Crucifixion and forgiveness, a non sequitur

ViaCrucis said:

Christ's death isn't necessary for the forgiveness of sins. That is, it's not that God needed someone to die in order to forgive sinners; God is fully capable of forgiving sins whenever and however He wants--as we see repeatedly throughout the Old Testament.

The significance of Christ's death isn't that it was necessary in order for God to pardon our sins; it's that God, in Jesus, assumes the sum total of what it means to be human and unites to Himself all of what that entails--which ultimately means death. Our deliverance from sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus is that, in dying and overcoming death He has triumphed over every power that breeches our communion with God: sin, death, hell, and the devil. In this yes, we are forgiven of all our sins by Christ's death and resurrection, not because God needs a dead body to forgive, but rather that God offers Himself in Jesus to a sinful world which has Him crucified and He, freely, embraces that world in love by enduring shame, humiliation, and death on the cross. God, in Jesus, becomes another victim of man's inhumanity toward man; taking our sin He brings it--and all of us in our sin--with Him into death, and rising has delivered humanity in Himself to new life.

"[The Word] was in these last days, according to the time appointed by the Father, united to His own workmanship, inasmuch as He became a man liable to suffering ... when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam— namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God— that we might recover in Christ Jesus." - St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III.18.1

"He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head," - ibid. Book V.21.1

All broken in Adam is made whole in Jesus.

"For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole." - St. Gregory Nazianzus, Letter to Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius

As for what sin is: All that which is contrary to the righteousness of God revealed to us in His Law (namely and chiefly, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."); whereby we act unjustly, either through action or inaction, whether in thought, word, or deed. To fail to love God with all our heart, soul, and strength; to fail to love our neighbor as our self. All which fails to be truly good and right is sin. Being derived from our inward malformation by which we are curved and bent inward toward ourselves away from and against God, our fellow man, and all God's creatures. By which we act with cruelty, selfishness, apathy, indifference, pride, avarice, etc.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Just want to note that this is not an orthodox view.

Nihilist Virus said:

our conversation is over.

Click to expand...

It was over before it even started, unfortunately. You've set an impossible task. Faith and limited human logic do not go together. Ever.

Nihilist Virus said:

Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

You may assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity.

You may assume the "existence" of sin, but only if you clearly define what it is ("Missing the mark" or "offending God" is not a complete, exhaustive, and clear definition; I must be able to determine on my own what is or isn't a sin from your definition).

If you think you need another logical premise for free, please state clearly what it is and why you need it as another freebie.

Click to expand...

Though sin (as a concept) exists in multiple religions, since we are in Christian Forums, I'll use the Bible to define it:

"Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18). Sin had its beginning with Lucifer, probably the most beautiful and powerful of the angels. Not content with his position, he desired to be higher than God, and that was his downfall, the beginning of sin (Isaiah 14:12-15). Renamed Satan, he brought sin to the human race in the Garden of Eden, where he tempted Adam and Eve with the same enticement, “you shall be like God.” Genesis 3 describes Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God and against His command. Since that time, sin has been passed down through all the generations of mankind and we, Adam’s descendants, have inherited sin from him. Romans 5:12 tells us that through Adam sin entered the world, and so death was passed on to all men because “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23)."
Source: What is the definition of sin?

Referring back to Romans 5:12 and 6:23 from above, sin entered the world through Adam and passed on to all men (we are all sinners and have a sin nature) for which "the wages of sin is death"... death is the consequence of sin.

While in the OT (Old Testament) various animal/grain sacrifices were made to atone (make amends) for sins committed, these only covered the sin and did not truly 'pay for' or 'fully satisfy' the cost (wage) of their sins. Romans 6:23-25 states, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith." So, no one can claim they have not sinned (ad defined at the top), regardless of belief or non belief in a deity.

For the syllogism (which I had to look up the definition): an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).

To meet the requirements as defined:
Premise one: Penalty for sin is death
Premise two: Jesus's death is the only acceptable satisfaction for premise one

Nihilist Virus said:

Why are you even in the apologetics forum if you don't think that faith can be reconciled with reason? Just curious.

Click to expand...

Depends on what is considered to be reason. To me, realizing that things out of your experience could only be accepted as axiom or rejected, is reasonable. That's why we call it Faith and not knowledge. To try and apply understanding to things out of your experience is against reason.

Tree of Life said:

Just want to note that this is not an orthodox view.

Click to expand...

