Did Christ have to die?

[StormyOne]

Did Christ have to die for us to be saved? Or was there another reason Christ came and lived among humans?

Thoughts?

 

[woobadooba]

Did Christ have to die for us to be saved? Or was there another reason Christ came and lived among humans?

Thoughts?

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Rom 3:25-26 KJV)

 

[StormyOne]

and that means what?

 

[woobadooba]

and that means what?

exactly what it says

 

[StormyOne]

exactly what it says

as I suspected...

Looking for other members to share their views regarding this issue...

 

[AndrewK788]

Did Christ have to die for us to be saved? Or was there another reason Christ came and lived among humans?

Thoughts?

Christ didn't have to die for us to be saved. God could have simply saved us and destroyed sin then and there. Now I think for God to show the universe how terrible sin is and also how much he loves us, Christ did have to die.

If he had just saved us and destroyed sin, would we really know exactly how far sin could separate us from Him? But by allowing Christ to die, God showd two things. First, he showed that sin was so terrible that it would even take his own Son and crucify him. Second, he showed how much he loves the human race in that he was willing to let that happen in order to save us.

that's my take on it anyways. Agree, disagree?

 

[woobadooba]

Christ didn't have to die for us to be saved. God could have simply saved us and destroyed sin then and there. Now I think for God to show the universe how terrible sin is and also how much he loves us, Christ did have to die.

If he had just saved us and destroyed sin, would we really know exactly how far sin could separate us from Him? But by allowing Christ to die, God showd two things. First, he showed that sin was so terrible that it would even take his own Son and crucify him. Second, he showed how much he loves the human race in that he was willing to let that happen in order to save us.

that's my take on it anyways. Agree, disagree?

But He was pierced because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on Him, and we are healed by His wounds. (Isa 53:5 HCSB)

It doesn't say that He died to 'illustrate' how severe the sin problem is, but that He died because of our transgressions and iniquities".

Moreover, it says that we are healed by His wounds.

So because of our transgressions and iniquities it was necessary for Him to die so that we could be healed by His wounds.

If He didn't die because of our transgressions and iniquities we would be eternally damned as there would have been no one to pay the penalty of death which was issued by God as a result of Adam's sin . See Rom. 5

Hence we couldn't be healed by His wounds because His blood would not have been shed for us.

 

[JonMiller]

The theology of the new testament is that Christ did have to die... there are numerous theologians now who reject the theology of hte new testament (often called paulian theology), their answer would be no.

JM

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Did Christ have to die for us to be saved? Or was there another reason Christ came and lived among humans?

Thoughts?

Obviously from the account of Jesus recorded in the Gospels he did far more then come to die. In fact the main reason was to reveal what God is like. If you have seen me you have seen the Father, The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Whether Jesus had to die is irrelevant since we only have the information we have. However we can know from the Gospels the rest of the New Testament and even the old testament that God can and does forgive sin and he has and does forgive without the need to kill someone or something.

And that is really the question because it goes to the heart of the issue. That issue is what kind of personality is God. Someone who is bound up in His own laws? Or someone who can freely forgive and heal because that is His character?

The New Testament quotes the statement from Isaiah about being healed by His stripes. Was anybody healed because evil men flogged Christ. No of course not but we hare healed when we come to God because we have seen the love of God revealed in the love of Christ who forgave even those who were torturing and killing Him.

As Paul asked the rhetorical question, don't you know that it is His kindness that leads to repentance. Jesus did not die to satisfy some requirement of God He went through this life and death and resurrection for us to see God is love and can do what He says He can do. The death of Jesus was not to change God but to change humans views of God putting to death our hostility toward God.

It is the difference between quoting a Bible verse and understanding the meaning behind a verse. Between communicating the Gospel versus reciting traditions.

 

[AndrewK788]

Obviously from the account of Jesus recorded in the Gospels he did far more then come to die. In fact the main reason was to reveal what God is like. If you have seen me you have seen the Father, The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Whether Jesus had to die is irrelevant since we only have the information we have. However we can know from the Gospels the rest of the New Testament and even the old testament that God can and does forgive sin and he has and does forgive without the need to kill someone or something.

And that is really the question because it goes to the heart of the issue. That issue is what kind of personality is God. Someone who is bound up in His own laws? Or someone who can freely forgive and heal because that is His character?

