Crucifixion and forgiveness, a non sequitur

[ExodusMe]

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.

nice question @Nihilist Virus . It is surprising reading this as it seems a lot of Christians do not understand why the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was necessary. The short answer is that the crucifixion of Jesus was necessary because (like our law requires crime to be punished) sin requires punishment. Reformed theologians say that retributive punishment is essential to God's nature meaning that it would not satisfy God's justice to forgive sinners without punishment. This is where Jesus comes in as treason against God's kingdom requires death. God can only fully relieve us of our debt to him if justice is satisfied also.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

nice question @Nihilist Virus . It is surprising reading this as it seems a lot of Christians do not understand why the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was necessary. The short answer is that the crucifixion of Jesus was necessary because (like our law requires crime to be punished) sin requires punishment. Reformed theologians say that retributive punishment is essential to God's nature meaning that it would not satisfy God's justice to forgive sinners without punishment. This is where Jesus comes in as treason against God's kingdom requires death. God can only fully relieve us of our debt to him if justice is satisfied also.

Do you have a syllogism? Also, I cannot evaluate your argument until you define sin and any other theological terms.

 

[ExodusMe]

For this discussing defining sin as a crime against God would do. The argumeblnt is in my post. Retributive justice is essential to God's nature. Sin requires punishment. Jesus satisfied God's justice. Therefore, the crucifixion of Jesus is necessary for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

For this discussing defining sin as a crime against God would do. The argumeblnt is in my post. Retributive justice is essential to God's nature. Sin requires punishment. Jesus satisfied God's justice. Therefore, the crucifixion of Jesus is necessary for the forgiveness of sins.

I do have some followup questions, but first I'd like to conclude two things from what you said:

First, that God is incapable of forgiving sin as an act of will;

and second, that a sinner, such as you, is deserving of - at most - a crucifixion and one and a half days of being dead (in hell?).


Now, you can define sin as a "crime against God" and you can say that by its nature sin cannot be forgiven as an act of will. But please clarify further what a "crime against God" is. Can God sin against himself?

Also, why will we be sent to hell for an eternity if the one who took upon himself our sins did not suffer nearly the same fate? It seems to me that the basic Christian argument is, "We, as sinners, deserve X. Jesus suffered Y. Jesus' suffering atones for our sins and we are excused from X." Otherwise, if Jesus really did pay for your sins, then the payment for your sins is far short of an eternity in hell. Right?

 

[ExodusMe]

I do have some followup questions, but first I'd like to conclude two things from what you said:

First, that God is incapable of forgiving sin as an act of will;

and second, that a sinner, such as you, is deserving of - at most - a crucifixion and one and a half days of being dead (in hell?).


Now, you can define sin as a "crime against God" and you can say that by its nature sin cannot be forgiven as an act of will. But please clarify further what a "crime against God" is. Can God sin against himself?

Also, why will we be sent to hell for an eternity if the one who took upon himself our sins did not suffer nearly the same fate? It seems to me that the basic Christian argument is, "We, as sinners, deserve X. Jesus suffered Y. Jesus' suffering atones for our sins and we are excused from X." Otherwise, if Jesus really did pay for your sins, then the payment for your sins is far short of an eternity in hell. Right?

Your first conclusion would be correct. God cannot logically forgive sin without also satisfying the justice due to the sin committed. This can be understood from the first proposition (Retributive Justice is essential to God's nature).

A note here is that retributive justice should not be understood from a humanely perspective. Retributive justice is when a person is punished for the crime committed not out of some blood feud, so we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that God is some angry emotional tyrant trying to punish people who wrong Him. The most practicle example of retributive justice is in our own legal system where certain crimes have certain punishments for no other reason than that is what the punishment is for said crime (the *price* if you will). This can be differentiated from consequentialism which states that punishment is for the rehabilitation of the person (i.e. by punishing them some good will arrive in society whether through the individual being punished or the removal of the person from a functioning society). I don't really want to debate which is better (unless you mean to state there is some deficiency in God's nature due to retributive justice being essential to his nature), but consequentialism has been established as a failed form of societal punishment and there is historical data that support this if you wish to research.

