerns and bothers me. When it comes down to it, though, I guess I think that the real difference between us is that I am willing to go with what makes the most sense to me. If something apparently in scripture runs contrary to my deep moral convictions, for example, I am willing to explore the possibility that I have not understood scripture properly. And, if I can see no alternative way to understand the relevant passage, I am willing to explore the possibility that the human author of scripture erred and that his voice is not identical to God's voice. I believe that God created me to be a Lover and Seeker of the True, Good and Beautiful, and I trust him to develop me in that direction. I can do no better than follow what makes the most sense once I've considered everything. Nor can anyone else. The difference, I suppose, is that in your all-things-considered judgment the Bible is authoritative in a strong sense and the veracity of your considered understanding of a passage is not to be questioned. I disagree, and I don't think it is because of obstinacy or spiritual blindness (though I recognize that as a possibility).
Anyway, understand that I am aiming to tone things down a little and avoid the appearance of arrogance.
I'm also willing to be corrected. I really don't know what to think about foreknowledge anymore, but for all I know God saw from all eternity that when Christ visited us, we would end up killing him. Maybe he used that foreknowledge in his plan for redeeming us. There is a difference, however, between foreknowing that some event will happen and using that foreknowledge in the development of a rescue plan, and intending or ordaining the event to happen. God gave Christ over to us and permitted us to do as we would with him. In Gethsemane, the will of the Father was for Jesus to permit men to take him and deal unjustly with him. God sacrificed the Son - but He sacrificed him to us.
It runs contrary to my deepest moral intuitions to think that God intended from the beginning to have his own Son maimed and tortured in order to appease his own wrath against human sin. I suspect it runs contrary to yours as well, even if you are willing to distrust those intuitions and accept the authority of other men instead (and Yes, by 'other men' I am willing to include the human authors of scripture).
Posted by: Arnauld | December 09, 2011 at 06:40 AM
To RonH,
Yes I have paid myself for something that was owed me by someone else. This notion is termed forgiveness. This is what is exemplified by Christ's death. God bore the burden of righting the scales of justice himself because we are incapable ourselves.
Posted by: Brian | December 09, 2011 at 07:38 AM
"When Jesus goes to the cross, it’s not another human being like you and me who goes to the cross to die for someone else’s penalty. It’s God Himself that is going to that cross. "
I think this statement poses a Trinitarian error. Jesus is a human being like you and me he is 100% man. Yes he is also 100% God, but if we set him in a category different from man, a statement like "God himself going to the cross" can be problematic. Was it God himself that suffered on the cross, can God really suffer? Was it God himself that died on the cross., can God really die?
I don't know if Wallace's "category difference" argument really or accurately answers the question.
Posted by: Carly Lundi | December 09, 2011 at 08:02 AM
Spot-on, Brian.
Posted by: Daron | December 09, 2011 at 08:05 AM
Not to repeat myself, but maybe I lost a response to Arnauld.
It went something like this...
Hi Arnauld,
I really appreciate the tone you are setting in these past few comments. Thank you very much.
I agree with much of what you have said but think you've gone too far here:
Here you seem to imply that we/I have transferred the quality of inerrancy from Scripture to interpretation. This is not the case. I, like you, am well aware that when Scripture seems at odds with my moral sensibilities that I am possibly reading Scripture wrong. this might be because of my own interpretation, although Scripture is generally pretty clear, but it can also be because I do not have enough of the relevant background information to contextualize it. Just as often, though, it is because my moral sense is off.When we are discussing God, though, it doesn't make much sense for us to stand around and describe how we each feel about things. we are then discussing ourselves and not God. What we have is His revelation of Himself in the Bible and we can find out from there what He wants us to know.
Sometimes it will be harder than other times.
But in this case we don't have a single troublesome passage, and we don't have one single human author that you might decide was wrong; we have many passages and many authors saying the same thing, as well as the entire Scripture attesting to God's omniscience, omnibenevolence, and sovereign control.
With these passages (quoted above) and this knowledge we then have a tool with which to interpret other Scripture, and by which to measure our own moral sensibilities. We may have to read other verses a little differently, allow some nuance in the writing, admit some vagueness in our understanding or shift our perspectives some.