The New Testament quotes the statement from Isaiah about being healed by His stripes. Was anybody healed because evil men flogged Christ. No of course not but we hare healed when we come to God because we have seen the love of God revealed in the love of Christ who forgave even those who were torturing and killing Him.

As Paul asked the rhetorical question, don't you know that it is His kindness that leads to repentance. Jesus did not die to satisfy some requirement of God He went through this life and death and resurrection for us to see God is love and can do what He says He can do. The death of Jesus was not to change God but to change humans views of God putting to death our hostility toward God.

It is the difference between quoting a Bible verse and understanding the meaning behind a verse. Between communicating the Gospel versus reciting traditions.

 

[JonMiller]

Just because dying wasn't the only they that Christ came to do doesn't mean that Christ didn't have to do it.

JM

 

[woobadooba]

Obviously from the account of Jesus recorded in the Gospels he did far more then come to die. In fact the main reason was to reveal what God is like. If you have seen me you have seen the Father, The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Whether Jesus had to die is irrelevant since we only have the information we have. However we can know from the Gospels the rest of the New Testament and even the old testament that God can and does forgive sin and he has and does forgive without the need to kill someone or something.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev 13:8 KJV)

They could be forgiven on the grounds that God is faithful to keep His promises.

Had Christ not died for their sins they would have been eternally damned.

In fact, God could permit Enoch, Elijah and Moses entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven prior to the great resurrection because He is faithful to keep His promises.

Had Christ not died for us they too would have been eternally damned and thus expelled from the Kingdom of Heaven.

For, without the shedding of blood there can be no remission for sin.

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. (Heb 9:22 KJV)

Hence by His wounds we are healed!

But He was pierced because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on Him, and we are healed by His wounds. (Isa 53:5 HCSB)

And that is really the question because it goes to the heart of the issue. That issue is what kind of personality is God. Someone who is bound up in His own laws? Or someone who can freely forgive and heal because that is His character?

Are you familiar with the saying, "As I live saith the Lord"?

Look it up in the Bible. It is usually attached to a promise. What it means is that God is sure to keep His word.

But there is something even more profound about it. The meaning of such a saying is rooted in the idea that when a person used such language to seal an oath he was in essence saying that if he didn't carry out his promise that he would end his own life. Thus keeping his word was as important to him as was his own life.

So for God to say something to this effect He was in essence stating that if He did not keep His promise He would end His own life. However, because God is eternal it is impossible for this to happen (for His divinity to die), just as it is impossible for God to lie. Titus 1:2

So God was making it clear that in making a promise to His people in this way He was in essence informing them that it would be impossible for Him not to carry it out, because by His very nature He must be true to His word as He can't be something other than what He is.

So in a sense He is bound by His word. Yet, He would have no reason not to keep His word because He is Love, and love thinks no evil, but rejoices in the truth. 1Jn. 4:8; 1Cor. 13:5, 6

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I was thinking about answering you woob but I have noticed since you have been back you just seem to trying to cause problems. So instead of putting you on ignore I am simply going to ignore your posts.

This in no way has anything to do with you post here as it is fine, and I would have no problem correcting you theology though you should really look at the footnote for that verse you posted Rev 13:8, and read the alternate and frankly more likely meaning which would make you argument not work. My point here is that I don't feel we should be carrying on conversations with people who are just on this sub-forum to cause problems.

I am hoping others will take similar actions.

 

[woobadooba]

I was thinking about answering you woob but I have noticed since you have been back you just seem to trying to cause problems. So instead of putting you on ignore I am simply going to ignore your posts.

This in no way has anything to do with you post here as it is fine, and I would have no problem correcting you theology though you should really look at the footnote for that verse you posted Rev 13:8, and read the alternate and frankly more likely meaning which would make you argument not work. My point here is that I don't feel we should be carrying on conversations with people who are just on this sub-forum to cause problems.

I am hoping others will take similar actions.

I'm sorry that you feel this way about me, RC. Even though I don't agree with you on every point of doctrine you are one of the few progs that I consider to be thoughtful when it comes to discussing things. Because of that I do have respect for you.

I just hope that you don't think I should just sit back and take the abuse that has been dished out to me by a certain few in here. Just because I challenge their beliefs that doesn't make me a bad person.

It is hard to have a meaningful discussion about anything when you have so many people looking for every opportunity that they can find to put you down.

