Child sacrifice, a transgression/ God sacrifices his only begotten

KirkPsalm said:

How do you reconcile that the Bible explains many times in the Old Testament that people should not pass their children through the fire.You know talking about the pagans? And likewise god did not want us to sacrifice our children even to him.Then in the new testament God gives his only begotten son to atone for our sins. Why would God forbid his own people to do such a thing?And then he would do it himself?

Click to expand...

The substitutionary sacrifice of Christ is a means to permanent atonement for sin, and is a special work of God alone. Human sacrifice does not do any atoning work in the spiritual realm, so it is an exercise in futility. God commanded animal sacrifice for temporary atonement, in order to point to His own special work of sacrificing His Son. Therefore, Jesus died for sins "once for all."

KirkPsalm said:

How do you reconcile that the Bible explains many times in the Old Testament that people should not pass their children through the fire.You know talking about the pagans? And likewise god did not want us to sacrifice our children even to him.Then in the new testament God gives his only begotten son to atone for our sins. Why would God forbid his own people to do such a thing?And then he would do it himself?

Click to expand...

God wasn't sacrificing his Son in a way analogous to human sacrifice. That was God Himself on the Cross. A closer analogy would be me throwing myself in front of a speeding car to save my child.

KirkPsalm said:

How do you reconcile that the Bible explains many times in the Old Testament that people should not pass their children through the fire.You know talking about the pagans? And likewise god did not want us to sacrifice our children even to him.Then in the new testament God gives his only begotten son to atone for our sins. Why would God forbid his own people to do such a thing?And then he would do it himself?

Click to expand...

It just means, "don't be like the pagans who sacrifice their children to Moloch (or Satan)." The qualifiable difference should be evident.

The main point in connection to Jesus is that His physical death, which is the penalty of human sin, is given in the place of our spiritual death.

2PhiloVoid said:

It just means, "don't be like the pagans who sacrifice their children to Moloch (or Satan)." The qualifiable difference should be evident.

Click to expand...

But there is no question that the continual emphasis on "God" sacrificing "his Son" really isn't helpful and can be confusing. On forums where atheists congregate, "God the child abuser" is a favorite target. For that matter, penal substitution is only one model of the Atonement (and Jesus himself referred to it as a ransom). "God sacrificed himself for humanity" is surely a better model than "the Father sacrificed his own Son to satisfy his wrath." As I recently mentioned on another thread, William Lane Craig teaches that the Father-Son-Spirit is just the "economic" Trinity, God's way of revealing himself to humans for purposes of the Incarnation and Atonement. In the real "ontological" Trinity, there is just the Godhead without Father-Son distinction. In any event, viewing the Crucifixion as God sacrificing his own Son, as though this were Fred sacrificing little Freddie, is quite misleading IMO.

Sacrificing a human just like an animal would not take away sin, because they are part of the sinful earth. So God The Father sent God The Son to give His perfect life to take away sin.
Jesus was not sacrifice in the way the pagans sacrificed their victims.

Jesus gave His life, children and whoever do not give their life in pagan practices, more than likely the child or person is taken against their will or their parents will.

What was the reason pagan's sacrificed children.

Is abortion child sacrifice

HBP said:

But there is no question that the continual emphasis on "God" sacrificing "his Son" really isn't helpful and can be confusing. On forums where atheists congregate, "God the child abuser" is a favorite target. For that matter, penal substitution is only one model of the Atonement (and Jesus himself referred to it as a ransom). "God sacrificed himself for humanity" is surely a better model than "the Father sacrificed his own Son to satisfy his wrath." As I recently mentioned on another thread, William Lane Craig teaches that the Father-Son-Spirit is just the "economic" Trinity, God's way of revealing himself to humans for purposes of the Incarnation and Atonement. In the real "ontological" Trinity, there is just the Godhead without Father-Son distinction. In any event, viewing the Crucifixion as God sacrificing his own Son, as though this were Fred sacrificing little Freddie, is quite misleading IMO.

Click to expand...

Whatever you do, don't ask me how I've come to my views, or what I mean by my short aphoristic statements, or what my actual sources are influencing my educated thinking.

It was self sacrifice.

HBP said:

But there is no question that the continual emphasis on "God" sacrificing "his Son" really isn't helpful and can be confusing. On forums where atheists congregate, "God the child abuser" is a favorite target. For that matter, penal substitution is only one model of the Atonement (and Jesus himself referred to it as a ransom). "God sacrificed himself for humanity" is surely a better model than "the Father sacrificed his own Son to satisfy his wrath." As I recently mentioned on another thread, William Lane Craig teaches that the Father-Son-Spirit is just the "economic" Trinity, God's way of revealing himself to humans for purposes of the Incarnation and Atonement. In the real "ontological" Trinity, there is just the Godhead without Father-Son distinction. In any event, viewing the Crucifixion as God sacrificing his own Son, as though this were Fred sacrificing little Freddie, is quite misleading IMO.

Click to expand...

"viewing the Crucifixion as God sacrificing his own Son, as though this were Fred sacrificing little Freddie, is quite misleading"

You're durn tootin it's misleading, and that's why atheists love that misleading analogy. Here's the diff:
1. pagan children aren't volunteering to die, but Jesus laid His own life down (volunteered).
2. child sacrifice is completely worthless, even though those people believed it appeased the wrath of their gods. But Jesus' sacrifice (travail) actually appeases God's wrath, according to Isa. 53 and the NT explanation that He saved us from God's wrath.
3. pagan sacrifices don't cause anyone to be righteous in the sight of God, but Jesus' sacrifice does, for everyone who believes in Him.

Nevertheless, the Father sacrificing His Son is the only valid basis for redemption (the ransom of the souls of believers). It is written in every book of the Bible, such as: John 3:16 that says God gave His Son, in the context of "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes may have eternal life" - this 'lifted up' is the crucifixion. He MUST be lifted up, meaning it's the only action that turns a person's faith in Christ into full atonement with God. In Mat. 26:39 Jesus pleaded with the Father that there be another way, but submitted to the Father's will (to die on the cross). In Heb. 9:14 and elsewhere, Jesus' sacrifice is the only avenue to a pure conscience. Therefore, penal substitutionary sacrifice cannot be avoided in the teaching of the gospel. It's the basis for justification by faith.

A misleading analogy that atheists argue doesn't justify an avoidance of critical gospel teaching. People reject Jesus, God, and the gospel not because it doesn't make sense, but because they hate God and His morality, and they are unwilling to submit to His sovereignty. 1 Cor. 1.