Why did Jesus die?

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

I stole this from a discussion started in the eastern orthodox area. This is valuable, I think, for a bigger discussion.

The OP quoted this statement:

"I think when it comes to the atonement our debt was cancelled, not paid for. There’s a big difference."

Then the OP said: "Once again, this sounds like legal soteriology which is endemic in the West. What would be your take on the Cross having anything to do with any form of debt as opposed to healing mankind's nature from the consequences of sin?

Then someone made a statement about the debt being paid to sin and death NOT to a wrathful Father.

Why are people so afraid to accept the whole picture of the only true and living sovereign God? It seems people want to divorce themselves from the God of the Old Testament--who expected and rewarded obedience out of faith in Him. Yet, Jesus affirmed that obedience was still expected--both before and after His resurrection from the dead--not in the sense that we could ever claim to have earned salvation, but freed from sin by His death, we aren't to continue to walk in it.

We can't just pick and choose the attributes we like. Either the God spoken of in the Old and New Testaments as creating this whole world and all that is in it is the sovereign God or He isn't. If He is the sovereign God, we don't get to re-define Him to meet our own specifications of what He should be like.

 

[AlexDTX]

Why are people so afraid to accept the whole picture of the only true and living sovereign God?

I think we have some hair splitting. Salvation is biology, not religion. It is impossible for the fallen nature to be obedient to God, which is why a new nature had to be given through Christ for a new humanity. However, this nature is received by faith and is not yet fully biological which it will be after Christ returns. Consequently, while our spirits are joined to the Lord, our minds still need renewing and our bodies need to die. Thus we live in an age of Grace. But grace is not given to continue in sin. Instead it is given for our process of repentance - repentance which is life long.

Being in a transitional state of grace by faith, it is still impossible to be 100 per cent obedient. But a transformed heart now has the desire to be obedient, as, also a grateful heart. Jesus said those that are forgiven much will love much. He also said that if we love him we will keep his commandments. And his commandments are not grievous.

Regarding the Old Testament, it is a covenant that was not made for the nations, only Israel. No gentile has ever been obligated to it, accept those converts to the Mosaic system. Even the Messianic Jews of Jerusalem in Acts 15 realized that it was not binding on the gentiles, save the Noahic covenant of Genesis 9 which was made for all people.

 

[Dave-W]

Our Lord died to start the New Covenant. The writer of Hebrews tells us that a covenant can only be started with death and the shedding of blood, and also that blood cleanses us. (atonement)

 

[~Anastasia~]

I stole this from a discussion started in the eastern orthodox area. This is valuable, I think, for a bigger discussion.

The OP quoted this statement:

"I think when it comes to the atonement our debt was cancelled, not paid for. There’s a big difference."

Then the OP said: "Once again, this sounds like legal soteriology which is endemic in the West. What would be your take on the Cross having anything to do with any form of debt as opposed to healing mankind's nature from the consequences of sin?

Then someone made a statement about the debt being paid to sin and death NOT to a wrathful Father.

Why are people so afraid to accept the whole picture of the only true and living sovereign God? It seems people want to divorce themselves from the God of the Old Testament--who expected and rewarded obedience out of faith in Him. Yet, Jesus affirmed that obedience was still expected--both before and after His resurrection from the dead--not in the sense that we could ever claim to have earned salvation, but freed from sin by His death, we aren't to continue to walk in it.

We can't just pick and choose the attributes we like. Either the God spoken of in the Old and New Testaments as creating this whole world and all that is in it is the sovereign God or He isn't. If He is the sovereign God, we don't get to re-define Him to meet our own specifications of what He should be like.

The idea that God is a wrathful entity that WANTS to destroy SOMEone out of anger and that's the only way He can have Himself appeased is a modern concept in Christianity, borrowed from the pagan gods who were built in man's image.

Orthodoxy acknowledges that there will be fiery torment for those who don't accept God's gift of grace. But not because God wants to punish them forever. It is because God Himself is a consuming fire, and those who hate Him will still be confronted with His presence in the age to come. And loving their sin, they will be in no condition to withstand that. Even Moses, who was a friend of God, was not allowed to see Him because God warned him that in his current condition, it would kill him.

