posted
I know they say you should never discuss sex, religion, or politics in polite company...
...but that has never seemed to apply here anyways, so I hope no one minds if I ask for a bit of theology.
---------------------------------------------
In the majority of Protestant religions, good works and deeds and even faith are not enough to obtain passage to Heaven. One must accept Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
The reasoning (as I understand it) goes like this.
1. We all sin. 2. Sin cannot be in the presence of God. 3. God's OT laws demanded a sacrifice for the atonement of sin. 4. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, and it atoned for all our sins -- if we accept the sacrifice.
Now, a lot of non-Christians find issue with step four, arguing that Jesus's sacrifice should apply to all people, regardless of whether or not we purposefully and affirmatively accept it.
My issue lies instead with step three.
1. Why did God wait 4,000 years (at the minimum) to send Jesus to atone for sin? Why not right after they left the Garden, or after the flood?
The reasoning I have heard is thus: God changes his laws. He even changes his mind, as when Moses debated with him over the fate of the Israelis. So, God being a good-natured fellow, he eventually decided to send his Son to earth to die and atone for our sins.
2. If this is the case, why could God not just as easily have changed the law so that sin did not require atonement, and simply forgive the sins of the good people of the world without the nasty crucifixion business? He could have still sent his Son down as a teacher. From what I understand of God, he really wants all people to be with him in heaven, so why not just tweak his own laws a bit?
[ July 11, 2005, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: HRE ]
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wouldn't be very much work for people if they had everything handed to them by God would it?
Maybe it was done this way to make life more of a challenge for people. If Heaven were free admittance to all, then there wouldn't be a hell, and thus no real reason for any constraints on behavior while on Earth.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should get together with BC and have a discussion about the Bible AND the Koran...
Seems to me that you are coming into this with a bit of an attitude right off the bat, but perhaps I am misreading you. Tone is hard to judge on a forum... Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all sincerity, how do you feel that my post conveys an attitude?
Really, I am asking a theological question that perplexes me. That's it.
[Edit: I think I may have found a bit that gave that sort of indication. I removed it.]
Lyrhawn:
Alright, so heaven can't be a free-for-all pass. Fine. But then the concept of Jesus and the sacrifice goes pretty much dead against it.
If you truly accept the sacrifice, you will stive to be Christ-like, and even though you are imperfect, you get in.
You didn't answer the questions at hand at all. Why the sacrifice? What kind of 'challenge' is that? Why then, and not earlier?
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking as a Protestant Christian, I actually have an answer (or at least the deranged meandering of my own thoughts) for this one, but it's very involved and I don't have time to post it right now. Hopefully I'll have time later; I'll try and keep track of this thread, see if someone else comes up with the same answer I have, and if I find the time, I'll post what I can.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
HRE, this question perplexes me as well. I've talked to believers about it and the responses I've gotten were 1) God is above us and we can't hope to understand Him. (A Protestant Christian) 2) God is not all powerful and thus must accept a set of rules Himself. Maybe this is one of those rules. (A Mormon)
I'm curious what others will say.
[Edited to capitalize Him to avoid giving offense.]
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>[Edited to capitalize Him to avoid giving offense.]
If anyone gets offended over this, they should just leave Hatrack now, and save themselves the heartache...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe it was done this way to make life more of a challenge for people. If Heaven were free admittance to all, then there wouldn't be a hell, and thus no real reason for any constraints on behavior while on Earth.
The fact that so many people seem to actually believe this faulty logic is terrifying. As if without the promise of eternal damnation there is suddenly no intrinsic value in loving your neighbor and being a good person and upstanding citizen. As if, since I know I'm not gonna rot in hell for eternity I might as well start the raping and pillaging since that's such an otherwise desirable lifestyle.
People who truly believe that need religion to protect the rest of us who don't need daddy standing over us with a belt in his hand to keep us from biting each other.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. Why did God wait 4,000 years (at the minimum) to send Jesus to atone for sin? Why not right after they left the Garden, or after the flood?
Perhaps he was waiting for actual civilizations to be created, so that the teachings of his Son would have a fertile ground to take root in. After the Garden (looking at the Adam/Eve story either metaphorically, or literally) there probably wasn't much in the way of cities, or camps, much less countries. There was no infrastructure, no culture of writing things down. Christ's message of salvation through his merits MAY have been subjected to the same fate as the Noah/Adam stories-- become sort of super-myths even in the minds of those people who take them literally. Because God waited until writing matured as a cultural tool, and civilizations were established, He provided for a faster and more effective disemination of the Gospel.
(Just rambling off the top of my head. . . I may change my mind later this morning to 'I don't have a clue.')
quote:If this is the case, why could God not just as easily have changed the law so that sin did not require atonement, and simply forgive the sins of the good people of the world without the nasty crucifixion business?