Everything I wrote above is consistent with the historic teaching of the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

Nihilist Virus said:

If you and I make a covenant, and then you break it, I'm no longer under any obligation to you. However, I can still honor my end of the covenant if I so desire. But if I told you that I needed to kill my son to forgive your breach of the covenant, you'd be correct to point out the non sequitur.

Click to expand...

This is very sloppy.

I could go into more detail about the nature of biblical covenants and why the cross makes sense within a covenant framework, but I need to know that you're interested in pursuing this line of discussion.

ViaCrucis said:

Everything I wrote above is consistent with the historic teaching of the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

It's not even consistent with Luther!

Nihilist Virus said:

Yes, you've given me this line before. And I've heard it from no one else but you. But it is also true that you're easily the smartest and most honest apologist I've ever spoken with, so you can imagine how tragic it is that you have a propensity to whimsically abandon conversations and selectively address points. So for now I'll ask you just one question, and I hope you remain to answer.

Most American Christians not only believe that Jesus died for their sins, but in fact they are completely oblivious to your alternative explanation of what exactly Christ accomplished. Is their understanding of theology in any way reasonable, or are atheists - who are only aware of the mainstream theology - reasonable in rejecting the theology?

Click to expand...

The populist interpretation of Penal Substitution, that in order to forgive us God needs blood and so He makes Jesus the cosmic whipping boy to receive the punishment that we deserve is not, in my mind, reasonable. On the contrary, I believe that what it ultimately says about God and His justice is abominable. But then I wouldn't call it mainstream, I call it fringe; simply on the basis that this isn't what the majority of Christians believe, neither historically nor presently--this is not the belief of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and other historic traditions; and its place in Protestant traditions is also, I'd argue, losing a lot of sway--particularly among Mainline Protestants who typically find the older views such as Christus Victor and Traditional Satisfaction far more meaningful and true.

I'm hardly as alone in my thinking as you think. The views I have exist precisely because of my study of Church history and the diversity of views found across numerous denominations and traditions; through discussion with Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and other Christians and attempting to reach a view which I believe is historically orthodox, in line with the teachings of Scripture, the ancient fathers, and the historic consensus of the Christian faith.

-CryptoLutheran

Nihilist Virus said:

So then, according to your definitions, sin and moral goodness don't necessarily have anything to do with one another.

Click to expand...

How exactly do you arrive there based on what I've said? One can't be morally good if what they're doing is actually wrong(sin), whether they realize it or not. And yes, it would take an objectively good source, beyond the sinner to recognize this and correct it.

Nihilist Virus said:

False but irrelevant since sin has nothing to do with objective morality on your definitions.

Click to expand...

False, see above.

Nihilist Virus said:

Perhaps I was not clear. I was not talking about suffering that God endured. I was talking about the suffering that he inflicted on an infant child.

Click to expand...

The God I know suffers as a result of injustice and may allow temporary suffering to serve a greater good, look no further than Jesus to see this and yes, God suffered in Jesus because of the injustice that Jesus was enduring.

I do not know the entirety of the circumstance around the scripture you're referring to and whether or not the suffering God inflicted was justified to bring about a better outcome for David and the infant. I refuse to believe that God would inflict suffering for no good reason because it goes against everything I know about God's character.

Tree of Life said:

It's not even consistent with Luther!

Click to expand...

Luther doesn't even define what is Lutheran, let alone what is orthodox. The Lutheran Confessions tend toward (but not exclusively) the medieval Latin view, namely Satisfaction Theory (via Anselm and Aquinas).

Christ makes Satisfaction on our behalf by His obedience; it is therefore His justice/righteousness that is imputed to us as grace: where we could not satisfy the just requirements of the Law on account of sin, Christ has satisfied the just requirements of the Law on our behalf, and by grace we are reckoned just on His account.

And further, the Confessions read:

"And since even in the ancient Christian teachers of the Church, as well as in some among our teachers, dissimilar explanations of the article concerning the descent of Christ to hell are found, we abide in like manner by the simplicity of our Christian faith [comprised in the Creed], to which Dr. Luther in his sermon, which was delivered in the castle at Torgau in the year 1533, concerning the descent of Christ to hell, has pointed us, where we confess: I believe in the Lord Christ, God's Son, our Lord, dead, buried, and descended into hell. For in this [Confession] the burial and descent of Christ to hell are distinguished as different articles; 2] and we simply believe that the entire person, God and man, after the burial descended into hell, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of hell, and took from the devil all his might. 3] We should not, however, trouble ourselves with high and acute thoughts as to how this occurred; for with our reason and our five senses this article can be comprehended as little as the preceding one, how Christ is placed at the right hand of the almighty power and majesty of God; but we are simply to believe it and adhere to the Word [in such mysteries of faith]. Thus we retain the substance [sound doctrine] and [true] consolation that neither hell nor the devil can take captive or injure us and all who believe in Christ." - The Solid Declaration of Concord, Article IX



The Paschal Troparion:
"Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And upon those in the tombs
Bestowing life!"