The reasons we reject it (aside from the fact that it was never part of the Gospel until many centuries later, mostly introduced by Catholic theologians and further developed by Protestant thinking (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, etc) - include the following -

It makes sin God's problem, not ours. God can't possibly forgive us, even if He wanted to, because some cosmic law of justice (He created the laws!) require Him to demand a pound of flesh first.

But people seldom critically examine the Gospel for this supposed justice. Is it TRULY just to punish an innocent person? Is it truly just to allow the wicked to go without punishment? If anyone else set this up, we would say no. Yet somehow it is supposed to be the very model of "justice" for God, when people assume this is the need God must satisfy in order to save people? It really doesn't make sense.

And children grow up with the idea of a good cop/bad cop Godhead. Father God is the angry tyrant who is bloodthirsty - demanding that someone PAY with intense suffering or He's not going to forgive any sins. And Jesus, the One Who stands between humanity and the Father, protecting us even with His own body and blood. Do people not see this creates a difference of will within the Godhead? This is not possible. The Divine will is in perfect agreement.

And the real problem is the image of God created by such a belief. How many atheists refuse to believe, based on this very image of a bloodthirsty God? For even one slip, which we as humans can't help but make anyway, God (who is supposed to be love!?) demands eternal, fiery torment as "payment" ... and calls it "justice"?!?!) And the thing is, they are right. Such a God is not worthy of human devotion. True love of the Father can really only come about by the same means by which captives often grow to love their captors over time, and it's an unhealthy dynamic. Not one God wishes for us.

This probably sounds somewhat blasphemous. But the truth is, it IS blasphemous - because the idea of a wrathful God who cannot possibly forgive until He has first gotten satisfaction from causing someone great torment - is blasphemy against a God Who IS Agape-love, if we believe what He says of Himself in the Holy Scriptures.

Christ IS God revealed to us. What did He do, when the woman who was caught in adultery was brought to Him? Did He demand her death, as the law commanded? No, he simply forgave her, protected her from the human calls for vengeance, and sent her on her way with instructions to sin no more.

God desires that ALL are healed of our sin, transformed to be like Christ, restored to His image and likeness, and live for eternity in His love - just as He created us to, because He is love. However, we do have the free will to reject Him, to cling to our sins, and remain perverted in a caricature of what He created us to be, refusing to be healed - if we choose. And if we make that choice, we will suffer when His light fills all and we experience Him as a consuming fire.

Christ did have to die, and His death accomplished many things. Foremost among these was victory over death - because being God and the very source of life, death could not contain Him and was destroyed. This was the most important facet of the death and resurrection of Christ to the early Christians, but there is more.

If you read about "Theories of Atonement" this is Christus Victor. But there are elements of truth (sometimes full truth) in other theories as well, such as Christ being our redeemer, and a substitutionary atonement.

The facets we explicitly reject are of the recently developed "Penal Substitition Model" ... specifically because it is NOT torment that appeases God (when did any animal sacrificed in the OT, prefiguring Christ, have to suffer torment in its slaughter?), and for the reasons that grow out of that that I have listed above.

If you want to know why people don't believe something, it's best to find out from them, and also understand exactly what it is they both reject and accept.

God be with you.

 

[Acts2:38]

I stole this from a discussion started in the eastern orthodox area. This is valuable, I think, for a bigger discussion.

The OP quoted this statement:

"I think when it comes to the atonement our debt was cancelled, not paid for. There’s a big difference."

Then the OP said: "Once again, this sounds like legal soteriology which is endemic in the West. What would be your take on the Cross having anything to do with any form of debt as opposed to healing mankind's nature from the consequences of sin?

Then someone made a statement about the debt being paid to sin and death NOT to a wrathful Father.

Why are people so afraid to accept the whole picture of the only true and living sovereign God? It seems people want to divorce themselves from the God of the Old Testament--who expected and rewarded obedience out of faith in Him. Yet, Jesus affirmed that obedience was still expected--both before and after His resurrection from the dead--not in the sense that we could ever claim to have earned salvation, but freed from sin by His death, we aren't to continue to walk in it.

We can't just pick and choose the attributes we like. Either the God spoken of in the Old and New Testaments as creating this whole world and all that is in it is the sovereign God or He isn't. If He is the sovereign God, we don't get to re-define Him to meet our own specifications of what He should be like.

