Did the torture of God's beloved Son satisfy Him?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Family Bible Fellowship Forum Index -> Misc. Theological Topics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Paidion



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 944
Location: Chapple, Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:28 pm    Post subject: Did the torture of God's beloved Son satisfy Him? Reply with quote

Traveler Bob:
Quote:
In Christ of course, our "debt" has been paid. The Law no longer has a claim upon us. God the Law Giver was satisfied with Jesus' payment.


I understand well what you are saying. It was the position I held until I was at least 30. I was taught it by all the Calvinist/fundamentalist preachers whom I heard in church every Sunday. But after studying the purpose of Christ's death from the Bible itself, I find this man-made concept entirely repugnant.

Do you really think Christ being crucified and undergoing a horrible and painful death was satisfying to the Father?

If all but one of your children were rebels against you, would you be satisfied to see the innocent one take the punishment for all the others? ---- even to the point of death?

This is the way demonic sacrifices of appeasement were made to the gods of the nations throughout the ages ---- in order that the gods would not harm the people. Innocent children and babies were sacrificed to these gods (who were in fact demons). Even the Israelites sacrificed their own children at times. Demonic spirits are still being appeased in many religions even in our day, perhaps not with human sacrifice, but certainly with animal sacrifice.

According to Heb 10:5, when Jesus came into the world, He said to God, "Sacrifice and offering you have not desired..."

Not desired and not required. But man wants to do religion his own way.[/b]
_________________
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rae



Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 141
Location: Texas!

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So what exactly did Jesus' death do, if not "satisfy the wrath of God?" I am very curious as to your thoughts on the issue, as it is something I have been wrestling with myself. Thanks!

-Rachel
_________________
"How is it that Christians today will pay $20 to hear the latest Christian concert, but Jesus can't draw a crowd?"

- Jim Cymbala (Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire) on prayer meetings
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Rick_C



Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 146
Location: West Central Ohio

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Paidion,

You wrote:
According to Heb 10:5, when Jesus came into the world, He said to God, "Sacrifice and offering you have not desired..."

Not desired and not required. But man wants to do religion his own way.


God desires obedience over sacrifice...is the meaning, imo.

1 Sam 15:22 (NASB)
Samuel said,
"Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
As in obeying the voice of the LORD?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams."


Since sacrifices were required in the Law; though God (obviously) preferred obedience; (I'm not following your train of thought here).

"Theories of the Atonement (of Christ)" are intricate & detailed. As far as I know, I believe in all of them (though there may be some Calvinistic forms I do not accept).

"Satisfaction," as used in theology doesn't have the usual common meaning of "gratification of a (selfish or evil) desire," "satisfying a (gluttonous or lustful) appetite," etc. Rather, it is "satisfying a demand" (meeting a requirement, paying a debt owed, making restitution, performing an atonement, etc.), imo. As far as I know, "satisfaction" itself is not actually used in the Bible to refer to sin offerings (sacrifices). Some of the biblical terms are: propitiation, expiation, and/or atonement.

You also wrote:
Do you really think Christ being crucified and undergoing a horrible and painful death was satisfying to the Father?


Yes. With the definition of "satifsying" as: meeting a requirement, paying a debt, making restitution, performing an atonement.

And wrote:
If all but one of your children were rebels against you, would you be satisfied to see the innocent one take the punishment for all the others? ---- even to the point of death?


Any human being who thought like this would be insane.

But if, for discussion's sake, let's suppose I am God....
Yes, I would be "satisfied" with the same definitions, as above. (See John 3:16)! Amazing Love, How Can it Be? That Thou, My God, Shouldst Die for me!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had a long debate with a guy about this @ Beliefnet. He held to the "Christus Victor" view (that Christ's death was primarily about His victory over the devil and the forces of evil). I hold to this view also. However, unlike my friend; I don't see the sacrifices of the ancient Hebrews as being entirely different than other peoples sacrificing to other gods.

The God of the Bible wasn't (and isn't) "manipulated" like pagan deities as He wasn't (and isn't) manipulative Himself! However, He did and does demand the shedding of blood to atone for sins. To me, this is all about His holiness and justice -- as opposed to -- the selfishness and self-serving qualities of the evil pagan deities.