Over the years I honestly have had my moral compass reset many times by reading Scripture. Not to get too personal, but I have a different moral outlook on premarital sex, abortion, euthanasia, etc. than I did a few short years ago. My moral intuitions were wrong and I let them shape the way I interpreted the Bible. I take it that this is part of God's sanctifying me, forming Christ in me, and conforming my will to His. This, to me, is perfect evidence of why we commit ourselves and submit ourselves to Scripture.
What doesn't seem to work well is to avoid the Scripture and define God the way we would like Him. If this were the way to go we would not have been armed with any of the truth and Commissioned to share it.
As for permitting us to Crucify Jesus, this is true, of course. We chose (and choose) this. But God did not merely permit it, He handed Jesus over to Pilate and Caiaphus by His set plan and determinative will.
Posted by: Daron | December 09, 2011 at 08:59 AM
I doubt you are following the exchanges on the other thread, but here's the citation:
Acts 2:23
23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
Posted by: Daron | December 09, 2011 at 09:04 AM
As I read Luke today:
22:22
What God has planned for the Son of Man will happen, but how terrible it will be for that one who turns against the Son of Man."
Posted by: Daron | December 09, 2011 at 11:18 AM
"Some atheists are challenging Christianity by claiming that God is immoral."
Until I understand what would falsify God's goodness in the mind of the Christian. I don't think this discussion can proceed.
Posted by: Josh Stewart | December 10, 2011 at 04:39 AM
Brian,
Forgiveness.
Yes, I'm familiar with the notion.
That's when I come to your house and break a lamp and you say Don't worry about it.
It is interesting to think about which circumstances will lead you to say that and which will not.
Regardless, if you do say Don't worry about it, do you then write yourself a check?
Do you shift some legal tender from one pocket to the other?
This 'paying yourself' would correspond to the crucifixion. This is what tortures your analogy - an analogy which only an apologist could love.
What do you suppose a hypothetical lamp breaker would think if, after saying Don't worry about it you wrote yourself a check to CASH?
Do your thoughts on this answer ever flip? Do you see, at times, that it makes no sense at all?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | December 10, 2011 at 06:36 AM
Hi RinH,
That is precisely what you are doing if you still want a lamp on your table. You transfer your funds from your account to yourself to purchase a new lamp.Or you swallow the loss by paying with the lamp.
-----
@Josh.
Fair enough. God's speed.
Posted by: Daron | December 10, 2011 at 08:27 AM
Sorry for misspelling your name, RonH. I am sure you all have noticed that I am a terrible typist. And not much of a proof-reading.
Interesting to me was when I decided to Google "bearing the cost of forgiveness" a very familiar example came up:
http://www.christianity.co.nz/forgive4.htm
Posted by: Daron | December 10, 2011 at 09:05 AM
I think some of my comments pulled us off track. The basic question was whether there is anything immoral about the crucifixion. I say that if it is thought of as an act of God maiming and torturing his son in order to appease his own wrath, then there is much that is deeply immoral about it.
I'm surprised that Ron is getting the response he is. MAYBE, in some sense, I bear the 'cost' of forgiveness if someone breaks my lamp or steals my jewelry and I pay to replace it myself (but I think we are confused even here), but what is the 'cost' that must be paid when someone dishonors me or lies to me? When I forgive such an act, nothing else needs to be done to 'balance the scales'. And when men sin against God, they take nothing from him or destroy any of his belongings.
Furthermore, there is a sense in which 'paying the cost' negates the very need for forgiveness. If I break your lamp but buy you a replacement then (assuming it had no special sentimental value to you, at least), there is nothing for you to forgive. You have been paid in full, and I don't need your grace. If the wrath of God is satisfied by his torturing of his son, then what need is there for God to forgive at all? Justice has been satisfied, and Grace is negated.
Posted by: Arnauld | December 10, 2011 at 03:29 PM
God is not capable of immorality, and to debate this seems pointless to me. All of Scripture testifies to the absolute goodness of God. That some people don't see it as such does not diminish the Truth of the Word, only the improper perspective of the one questioning it. Clearly,I am not the skilled philosopher that some of you aim to be, but I hold a high opinion of God and His Word, and recognize man's limited, skewed notions when I read them. For the Christian to debate this subject with non-believers is like attempting to prove that the earth is round to some jungle inhabitant who is committed to the idea that it is flat. I would go so far as to say that anyone who believes that God is immoral is decieved by evil and is enamored of his own "high" thoughts. "It is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate. Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the phiosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" (1 Cor.1:19-20)
Posted by: Carolyn | December 10, 2011 at 04:27 PM
Hi Arnauld,
You still have one simple problem ... Scripture.
Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins. Our redemption, our forgiveness, is through His blood and His death.
Once again I ask, are you saying that there was some better way by which God could have forgiven us and that all would be well in the universe without the Crucifixion? Are you saying that God killed the innocent Christ for no reason?
To me it does not seem like the Bible is telling us that. Does it to you? We are still left with the question of why He says Jesus' blood was poured out for the forgiveness of our sins if this is not the case, and why He ordained it from before the beginning if it were not required - or at least the best plan, or an equal best with some other plan. I think you have to answer this before you make the Atonement bow to what your reason or moral sensibilities tell you ought to be the case.
If God says this is how justice is met and forgiveness granted then what is your case against Him?
If He is not saying this and I have misread the Scriptures then show me why that is the case.
I don't see how this is a MAYBE and if you are going to say we are confused then it seems like you ought to tell us in what way we are confused. We do. We rob God of His due honour when we withhold or give to ourselves what is His. Jesus fulfilled this. That's the exact point. The problem, still, is that God is not another fella and YOU are not paying for His lamp. You are not capable of paying for the lamp and if it were left to you you'd be thrown in jail until you paid back every last farthing - which you could never do.You can not pay God what you owe Him - not ever.
So He graciously pays for it Himself. You may accept His gift and stand in Christ, Who has fulfilled everything owing God, or you can stand on your own.
ps.
Are you serious about toning it down? Then how about dropping the "torture" and "maiming" talk. We have a pretty good idea of the Crucifixion and you are not about to shock anybody's emotions so that they see it your way. It does not advance the argument.
Posted by: Daron | December 10, 2011 at 04:57 PM
Carolyn, what would you have to see in scripture in order to doubt God's goodness?
Posted by: Josh Stewart | December 10, 2011 at 07:19 PM
Hi Arnauld, you said:
As Daron pointed out, men do take from God, by marring His image and defiling His good name. Mankind are not just another animal on the face of the earth, we are, as image bearers, Gods representatives who ought to faithfully bear the image perfectly--though, we do not. By failing, we, by our actions are taking steps to redefine Who God Is. If you send a representative to do a job and he in every respect has your authority/name then defiles your person by his actions, aren't you damaged? Of course you are. I think a root misunderstanding here is a sorely inadequate respect for the Holy and by comparison to it, the depth of the offense against it as men so casually engage in sin in God's name.
Then you say:
It seems that your definition of forgiveness is an impossible misuse of the word. Daron touched on this in an earlier post. If there were nothing to forgive, there would have to necessarily be no offense. The perfect law was broken, the perfect justice was prescribed, and the perfect penalty was enforced--in some cases, the cost was borne by another, this is an act of forgiveness. In other cases, no forgiveness is received.
The other part of the response to your statement [forgiveness defining aside] is that Jesus' suffering and bearing wrath was for some sins against the Holy, not all sins. He didn't bear the cost for everyone, or else your objection might in some sense have merit. In other words, not all sins have been dealt with in Christ's suffering.
Posted by: Brad B | December 11, 2011 at 03:22 AM
"not all sins have been dealt with in Christ's suffering"
We'll leave that one for another time...
I use the words 'torture' and 'maim' not for the sake of any shock value or for the sake of tugging on anyone's emotions, but to keep soberly in mind what it is we are discussing. You make it too easy on yourself when you talk of God demanding a 'sacrifice' in the abstract without thinking of what we actually did to Christ.
The main theme of the scriptures you quote, Daron, is that God used what happened to Christ on the cross toward our forgiveness and redemption. They do not include the claim that God demanded the 'sacrifice' of his own son in order to appease his own wrath. The exception might be the passage from Hebrews. I'll admit that I'm not sure what's going on there and I might be committed to thinking that the author got it wrong there (similar to how the author of Exodus got it wrong when he claimed "eye for eye and tooth for tooth"). Again, to clarify, since we disagree about so much I am trying to focus on a single claim. The claim is that the crucifixion was ordained/enacted by God for the purpose of appeasing his wrath at the sin of mankind. I don't see that claim supported by any except the Hebrews passage.