The answer to "why did Jesus die?" is actually quite simple. There are handfuls of verses I could jot down here but just these 2 should be sufficient:

John 3:16

and

Hebrews 10 (specifically verse 3-4)

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

The idea that God is a wrathful entity that WANTS to destroy SOMEone out of anger and that's the only way He can have Himself appeased is a modern concept in Christianity, borrowed from the pagan gods who were built in man's image.

Orthodoxy acknowledges that there will be fiery torment for those who don't accept God's gift of grace. But not because God wants to punish them forever. It is because God Himself is a consuming fire, and those who hate Him will still be confronted with His presence in the age to come. And loving their sin, they will be in no condition to withstand that. Even Moses, who was a friend of God, was not allowed to see Him because God warned him that in his current condition, it would kill him.

The reasons we reject it (aside from the fact that it was never part of the Gospel until many centuries later, mostly introduced by Catholic theologians and further developed by Protestant thinking (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, etc) - include the following -

It makes sin God's problem, not ours. God can't possibly forgive us, even if He wanted to, because some cosmic law of justice (He created the laws!) require Him to demand a pound of flesh first.

But people seldom critically examine the Gospel for this supposed justice. Is it TRULY just to punish an innocent person? Is it truly just to allow the wicked to go without punishment? If anyone else set this up, we would say no. Yet somehow it is supposed to be the very model of "justice" for God, when people assume this is the need God must satisfy in order to save people? It really doesn't make sense.

And children grow up with the idea of a good cop/bad cop Godhead. Father God is the angry tyrant who is bloodthirsty - demanding that someone PAY with intense suffering or He's not going to forgive any sins. And Jesus, the One Who stands between humanity and the Father, protecting us even with His own body and blood. Do people not see this creates a difference of will within the Godhead? This is not possible. The Divine will is in perfect agreement.

And the real problem is the image of God created by such a belief. How many atheists refuse to believe, based on this very image of a bloodthirsty God? For even one slip, which we as humans can't help but make anyway, God (who is supposed to be love!?) demands eternal, fiery torment as "payment" ... and calls it "justice"?!?!) And the thing is, they are right. Such a God is not worthy of human devotion. True love of the Father can really only come about by the same means by which captives often grow to love their captors over time, and it's an unhealthy dynamic. Not one God wishes for us.

This probably sounds somewhat blasphemous. But the truth is, it IS blasphemous - because the idea of a wrathful God who cannot possibly forgive until He has first gotten satisfaction from causing someone great torment - is blasphemy against a God Who IS Agape-love, if we believe what He says of Himself in the Holy Scriptures.

Christ IS God revealed to us. What did He do, when the woman who was caught in adultery was brought to Him? Did He demand her death, as the law commanded? No, he simply forgave her, protected her from the human calls for vengeance, and sent her on her way with instructions to sin no more.

God desires that ALL are healed of our sin, transformed to be like Christ, restored to His image and likeness, and live for eternity in His love - just as He created us to, because He is love. However, we do have the free will to reject Him, to cling to our sins, and remain perverted in a caricature of what He created us to be, refusing to be healed - if we choose. And if we make that choice, we will suffer when His light fills all and we experience Him as a consuming fire.

Christ did have to die, and His death accomplished many things. Foremost among these was victory over death - because being God and the very source of life, death could not contain Him and was destroyed. This was the most important facet of the death and resurrection of Christ to the early Christians, but there is more.

If you read about "Theories of Atonement" this is Christus Victor. But there are elements of truth (sometimes full truth) in other theories as well, such as Christ being our redeemer, and a substitutionary atonement.

The facets we explicitly reject are of the recently developed "Penal Substitition Model" ... specifically because it is NOT torment that appeases God (when did any animal sacrificed in the OT, prefiguring Christ, have to suffer torment in its slaughter?), and for the reasons that grow out of that that I have listed above.

If you want to know why people don't believe something, it's best to find out from them, and also understand exactly what it is they both reject and accept.

God be with you.

You are right, some of what you said is very foreign to my current understanding. I also understand what you said about it being blasphemous and one could say that charge could go both ways. I am interested in continuing to challenge my views. I am one who puts much value on The Word and The Spirit more than the institution. Do you have any verses you use do support your views or is it just personal/church-instructed beliefs about God?