Your second conclusion I would sort of agree with. I think this answers some of the rest of your post also. The crucifixion of Jesus and the 'payment for the sins of the world' should not be understood in the physical crucifixion of Jesus the human, but in the physical crucifixion of the Divine Son of God. I don't mean to get all preachy, but the most basic way we can understand this is that in God's economy of ethics a sin against God requires eternal punishment - we can makeup whatever value this should have. A person can pay this with their own life, which is forfeit once they have sinned against the Eternal God, but God also made another way for this payment to be made which is in Jesus Christ who was perfectly blameless and died a death meant for sinners. Jonathan Edwards in The Religious Affections states that Christ had an 'infinite dignity' that allowed the sins of the world to be exchanged for the punishment of Jesus Christ. Kind of hard to explain, but I am trying my best.

To your first question about whether God can sin against himself. God cannot sin against himself. This is similar to a question like "can God create a square-circle?" or "can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?". I only cite those questions because they are of the same type and do not mean to belittle you. Christian's answer these questions out of the logical necessity of God's nature. It isn't so much as that he 'cannot' do these things. It is that they are not logically possible and are more like a clever way to use vocabulary to create non-existent scenarios. God cannot sin against himself as God is necessarily morally perfect.

Another question you have is how is it just for someone to die in the place of someone else? The answer is in the watershed differences between atheism and theism, so I do not mean to satisfy you with my answer. God decided, before time began, that Christ would enter our world and die for humanity.

Also, look into the alternatives there are to this type of theological model from an academic perspective even if you are not interested in the practicality. Most religious models are based on a type of karma debt system where your good deeds must outweigh your bad deeds. Is this just? Think about a doctor who saved 3,000 patients throughout his career retires one day and kills his wife in a fit of rage - would the judge be just to say "you healed 3000 people, so we will let this murder go"? I think we all know that would not be just. As a non-Christian I arrived at the conclusion that Christianity is the only just religion from this. There is no other system that satisfies the wrath of our Divine Creator.

I am only explaining to you how Christian's understand your question and I do not mean to persuade you that I am right as it seems like you would need to be a Christian first before you could accept anything that I say, so if this question is what is holding you back from becoming a Christian, please put it aside and walk into the arms of your Creator.

Love and blessings

 

[Robert76]

God is not called to defend himself. Right. That's what apologetics are for - men defending God because God won't defend himself. If you don't intend to take up your sword in this battle, then you're in the wrong forum.

I have to apologize, I didn't realize you responded to my last post - oversight on my part. Apologetics is defined (by Google) as "reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine" - I believe you and I probably agree this is a reasonable definition. That said, I see apologetics as the reasoning of why I believe in God and my being able to provide support for this position. Notice though, I am defending my belief in God, God Himself does not need my defense for His sake. Romans 14:11 states, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." The word 'every' is all inclusive, it applies to the believer and the non-believer. One day, we will both kneel before Him and have to give and account.

Sure, but why isn't an "I forgive you" from God sufficient?

As per my latest attempt at a syllogism (bold added for drawing attention), explains why an "I forgive you" is insufficient:
"All have sinned, the penalty for sin is death, Jesus' death on the cross satisfied this penalty for all who will believe in Him, therefore, those who believe in Him do no have to suffer the penalty for sin."

Think of it as a law of nature, like gravity. You or I walk off a cliff and we both know what happens. Because we have all sinned, we're all going off the cliff. But, what if we go off this cliff in an airplane? Well, we don't fall... because the law of aerodynamics counteracts the law of gravity. In a similar manner of thinking, Jesus' death on the cross is also a law that not only counteracts the first law of sin, but actually negates it altogether. So, when the believer places their faith and trust in Jesus, they are no longer subject to the law of sin (death) because the first law was fully satisfied by Jesus on our behalf.