My friend @ Beliefnet and I called a "truce" after about 6 weeks (we were in "gridlock")...So, we agreed to disagree. I did learn a lot more about the Christus Victor view which was very popular among Early Fathers of the Church.
Rick
_________________
16 OCT 2008: This nick is no longer active.
I post on the "new forum" as RickC:
http://theos.org/forum/index.php
Thanks, and God bless you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Father_of_five



Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 213
Location: Texas USA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jesus was killed because He was undermining the authority of the Jewish leaders of His time. These Jewish leaders, in a willful act of wickedness, convinced the Romans to torture and crucify Him. Jesus was killed due to political motivations. In no way can God be "satisfied" with the wicked acts of men.

Jesus had the power to save Himself but chose not to do so. Allowing Himself to die was the ultimate act of self-denial leaving us an example to follow; namely, that we also should deny self and choose righteousness. In this God finds satisfaction.

Jesus also knew that ultimately joy would overcome sorrow when He was resurrected from the dead - becoming the firstborn of many bretheren.

Heb 12:2
looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Todd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
STEVE7150



Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 894

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.


But why is enduring the cross linked to the joy of resurrection? Why that type of death as opposed to a normal death by old age or disease? There is a linkage of the nature of his death to some spiritual truth or law which i think has to do with righteous justice.
Perhaps since God has allowed evil and suffering into this world, His own righteous justice for Himself demands that He actually suffer as we suffer.
So perhaps God's own standard of justice demands that the Father must suffer as the children suffer and perhaps God participated in our suffering through Christ's suffering.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JC



Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 196

PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think the Father was pleased to see injustice inflicted on his Son. Rather, I think the Father took great joy in the fact that Jesus was obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. And it's that obedience to his Father that joins us all and makes reconciliation. If Jesus had loved the world more than his Father (and us) then we'd still be enemies of God. I will also admit that there are parts of the atonement that the Bible simply doesn't explain and curious minds want to know. We know what Jesus did and we know it pleased the Father and reconciled us to Him... but everything else is guesswork, in my opinion. Nevertheless, it's profitable to discuss such things, so long as we don't let our imaginations run wild and claim to confidently know things that haven't been revealed to us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mort_Coyle



Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 239
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Throughout the history of Christianity there have been a number of theories of what the atonement was all about. Here, in a nutshell, are some of the primary ones:

Ranson: Sometimes called the Classical atonement theory. This seems to have been the most common view in the early church. It can be found, for example, in the writings of Origen (185-254 AD). The Ranson Theory states that at the fall of Adam and Eve, Satan gained dominion (ownership) over the earth. Mankind became enslaved under Satan. Jesus offered Himself as a ransom to Satan, in exchange for mankind. As Origen wrote: "The payment could not be [made] to God [be]cause God was not holding sinners in captivity for a ransom, so the payment had to be to the devil." Satan believed that by taking Jesus in exchange for mankind, he would gain power over the Father, and so accepted Jesus' offer of ransom. After taking Jesus captive and releasing mankind, Satan discovered that he could not hold Jesus, because He was sinless. As a result, Satan lost everything. Essentially, he had been tricked! C.S. Lewis portrayed the Ranson theory beautifully in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe when Aslan gives himself to the Witch in exchange for Edmund. Some modern-day Christians take this theory even farther, teaching that Jesus descended to Hell and was tormented by Satan and the demons for three days.

Satisfaction: The Satisfaction theory came to the forefront in the Middle Ages and reflects the culture of European Feudalism. It is generally attributed to Anselm of Canterbury, (1033-1109 AD) and is delineated in his book "Cur Deus Homo" ("Why God became man"). In the Satisfaction theory, the "ransom" is paid not to Satan, but to God. Man, by his sin, has offended God. However, man is completely unable to make up for this offense or satisfy God's requirements of holiness. Only Jesus, as the sinless God-Man can compensate the Father for the offenses of mankind. The relation to ancient Jewish ritual sacrifices is clear. Jesus willingly offers Himself as the sacrificial lamb to appease God and provide atonement on behalf of mankind. The picture here is of a feudal serf who has offended the honor of a feudal Lord. The son of the feudal Lord (and thus an equal in the stratified feudal system) steps in and satisfies the offense on behalf of the serf, thus restoring the Father's honor.

Moral Influence: This theory is generally attributed to Peter Abelard in the 12th century, but hints of it can be seen in early Christian writings such as Clement of Rome, The Shepherd of Hermas and the Gospel of Barnabas. In the Moral Influence theory, a payment is not demanded, either to Satan or God. Instead, Jesus' life, death and resurrection serve as a powerful symbol of God's love, compassion and mercy. As we look upon and grasp what God has done, our hearts are softened, we repent, and we are drawn to follow His example.