Carolyn - I appreciate your comments. The point of the discussion is not to explore whether or not God is Good. Of course he is and I agree that it is silly to suggest otherwise. The point is to ask, given that God is Good is he the sort of being who demands suffering in order to offset sin?
Posted by: Arnauld | December 11, 2011 at 05:35 AM
I am not a fan of the proof-texting game, but just as a reminder that it is not so clear-cut:
"If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent." Matt 12:7
Posted by: Arnauld | December 11, 2011 at 05:43 AM
I haven't read the other comments yet, but the original post is interesting to me. I have a Unitarian friend who captioned a picture of a collection of religious symbols representing numerous belief systems with a comment of how "peaceful" it made her feel.
My comment was similar to one of the points of the post:
"If the photo is intended to match the caption, I don't understand why an implement used to bring about a slow, cruel execution would be included in the series of symbols.". She didn't understand, so I followed with "The description of Unitarianism leading to peaceful grateful sighs... But the inclusion of a cross in the symbols - well, just read the following. Hardly seems to be a logical association". and I included a link to a page that described crucifixion.
I agree: if Christianity is untrue, it *is* immoral. I would go further and say if Christianity is only one among many "paths to God", it is *still* immoral, because Jesus's sacrificial death wouldn't even be totally necessary.
Posted by: Jim Boling | December 11, 2011 at 06:22 AM
Arnauld, you sound very much like a follower of Brian McLaren or a reader of his books----are you? He says everything that you've said even the part about not being a fan of proof testing. So you come up with your philosophy via your pure heart or a burning in your bosom?
Posted by: Les | December 11, 2011 at 06:50 AM
Was Jesus our sacrifice?
Posted by: Daron | December 11, 2011 at 07:09 AM
I seem to have lost yet another comment, Arnauld.
It went something like this ...
No, I do not let myself off easy. You have no idea the turmoil I have gone through in meditating on the Cross. He who has been forgiven much loves much.
But we really don't need your emotive language; we need reasons.
Posted by: Daron | December 11, 2011 at 07:11 AM
Posted by: Daron | December 11, 2011 at 07:23 AM
oops.
I was going to apologize for the terseness in trying to quickly recreate the ideas from my previous comment.
Now I apologize as well for the slaughtered blockquote.
Posted by: Daron | December 11, 2011 at 07:24 AM
So Arnauld, if exegeting the scriptures is fraught with difficulties, what do you do? Who do you rely on? Which church teaches the set of doctrines you rely on that gives you confidence to publically proclaim them here?
This is a serious enough matter that the scriptures warn against aspiring to teach because of being exposed to a higher standard of judgement.
What is wrong with historic Christianity as defined in the ecumenical creeds and confessions? Your tendency to read a universalist framework into every scripture is outside of authentic Christianity and causes you to proclaim stange doctrines [like people that the apostle Paul warns Timothy to beware of].
If scripture interpretation is difficult for you, you should defer to called men who can teach the Word while being faithful to stay true to the whole council of God[which means that they must trust the plain meaning, acknowledge the source{the Holy Spirit}, and because of the source presuppose inerrancy, coherency, and perspicuity]. Your views turn the scriptures against themselves and this while defaming the reliability of them in the first place.
I fear for you.
Posted by: Brad B | December 11, 2011 at 04:56 PM
Hi Daron,
I don't have a problem with the 'bearing the cost' part.
If I break your lamp* and you then say 'forget it', then, as a result, your net worth goes down by one lamp. My net worth stays the same. The accounting is done. Sure, you've born the cost. But there is nothing here corresponding to the Crucifixion.
So, I still do have a problem with is the 'paying yourself' part.
Suppose, even, that we imagine that as the lamp breaks ONE LAMP is automatically transferred from my account to yours and then when you say 'forget it' ONE LAMP is transferred from your account to mine. That is me paying you and then you paying me. Same result as above. You don't "pay yourself".
On the other side of the analogy, one's sins take the place of the breaking of the lamp. Supposing that these sins somehow make the difference between eternity in Heaven and eternity in Hell, then, on this side of the analogy, 'forget it' means the sinner gets Heaven. If God says 'forget it, we're done and there is no place to fit the Crucifixion into the transaction.
I just don't see it.
It's interesting to think about when and why you might decide to say 'forget it' about the lamp.