Oh well.

 

[NightEternal]

Oh PUH-LEEEZE!

 

[woobadooba]

RC,

I just want to let you know that I took a look at the footnote on Rev. 13:8 in the NIV and you are correct. It does make more sense to read it that way.

So I really can't use that verse as a means to support my point about God's promise concerning Christ's crucification for our sins.

However, I could use prophecy which speaks of Christ's crucification, such as Isa. 53 to make the same point.

It is because God is faithful to keep His promises that such a prophecy has come to pass.

And so the only thing I wish to change at this point in my argument is my usage of Rev. 13:8

I will keep the rest as it is.

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

If I continue the discussion with your statements can I expect that you are going to be less disruptive in your posts on this sub-forum? You do raise some points that I think should be addressed but I don't want to encourage bad behavior. Now you may not think it is bad behavior but the results have very clearly disrupted and annoyed many of the people here. And whether you think you are defending yourself or not the result is the same. And that result is the problem.

If you can make a concerted effort in this conversation as well as the other conversations on this sub-forum then I would like to continue. By the way I do think if you did not attack Night he would not attack you. So now that you have come back why not make a new start as well. Maybe take the time to reread your posts before posting them and seeing if you made your point without putting down the other person.

There is one thing that I think most of us wanted with this sub-forum and that is discussion of ideas presented and defended with ideas alone, we may not come to agreement but we should at least present our ideas in an agreeable discussion.

 

[Sophia7]

If I continue the discussion with your statements can I expect that you are going to be less disruptive in your posts on this sub-forum? You do raise some points that I think should be addressed but I don't want to encourage bad behavior. Now you may not think it is bad behavior but the results have very clearly disrupted and annoyed many of the people here. And whether you think you are defending yourself or not the result is the same. And that result is the problem.

If you can make a concerted effort in this conversation as well as the other conversations on this sub-forum then I would like to continue. By the way I do think if you did not attack Night he would not attack you. So now that you have come back why not make a new start as well. Maybe take the time to reread your posts before posting them and seeing if you made your point without putting down the other person.

There is one thing that I think most of us wanted with this sub-forum and that is discussion of ideas presented and defended with ideas alone, we may not come to agreement but we should at least present our ideas in an agreeable discussion.

Yes, RC, if everyone would just stick to discussing the ideas and stop making everything personal, even though people would still disagree with each other on things, we would have far fewer problems around here.

 

[StormyOne]

When Jesus said in his prayer found in John 17 that he had completed the work he was sent to do, in my mind that would suggest that he did not necessarily have to die..... likewise isn't the idea of a sacrifice for sin a common theme among many religions?

 

[woobadooba]

If I continue the discussion with your statements can I expect that you are going to be less disruptive in your posts on this sub-forum? You do raise some points that I think should be addressed but I don't want to encourage bad behavior. Now you may not think it is bad behavior but the results have very clearly disrupted and annoyed many of the people here. And whether you think you are defending yourself or not the result is the same. And that result is the problem.

If you can make a concerted effort in this conversation as well as the other conversations on this sub-forum then I would like to continue. By the way I do think if you did not attack Night he would not attack you. So now that you have come back why not make a new start as well. Maybe take the time to reread your posts before posting them and seeing if you made your point without putting down the other person.

There is one thing that I think most of us wanted with this sub-forum and that is discussion of ideas presented and defended with ideas alone, we may not come to agreement but we should at least present our ideas in an agreeable discussion.

I really don't mean to make things difficult for anyone. I too would like to see civil discussion take place in here.

But please keep in mind that if someone says something offensive to me or to someone else I reserve the right to report that person. And I should not be accused of being a troublemaker for doing so.

Also, I shouldn't be blamed for every report that takes place in here either. I am not the only one in here that is sick of the flaming nature of certain posters who just can't seem to control themselves. I am trying very hard not to flame people who have continued to harass me since I have returned. Please give me some credit for that.

Also, because I have challenged certain people on their theological ideas I shouldn't be accused of harassment. Some seem to think that just because I have challenged their way of thinking that I am somehow harassing them. And instead of using sound arguments to refute what I have to say they use ad hominem attacks to try to silence me. That just isn't going to help matters. I wish they would see that.

In any case, I will try my best to be civil. But I am not going to let people use me as a punching back.