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. He is the Passover sacrifice.

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.

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...

I don't think God is inconsistent on this. If you think that it wasn't so much that God did not go ahead with Abrahams sacrifice of his son Issac. God was testing him and Abraham was willing if need to that he would sacrifice his son. That was the test and it was the same criteria that God set for himsef accept God went ahead.

Then when you think that through Christs sacrifice He gave to us in our transformation through faith we present ourselves, our bodies as a living sacrifice even being persecuted and until death. We are making the same faith commitment or at least this is the faith God asks that we stand with Christ even if we are asked to give our lives in lifestyle or in death.

So its actually pretty consistent core idea about putting ones life on the line in faith as a sacrifice to God through Christ.

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...

Because the sacrifice of mere human children, along with the blood of bulls and goats, are insufficient to effect salvation.

Only One is worthy - the spotless Lamb of God - God Himself in the flesh.

God sacrificed His heart on that cross - naked and in torture due to our sins and unbelief.

Thank the Good Lord He is sovereign and exercises His good will without our approval. Who of us could have dreamed up any way to get into heaven otherwise? How successful.were we when the Father drew us to His Son - even as we had no desire to seek Him?

God... is... brilliant!

What can we do other than fall at His feet in gratitude?

Be blessed!

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.

Click to expand...

One basic, I would say, is God wanted humans to reproduce and replenish the earth . . . right? So, you can see that killing children would not be doing that. That would be against God's purpose.

But Jesus on the cross was acting for God's purposes. He even said it would be better if He left this earth . . . better for His disciples.

"'Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.'" (John 16:7)

KirkPsalm said:

And likewise god did not want us to sacrifice our children even to him.

Click to expand...

God does not want us to only make big gestures that seem impressive to us!

He desires that we become sacrificed to loving and forgiving and being gentle and humble. Sacrifice that self-ego! And become alive in Jesus' own love living in us. This comes with the Holy Spirit in us.

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

KirkPsalm said:

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...

Partly, because humans can't do what God was doing, by sacrificing their children. Instead, God desires that humans be good examples to help their children to grow up Christlike . . . gentle and humble and all-loving, sharing and caring as family, and generously forgiving. Just killing them would be "lazy" . . . not taking on the real challenge and education and sacrifice which our Father desires to share with us > how, with God, we are able to find out how to love and how to bring up children to know how to love.

In the case of Jesus dying on the cross, God had the purpose of saving us from our sins.

Also, Jesus was being our example of how to love, by how He was loving on the cross > we are commanded to follow His example >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

We, with Jesus, need to honor and obey His example, by ourselves being His example of how to love, so we and our children can feed on our example of how to relate in God's love > including >

"without complaining and disputing" (in Philippians 2:14) . . .

"with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering" (in Ephesians 4:2) . . .

"forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you" (in Ephesians 4:32).

Jesus went through things of this life so now He can feel for us and minister to us His grace which made Him able to do so well >

"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)

So, included in going through the cross is how Jesus was getting experience with problems of this life, so now He can feel for us while we go through things for Him.

And He is our example, too, in this, of how we can with God make good use of things we go through, using our troubles and suffering to help us to feel for others and minister to them how God's grace makes us able to do well.

Plus, in the process of dying, Jesus defeated death and by means of His death will destroy Satan >

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." (Hebrews 2:14-15)

And there is more, I believe, which you can discover by sharing with Christians and exploring God's word prayerfully.

It is interesting how a human can do less, by dying, but Jesus has done more, by dying. So, thank You, Jesus, for all You have done!!!

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...

I had a great deal written before I realized maybe I can just trim it down to something far more straightforward.

Jesus is not a human sacrifice made to God.

Jesus is the sacrifice of God Himself, to give Himself away. Why? In brief, to reclaim the world. This word "reclaim" I'm using instead of the more usual "redeem", hoping a slight change in vocabulary might cause us to think more deeply on the idea.

God suffered on the cross.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

I had a great deal written before I realized maybe I can just trim it down to something far more straightforward.

Jesus is not a human sacrifice made to God.

Jesus is the sacrifice of God Himself, to give Himself away. Why? In brief, to reclaim the world. This word "reclaim" I'm using instead of the more usual "redeem", hoping a slight change in vocabulary might cause us to think more deeply on the idea.