Where I'll wrap up this post (in not so few words, sorry) is on the topic of evangelism. As a Christian, I am no more 'good' per se than the atheist, right? My righteousness instead is in Christ, so when God sees me, He sees the righteousness of His perfect son. You might say, "Wait Robert, what if you tell a lie tomorrow?" To that I say: Remember, Jesus died for our past, present and future sins, so that hypothetical sin of tomorrow has already been paid for and as such, God still sees me through the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Given that background, part of apologetics and why it is located under 'Outreach' is because it is an opportunity for others to come to the realization that whether believer or non-believer, if it weren't for the grace of God and what Jesus did on the cross, we would all share the same destiny separated from God. The driving force behind evangelism (and I'd even add, in part, for apologetics) is because the Christian believes that an eternity in hell awaits those who do not believe, then out of care and "love for our neighbor" we want to spread the Good News as it were that God has made a path (Jesus is the way, the truth and the life), a free gift of redemption where we are made sons and daughters of Him who is long suffering, desiring that none would perish.

Now, when we see atheists protesting outside of religious events, or in this case coming to a Christian forum to dispel the "fairytale myth" that God exists, what impending destruction is the Christian being saved from? Empirical evidence shows throughout the ages, in all walks of life, all career paths, the Christian is able to prosper (except in the case of Christians who are targeted out of the hatred by those with evil in their hearts--there the fault is not on the Christian but those with evil in their heart). Nihilism, in contrast with Christianity, is defined as "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless." Just as nothing produces nothing, no meaning is found in that which is based on life being meaningless. So, for what noble cause are you hoping to sway the mind of a weaker brother or sister in the faith? Do you know of something that is better than eternity with the one who created you, loves you perfectly, and wants to spend eternity with you? Like Saul on the road to Damascus, I find it very interesting you are here (regardless of the original motivation). Could it be that God is trying to get your attention? It is my sincere hope and prayer that you see He loves you, that you are not and evolved microbe, you are of great value and of great meaning and purpose to Him.

 

[Butch5]

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.

Many start from a false premise, that Christ's death was a payment to God for sins. However, we find that God said He would forgive sins, thus no payment. Christ's death was a ransom payment to redeem mankind from the Devil to God. Once redeemed man can be forgiven.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Many start from a false premise, that Christ's death was a payment to God for sins. However, we find that God said He would forgive sins, thus no payment. Christ's death was a ransom payment to redeem mankind from the Devil to God. Once redeemed man can be forgiven.

Why couldn't God just take souls from Satan? Why is the killing of Jesus necessary or even relevant?

 

[-V-]

Why couldn't God just take souls from Satan? Why is the killing of Jesus necessary or even relevant?

You just can't please atheists.

They complain that God should "just forgive".

Then they turn around and scream "INJUSTICE!" at the idea of someone like Hitler being in heaven.

 

[Butch5]

Why couldn't God just take souls from Satan? Why is the killing of Jesus necessary or even relevant?

He probably could have. I think Irenaeus explains it well.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 1.
1. For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person “knew the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has become His counsellor?” Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We — who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation — have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God, — all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I have to apologize, I didn't realize you responded to my last post - oversight on my part. Apologetics is defined (by Google) as "reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine" - I believe you and I probably agree this is a reasonable definition. That said, I see apologetics as the reasoning of why I believe in God and my being able to provide support for this position. Notice though, I am defending my belief in God, God Himself does not need my defense for His sake. Romans 14:11 states, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." The word 'every' is all inclusive, it applies to the believer and the non-believer. One day, we will both kneel before Him and have to give and account.

Ordinarily I would be interested in why you believe something for which there is no evidence, for which there is evidence to the contrary, and which is self-contradictory. Personally, I find the phenomenon of religion to be fascinating. However, for the purposes of this thread, I'm only interested in what was relayed in the OP: a logical statement connecting the crucifixion and forgiveness.

As per my latest attempt at a syllogism (bold added for drawing attention), explains why an "I forgive you" is insufficient:
"All have sinned, the penalty for sin is death, Jesus' death on the cross satisfied this penalty for all who will believe in Him, therefore, those who believe in Him do no have to suffer the penalty for sin."