From St. John Chrysostom's Pachal Homilty:
"Enjoy all of you the feast of faith! Receive all the riches of grace. Let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Savior's death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, he said, was embittered, when it encountered You in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and kingdom unto the ages of the ages. Amen."

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Luther doesn't even define what is Lutheran, let alone what is orthodox. The Lutheran Confessions tend toward (but not exclusively) the medieval Latin view, namely Satisfaction Theory (via Anselm and Aquinas).

Christ makes Satisfaction on our behalf by His obedience; it is therefore His justice/righteousness that is imputed to us as grace: where we could not satisfy the just requirements of the Law on account of sin, Christ has satisfied the just requirements of the Law on our behalf, and by grace we are reckoned just on His account.

And further, the Confessions read:

"And since even in the ancient Christian teachers of the Church, as well as in some among our teachers, dissimilar explanations of the article concerning the descent of Christ to hell are found, we abide in like manner by the simplicity of our Christian faith [comprised in the Creed], to which Dr. Luther in his sermon, which was delivered in the castle at Torgau in the year 1533, concerning the descent of Christ to hell, has pointed us, where we confess: I believe in the Lord Christ, God's Son, our Lord, dead, buried, and descended into hell. For in this [Confession] the burial and descent of Christ to hell are distinguished as different articles; 2] and we simply believe that the entire person, God and man, after the burial descended into hell, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of hell, and took from the devil all his might. 3] We should not, however, trouble ourselves with high and acute thoughts as to how this occurred; for with our reason and our five senses this article can be comprehended as little as the preceding one, how Christ is placed at the right hand of the almighty power and majesty of God; but we are simply to believe it and adhere to the Word [in such mysteries of faith]. Thus we retain the substance [sound doctrine] and [true] consolation that neither hell nor the devil can take captive or injure us and all who believe in Christ." - The Solid Declaration of Concord, Article IX

The Paschal Troparion:
"Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And upon those in the tombs
Bestowing life!"

From St. John Chrysostom's Pachal Homilty:
"Enjoy all of you the feast of faith! Receive all the riches of grace. Let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Savior's death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, he said, was embittered, when it encountered You in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and kingdom unto the ages of the ages. Amen."

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

These quotes don't seem terribly relevant. There's certainly nothing in them that contradicts a penal substitutionary view.

This sounds like a formal debate. Interested?

Tree of Life said:

These quotes don't seem terribly relevant. There's certainly nothing in them that contradicts a penal substitutionary view.

Click to expand...

You accused me of being unorthodox; they are relevant to the point that what I've written so far in this thread is thoroughly orthodox.

This sounds like a formal debate. Interested?

Click to expand...

Not particularly.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

You accused me of being unorthodox; they are relevant to the point that what I've written so far in this thread is thoroughly orthodox.

Click to expand...

I don't see how those quotes support your view.

Not particularly.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Don't think you can defend your view in a formal context?

Tree of Life said:

I don't see how those quotes support your view.

Click to expand...

You don't see how those quotes, talking about Christ's death and resurrection being a victory over sin, death, hell, and the devil support my view that Christ's death and resurrection is victory over sin, death, hell, and the devil?

Don't think you can defend your view in a formal context?

Click to expand...

Nice goad. But I'm still not interested. I simply fail to see how anything particularly fruitful can be had in having a formal debate on a subject like this that's been debated hundreds of times already over the centuries and by people who are far more competent at it than either of us.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

You don't see how those quotes, talking about Christ's death and resurrection being a victory over sin, death, hell, and the devil support my view that Christ's death and resurrection is victory over sin, death, hell, and the devil?

Click to expand...

This language is much too vague to support either of our views. Both in the penal view and in the satisfaction view (and in all models of the atonement) Jesus comes out as the victor over sin, death, hell, and the devil.

Whether or not he's the victor is not the question. How he is victorious and what his victory means is the substance of the debate.