Why did a God of Mercy sacrifice his son to a painful death?

Filan

This strikes me as a contradiction within the Christian doctrine.

I'm not seeking to offend or argue with anyone, merely interested in hearing Christian views on this concept.

Regards
A

wolfsbane

Filan wrote: »

This strikes me as a contradiction within the Christian doctrine.

I'm not seeking to offend or argue with anyone, merely interested in hearing Christian views on this concept.

Regards
A

Because it was the only way a God of holiness could redeem sinners whom He loved. Sinners could never remove the contamination of sin. God Himself must make atonement for their sins, in the person of His Son.

Fanny Cradock

Hi Filan,

I think you'll find that most Christians (here at least) won't get insulted by question asked in sincerity - no matter how difficult the question posed is.



As by way of answer: Well, to tell the truth, I don't really know.

However, I would suggest that humans do not fully understand the nature of sin or, for that matter, the nature of perfection. IMO, Such understandings go beyond our intellectual abilities. Indeed, I would even go as far as to say that true comprehension of these matters lie outside pure intellectualism and rest firmly in the domain of pure spiritualism.

From the Christian perspective, we believe that God and sin are wholly incompatible. We also believe that there is a price to pay for sin. I would think that all human societies have operated on the notion of crime and punishment. That is to say, there exist certain laws, breaking those laws leads to consequences. Depending on the severity of the crime, the consequences become (or should become) unavoidable. Sin, being the greatest crime of all, is committed against the greatest being of all. I don't like to labour under this negative aspect, though.

In many respects (and how easy this is to type from the cpmfort of my own chair) I don't believe that the method of Jesus' death, the cross in all its brutality, was the the real punishment dolled out to Jesus. The real sacrifice (and I am not trying to trivialise the pain of having hails rammed into your body and being pinned to a lump of wood) was to suffer the consequences for each and every sin committed by every person past, present and future. Through his suffering, which I maintain was only partly physical (though too physical for the likes of me) and largely beyond our comprehension, we are now affored the opportunity to avoid punishment.

I wonder would fellow Christians agree with that hypothesis, or would they consider it batty?

The real question for me is: Why could God not simply forgive all sins? Again, I am lead back to the idea that sin is something I don't fully comprehend. This leaves me left wondering did God decided the punishment, or is he bound by his own nature in these circumstances?

I would also ask the question: If Jesus was sacrificed for all our sins, why then will people still be punished for them? Is this not a form of double punishment?

kelly1

Filan wrote: »

This strikes me as a contradiction within the Christian doctrine.

I'm not seeking to offend or argue with anyone, merely interested in hearing Christian views on this concept.

Regards
A

Hello Filan.

My understanding is that sin is an infinite offence to God because God is infinitely holy. An infinite offence requires and infinite sacrifice in order to satisfy God's justice because God's justice is perfect.

Now Jesus by virtue of His sinlessness and the union of His human and divine nature, has infinite dignity. Therefore His sacrifice is of infinite value and atones for the infinite offence caused by sin.

If everyone in the whole world suffered for the rest of their lives and never sinned, it would never atone for a single sin. This is the reason why Jesus is the only one who can bring salvation to the world. He is the only bridge to Heaven.

That's my understanding anyway

God bless,
Noel.

IrishKnight

So what sin/s were forgiven by the death of Jesus? Was it one big sin, or just all those little ones...

Zombrex

Just a tip, if the OP is in agreement, I would suggest making this a Christians Only thread

robindch

Filan wrote: »

This strikes me as a contradiction within the Christian doctrine.

I no longer adhere to christian doctrine, but I did try for some considerable while, and this question was one of many for which I never found a satisfactory answer.

In fact, the entire idea of the blood sacrifice itself made no sense, since at its core lay the idea that god required himself to offer himself to himself as payment for a problem which he himself had created.

With god acting as accuser and accused, judge and lawmaker, the sacrifice itself always seemed strangely unnecessary.

* If the OP does not wish to see non-christian views on this issue, then the mods may want to shift wicknight's and my replies to another thread.

snollup

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Hi Filan,

I think you'll find that most Christians (here at least) won't get insulted by question asked in sincerity - no matter how difficult the question posed is.