In Mormonism, an atonement had to be made-- it was not something God could avoid, not if repentence and forgiveness were also to be instituted. We Mormons believe that a plan was put forth by Lucifer that called for the removal of man's agency-- without his agency, man would be incapable of disobedience, and thus, unable to sin, and thus an atonement would not be required. But our agency also ties in with one of the purposes of this life-- to learn and gain knowledge. If we were forced to do right, rather than allowed to choose right, we would be cut off from the learning process, and our existence would be in vain. God chose man's agency over automatic obedience.
By doing so, He set up a reality in which sin (here, disobedience against God's commandments) could exist. Because of sin, we are kept out of God's presence.
I think about it like this:
If I punch you in the nose, nothing I do or say can ever remove the fact that I punched you. YOU can forgive me; I can make restitution a million times by giving you and all your descendents safety and prosperity. The fact, the history, remains unchanged-- I socked you. I can't do anything about it. Because I've sinned, Justice (Justice, in the Mormon philosophy, cannot be altered, even by God) will not allow me to dwell in Heaven.
From this point of view, because all humanity sins we're all screwed.
Christ was able to work past Justice because he remained sinless throughout his life. Because he was not under Justice's condemnation, He is able to assist us in freeing ourselves from our sins.
I think the debtor allegory works well in this case. We all owe a debt to the universe because of our sins, which none of us can pay. Justice is sharp-- the smallest misdeed bestows an insurmountable debt. Christ, who never sinned, is able to (and has) assumed that debt, (Mormon qualification to follow) on the condition that we meet his standards of repayment.
CS Lewis, I believe, said something interesting about Christ's atonement and the faithful which ties into my intial thoughts on this subject: after final judgement, Christ's atonement will work backwards in time, repairing all the breeches of God's law we've made-- in effect, remaking our history. It's a neat thought, that this is the method or reason why God will 'remember our sins no more;' because, in our history, they do not exist.
But then the question becomes, if the sins did not exist, have we learned anything from this life?
quote:The reasoning I have heard is thus: God changes his laws. He even changes his mind, as when Moses debated with him over the fate of the Israelis. So, God being a good-natured fellow, he eventually decided to send his Son to earth to die and atone for our sins.
God can't change his mind after having had a conversation with a person. The idea is ridiculous. God is perfect and all-knowing, nothing new can be presented to him that would make him change his mind.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1. Why did God wait 4,000 years (at the minimum) to send Jesus to atone for sin? Why not right after they left the Garden, or after the flood?
Jesus came to this Earth, among other reasons, to prove that it was possible to live a sinless life. If he came after they left the Garden, he would be living among God's first created beings--people who communed with God and knew him and loved him. Not very hard to live a sinless life there. If he came right after the flood, he's living with Noah and his wife who were pretty upstanding people. Yes, he'd have to deal with their sons, but it's not so hard to live a sinless life there either. He came when he did so that there would actually be a challenge to living right. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take much comfort in the idea that Jesus could only live a sinless life in those situations. I'm stuck in this really sinful world where temptation lies everywhere--so how could I do it if he had to choose a peaceful time?
Read about Christ's trials in the New Testament, and you can see he didn't have it easy.
Also, I think another reason God waited is the same reason he didn't kill Lucifer immediately after he sinned. Lucifer, a beloved angel of heaven, was casting doubt that God's law really was just and necessary. We know that 1/3 of the angels believed his lies and were persuaded by his doubting arguments. He was very persuasive... So, if God smote him down right then and there, there would always be doubt among the angels and other created beings, wouldn't there? Maybe Lucifer was right all along... And I think God would be worshipped only out of fear. So instead, Lucifer, Satan by now, had to be allowed to carry out his ideas. The angels and others had to see what sin, or breaking God's law, really could do. Our Earth is the result. That's also why so many bad things are allowed to happen here. People want to blame God for it, but really, it's all a result of sin. Angels and other beings watch us down here on this Earth and they see what rebellion does--what pain it causes, and they see that yeah... God's law had a purpose. It was to save us all from this.
That's why Job says we are His witnesses.
Well, there's a lot more to it than that...but that's just a little cluster of my thoughts on the subject. I've gotta get back to work...
posted
Chesterton addresses the question of timing, among other things, in the first half The Everlasting Man, which does a nifty job of discussing Christianity in historical perspective.
Highly recommend it for all Christians and anyone else who wants to understand what Christianity is about.
As for the need for acceptance of the sacrifice, I wrote something in another post which I can't find now... here's a brief summary:
*note* this is not intended as a literal description, but rather an exemplary one... i.e. it's something *like* this... not actually this going on.
