Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
Thanks for this, NV. I see here that I will not able to help you at this time. There might yet be another opportunity!In my experience, Christians ask this question when they're cornered.
No, this topic does not have that potential. For me to accept Christianity, it is necessary - but not sufficient - that this question is answered. Simply expressing your core beliefs in a coherent, self-consistent manner is the bare basic of what is required, but fantastical and absurd ideas that are self-consistent are still not worthy of belief until they are corroborated by physical evidence.
This is the apologetics forum, where nonbelievers are encouraged to ask questions about Christian theology. Questioning the motive of nonbelievers who accept this invitation is, as I said, the tell-tale indication that you're cornered.
You said you can contribute, so if that's true and if you're not cornered, then let's hear it.
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.
No, any individual sinner would be punished for their own sins, which is death - the eternal separation from God, not a fraction of a crucifixion.How many Christians have lived in the history of the world, and how many more will live? Let's put it at five billion. So, according to what you're saying, the punishment for any individual sinner is one five-billionth of a crucifixion and one five-billionth of one and a half days of being dead. Is this correct?
No, any individual sinner would be punished for their own sins, which is death - the eternal separation from God, not a fraction of a crucifixion.
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.
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
NV, instead of posting words that are ready to be refuted, I'd like to ask that you take less than an hour of your time and watch this video. I had a bias when I watched it too but afterwards that changed.
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
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.
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.
False, see above.
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.
OK, thanks for that. Now, with regards to your first post, you said:
I'm starting to pick up on the dancing that you do. You wanted to separate yourself from creationists, but declined to comment on the fact that you presumably accept some form of the prime mover argument - a notion that is unreasonable, as I explained, and which, by your definition, is creation without the "-ism". And now here you are trying to separate yourself from the belief that Jesus died for our sins, but... in the end... you admit that his death resulted in the forgiveness of our sins. It's just a song and dance, and if you cannot provide me with the logical syllogism that wraps your core beliefs together despite being freely given two major premises, then your entire belief system - even if it's "better" than creationism or penal substitution - is indefensible and illogical. In other words, it is not worthy of belief.
I do believe Jesus died for our sins. What I don't believe is Penal Substitution. We've been over this, and last time I tried to explain it to you you made it fairly clear that you weren't interested in understanding the fact that there are numerous theories of atonement--numerous of ways of understanding how Christ's death and resurrection reconciles us to God, how Jesus died for sins--not just Penal Substitution.
If you have changed your mind on that, then I'll point you again to where I did before, this Wikipedia article is as good as any as a starting point, there's even a side bar with links to other pages for more fuller information on the different theories.
-CryptoLutheran
Ok. Here's my best (30 minute) shot; tear it apart as you may see fit to do.
- God is integrally an Almighty, Eternal, Holy, Just, and Loving Being.
- Since God is eternally Holy, He also cannot fail to be Just in any given way within His own being; if God is not eternally Holy, then He is not eternally Just, nor is He even capable of expressing and maintaining eternal Love.
- Any relational infraction against God is an infraction against His eternal holiness and His eternal justice, even though it does not directly affect His eternal love for His creation.
- Infractions against an eternally Holy God deserve and require the application of eternal justice.
- Therefore, God cannot forgive infractions without at the same time upholding His justice. For Him to do so would be for Him to deny His own nature, i.e. deny His very self.
- From 5, for mercy and forgiveness to be extended by an eternally Holy and Just God, holiness and justice have to be upheld at the same time as the extension of mercy and forgiveness.
- Since eternal justice requires the death of those who cause infraction(s), death has to be attained in order for mercy to be extended.
- God, who is Holy, Just, and Loving God, may decide to satisfy His eternal Justice by offering an alternative through an agreed upon covenant by absorbing the eternal justice due those who have caused the infractions(s); this means God has to die in some form or fashion to fulfill the covenant and so as to not deny His own Eternal, Holy and Just nature.
- Therefore, Jesus Christ of Nazareth--as the Son of God--IS necessary and effectual in meeting God's requirements in covenant with those who have caused relational infraction(s).
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
Sloppy... is that a technical term? If one of us was "sloppy" it was you, because I asked for a logical syllogism and you gave me a paragraph.
Do you require more theological assumptions for this framework, or is it reasonable?
You asked if additional premises were needed to be assumed and I mentioned 2 premises that are needed. Then I explained these premises.
Assuming a covenant framework is a theological assumption.
If you want a syllogism with the covenant framework assumed then it might look like this:
That syllogism proves our being under the covenant curse based upon a covenant framework. Mankind is in a pickle. Once the above is established we can then demonstrate the efficacy of the cross:
- God established a covenant relationship with man.
- The curse of covenant violation is death; the blessing of covenant faithfulness is eternal life.
- Adam, our covenant mediator, violated the covenant and merited death for himself and his progeny.
- Furthermore, every son of Adam has personally violated the covenant and merited death.
- Therefore, all people are legally liable to death before their creator and have lost all of their rights in relation to him. He owes them nothing except for cosmic eviction.
The cross is included in Jesus' representation as a centerpiece, but his representation also includes his incarnation, his entire life of obedience, his resurrection, and his ascension into heaven and his pleading for us there at the right hand of the Father.
- God, in mercy, has provided a new Adam (new covenant representative) for all who would cling to him.
- This "new Adam" is Jesus Christ.
- Jesus, by his suffering unto death, bore the curse of the covenant for his people and there is no longer any curse for them.
- Jesus, by his perfect obedience to God's law, fulfilled the covenant obligations for his people and opened up the floodgates of God's blessing for them (eternal life).
- Therefore, Jesus' representation is necessary and sufficient for propitiating the wrath of God and for meriting an eternal inheritance for all those who would cling to him.
So there is certainly a logic to the cross, but one must assume a covenantal framework (which includes the representational and mediatorial relationship between God and man).
The premises that you added relate to a covenant, which, as I explained, may be still be honored by Party A even if Party B defaults. Your only rebuttal is that Biblical covenants are different somehow, but you did not explain why. I see no reason why God cannot just forgive us, regardless of what we've done on our end of the covenant. Thus the crucifixion has nothing to do with forgiveness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?