@C-J-Horse
The typical counter is that God demands the shedding of blood to forgive sin.
This may not seem reasonable to you and me, but many theists find the 'blood sacrifice' idea attractive for whatever reason.
One thing I'll give them: people can't always simply forgive.
Take cheating in a marriage. Should the other spouse forgive? Maybe so, maybe not. If they do forgive, perhaps it is only after the offender takes sufficient steps to regain some trust. This seems reasonable enough. The idea of atonement is sometimes valid.
@c-j-horse saidHow could God condemn one and forgive another justly, if a human judge forgave those he liked and condemned those he didn’t is that justice? In order for justice to be done all crimes had to be settled completely and God personally paid the debt we owed Himself. Those who say Jesus is not God assume that is exactly what God did, that God made Jesus and made Him do it.
Why couldn't a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God just have forgiven the human race for its failings? It seems to represent a big hole in the argument.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@KellyJay
I want to follow this brother (KellyJay).
God is willing to forgive. But He will not allow anyone in the universe to say He forgave unrighteousnessly. He will forgive in a way that matches His righteous being and just character. He will not offer salvation in a way that conflicts with His nature.
As for us, we do not care HOW God saves us as long as we GET saved. The procedure makes no difference to us. We are like a thief. The thief doen't care what procedure takes place for him to get the money as long as he gets it. We would be happy with ANY method of us being saved. So what if God's righteousness is violated? Who cares? Just as long as we get salvation, it doesn't matter.
God will not have anyone say He saved sloppily, unrighteousnessly, sentimentally or as a loose liberal permissive way. He will save because demonstreation of His judgment upon sin takes place for all the universe to see and consider. His Son suffered under the curse of divine judgment for redemption of all mankind in one all-inclusive act of sacrifice.
So we humans don't care how God saves us as long as we get saved. Not so with God. His procedure must match His glory, His righteousness, His dignity.
His forgiveness is because justice was exacted upon sins. And that justice calls for His judgment, condemnation, curse. The forgiven sinner is not one whose debt has been overlooked. He is a forgiven man whose debt has been PAID. On Calvary, on the cross of Christ his debt has been paid.
He agrees and believes and substitution takes place.
(Substitution us another word perhaps not found in Scripture like trinity, or rapture). But the fact of it is there. Substitution takes place when the sinner receives Christ as Lord and Savior.
@sonship saidAs the person guilty of blasphemy, perhaps it is you who should be apologizing?
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
I forgive them.
@c-j-horse saidHe didn’t “have to die”, he had to be resurrected.
Why couldn't a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God just have forgiven the human race for its failings? It seems to represent a big hole in the argument.
@c-j-horse saidJustice.
Why couldn't a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God just have forgiven the human race for its failings? It seems to represent a big hole in the argument.
The wages of sin is death.
God took full responsibility for man's "failings" and suffered the judgment that was rightfully ours.
But one must believe it. If one has no faith, then the atonement can't be applied.
@josephw saidIf the person not responsible is held responsible and punished, then justice has not been done.
God took full responsibility for man's "failings" and suffered the judgment that was rightfully ours.
But one must believe it. If one has no faith, then the atonement can't be applied.
...and then believing that somehow "...the person not responsible [Jesus] being held responsible and punished means justice HAS been done..." somehow absolves the believer! Ha! Thinking one's way to immortality.
@fmf saidYou're merely obfuscating the clear meaning of scripture.
If the person not responsible is held responsible and punished, then justice has not been done.
But one must believe it. If one has no faith, then the atonement can't be applied.
...and then believing that somehow "...the person not responsible [Jesus] being held responsible and punished means justice HAS been done..." somehow absolves the believer! Ha! Thinking one's way to immortality.
If anyone and everyone gets saved regardless of their belief in the substitutionary atonement, then faith has no meaning or relevance with regards to its object.
Justice was meted out against sin on the person of Jesus in an act of selfless love.
If one rejects that, then that one will be rejected.
Try as you might you can't garble up the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Only in your own mind can you do that, but the scriptures are clear.
@josephw saidIf a person who was not responsible for something is held responsible, regardless, and then punished for it, then one can say an injustice has been done. Morally speaking, the concept is nonsense, the imperative that humans must believe it notwithstanding.
Justice was meted out against sin on the person of Jesus in an act of selfless love.