With regard to the last sentence, I was interested in the topic which I saw on the "new threads," but being chastised by an eastern orthodox person for transgressing into their area (when I was still ignorant), I didn't want to cross into that zone again. So, I decided to re-post in the general area.

Thanks for sharing any further insights you wish to share.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You are right, some of what you said is very foreign to my current understanding. I also understand what you said about it being blasphemous and one could say that charge could go both ways. I am interested in continuing to challenge my views. I am one who puts much value on The Word and The Spirit more than the institution. Do you have any verses you use do support your views or is it just personal/church-instructed beliefs about God?

With regard to the last sentence, I was interested in the topic which I saw on the "new threads," but being chastised by an eastern orthodox person for transgressing into their area (when I was still ignorant), I didn't want to cross into that zone again. So, I decided to re-post in the general area.

Thanks for sharing any further insights you wish to share.

Ah, I regret you were chastised. We are usually very tolerant there but sometimes we seem to have a lot of people either arguing or teaching against Orthodoxy in the main forum (both against the rules), which can (a) confuse inquirers and/or (b) further spiritually tax us during fasting seasons which can be spiritually rigorous.

However, we do have a subforum (St. Justin Martyr's) which is not only open to anyone who wants to post, but allows direct arguing against Orthodoxy, if that is ever wanted. In case you ever want to know.

In answer to your question, it's not so much that a particular passage lays out soteriology exactly as I have above, but there are MANY passages that actually say these things scattered throughout. It's like wearing a different pair of glasses. I was raised with PSA (penal substitution atonement) and as a result, everything I read confirmed that. I could read my theology into Scripture. I think that's generally how many theological disagreements can trace their "proof" in many of the topics Christians disagree on (though some theologies also require discounting other passages). But if it is possible to read the Scriptures with these points I mention in mind, you can see they are all over.

I'm not trying to be evasive, and in many points, yes, I can point directly to a Scripture. Such as "our God is a consuming fire" and the mentions of Christ having defeated death (or overcoming death, or being a victor over death, or destroying death). It is even more diverse than I mentioned above, but I was trying to simplify it. For example, we understand that through Adam death entered the world, but through Christ (the new Adam) it was overcome. That's in Scripture too.

Sorry, I can't look up verses and post easily on this device, but if need be I can get on my computer later and do it. If you don't immediately recognize the passages I'm talking about? But altogether quoting them all and showing how they fit in would possibly be a small book. If you are really interested, it might be better to take one point at a time.

By the way, I was a good Protestant. What I mean is that I wouldn't have been able to simply buy into what any Church taught and accept that as authoritative, so I did indeed need Scripture to support these points.

I have a different understanding of Church authority/teaching now btw - and it is NOT just "the Church says so, so believe it". That was never actually the way it worked. Back in the beginning, the APOSTLES said so, and yes, they were considered authoritative. (Remember the New Testament hadn't been written.) The people learned what was Truth from the Apostles. Eventually (decades later) writings arrived - various Gospels and epistles. Some of them you will recognize today, such as the Gospel according to (the Apostle) John, or the book of the Acts of the Apostles, or the Epistle to the Galatians. The Church received these, read them, recognized them as Truth, started reading them during services as part of the readings, and centuries later when there was an official recognition of canon of Scripture, because the people who had been taught by the Apostles received these as true, they were canonized and became part of your Bible. At the same time other writings were being received as well, such as the supposed Gospel of Thomas or the Apocalypse of Peter. There were about an equal number of true and counterfeit writings circulated. But it was really the Church - meaning the Body, the ekklesia, the "called out ones" - the PEOPLE who recognized Truth. Not a monolithic institution. And that is still true for our Church today. If there is a council of bishops, they can say what they want. But unless the PEOPLE likewise recognize what they put forth as being consistent with what has always been believed, in all places and at times, by Orthodox Christians from the start - it won't amount to anything. Always checks and balances. The Church is authoritative as in the whole body of believers, instructed by the Apostles, and their successors, in agreement with the Apostles.

That does mean something to me, now that I understand it.