As by way of answer: Well, to tell the truth, I don't really know.

However, I would suggest that humans do not fully understand the nature of sin or, for that matter, the nature of perfection. IMO, Such understandings go beyond our intellectual abilities. Indeed, I would even go as far as to say that true comprehension of these matters lie outside pure intellectualism and rest firmly in the domain of pure spiritualism.

From the Christian perspective, we believe that God and sin are wholly incompatible. We also believe that there is a price to pay for sin. I would think that all human societies have operated on the notion of crime and punishment. That is to say, there exist certain laws, breaking those laws leads to consequences. Depending on the severity of the crime, the consequences become (or should become) unavoidable. Sin, being the greatest crime of all, is committed against the greatest being of all. I don't like to labour under this negative aspect, though.

In many respects (and how easy this is to type from the cpmfort of my own chair) I don't believe that the method of Jesus' death, the cross in all its brutality, was the the real punishment dolled out to Jesus. The real sacrifice (and I am not trying to trivialise the pain of having hails rammed into your body and being pinned to a lump of wood) was to suffer the consequences for each and every sin committed by every person past, present and future. Through his suffering, which I maintain was only partly physical (though too physical for the likes of me) and largely beyond our comprehension, we are now affored the opportunity to avoid punishment.

I wonder would fellow Christians agree with that hypothesis, or would they consider it batty?

The real question for me is: Why could God not simply forgive all sins? Again, I am lead back to the idea that sin is something I don't fully comprehend. This leaves me left wondering did God decided the punishment, or is he bound by his own nature in these circumstances?

I would also ask the question: If Jesus was sacrificed for all our sins, why then will people still be punished for them? Is this not a form of double punishment?

Hi, I'm not a normal reader of this thread but would consider myself of christian values. Just wanted to say that this is a very well written answer to the OP's question. Fair play.

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote: »

Just a tip, if the OP is in agreement, I would suggest making this a Christians Only thread

A good suggestion. I can do that easily, in fact, was going to. Then I though, how nice it would be if all the other non-christians here were to see it the same as you do an refrain themselves from dragging the post of topic.:) That would be progress indeed, and I am sure would encourage new posters to the forum or draw out lurkers who I am sure have questions they would like to ask. I hate having to label posts as "Christians response only."

Fanny Cradock

Have we entered a golden age of mutual respect and understanding?

robindch

Asiaprod wrote: »

How nice it would be if all the other non-christians here were to see it the same as you do an refrain themselves from dragging the post off topic.:)

As you may be referring to me here.... Well, the OP (whom I don't recall seeing posting before, and I assume is therefore unfamiliar with protocol) didn't make it clear that only the views of people who are currently adhere to christian beliefs were appreciated. The perhaps-unnatural assumption therefore arose that the hare-brained thoughts of an ex-christian may be useful.

If this is not, in fact, the case, then I have clearly sit in breach of etiquette and both I and my thoroughly inconsequential, if unanswerable, comment above deserve immediate evaporation

Asiaprod

robindch wrote: »

As you may be referring to me here....

Not at you at all, I enjoy your imput tremendously.

Well, the OP (whom I don't recall seeing posting before, and I assume is therefore unfamiliar with protocol) didn't make it clear that only the views of people who are currently adhere to christian beliefs were appreciated.

Thank God for that:) I really want to kill this "Christians response only." I have seen so many good topic just descend into madness. You guys are driving me to drink of the untransubstantiated kind

The perhaps-unnatural assumption therefore arose that the hare-brained thoughts of an ex-christian may be useful.

If you dare to stop posting I will give you so many infractions, daily, your head will spin.

If this is not, in fact, the case, then I have clearly sit in breach of etiquette and both I and my thoroughly inconsequential, if unanswerable, comment above deserve immediate evaporation

Consider yourself evaporated:D

Lets get back on Topic, I want to finish my breakfast in peace

eoin5

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Filan.

My understanding is that sin is an infinite offence to God because God is infinitely holy. An infinite offence requires and infinite sacrifice in order to satisfy God's justice because God's justice is perfect.