On one extreme, if you left the lamp in a risky spot maybe it was really your fault, not mine.
One the other extreme, if my breaking the lamp was an example of my chronic carelessness, then maybe you would be putting others at risk by saying 'forget it'. This consideration is important.
*in a situation where I'm responsible and not you
Posted by: RonH | December 11, 2011 at 06:31 PM
Hi RonH,
I'm not really following you.
Maybe the analogy is in the way.
I think it has done its work in that it shows that there is no principled reason to say that forgiveness is not, in effect, bearing the cost, or paying oneself for the damages suffered.
What's your complaint now on the Crucifixion, without the lamp in the way?
Posted by: Daron | December 11, 2011 at 07:00 PM
Here's a commentary on the justice of the Crucifixion.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0255.htm
Posted by: Daron | December 11, 2011 at 07:55 PM
I dont know if I'm following your conversation with Daron well enough to jump in on this, but this hypothetical lacks accuracy regarding the atonement and the satisfaction of the work done by Christ in His sacrifical act, so I have to make mention of it.
The redeemed have their guilt transferred, and Jesus takes that guilt and suffers the penalty in their place. No where did God say "forget it", not even to the redeemed. His act purchased a people, it didn't just erase guilt.
Further, in no way did the the divine Person pay Himself, the Father poured out wrath on the Son in an act of divine justice. There doesn't seem to be much analogy to this analogy.
Posted by: Brad B | December 11, 2011 at 08:39 PM
Hey Brad,
You haven't missed anything - jump in all you like.
Posted by: Daron | December 11, 2011 at 08:55 PM
DaughterofEve take note. Jesus is NOT literally Elohim's physical son and the brother of Satan. The LDS church must therefore acknowledge that God is Triune and that Jesus is, in fact, God. That or the Mormon doctrine of God just punished an innocent man, even if he "volunteered" for it.
To the rest of this conversation: It apparently needs to be said, I could not die in my brother's stead should he sin against my father, one of the persons within the covenant must die for the will to be acted upon (read the book of Hebrews) — it must therefore be either us or God that dies for us to be reunited with Him.
As us dying is the problem in the first place, then it is God who must die to come to us, and He can only do that should He, Himself become a man. You may think of Jesus as the Will of God (the Word) and God is putting His own Will, which is/has Life (ie. Jesus) to death in order that we may become one with Him.
We must seek the truth where ever it points and it points to Him. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Posted by: Tokyo James | December 11, 2011 at 11:45 PM
I realized as I'm going back through the comments that we are looking at this a monetary debt that has to be paid...
I think that is wrong to begin with.
Let's look instead at 1) the members in the covenant. Man, and God. Then 2) what the covenant entails:
God IS Life and He has so much of it, He can dole it out to His creation. He wants His creation to know love, but to do that, He must make them totally free — free to choose, free to run, free to rebel.
Man is alive because and only because God gave him breath. But Man chose to run, rebel. Man turned from Life — what is left? Death.
2) Promise of the covenant is Life — since that is God, what He is promising really is Himself, "and my portion will be Israel," and "Levi's (the priests) inheritance will be the Lord." We are all a royal priesthood set to inherit Life in/and God Himself.
But God is perfect and Life, there can be no sin or death in Him. He cannot come to us or look upon sin anymore than you can reach God yourself or pigs can fly. God must become like His creation — which is not wrong, as it is His goal to unite us anyway — but then to die?!
One of the original members of the covenant must cross the barrier separating them. We cannot do it, but God can and did.
Posted by: Tokyo James | December 12, 2011 at 12:00 AM
Actually if Jesus is just a man then Christianity would have a serious contradiction the word says namely "that there is not one good no not one." Where then was this "innocent" man found? The Bible would then have claimed that there is no innocent man then claimed to have killed an innocent man for others. The atheist is going at it the hard way.
Posted by: Damian | December 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM
nice point!
Posted by: Tokyo James | December 12, 2011 at 05:54 PM
RonH: You asked me, "Carolyn, what would you have to see in scripture to make you doubt God's goodness?" Before I address that question, may I ask you a question? RonH, do you desire to be a believer in the God of the Scriptures?
Posted by: Carolyn | December 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM
I like your questions and responses, Carolyn.
I think your question is to be addressed to Josh, though.
Posted by: Daron | December 12, 2011 at 11:38 PM