God suffered on the cross.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

"Jesus is not a human sacrifice made to God."
Certainly not in the pagan sense. But how do you interpret Isa. 53 which says "He looked on his travail and was satisfied"? Would you agree that Jesus' suffering and death on the cross appeases God's wrath? Would you agree that humans are atoned for by the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ?

tdidymas said:

"Jesus is not a human sacrifice made to God."
Certainly not in the pagan sense. But how do you interpret Isa. 53 which says "He looked on his travail and was satisfied"? Would you agree that Jesus' suffering and death on the cross appeases God's wrath? Would you agree that humans are atoned for by the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ?

Click to expand...

This gets us into the nitty gritty of Atonement theology and theories of the Atonement.

My personal views of the Atonement tend to mix elements of the different historic theories of the Atonement. I don't reject Penal Substitution Theory, but it's not the primary way in which I understand the Atonement; the primary ways I look at the Atonement are through Christus Victor Theory, Satisfaction Theory, and Recapitulation Theory. Christ does, indeed, make satisfaction on our behalf; and Christ does willingly bear upon Himself wrath--but this requires a very delicate and nuanced view of what God's wrath is. The danger of Penal Substitution Theory is that it can easily be warped into cosmic and divine child abuse; where God is seen as primarily angry and He needed to take out His anger on someone, and so He chose to make His own Son a cosmic whipping boy. This is a dangerous way to view God. And while I don't think a mature and robust Penal Substitution Theory says this, this is how it can very often be presented and can often be received. I think Penal Substitution works best when understood within a larger context of the Atonement, rather than presented as the primary way of talking about the Atonement; and when it is tempered with other biblical language--hence the importance of talking about Recapitulation, Christus Victor, and Satisfaction.

God isn't an angry god sitting high on a mountain; but the reality of sin means that all of us stand under the shadow of the Law in condemnation for our sin; and the holiness, righteousness, and Divine Glory of God as it encounters sin is wrath. In this, by Christ willingly participating in our death, in our curse of death, He chooses to identify as one of us--the condemned--though He is entirely innocent and without sin. "He who knew no sin became sin" as Paul puts it. The Lord does not become an object of an angry god; but rather partakes willingly in the ugliness of our own sinful humanity, though is Himself without sin, and thus He chooses to bear what we deserve--death--and in exchange give us what we do not deserve, life, His life. It's not about appeasing an angry god; it's about God uniting Himself in our ugliness and receiving into Himself the outcome of that ugliness: death; but the point of that is ultimately about reclaiming a world that has become lost in death and reclaiming it for Himself, that it should be whole once more--resurrection.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

This gets us into the nitty gritty of Atonement theology and theories of the Atonement.

My personal views of the Atonement tend to mix elements of the different historic theories of the Atonement. I don't reject Penal Substitution Theory, but it's not the primary way in which I understand the Atonement; the primary ways I look at the Atonement are through Christus Victor Theory, Satisfaction Theory, and Recapitulation Theory. Christ does, indeed, make satisfaction on our behalf; and Christ does willingly bear upon Himself wrath--but this requires a very delicate and nuanced view of what God's wrath is. The danger of Penal Substitution Theory is that it can easily be warped into cosmic and divine child abuse; where God is seen as primarily angry and He needed to take out His anger on someone, and so He chose to make His own Son a cosmic whipping boy. This is a dangerous way to view God. And while I don't think a mature and robust Penal Substitution Theory says this, this is how it can very often be presented and can often be received. I think Penal Substitution works best when understood within a larger context of the Atonement, rather than presented as the primary way of talking about the Atonement; and when it is tempered with other biblical language--hence the importance of talking about Recapitulation, Christus Victor, and Satisfaction.

God isn't an angry god sitting high on a mountain; but the reality of sin means that all of us stand under the shadow of the Law in condemnation for our sin; and the holiness, righteousness, and Divine Glory of God as it encounters sin is wrath. In this, by Christ willingly participating in our death, in our curse of death, He chooses to identify as one of us--the condemned--though He is entirely innocent and without sin. "He who knew no sin became sin" as Paul puts it. The Lord does not become an object of an angry god; but rather partakes willingly in the ugliness of our own sinful humanity, though is Himself without sin, and thus He chooses to bear what we deserve--death--and in exchange give us what we do not deserve, life, His life. It's not about appeasing an angry god; it's about God uniting Himself in our ugliness and receiving into Himself the outcome of that ugliness: death; but the point of that is ultimately about reclaiming a world that has become lost in death and reclaiming it for Himself, that it should be whole once more--resurrection.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

All this sounds nice, but to claim God is not angry "sitting on a high mountain" is a straw man. God is most certainly angry at sinners, since it clearly says, "he who does not believe will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." So the one who refuses to believe in Christ remains in disobedience and under God's wrath.

