This brings up the huge subjects of election, total depravity, man’s earthly objective and atonement.
John MacArthur defines a few words with a few verses, but not everything. This takes as many words and more than in John MacArthur sermon.
Everything starts with the Objective which drives everything:
Has God given man a mission statement? (this is always good to have)
You can take any command in scripture and have Biblical support for calling that command “Man’s Objective” and have Biblical support for saying that, but there are two overriding commands all other commands are bases on.
Would “Loving God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy” be our Mission statement?
God is Love, but how do we define this Love and measure this Love?
This Godly type Love is defined by Jesus’ words and deeds (you can also use 1 Cor 13 and 1 John 4), so what is that?
Can we measure the “love” one being has for another being by the amount the first being is willing to unselfishly sacrifice for the other being?
Is God this ultimate Lover? Would that “Love” compel even God to make beings that could Love like He Loves (this “Love of God” is totally unselfish [a measure of pure Love] and thus is not for God’s sake at all, but is totally for the sake of others [which would also be God’s sake])?
So if God is not doing anything for His own sake and everything for the sake of others, would He be expecting or needing anything from man or would God just be trying to give the greatest gift He could give to man?
The reason this “Love” is the most powerful force in all universes is because it compels even God. So to have this Love would make us like God Himself, so why does God not just make us with this Love and place us in heaven?
Are there something God just cannot do: like make another Christ, since Christ was never made but always existed?
Could God place this Godly type Love in a person at his/her creation (an instinctive love) or would an instinctive love be like a robotic love and not like God’s Love?
Could God just force His Love on man against the “will” of man or would that be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun?
What does man need that he does not have instinctively in order for man to fulfill this Mission?
Man’s objective seems to be to obtain and grow this Godly type Love to fulfill the mission (statement) of Love God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy.
Our “objective” while here on earth is to just accept God’s gift as it was given as pure charity.
God is not trying to get you to do something, but is trying to give you something.
The problem is not sin (unforgiven sin is a huge problem), because God will forgive our sins which helps us to Love (…he that is forgiven much will Love much….) God hates sin, but does allow it, so we can more easily accept His Love (in the form of forgiveness the easiest way for us to accept His charity). The problem is always our fulfilling our objective.
You say: “If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent the Fall could never have happened.”
But you are missing one of the great lessons in the Adam and Eve story. The Garden is a lousy (impossible) place for humans to fulfill their earthly objective and we can thank Adam and Eve for going through that example and providing us and them with that knowledge.
Sin is not only inevitable, but it unfortunately is necessary for humans.
The easiest way for humans to accept God’s charity (Love) is out of a huge need and that need is the relief from the burden of hurting others in the past (sin). By accepting God’s forgiveness we accept God’s Love (mercy/grace/charity) and thus we will Love much since Jesus has taught us (we also see this in our own lives) “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…” Luke 7: 36-50.
You might said: A truly omnibenevolent God would never allow anyone to die, in any sense of the word, much less for sin and its result to corrupt the perfect world.
This world is “very good”, but not “perfect” like heaven is perfect and does not have the same purpose as heaven. This messed up world is actually the very best place for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.
Death is not “bad” in and of itself, but the way good people go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff.
It is truly tragic and unfortunate that Christ had to be tortured, humiliated and murdered in order to help willing humans in their fulfilling of their objective, but God is willing to make huge sacrifices to help willing individuals. It is also very sad other humans who had the opportunity to fulfill their primary earthly objective continued to refuse God’s charity to the point they would never of their own free will accepted God’s charity. These God Loved individuals will thus go to their death and destruction as a help to some other humans who have not refused God’s help to the point of never accepting His help.
Atonement:
It takes a lot to cover atonement, but one of the things John MacArthur gets “wrong” is the idea: “Christ being the atonement sacrifice for “all” (everyone lived during and after he went to the cross) does not mean “Atonement” took place for everyone. In other words: “There is more to atonement then just the sacrifice”, it is a process, which humans are part of, so Christ can be the sacrifice for all humans, but that does not mean atonement took place for all humans. Many people think atonement is something between God and Christ, with Christ helping God out some way, but man plays a part.
There is a part the sinner plays (again this would be understood best by those Jews who had experienced the atonement process for unintentional sins). Jesus and God have both done their part in the atonement process, but the individual sinner has to complete their part or atonement is not completed and if atonement is not completed the forgiveness is not assured. (God’s forgiveness for minor (unintentional sins) came after the correct completion of the atonement process (Lev. 5)).
Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement has some lite symbolic references to Christ, Lev 5 is a closer representation. I will discuss Lev. 16 if you want to take the time, but it takes some explaining of what and why it was needed by itself. Please read Lev. 5 before going further.
Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.
We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.
Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).
The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.
Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.
Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.
Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).
Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.
We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.
Secondly: The part the sinner plays are nothing: worthy of anything, righteous, deserving of anything, or honorable. It is more like criminal, horrible and disgraceful, but necessary.
Christ Crucified is described by Paul, Peter, Jesus, John and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment (it is not even said to be like a ransom payment, but it was a ransom payment).
I find the ransom description more than just an analogy and an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”
(The “Ransom Theory of Atonement” has God paying satan the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ but: Does God owe Satan anything? Is there some cosmic “law” saying you have to pay the kidnapper? Would it not be wrong for God to pay satan, if God could just as easily and safely take back His children without paying satan?)
Would a ransom as those in the first century might understand it (it was well known Caesura at 21 had been kidnapped and a ransom paid for him) included the following elements:
1. Someone other than the captive paying the ransom.
2. The payment is a huge sacrificial payment for the payer, who would personally prefer not to pay.
3. Since those that come to God must come as children, it is the children of God that go to the Father.
4. The payer cannot safely or for some other reason get his children any other way than making the payment.
5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.
6. The kidnapper can accept or reject the payment.
We can agree on most of the parts with the atonement process being just like a ransom experience: The children of God be held out of the kingdom; Deity making the huge sacrificial payment; Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder on the cross being the payment; and the freedom given the child to enter the kingdom after the ransom is paid. But who is this unworthy kidnapper God will pay to release His child.
We can only come to our Father as children, so who is keeping the nonbeliever in the unbelieving state (who is this kidnapper)?
There is the one ransom, but could there be many unworthy kidnappers holding the children of God back?
Does not the nonbeliever himself hold the potential child of God (within them) back from the kingdom?
If the kidnapper does accept the payment has he/she done something worthy or virtually criminal?
You do have a substitute at the cross, standing in for you, but is it those that cried crucify him, the religious leaders, the Roman soldiers, one of the thieves, or maybe one of the disciples who ran away. To say: “Christ took my place” is extremely bold on your part, although you can be crucified “with” Christ like a deserving thief and join Christ in paradise.
You do good to realize someone is standing in for you at the cross, but is it one of those who yelled “Crucify Him”, maybe one of the thieves, a Roman soldier, a Pharisee, or one of the disciples who ran away, but how bold do you have to be to say: “Christ was taking my place?” Are you so committed as to say: “I would stay on the cross when you could leave”?
Look at a real “Christ crucified” sermon of Peter Acts 2 and he says nothing about Christ taking our place on the cross.
That is just an introduction to think about, we really need to at least start with Lev. 5 and go through every Bible reference to the atonement process.
Upvote
0