Satan, in leading the rebellion against God, covets and wants to obtain as much of God's creation as he can, especially people's souls. Through the fall, he managed to obtain the "rights" (if you will) to men's souls. In both Jewish and pre-christian pagan mythos, everyone goes to the same place when they die, where some sort of justice is meted out, but there is no separation of "wheat and chaff" or what have you. Everyone goes to hades, sheol, or purgatorio, depending on what language you are reading (Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, respectively).
Ok... now the supposition begins: it seems to me that Satan's plan in obtaining human souls was to hold us ransom against God Himself. Satan got what he wanted-- the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Unfortunately he seems to have underestimated Jesus's power, and Jesus, having "preached to the souls in prison" (words from the bible) with us, was able to bust out and is offering to take us with him.
Which is why faith in Him, believing in His Benificence, and "accepting His sacrifice" become important, and indeed, the way out. He is leading a jail break... if you don't trust Him, you won't go.
Just my personal thoughts on your questions.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: God can't change his mind after having had a conversation with a person. The idea is ridiculous. God is perfect and all-knowing, nothing new can be presented to him that would make him change his mind.
Jebus,
Lewis explains this aspect of prayer by alluding to God as a teacher talking about an assignment: "this is the approved solution... if you have questions or another solution you think might be valid, come see me and we'll discuss it."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, of course, you could read this thing for what it is, to wit, a tribal myth with a more sophisticated theology layered on top of it. If you look at the Old Testament, it's quite clear that Yahweh is one of many gods, and by no means all-power or all-wise; he can indeed change his mind, do things he regrets - like the Flood, which incidentally is regretted by the gods in every mythos I'm aware of - and be outwitted. It's only later on that he acquires his modern attributes of omnimaxness.I seem to recall there's archeological evidence for his originally having a consort goddess; go back far enough, and I suspect you'll find him ruling a whole pantheon, much like Zeus or Odin. (Indeed, he seems to do quite a bit of sending 'angels' to do his work in the OT; subordinate gods, perhaps?) Uncompromising monotheism is an invention of the Babylonian captivity. This is speculation, but perhaps, being slaves, the Jews could no longer afford to keep up their whole pantheon, and concentrated on the most important and powerful one.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, conversly, KoM, perhaps everything you say is true merely because we've gradually come to a better and clearer understanding of what "God" means just as we have come to a better and clearer understanding of what "Gravity" means.
Which is why you should read The Everlasting Man...
(edit in case the implication wasn't obvious: the book deals directly with what you are discussing)
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you look at the Old Testament, it's quite clear that Yahweh is one of many gods
Can you clarify? There are other divinities mentioned-- Ba'al, for example, and Asherah, and Molech; however, none of these are understood (in the context of the script) as being actual beings, but rather fictions invented by religions of the day. These fictions do not figure into the Israelites' theology as far as I can see, especially not as part of a pantheon.
While angels and even the devil as a conscious, opposing, evil force may be inherited from the Persians, I'm not convinced at all that the Israelites were appreciably anything other than monotheistic previous to their captivity.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see prayer as a collaboration with God. He wants us to pray and he teaches us to pray, and he actually takes our prayers into account in ordering things in this universe of space and time. So yes he can "change His mind" based on our input. But what he's really doing, perhaps, is inviting us to connect with him in this way, for our own growth and because it brings us joy, and because it's how it all works, somehow.
God's creating this amazing work of art called the universe. It's like a Dostoyevsky novel or a Van Gogh painting, or like Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, maybe, except it's as much better than those things as a sunset compared to a child's drawing on the fridge. We emulate Him any time we create things. The whole cosmos of being and history is His awesome work of art, and we are each of us playing the role of ourselves in this great drama. So we get to ad lib our parts, in collaboration with God in its creation. Praying is another way in which we collaborate, along with everything else that we do, all our choices and actions. That's how I like to think of it.
And it's not just for beauty's sake, but because it all really matters a whole lot. By doing this we are saving something important. We're helping in work that means all the difference for everything.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Nice points... and once God allows us to have the dignity of being able to take actions and cause real events, what difference does it make if we cause them by work or prayer? There's an old saying "labore est orare"-- "work is prayer."
Also call to mind another Lewis saying that I really liked: "I don't pray to change God, I pray to change me."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, quite so. After 3000 years of editing, it is clear that Baal and so on are to be taken as fictions. Now take a good look at the commandments : "Thou shalt have no other god before me." Seems pretty clear that there are other gods that could be worshipped.
Then there's the archeological evidence, to wit
quote:Originally posted by Wikipedia:
Biblical references have been taken to indicate that a goddess Asherah was worshipped in Israel and Judah, as the Queen of Heaven whose worship Jeremiah so vehemently opposed:
"Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger." —Jeremiah 7:17–18
(...)