Now Jesus by virtue of His sinlessness and the union of His human and divine nature, has infinite dignity. Therefore His sacrifice is of infinite value and atones for the infinite offence caused by sin.

If everyone in the whole world suffered for the rest of their lives and never sinned, it would never atone for a single sin. This is the reason why Jesus is the only one who can bring salvation to the world. He is the only bridge to Heaven.

That's my understanding anyway

God bless,
Noel.

What about all those who lived before Jesus was born? Did they not get salvation?

santing

eoin5 wrote: »

What about all those who lived before Jesus was born? Did they not get salvation?

Yes, the Lord Jesus died once and for all

Rom 6:10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.

For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
(Heb 9:24-26)

eoin5

santing wrote: »

Yes, the Lord Jesus died once and for all

Rom 6:10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.

For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
(Heb 9:24-26)

If youre going to say it applied to all, even retroactively, then thats got to include murderers, rapists, designer cosmetics salespeople etc.

kelly1

IrishKnight wrote: »

So what sin/s were forgiven by the death of Jesus? Was it one big sin, or just all those little ones...

Jesus paid the price for every sin that ever was committed or that will be committed. So yes all sins are covered. Of course sins aren't automatically forgiven unless we have faith, repent and ask forgiveness.

eoin5 wrote: »

What about all those who lived before Jesus was born? Did they not get salvation?

Just to add to what Santing wrote, the just who died before Jesus remained in Sheol/Hades until Jesus' resurrection. This allowed their souls entry into Heaven but their bodies will remain in the grave until the end of the world at the general judgment.

kelly1

eoin5 wrote: »

..... designer cosmetics salespeople etc.

LOL They're the worst of all...

PDN

Filan wrote: »

This strikes me as a contradiction within the Christian doctrine.

I'm not seeking to offend or argue with anyone, merely interested in hearing Christian views on this concept.

No offence taken at all.

I don't think there is a contradiction because of the doctrine of the Trinity. God the Father and God the Son are not two separate individuals - but part of the one divine Being. So a God of mercy sacrificed Himself to a painful death in order to save others - hard to understand, I admit, but not contradictory.

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock said:

In many respects (and how easy this is to type from the cpmfort of my own chair) I don't believe that the method of Jesus' death, the cross in all its brutality, was the the real punishment dolled out to Jesus. The real sacrifice (and I am not trying to trivialise the pain of having hails rammed into your body and being pinned to a lump of wood) was to suffer the consequences for each and every sin committed by every person past, present and future. Through his suffering, which I maintain was only partly physical (though too physical for the likes of me) and largely beyond our comprehension, we are now affored the opportunity to avoid punishment.

I wonder would fellow Christians agree with that hypothesis, or would they consider it batty?

You've put it well. The spiritual sufferings of Christ are the prime concern of the atonement.

The real question for me is: Why could God not simply forgive all sins? Again, I am lead back to the idea that sin is something I don't fully comprehend. This leaves me left wondering did God decided the punishment, or is he bound by his own nature in these circumstances?

God could not just forgive sin, as that would be to ignore it, an unholy act. It had to be punished.

I would also ask the question: If Jesus was sacrificed for all our sins, why then will people still be punished for them? Is this not a form of double punishment?

Yes, that seems a sensible conclusion. I don't have a problem with it, however, since as a Calvinist I hold that Christ atoned for the elect alone - Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it; He laid down His life for His sheep.

wolfsbane

IrishKnight wrote: »

So what sin/s were forgiven by the death of Jesus? Was it one big sin, or just all those little ones...

All the sins of all His people. Any sin is enough to put one in hell forever.

wolfsbane

eoin5 wrote: »

If youre going to say it applied to all, even retroactively, then thats got to include murderers, rapists, designer cosmetics salespeople etc.

Yes, indeed, only sinners can be forgiven. Those who are righteous don't need a Saviour.

IrishKnight

wolfsbane wrote: »

All the sins of all His people. Any sin is enough to put one in hell forever.

So what about the people who denied the existence of the holy spirit?

robindch

IrishKnight wrote: »

So what about the people who denied the existence of the holy spirit?