Penal Substitution: This was the view held by Luther and Calvin. It is really an evolution of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. It seems to be the view that you are assuming, Bob. The "offense of honor" of the Satisfaction view is replaced by a debt of sin. Man, through his sin, has incurred a debt against God that he can never hope to repay. God cannot (or will not) forgive this debt of sin in any way other than the shedding of blood. The emphasis here is on justice. Jesus is fully man but (due to His divine nature) has kept the Law perfectly. As a result, He is the only one who can adequately pay the debt by incurring the penalty. He willingly agrees to do so. Again, we see references to the Hebrew sacrificial system.

Christus Victor: This is the predominant view in the Eastern Orthodox church but the name 'Christus Victor' was coined by the Swedish bishop Gustaf Aulén in his 1931 book by the same name. Christus Victor harkens back to the ancient Ransom theory but instead of Jesus submitting Himself (temporarily) to Satan, Jesus instead battles Satan and the powers of evil and triumphs over them. The result of Jesus' victory is what the Eastern Orthodox church calls theosis: the opportunity for man to become holy and reconciled to God and, ultimately, resurrected like Christ. Roots of the doctrine of theosis go all the way back to Irenaeus' doctrine of recapitulation: that Jesus became what we are so that we can become what He is.

Covenantal: Jesus took upon Himself the penalty for the Jews breaking covenant (a contractual relationship) with God, not as a means of satisfying God but as a way of fulfilling the covenant from both sides. Thus, Jesus becomes the center; the mediator. In the Covenantal theory, justice is defined not in Western terms of quid pro quo but in terms of faithfulness to a relationship. As a result, one's inclusion into God's covenant people is no longer predicated on ethnic identity or the performance of Mosaic Law but entirely upon God's faithfulness.

There are other, less common atonement theories such as the Arbitrary Acceptance theory of Scotus and Ockham, but the ones I've listed are the most prevalent. Sometimes the names given them are slightly different and my thumbnail descriptions leave plenty of room for discrepancy. Most Christians, it seems, haven't examined (or been taught) the various views and so tend to hold bits and pieces of several or shift back and forth from one to another without realizing it.

All of these theories have scripture which seems to support them. All of these theories have their shortcomings as well as their strong points. Each one has been held by brilliant and devout Christians. These various atonement theories have sometimes been compared to windows in a house. From each window you can see a piece of the sky from a certain perspective. None of the windows allows you to see the whole sky however.

Two thousand years ago an astounding event took place. Somehow, though His life, death and resurrection, Jesus took away our sin and reconciled us to God. Theologians have been trying to find language to explain it ever since.


Last edited by Mort_Coyle on Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:49 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paidion



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 944
Location: Chapple, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Traveler Bob:
Quote:
Wasn't looking for your answers on another thread, bro! You "cherry picked" what you wanted from my comments and hijacked them into a new topic? Not cool bro. We were having this discussion in the "forgiveness" thread, I thought.


Bob, I started a new thread because I thought the diversion to the supreme sacrifice of Jesus Christ was a broader topic than "forgiveness", and that it should be discussed on a thread of its own. I regret that I didn't
make mention of it on the forgiveness thread as I should have. I am sorry for the incovenience this must have caused you.

As for the purpose of Christ's death, and the other questions you have asked, they are all dealt with in a small booklet which I began to write (but have not yet finished). I have posted the first chapters of this booklet in a thread called "The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ". It can be found on this forum in the area called "Miscellaneous Essays." If you should read that, then you will probably have other questions which I did not answer in that thread. I will be glad to attempt answers either in this thread of that one when you are ready. Here is a link on which you can click to get there quickly.

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=708

After you have read chapters 1, you may wish to read chapter 3 about offerings and sacrifices. It appears that I never did get around to posting chapter 2. Here is the link:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=793
_________________
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rick_C



Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 146
Location: West Central Ohio

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Danny (Mort),

Good post, bro! Wink

Under 'Satisfaction' you wrote:
1. The relation to ancient Jewish ritual sacrifices is clear.

2. Jesus willingly offers Himself as the sacrificial lamb to appease God and provide atonement on behalf of mankind. The picture here is of a feudal serf who has offended the honor of a feudal Lord. The son of the feudal Lord (and thus an equal in the stratified feudal system) steps in and satisfies the offense on behalf of the serf, thus restoring the Father's honor.