But as I said, yes, it's in the Holy Scriptures. In fact it really is impossible that the Scriptures could disagree with what the early Christians believed, because it was they who recognized which writings were authentically Apostolic.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Ah, I regret you were chastised. We are usually very tolerant there but sometimes we seem to have a lot of people either arguing or teaching against Orthodoxy in the main forum (both against the rules), which can (a) confuse inquirers and/or (b) further spiritually tax us during fasting seasons which can be spiritually rigorous.

However, we do have a subforum (St. Justin Martyr's) which is not only open to anyone who wants to post, but allows direct arguing against Orthodoxy, if that is ever wanted. In case you ever want to know.

In answer to your question, it's not so much that a particular passage lays out soteriology exactly as I have above, but there are MANY passages that actually say these things scattered throughout. It's like wearing a different pair of glasses. I was raised with PSA (penal substitution atonement) and as a result, everything I read confirmed that. I could read my theology into Scripture. I think that's generally how many theological disagreements can trace their "proof" in many of the topics Christians disagree on (though some theologies also require discounting other passages). But if it is possible to read the Scriptures with these points I mention in mind, you can see they are all over.

I'm not trying to be evasive, and in many points, yes, I can point directly to a Scripture. Such as "our God is a consuming fire" and the mentions of Christ having defeated death (or overcoming death, or being a victor over death, or destroying death). It is even more diverse than I mentioned above, but I was trying to simplify it. For example, we understand that through Adam death entered the world, but through Christ (the new Adam) it was overcome. That's in Scripture too.

Sorry, I can't look up verses and post easily on this device, but if need be I can get on my computer later and do it. If you don't immediately recognize the passages I'm talking about? But altogether quoting them all and showing how they fit in would possibly be a small book. If you are really interested, it might be better to take one point at a time.

By the way, I was a good Protestant. What I mean is that I wouldn't have been able to simply buy into what any Church taught and accept that as authoritative, so I did indeed need Scripture to support these points.

I have a different understanding of Church authority/teaching now btw - and it is NOT just "the Church says so, so believe it". That was never actually the way it worked. Back in the beginning, the APOSTLES said so, and yes, they were considered authoritative. (Remember the New Testament hadn't been written.) The people learned what was Truth from the Apostles. Eventually (decades later) writings arrived - various Gospels and epistles. Some of them you will recognize today, such as the Gospel according to (the Apostle) John, or the book of the Acts of the Apostles, or the Epistle to the Galatians. The Church received these, read them, recognized them as Truth, started reading them during services as part of the readings, and centuries later when there was an official recognition of canon of Scripture, because the people who had been taught by the Apostles received these as true, they were canonized and became part of your Bible. At the same time other writings were being received as well, such as the supposed Gospel of Thomas or the Apocalypse of Peter. There were about an equal number of true and counterfeit writings circulated. But it was really the Church - meaning the Body, the ekklesia, the "called out ones" - the PEOPLE who recognized Truth. Not a monolithic institution. And that is still true for our Church today. If there is a council of bishops, they can say what they want. But unless the PEOPLE likewise recognize what they put forth as being consistent with what has always been believed, in all places and at times, by Orthodox Christians from the start - it won't amount to anything. Always checks and balances. The Church is authoritative as in the whole body of believers, instructed by the Apostles, and their successors, in agreement with the Apostles.

That does mean something to me, now that I understand it.

But as I said, yes, it's in the Holy Scriptures. In fact it really is impossible that the Scriptures could disagree with what the early Christians believed, because it was they who recognized which writings were authentically Apostolic.

Yes, back when the Apostles were willing to be questioned and be accountable to the body themselves. What a glorious day that must have been. And, yes, I understand the history of how the Bible came about. I don't discount the value of the ekklesia in that function at all. I honor it, by accepting what they declared to be Scripture and rejecting what they declared not to be Scripture. Today, it is just a matter of figuring out who is really part of the ekklesia and who is part of the counterfeit in a much more theologically-diverse ekklesia than in the beginning. I am about to go back on-duty with my boys, so I won't have as much time to really dig into an area as I might like; but, when you get a chance, I would love to see a theological-Scriptural link to what generally accepted "eastern orthodoxy" looks like to compare to what I believe. Feel free to start a conversation or direct me to a link that might have it.

Thank you!