Small point, but I think that the hell-bound must "speak against against the holy spirit", rather than deny the existence of the holy spirit. Not sure though, as the text doesn't elaborate upon what "speaking against" actually entails.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because it was the only way a God of holiness could redeem sinners whom He loved. Sinners could never remove the contamination of sin. God Himself must make atonement for their sins, in the person of His Son.

Really? The only way? I thought the guy had infinite power? He seems to use rather crude instruments, don't you think?

wolfsbane

IrishKnight wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
All the sins of all His people. Any sin is enough to put one in hell forever.
So what about the people who denied the existence of the holy spirit?

If you mean those who blasphemed the Holy Spirit - they were not His people.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Really? The only way? I thought the guy had infinite power? He seems to use rather crude instruments, don't you think?

God cannot sin, being infinitely holy. A holy God must punish sin.

IrishKnight

What if saw the error of their way and repented, followed his word etc, still nothing? *sign* God sure does work in mysterious ways

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

God cannot sin, being infinitely holy. A holy God must punish sin.

No problem there, but why so crude? Why not a spectacular event to show his power? It just seems a bit crude, as usual.

wolfsbane

IrishKnight wrote: »

What if saw the error of their way and repented, followed his word etc, still nothing? *sign* God sure does work in mysterious ways

Repentance and faith are not something a person can do of themselves, given their evil nature. God must grant them that ability. And He has decreed that those who blaspheme the Spirit will not be granted repentance.

It is important to point out that this sin is very particular - not some idiot cursing and foul-mouthing the Holy Spirit in ignorance. It is someone who knows He is real, yet attributes His actions to the devil:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:22-32%20;&version=50;

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No problem there, but why so crude? Why not a spectacular event to show his power? It just seems a bit crude, as usual.

I'm not sure what you mean by crude. And what display of His power could atone for sin?

Call Me Jimmy

wolfsbane wrote: »

God cannot sin, being infinitely holy. A holy God must punish sin.

Says who? A holy god?

wolfsbane

Call Me Jimmy said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God cannot sin, being infinitely holy. A holy God must punish sin.
Says who? A holy god?

Correct.

DublinWriter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because it was the only way a God of holiness could redeem sinners whom He loved. Sinners could never remove the contamination of sin.

Indeed. This would be the same God of Holiness that tosses you into a pit of flame and hurt for all eternity if you don't believe in his everlasting love?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

God cannot sin, being infinitely holy. A holy God must punish sin.

Its not even that, sin is simply disobeying a commandment from God.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that God could disobey himself.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that God could disobey himself.

Could you expand on this? I'm not following you.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that God could disobey himself.

I don't follow that either. How did God disobey Himself?

God's justice must be satisfied. He doesn't sweep things under the carpet or "cook the books".

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Could you expand on this? I'm not following you.

Well sin is the act of disobeying God. To sin is to do something against how God wishes we would be. This wish of how we should be is considered "morality", or what morality is.

It is hard to imagine how God could disobey himself.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't follow that either. How did God disobey Himself?

God's justice must be satisfied. He doesn't sweep things under the carpet or "cook the books".

That is my point.

Wolfsbane said God wouldn't sin because he is holy. that implies God sinning is an option in the first place, that he wouldn't do because he is good and perfect and divine.

But when you think about it one doesn't even get that far.

Sin is disobeying God. How could God logically disobey himself? It is not that God doesn't sin, it is more that the concept of God sinning is an oxymoron. It doesn't make sense.

Slav

I think the thread gradually departed from the mainstream Christianity to some sort of Monophysitism so no surprise there is confusion here.

All modern Christian denominations do not see the act of salvation purely as an act of God. Kind of teamwork if you like: the whole thing could not be done by the mankind or by God alone but only together.

wolfsbane

DublinWriter wrote: »

Indeed. This would be the same God of Holiness that tosses you into a pit of flame and hurt for all eternity if you don't believe in his everlasting love?

Yes, for not believing in Him and for all the other evil you have done:
Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
God cannot sin, being infinitely holy. A holy God must punish sin.