This is critically important in communicating the gospel to the ungodly, because most unbelievers don't think they are wicked in God's sight, and so they have no incentive to seek to be saved from their sinful nature. Most people I've met and heard a response concerning their state of spiritual affairs claim to be "a good person." So people have to be told they are sinners under God's wrath, because they simply don't believe they are, and so they don't have a healthy fear of God. On that, Jesus said, "fear Him who can destroy your body and soul in gehenna."

The good news is that the grace of God (that is, the power of the Spirit in redemption) overcomes unbelief and fear, and induces hope that Christ will save. So it is through the fear of God, that eternal punishment is deserved for every sinner, that the love of God is known and appreciated, by recognizing Christ substituting Himself in the punishment we deserved.

The belief in this doctrine begins a personal relationship with God, in which the individual starts trusting in God's divine help to do all that which pleases God. This relationship strengthens with knowledge, experience, etc., and the testimony from God that He is pleased. Is not that something to rejoice about?

ViaCrucis said:

This gets us into the nitty gritty of Atonement theology and theories of the Atonement.

My personal views of the Atonement tend to mix elements of the different historic theories of the Atonement. I don't reject Penal Substitution Theory, but it's not the primary way in which I understand the Atonement; the primary ways I look at the Atonement are through Christus Victor Theory, Satisfaction Theory, and Recapitulation Theory. Christ does, indeed, make satisfaction on our behalf; and Christ does willingly bear upon Himself wrath--but this requires a very delicate and nuanced view of what God's wrath is. The danger of Penal Substitution Theory is that it can easily be warped into cosmic and divine child abuse; where God is seen as primarily angry and He needed to take out His anger on someone, and so He chose to make His own Son a cosmic whipping boy. This is a dangerous way to view God. And while I don't think a mature and robust Penal Substitution Theory says this, this is how it can very often be presented and can often be received. I think Penal Substitution works best when understood within a larger context of the Atonement, rather than presented as the primary way of talking about the Atonement; and when it is tempered with other biblical language--hence the importance of talking about Recapitulation, Christus Victor, and Satisfaction.

Click to expand...

Penal substitution is a satisfaction theory. and it is that element that most of us who reject it are actually rejecting. The named elements are entirely Biblical, in that Christ was a substitutionary sacrifice in accordance with the penal structure of God's law. What we reject is the part that rarely gets stated directly, which is that it is as a satisfaction of God's wrath. Satisfaction as an academic theological doctrine has undergone several iterations first with God's honor(Anselm), then God's justice(Acquinas), and then wrath(Luther and Calvin). I've heard it said that the Eastern Church also recognizes satisfaction as legitimate but what they see it as is a satisfaction of God's truth.

Fervent said:

Penal substitution is a satisfaction theory. and it is that element that most of us who reject it are actually rejecting. The named elements are entirely Biblical, in that Christ was a substitutionary sacrifice in accordance with the penal structure of God's law. What we reject is the part that rarely gets stated directly, which is that it is as a satisfaction of God's wrath. Satisfaction as an academic theological doctrine has undergone several iterations first with God's honor(Anselm), then God's justice(Acquinas), and then wrath(Luther and Calvin). I've heard it said that the Eastern Church also recognizes satisfaction as legitimate but what they see it as is a satisfaction of God's truth.

Click to expand...

You're right, Penal Substitution Theory is a form of Satisfaction Theory. I distinguish them in my post because while Penal Substitution is a form of Satisfaction Theory, Satisfaction Theory is not Penal Substitution Theory. Penal Substitution is sufficiently different than classical Satisfaction Theory that it can (and I'd argue should) be categorized as distinct.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

You're right, Penal Substitution Theory is a form of Satisfaction Theory. I distinguish them in my post because while Penal Substitution is a form of Satisfaction Theory, Satisfaction Theory is not Penal Substitution Theory. Penal Substitution is sufficiently different than classical Satisfaction Theory that it can (and I'd argue should) be categorized as distinct.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

There's some truth to that, though I still categorize it as a satisfaction theory insofar as it attempts to stand alone or as the primary theory. Personally, I prefer the notion that the atonement requires a number of different motifs and that the forensic motif is just a motif not to be pressed too hard. There's certainly things in Penal Substitution that set it apart from Thomistic satisfaction and Anselmic satisfaction, but to me it is a cultural development of those theories rather than something that stands on its own. As I noted, there is broad agreement about a function of satisfaction among Christian traditions with the distinguishing feature being what it was that is being satisfied. So any objective theory is likely to be a satisfaction theory, and the debate stands on what required satisfaction rather than what motif best explains that satisfaction.