1. I agree. In my debate with the guy at Beliefnet, I maintained that sacrifice was known and understood by all ancient peoples, the people of the NT Era (Jews and Gentiles), and continues today. As an aside; in a study of the Druids, I learned that human sacrifice still happened in parts of remote (non-Christian, pagan) Ireland till about 800 years ago. In a book "The Life and Death of A Druid Prince" by Anne Ross and Don Robbins, they go into details about a "bog man" found in England who was ritually sacrificed to the gods at about 60AD in the wake of Roman invasion. This man was aristocratic and probably actually "lived" for the express purpose of becoming a sacrifice, if it was needed. Human sacrifice happened in "the West" not so very long ago; something we tend to forget.

We find the idea of human sacrifice repugnant---and rightly so---as there is no need for any blood (animal or human) sacrifice today. But in our collective unconscious, I think we all understand what it means or meant. But for some, it may be their modernist mentality finds the idea "brutal" (as with my debating colleague at Beliefnet).

Perhaps human sacrifice is best understood intuitively? I feel I understand that Jesus was God's human sacrifice, which is exactly how I "read" John 3:16. God actually did what he had only commanded Abraham to do (sacrifice Isaac). I believe any first century Jew who read John 3:16 would have immediately seen the "Abraham connection" and this is what John intended to convey.

My friend at Beliefnet couldn't seem to comprehend my "primitive, barbaric" view of a God who required a substitutional sacrifice and provided it Himself by sending His Own Son.

I can't fully explain how I understand this. It's intuitive. Yet my debating partner insisted my view of a God who would require such a sacrifice was barbaric, "pagan," and even evil! (and he went to a Vineyard church)! Nothing I could say could make him see things any differently. (Btw, I believe "intuition" to be an actual theological tool, so to speak. I really do)!

Had Christianity not reached my ancestors (mostly Celtic) and the "civilized world"; we would possibly still be offering sacrifices, even human ones. But modern "civility" doesn't take away from an intuitive understanding of what sacrifice is and always has been, imo. Not for me, anyway.

Put another way, if God had not sent his Son...I would still be a Druid....

2. The "feudal Lord and serf" motif is similar to the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah 53. Quite alike, if you think about it.
gtg to church,
Rick
_________________
16 OCT 2008: This nick is no longer active.
I post on the "new forum" as RickC:
http://theos.org/forum/index.php
Thanks, and God bless you.


Last edited by Rick_C on Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paidion



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 944
Location: Chapple, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rick:
Quote:
We find the idea of human sacrifice repugnant---and rightly so---as there is no need for any blood (animal or human) sacrifice today


It's not human sacrifice per se that I find repugnant. Indeed I admire people who give their lives to save the lives of others. And that is precisely what Jesus did.

What I find repugnant is the heathen human sacrifices which were offered to their gods to appease their wrath in order that those who offered them would not be harmed. Jesus sacrifice was not in any way of that order. Christ's supreme sacrifice of Himself was not to appease the wrath of an angry God so that He wouldn't send us to hell (au contraire Jonathan Edwards). Christ's sacrifice was the means of enabling us to overcome sin (as per many Scriptures).
_________________
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paidion



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 944
Location: Chapple, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Traveler:
Quote:
I do not like long posts. I am more of a "Reders Digest" kind of reader.
I have begun to read your essay however. It appears what you believe the Atonement of Christ portrays is more of an Example of righteous living. If that is all the Atonement means, then I would agree with you.


Nowhere in my booklet do I suggest that Christ's sacrifice is only an example. You seem to think this to be the only alternative to your concept of a vicarious sacrifice. I have stated many times and with scriptures to back it up, that His sacrifice was for the purpose of delivering us from our self-life, and enabling us to live righteously.

1 Peter 2:24 and He Himself bore [withstood] our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Quote:
Now I want to make clear to you, I do not think Jesus sacrifice was in any way like the pagan's attempts at mollifying their "angry gods".


I'm glad to know that. However, it doesn't seem too much different from "satisfying" God by paying Him a debt. I have pretty much the same difficulty with both concepts.

Furthermore some of the Bible translations make Christ's hilasmos a "propitiation". Dictionaries define "propitiate" as "to conciliate and offended power", to appease. One dictionary gives as an example: "to propitiate the gods with a sacrifice."

The NASB uses the word "propitiation" in the following scriptures:

Romans 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation [hilastārion] in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed...

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation[hilaskomai] for the sins of the people.

1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation[hilasmos] for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for[hislasmos] our sins.


The NKJV translates these words as "atonement", while the RSV translates them as "expiation". These words are synonyms, and in their verbal form mean "to make amends or reparation." Perhaps this concept is similar to your "paying the debt that is owed" to God.