Its not even that, sin is simply disobeying a commandment from God.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that God could disobey himself.

Sin is also any variation from absolute holiness. God cannot be absolutely holy and still sin:
Titus 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, 2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, 3 but has in due time manifested His word through preaching, which was committed to me according to the commandment of God our Savior;
4 To Titus, a true son in our common faith:
Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

1 John 1:5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

I think the thread gradually departed from the mainstream Christianity to some sort of Monophysitism so no surprise there is confusion here.

All modern Christian denominations do not see the act of salvation purely as an act of God. Kind of teamwork if you like: the whole thing could not be done by the mankind or by God alone but only together.

Monophysitism? I don't see how the thread has even touched on the issue of the two natures of Christ. In fact, I'm pretty sure all here who indentify themselves as Christian hold to the two natures doctrine.

As to your latter point, it depends what you mean by 'teamwork'. All Christians hold that Christ atoned for our sins and we must repent and believe in Him to have that redemption applied to us.

The difference comes in some holding that repentance and faith are themselves given by God to us, changing our hearts to love Him; and others who think we naturally have that ability and can accept or refuse as we like.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sin is also any variation from absolute holiness.

Well you will have to properly define "holy" first before I can comment on that.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Well you will have to properly define "holy" first before I can comment on that.

Morally pure, entirely good.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Morally pure, entirely good.

Bit of a redundant concept considering your religion believes all goodness comes from God in the first place.

If God wasn't holy that would simply change what is holy, so God would be holy.

Therefore God not being holy is an oxymoron as well, as is God sinning. It is not that God is holy, but that holiness is defined as what God is. What ever God is, that is what holiness is. Holiness really just means divine.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Bit of a redundant concept considering your religion believes all goodness comes from God in the first place.

If God wasn't holy that would simply change what is holy, so God would be holy.

Therefore God not being holy is an oxymoron as well, as is God sinning. It is not that God is holy, but that holiness is defined as what God is. What ever God is, that is what holiness is. Holiness really just means divine.

OK, I see you are getting dizzy so I'll keep it simple. Yes, God does indeed encapsulate holiness, defines it by His nature. But a hypothetical God could have been a fan of evil, like Satan, for example.

I rejoice to say the One True God is infinitely holy, and merciful to all who trust in Him. :):)

Phototoxin

In fact, the entire idea of the blood sacrifice itself made no sense, since at its core lay the idea that god required himself to offer himself to himself as payment for a problem which he himself had created.

With god acting as accuser and accused, judge and lawmaker, the sacrifice itself always seemed strangely unnecessary.

I also find this entirely paradoxical hence why I have stopped practising. I fail to understand it. However my experience of Catholicism is that suffering is something to be glorified as it unites you with god somehow. personally i think its a condescending way of saying stop whinging.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, I see you are getting dizzy so I'll keep it simple.

I don't know what that refers to

wolfsbane wrote: »

But a hypothetical God could have been a fan of evil, like Satan, for example.

Well no, he can't, because your religion dictates that morality comes from God in the first place, does it not. What ever God is or decides, that is what is moral.

God can't be evil by definition, because what ever God is that is what is good. Good and evil have no point of reference outside of what God is. Your religion teaches that they are concepts defined by what God is in the first place.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't know what that refers to



Well no, he can't, because your religion dictates that morality comes from God in the first place, does it not. What ever God is or decides, that is what is moral.

God can't be evil by definition, because what ever God is that is what is good. Good and evil have no point of reference outside of what God is. Your religion teaches that they are concepts defined by what God is in the first place.

I was trying to help your floundering, so I allowed a hypothetical God of evil. He would have an evil morality, quite in keeping with several aspects of secular humanism no doubt. So 'good' then would be what 'bad' is now, in those items.

And I agreed that God defines morality. But He cannot sin, in that He cannot do anything against what He has declared to be righteous.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

He would have an evil morality, quite in keeping with several aspects of secular humanism no doubt.

Perhaps a work of the devil?

:pac:

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Perhaps a work of the devil?

:pac:

Quite so. Lucifer is well-respected by many pushing the moral liberal agenda today.