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

The answer to "why did Jesus die?" is actually quite simple. There are handfuls of verses I could jot down here but just these 2 should be sufficient:

John 3:16

and

Hebrews 10 (specifically verse 3-4)

So, if I understand you correctly, His death simply and only served the purpose of the unblemished Lamb whose sacrifice confirmed the New Covenant as expressed in John 3:16?

 

[Acts2:38]

So, if I understand you correctly, His death simply and only served the purpose of the unblemished Lamb whose sacrifice confirmed the New Covenant as expressed in John 3:16?

I merely mentioned 2 of "handfuls" of verses. The book of Hebrews is a really good one and explains very well this topic.

In fact, it was one of the first prophecies in scripture mentioned, that Jesus was to be crucified.

See Genesis 3:15 is talking about a future Jesus.

Also, His sacrifice had to come because the blood of bulls and goats (Hebrews 10) was merely, for lack of a better word sorry, a band-aid til Jesus could die on the cross.

Jesus's death also had to occur because David's heir to the throne can no longer sit on a physical earthly throne but only spiritual now. Therefore the kingdom spoke about in the NT is already been here since Acts 2, when people were baptized.

This is also another reason why baptism is so important (on example see my user name and also Romans 6:1-5)

The only way to become a Christian also is to be baptized Galatians 3:27.

So sorry if I made it seem so unimportant as that was not my intention. I was just being really brief sorry. It was really important that this happened (see Hebrews 10 again).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, back when the Apostles were willing to be questioned and be accountable to the body themselves. What a glorious day that must have been. And, yes, I understand the history of how the Bible came about. I don't discount the value of the ekklesia in that function at all. I honor it, by accepting what they declared to be Scripture and rejecting what they declared not to be Scripture. Today, it is just a matter of figuring out who is really part of the ekklesia and who is part of the counterfeit in a much more theologically-diverse ekklesia than in the beginning. I am about to go back on-duty with my boys, so I won't have as much time to really dig into an area as I might like; but, when you get a chance, I would love to see a theological-Scriptural link to what generally accepted "eastern orthodoxy" looks like to compare to what I believe. Feel free to start a conversation or direct me to a link that might have it.

Thank you!

I'll look around for a good convo on it. If I don't post back (around Nativity is a busy time for us) please feel free free to remind me.

 

[Doug Melven]

Why did Jesus die?
We had a sin debt that we had no way of paying ourselves.
From my perspective, the question should be,
Why is death necessary to pay for sin?
It is not because God is a wrathful God and just wants to see His need for Justice satisfied.

God is Holy. Sin is abhorrent to Him. Sin goes against His very nature.
Sin hurts those He loves. Yet, if one is in a sinful state God can have nothing to do with that person.
So in order for God to have fellowship with us, sin must be taken care of.
So God Himself became Man to pay our sin debt.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Why did Jesus die?
We had a sin debt that we had no way of paying ourselves.
From my perspective, the question should be,
Why is death necessary to pay for sin?
It is not because God is a wrathful God and just wants to see His need for Justice satisfied.

God is Holy. Sin is abhorrent to Him. Sin goes against His very nature.
Sin hurts those He loves. Yet, if one is in a sinful state God can have nothing to do with that person.
So in order for God to have fellowship with us, sin must be taken care of.
So God Himself became Man to pay our sin debt.

I understand what you are saying. Whether going on a killing spree or eating the forbidden fruit or lying, we have all sinned, since Adam chose to disobey God and . The wages of sin (little or big) is, by God's decree, death. Therefore, we all need a Savior, a sinless Lamb, an amazing once-and-for-all Sacrifice to atone for our sins. Something God knew we would need before the beginning of time. (Heb 9:14, 22-26, etc)

I also understand that a covenant is sealed (is put in force) by the death of the Testator and dedicated with Blood. (Heb 9:15-18). The death of Jesus Christ also did this.

I also understand that part of this Covenant is that those who choose to really believe are given a new nature, a new heart, and made spiritually alive again.

What I don't understand is how people reject what God Himself declares to be His wrath (Eze 7:8, Eze 22:31, as if it isn't part of God's nature. In Ezekiel 5:13: "Thus shall My anger be accomplished, and I will cause My fury to rest upon them, and I will be comforted: and they shall know that I the LORD have spoken it in My zeal, when I have accomplished My fury in them." "For, behold, the LORD comes out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover the slain." (Isa 26:21) And, as you know, there are many other passages like these in Ezekiel, throughout the whole Old Testament where God talks about His wrath or displays actions that demonstrate His wrath.