Think of it as a law of nature, like gravity. You or I walk off a cliff and we both know what happens. Because we have all sinned, we're all going off the cliff. But, what if we go off this cliff in an airplane? Well, we don't fall... because the law of aerodynamics counteracts the law of gravity. In a similar manner of thinking, Jesus' death on the cross is also a law that not only counteracts the first law of sin, but actually negates it altogether. So, when the believer places their faith and trust in Jesus, they are no longer subject to the law of sin (death) because the first law was fully satisfied by Jesus on our behalf.

One could summarize aerodynamics and gravity to give a detailed explanation of those phenomena without appealing to analogy. I insist that you do the same for the crucifixion and forgiveness. "In a similar manner of thinking..." falls short of expectations.

Where I'll wrap up this post (in not so few words, sorry) is on the topic of evangelism. As a Christian, I am no more 'good' per se than the atheist, right? My righteousness instead is in Christ, so when God sees me, He sees the righteousness of His perfect son. You might say, "Wait Robert, what if you tell a lie tomorrow?" To that I say: Remember, Jesus died for our past, present and future sins, so that hypothetical sin of tomorrow has already been paid for and as such, God still sees me through the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Given that background, part of apologetics and why it is located under 'Outreach' is because it is an opportunity for others to come to the realization that whether believer or non-believer, if it weren't for the grace of God and what Jesus did on the cross, we would all share the same destiny separated from God. The driving force behind evangelism (and I'd even add, in part, for apologetics) is because the Christian believes that an eternity in hell awaits those who do not believe, then out of care and "love for our neighbor" we want to spread the Good News as it were that God has made a path (Jesus is the way, the truth and the life), a free gift of redemption where we are made sons and daughters of Him who is long suffering, desiring that none would perish.

Not relevant, but if you like you can tell me in PM or in a thread of your own why exactly belief in this proposition is necessary for the proposition's conditions to apply.

Now, when we see atheists protesting outside of religious events, or in this case coming to a Christian forum to dispel the "fairytale myth" that God exists, what impending destruction is the Christian being saved from?

You have to clarify. As this is stated, I don't understand what you're saying.

Empirical evidence shows throughout the ages, in all walks of life, all career paths, the Christian is able to prosper (except in the case of Christians who are targeted out of the hatred by those with evil in their hearts--there the fault is not on the Christian but those with evil in their heart).

Your profile says that you live in America, so please spare me the persecution complex.

Nihilism, in contrast with Christianity, is defined as "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless." Just as nothing produces nothing, no meaning is found in that which is based on life being meaningless.

I do not recognize the dictionary as an authority. I simply don't care what they say. If you are referring to my nihilism, you should ask me about it and what I mean by it instead of referring to a dictionary. We can discuss that in PM if you like, but it is irrelevant here.

So, for what noble cause are you hoping to sway the mind of a weaker brother or sister in the faith?

As a Christian, I was lied to. On my way out of Christianity, I was lied to even more. Now I'm telling the truth. The truth contradicts Christianity.

Do you know of something that is better than eternity with the one who created you, loves you perfectly, and wants to spend eternity with you?

That is not my idea of heaven. But whatever my idea of heaven is, it would be silly to say that it is likely to be true because I prefer that state of affairs.

Like Saul on the road to Damascus, I find it very interesting you are here (regardless of the original motivation).

Like I said, I was lied to. I believed it with all my heart, and I was lied to. That's a strong motivator.

Could it be that God is trying to get your attention? It is my sincere hope and prayer that you see He loves you, that you are not and evolved microbe, you are of great value and of great meaning and purpose to Him.