Now the interesting fact about these words, is that the root word "hilaskomai", a verb, is translated as "be merciful" in Luke 18:13.

"But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’

THIS is the meaning of the word! "being merciful" or "showing mercy".
Let's see what this does to Hebrews 2:17.

Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to show mercy concerning[hilaskomai] the sins of the people.

Besides this the word "hilastārion" is translated in Hebrews 9:5, not as "propitiation" --- not as "expiation" --- not as "atonement" --- but as "mercy seat"!

... above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.

What was the "mercy seat"? It was a means of mercy.

Let's see what Romans 3:25 looks like, when "hilastārion" is translated that way:

...[Christ] whom God put forth as a means of mercy [hilastārion] in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed...

And what a mercy it is for Christ to have died to deliver us from sin! --- deliver us so that we would not continue in sin, but forsake it --- not to "cover" it ---- not to "pay a price" for it, but to "do away" with it.

... He appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Hebrews 9:26

What a better way Christ provided! We are delivered from our sins!
They are not merely "passed over" as in the old covenant.

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

Quote:
As for God not being pleased with "sacrifice and offering", as the citation from Hebrews states, the Law requried them under the Old Covenant. But what was it that God was dipleased with regarding their sacrifices?


This is another big topic. I'll try to show in my next post that God never desired or required appeasing sacrifices. When he led the Israelites out of Egypt, He didn't require sacrifices. Because the Israelites insisted on making sacrifices, God then told them how to do it.

It was a concession on God's part, similar to His concession concerning their demand for a King. "You wouldn't have me to rule over you," lamented God. But when they insisted, God gave in, but showed them whom they were to choose. He warned them, however, that they would get into trouble because of it.
_________________
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald


Last edited by Paidion on Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:37 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rick_C



Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 146
Location: West Central Ohio

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paidion wrote:

Quote:
1. It's not human sacrifice per se that I find repugnant. Indeed I admire people who give their lives to save the lives of others. And that is precisely what Jesus did.

2. What I find repugnant is the heathen human sacrifices which were offered to their gods to appease their wrath in order that those who offered them would not be harmed. Jesus sacrifice was not in any way of that order.

3. Christ's supreme sacrifice of Himself was not to appease the wrath of an angry God so that He wouldn't send us to hell (au contraire Jonathan Edwards).

4. Christ's sacrifice was the means of enabling us to overcome sin (as per many Scriptures).


1. A ritualistic human sacrifice is not the same thing as a person who "sacrifices their lives for others" (in war or for some other altruistic or noble cause). I agree Jesus can be said to have lived a "sacrificial lifestyle" to the point of death for us -- even as an example for us -- but this only a part of the complete theological picture.

2. (Of course; human sacrifices are repugnant to us today). Deities have always required the appeasement of their wrath: it is how they are. But do you think the God of the Bible does not have this demanding quality and is unlike all other deities in this regard? (it sounds like you do).

What does this verse mean? (since you say Jesus' death has nothing to do with appeasing God's wrath)? 1 Thess 5:9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. It seems to me Jesus did more than just live an exemplary, sacrificial lifestyle; that his death also saves us from God's wrath: And I don't see how this verse could possibly mean anything else.

3. ("Eternal punishment" vs. annihilationism is a side topic (Edwards or not). The second death won't be a happy thing for anyone who dies it, regardless of which view is true).

Do you believe Jesus' death appeased the wrath of God? If not: What does this verse mean? Ro 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

4. Yes, but once again; this is not the complete picture. That is, if you are "limiting" the death of Jesus to ONLY "enable us to overcome sin" (become better or more holy people)? Btw, you're sounding more & more like Schleirermacher as we go along, Don (which isn't necessarily a bad thing altogether...I mean, I'm part "liberal" myself).....
Rick
_________________
16 OCT 2008: This nick is no longer active.
I post on the "new forum" as RickC:
http://theos.org/forum/index.php
Thanks, and God bless you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rick_C



Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 146
Location: West Central Ohio

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd like an answer from you both, if possible.

Bob wrote:
Now I want to make clear to you, I do not think Jesus sacrifice was in any way like the pagan's attempts at mollifying their "angry gods".