New Testament: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the Truth in unrighteousness." (Rom 1:18-32) "For it is because of these, the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience." (Col 3:6) "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life; and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36) "The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." (2 Pet 2:9). Or the "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." (Rom 9:22)

If we claim something about God, we have to be willing to account for the whole of Scripture. The wrath of God is also a quality of God's relationship with mankind that is expressed throughout the whole of the Old and New Testaments. From the first Book of the Bible to the last, we see the expression of God's wrath on those disobedient to Him.

 

[Doug Melven]

I understand what you are saying. Whether going on a killing spree or eating the forbidden fruit or lying, we have all sinned, since Adam chose to disobey God and . The wages of sin (little or big) is, by God's decree, death. Therefore, we all need a Savior, a sinless Lamb, an amazing once-and-for-all Sacrifice to atone for our sins. Something God knew we would need before the beginning of time. (Heb 9:14, 22-26, etc)

I also understand that a covenant is sealed (is put in force) by the death of the Testator and dedicated with Blood. (Heb 9:15-18). The death of Jesus Christ also did this.

I also understand that part of this Covenant is that those who choose to really believe are given a new nature, a new heart, and made spiritually alive again.

What I don't understand is how people reject what God Himself declares to be His wrath (Eze 7:8, Eze 22:31, as if it isn't part of God's nature. In Ezekiel 5:13: "Thus shall My anger be accomplished, and I will cause My fury to rest upon them, and I will be comforted: and they shall know that I the LORD have spoken it in My zeal, when I have accomplished My fury in them." "For, behold, the LORD comes out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover the slain." (Isa 26:21) And, as you know, there are many other passages like these in Ezekiel, throughout the whole Old Testament where God talks about His wrath or displays actions that demonstrate His wrath.

New Testament: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the Truth in unrighteousness." (Rom 1:18-32) "For it is because of these, the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience." (Col 3:6) "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life; and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36) "The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." (2 Pet 2:9). Or the "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." (Rom 9:22)

If we claim something about God, we have to be willing to account for the whole of Scripture. The wrath of God is also a quality of God's relationship with mankind that is expressed throughout the whole of the Old and New Testaments. From the first Book of the Bible to the last, we see the expression of God's wrath on those disobedient to Him.

It all goes back to the Holiness of God. He absolutely hates sin.
There is no middle ground with a Holy God, either He is ecstatically in love with you, or He hates you with an all-consuming hatred.
In the OT, we see God hating people, because people did not do what they were told.
In fact there was a time when God was going to kill Moses because he hadn't circumcised his son.
Moses had not done what he was told to do.
There are not 2 sides to God, a wrathful and a loving side. God is God.
The best analogy I can think of is the sun.
A man in a desert hates the sun, can't wait till night to get away from the heat of the sun' rays.
Then when it is night he shivers because there is no heat, but he hates the sun.
A perfect picture of a lost man.
But a man not in a desert can enjoy the suns rays because he has proper protection.
Both people see the same sun, but have very different reactions to it.
Jesus Christ is our protection from the rays of a Holy God.
Those who are in Christ Jesus can bask in His Presence.
Without Christ, life is one huge desert.
This is why Jesus had to die, we had to have protection (sun block) from a Holy God.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There is some value in that analogy, but we (Orthodox) would disagree that God hates. How can a God who IS agape (unconditional perfect selfless love) - and who never changes - turn around and hate?

And again, this creates a false dichotomy and disunity in the Godhead, which we would say is impossible.

But God as being like the sun (our God is a consuming fire) is a good analogy. It is US and our reaction to Him that determines our experience though. Through Christ we can be healed of sin, and enjoy His Presence. Or we can choose darkness instead, and be tormented by the very presence of Divine Light.

It is not God's hatred (God forbid!) that burns, but His very Presence.

 

[Doug Melven]

It is not God's hatred (God forbid!) that burns, but His very Presence.