Suggesting that you don't believe in evolution is irrelevant and also strange in that it leads me to believe you think either that there is a global conspiracy to advocate evolution among thousands of biologists or else that you know more about biology than biologists. Like belief in the Bible, we have an issue where you believe something for which there is no evidence, for which there is evidence to the contrary, and which is self-contradictory. Again, I find this fascinating and you're more than welcome to expound upon this in a PM.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

He probably could have. I think Irenaeus explains it well.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 1.
1. For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person “knew the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has become His counsellor?” Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We — who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation — have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God, — all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

So then you agree that "crucifixion implies forgiveness" is a non sequitur?

 

[Butch5]

So then you agree that "crucifixion implies forgiveness" is a non sequitur?

I would say that the crucifixion isn't necessary for God to forgive. It was necessary for the redemption of man.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I would say that the crucifixion isn't necessary for God to forgive. It was necessary for the redemption of man.

Can you produce a logical syllogism?

 

[Butch5]

Can you produce a logical syllogism?

A syllogism for what? I said that the crucifixion wasn't required for forgiveness.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

A syllogism for what? I said that the crucifixion wasn't required for forgiveness.

I would say that the crucifixion isn't necessary for God to forgive. It was necessary for the redemption of man.

Can you produce a logical syllogism?

A syllogism for what? I said that the crucifixion wasn't required for forgiveness.



A syllogism for the idea that the crucifixion was necessary for redemption.

 

[Butch5]

I would say that the crucifixion isn't necessary for God to forgive. It was necessary for the redemption of man.

Can you produce a logical syllogism?

A syllogism for what? I said that the crucifixion wasn't required for forgiveness.



A syllogism for the idea that the crucifixion was necessary for redemption.

I think Irenaeus covered that. The apostasy snatched what was not it's own and rendered it it's disciple. God being a God of council and not using violence paid the ransom.

But I don't see what this had to do with the OP and forgiveness.

 

[HitchSlap]

You just can't please atheists.

They complain that God should "just forgive".

Then they turn around and scream "INJUSTICE!" at the idea of someone like Hitler being in heaven.

Correct on both accounts.

 

[HitchSlap]

I think Irenaeus covered that. The apostasy snatched what was not it's own and rendered it it's disciple. God being a God of council and not using violence paid the ransom.

But I don't see what this had to do with the OP and forgiveness.

Except for when he chooses not to be a "God of council," and gets so torqued at what happens to humanity when he leaves the room for a second, that his only solution is to 'ctrl-alt-del,' save six people and the two by twosies. Maybe he had some anger management courses and decided killing just one person this time (albeit three short days - almost a no harm no foul - scenario) was all that was necessary.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To your first question about whether God can sin against himself. God cannot sin against himself. This is similar to a question like "can God create a square-circle?" or "can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?".

Hmm, well, why is it that you and I are capable of creating a rock so heavy we can't lift it, yet God can't? Well, maybe a rock is difficult to create - and I couldn't create something ex nihilo like God but rather I have to rearrange preexisting things - but I could rearrange matter into, say, an airplane, and I cannot lift an airplane. God is incapable of creating something - whether out of nothing or by rearranging preexisting material - that is so large he cannot move it (provided that he is in the grasp of some gravitational well, presumably). So I am capable of doing something that God cannot do, thus omnipotence is untenable.

Also, I can easily define a square circle. Just start with a square, S, of side length n and then define a point P in the interior such that d(P,Q)=n for all Q on S.

God cannot sin against himself as God is necessarily morally perfect.

I understand this to mean that by the definition of morality, God is a perfect being. Then we will just have to come up with a different word for describing good and bad, because my understanding of morality does not allow for a morally perfect entity to torture infants, commit mass homicide, or condone things like rape and slavery.

Another question you have is how is it just for someone to die in the place of someone else? The answer is in the watershed differences between atheism and theism, so I do not mean to satisfy you with my answer. God decided, before time began, that Christ would enter our world and die for humanity.

As you can see I've only selectively responded to you. It's because here you essentially dismiss the whole thread. I'm not asking this question and I don't see how you think I did. I'm trying to make sense of the crucifixion and its relevance to forgiveness, redemption, or victory over death. Fair or not I don't care - I'm just trying to see how it even makes physical or logical sense.