Then Don replied:
I'm glad to know that. However, it doesn't seem too much different from "satisfying" God by paying Him a debt. I have pretty much the same difficulty with both concepts.


from Online Etymology Dictionary, Mollify:
c.1386 (implied in mollification), "to soften (a substance)," from O.Fr. mollifier, from L. mollificare "make soft, mollify" from mollificus "softening," from L. mollis "soft" + root of facere "to make" (see factitious). Transf. sense of "soften in temper, appease, pacify" is recorded from c.1412.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in your opinions, the God of the Bible is somehow different from other deities? in that He does not get angry? and doesn't need have his temper softened or pacified (made peaceful)? or needs to be appeased?

The God of the Bible gets angry. He demands someone make payment and take an accounting for sins (either we pay for them ourselves or Someone else has: Jesus).

Don,
On that other thread you asked about Schleierermacher and I just posted about that. You are more "liberal" than I realized in that you seem to reject both (vicarious) substitutionary and penal atonement. (Who knew? Not I). These have been rejected in liberal theology since the "Old School" days (of Schlierermacher's time). Btw, Schleiermacher would see you as rather fundamentalist. (If I'm not mistaken, he believed Jesus had a sinful nature and had to overcome it with "God-consciousness"). So you haven't gone all the way off the scale, lol (I'm sort of "liberal" too...but not on this particular theological topic---I'm a "fundy")! Anyways.

Also, you wrote:
And what a mercy it is for Christ to have died to deliver us from sin! --- deliver us so that we would not continue in sin, but forsake it --- not to "cover" it ---- not to "pay a price" for it, but to "do away" with it.

... He appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Hebrews 9:26

What a better way Christ provided! We are delivered from our sins!
They are not merely "passed over" as in the old covenant.


First, none of the texts you cited disprove vicarious substitutionary or penal atonement. Once more, since you disbelieve that Christ paid the price for our sins (which I believe the Bible teaches)...I think you're only seeing a part of the picture. This verse doesn't directly speak about redemption or appeasement of God's wrath against sin; the absence thereof doesn't prove -- or disprove -- anything about these doctrines.

And, yes: Christ died that we might be delivered from being in the bondage of (or to) sin, Amen! But Hebrews 9:26 does not indicate that sin is something we cannot do or are completely delivered from, as we are still able to do it. "Sin" here is a "power" (as similarly in Romans 7) which no longer has total control over us. Sin and death will not be totally removed from this world till He comes back. The sense of Hebrews 9:26 is eschatological, "at the end of the ages." So sin has, indeed, been done away with in an "already/ not yet" eschatological way by the first appearing (coming) and work of Christ. But sin hasn't been wiped out in the world. It's been wiped from our record, no doubt, Praise God! ...but sin as a power and our enemy exists in this world.

Bob,
I'd especially like for you to explain how the God of the Bible is different from any other deity on anger (and/or wrath). The wrath of God, imo, is His natural response to sin. In what way can the Holy God not be really inflamed by it?

I agree that the pagan gods were often so humanly fickle, passive-aggressive, and even lustful. Our God, who is transcendent over them all, none the less has anthropomorphic ("human like") characteristics or attributes. When it comes to holiness and justice; none can compare to Him. His wrath and vengance is terrible and righteous and good!

Please comment:

Hebrews 10 (NASB)
26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

2 Thess 1
3 We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith grows exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all abounds toward each other, 4 so that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure, 5 which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; 6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe,[a] because our testimony among you was believed.

2 Pe 3
1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


Thanks,
Rick
_________________
16 OCT 2008: This nick is no longer active.
I post on the "new forum" as RickC:
http://theos.org/forum/index.php
Thanks, and God bless you.


Last edited by Rick_C on Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:00 pm; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Homer



Joined: 07 Jan 2005
Posts: 639
Location: Brownsville

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paidion,

You wrote:
Quote:
Now the interesting fact about these words, is that the root word "hilaskomai", a verb, is translated as "be merciful" in Luke 18:13.

"But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’

THIS is the meaning of the word! "being merciful" or "showing mercy".


But doesn't the word translated "mercy" have within it the meaning of action on behalf of another? And this action could be God internalizing the punishment we deserve, and continue to deserve?
_________________
A Berean
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rick_C



Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 146
Location: West Central Ohio

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob (or anyone else),

If my posts are too long and detailed; I don't know how to reply "shorter." If less things were posted about at-a-time, I could do better....
Anyway, I hope y'all can reply.
Rick
_________________
16 OCT 2008: This nick is no longer active.
I post on the "new forum" as RickC:
http://theos.org/forum/index.php
Thanks, and God bless you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Family Bible Fellowship Forum Index -> Misc. Theological Topics All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

BlueSilver_C 1.00 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games