This is exactly my point.
And if this person who is in the desert is telling us about the sun, would he not think the sun hated him?
God loves His people.
Sin hurts us, God's creation. God hates sin.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This is exactly my point.
And if this person who is in the desert is telling us about the sun, would he not think the sun hated him?
God loves His people.
Sin hurts us, God's creation. God hates sin.

Ah, very good. Then I misunderstood you. Thank you for clearing that up.

I thought you were saying that God actively hated some people passionately.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

It all goes back to the Holiness of God. He absolutely hates sin.
There is no middle ground with a Holy God, either He is ecstatically in love with you, or He hates you with an all-consuming hatred.
In the OT, we see God hating people, because people did not do what they were told.
In fact there was a time when God was going to kill Moses because he hadn't circumcised his son.
Moses had not done what he was told to do.
There are not 2 sides to God, a wrathful and a loving side. God is God.
The best analogy I can think of is the sun.
A man in a desert hates the sun, can't wait till night to get away from the heat of the sun' rays.
Then when it is night he shivers because there is no heat, but he hates the sun.
A perfect picture of a lost man.
But a man not in a desert can enjoy the suns rays because he has proper protection.
Both people see the same sun, but have very different reactions to it.
Jesus Christ is our protection from the rays of a Holy God.
Those who are in Christ Jesus can bask in His Presence.
Without Christ, life is one huge desert.
This is why Jesus had to die, we had to have protection (sun block) from a Holy God.

Doug, I agree with you. I agree there aren't two sides to God. He is One God and has a consistent character. That was my point on my earlier post. Too many talk "love" and selectively forget qualities of God that dont mesh with their perception of what love looks like. We can't give away any of who God is without giving away His sovereignty and if we give that away, we can't guarantee the Book ends the way God says it does.

And, I love absolutely LOVE your "Son block" analogy for those of us who are In Christ Jesus! What a beautiful analogy using His holiness as a central characteristic of His personality.

 

[Soyeong]

I stole this from a discussion started in the eastern orthodox area. This is valuable, I think, for a bigger discussion.

The OP quoted this statement:

"I think when it comes to the atonement our debt was cancelled, not paid for. There’s a big difference."

Then the OP said: "Once again, this sounds like legal soteriology which is endemic in the West. What would be your take on the Cross having anything to do with any form of debt as opposed to healing mankind's nature from the consequences of sin?

Then someone made a statement about the debt being paid to sin and death NOT to a wrathful Father.

Why are people so afraid to accept the whole picture of the only true and living sovereign God? It seems people want to divorce themselves from the God of the Old Testament--who expected and rewarded obedience out of faith in Him. Yet, Jesus affirmed that obedience was still expected--both before and after His resurrection from the dead--not in the sense that we could ever claim to have earned salvation, but freed from sin by His death, we aren't to continue to walk in it.

We can't just pick and choose the attributes we like. Either the God spoken of in the Old and New Testaments as creating this whole world and all that is in it is the sovereign God or He isn't. If He is the sovereign God, we don't get to re-define Him to meet our own specifications of what He should be like.

The only way to cancel debts is to pay them. If you had a friend who had a dept that they couldn't pay and you decided to help them out, then the only way for you to cancel their debt would be to pay it for them in their place, and this does change if you are the holder of their debt. You couldn't simply wipe the books clean because you would still need to count as loss the money that you originally gave them, which would essentially be the same thing as paying it for them in their place. The wages of sin is death, so the only way for God to cancel that dept would be to pay it for us in our place, which is why it was necessary for Jesus to die for our sins.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

The only way to cancel debts is to pay them. If you had a friend who had a dept that they couldn't pay and you decided to help them out, then the only way for you to cancel their debt would be to pay it for them in their place, and this does change if you are the holder of their debt. You couldn't simply wipe the books clean because you would still need to count as loss the money that you originally gave them, which would essentially be the same thing as paying it for them in their place. The wages of sin is death, so the only way for God to cancel that dept would be to pay it for us in our place, which is why it was necessary for Jesus to die for our sins.

If I am owed money, as a person, I do have the ability to cancel that debt. I am not paying it off. I am simply choosing to tell the person who owes me that s/he no longer owes me any money. If I am not the one owed, I can't cancel the debt. I have to pay it off.

So, in the parable Jesus told, He equated God to the king who forgave/cancelled the debt (suggesting the debt was owed to God).