Two painted inscriptions "Yahweh of Samaria/the guardian and his Asherah" on fragments of the type of large terracotta pot that archaeologists call a pithos were found in the site of a caravanserai of the 8th century BCE at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (in Hebrew Horvat Teman) in the Negev.
posted
As a Protestant Christian, I have definitely wondered this - why was Christ's suffering necessary if God is all-powerful?
My suspicion is that it was not necessary to save our souls, but was a symbolic act, a sort of very real parable to illustrate a point that mankind would remember.
One thing I've concluded... if God does exist as I believe, it's seems that He favors more elaborate ways of getting things done in this world than just zapping them into whatever He knows is right.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a prophet in the book of Mormon who's son had a problem with free love type issues that sound similar to your questions. You might enjoy studying that. Let's see... Alma 39 - 42.
If I have time today I'll check back and see if I can explain what I thought was so great about it.
For now: God is in our presence all the time through his spirit. He has no difficulty being with us in that sense. But wouldn't you agree that he's not really in our presence if we are not in his? If we don't know he exists or care what he thinks, in what way are we in his presence? I think his "psychic" abilities are directly tied to his "righteousness" or rather, his lack of selfishness. The selfish being only sees itself. It's more complicated that simply losing oneself in the lives of others, though since codependency is such a problem for mortals at least.
Maybe that is what constrains God from letting the selfish into his presence. If he does, he would be taken advantage of on a cosmic scale. That is why the Lord has to set limits.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now take a good look at the commandments : "Thou shalt have no other god before me." Seems pretty clear that there are other gods that could be worshipped.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that in the context of the Old Testament, the God of the Israelites allowed that these competing being were real.
In other words, I can call my car Melangthcanesh the Beatific and worship it, and call it the great creator; that does not mean that Israel's God calls it equal. Or real, even.
For an enlightening view of what the God of Israel thought of other gods, please read the account of Elijah vs. the priests of Ba'al. In it, Elijah mocks the priests for their inability to raise Ba'al's support, telling them, in effect, to pray louder because Ba'al must be sleeping, and doesn't hear them.
I don't deny that Ba'al and Asherah (also called Ashtoreth, or some variant thereof) was worshipped by the Israelites-- but it's clear from the Old Testament writings that they weren't doing so by God's approbation. Again, for evidence, I point out the lives of Ahab and Jezebel, who raised altars to Ba'al, and groves for Ashtoreth, and were condemned by Elijah. (This is pre-captivity, by the way. . .)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe that is what constrains God from letting the selfish into his presence. If he does, he would be taken advantage of on a cosmic scale. That is why the Lord has to set limits.
Mmmm. . . the Book of Mormon states that sinners are in more misery in the presence of God than they are in Hell. From that point, I tend to think that sinners and God are seperated because God is merciful.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: In both Jewish and pre-christian pagan mythos, everyone goes to the same place when they die, where some sort of justice is meted out, but there is no separation of "wheat and chaff" or what have you. Everyone goes to hades, sheol, or purgatorio, depending on what language you are reading (Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, respectively).
I generally do not post in these threads for obvious reasons. But I have to object to this statement. I couldn't tell you whether that is an accurate assessment of "pre-christian pagan mythos," but it is not correct as regards Jewish thought.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do agree with the point that someone made that God's "omnimaxness" is a requirement that was added later. Early versions of Judaism and Christianity drew their knowledge of God from the observations of prophets, and did not try to impose further descriptives upon him. It was later, I believe, after the Hellenization of Christianity, that it was decided, by mortals, that in order to "really" be God, one must be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, etc. Based on nothing but their own fanciful imaginings.
Mormons believe that God is as powerful and wise as a being can be. But we don't push it into the realm of absurdity, because we don't hold up some made-up standard that we randomly think that God should measure up to. We try to observe God for who He is, and not for who we think He ought to be.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main notion in Jewish thought boils down to: our concerns should be focused on doing our tasks in this world; the World to Come will take care of itself. This is why there are very few references to the afterlife in the Written Torah (no overt ones in the Five Books). However, there are discussions in the Gemara, and much speculation in the 2000 years since.
I know I have linked to this before; it's a fairly good presentation (if highly allegorical) of some of the more common Jewish beliefs about the afterlife.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
(Maybe an off topic discussion-- when the article says 'Sages,' does it mean . . . um, Prophets (revealing new scripture) or commentators on existing scripture?)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Rivka... I certainly meant no offense...
The way I understand it, and was taught in college (admittedly a while ago), the Sadducees were the traditionalists and the Pharisees of Jesus's time were the more "modernist" school of thought.. . that the ideas of a resurrection and the like were developments in Jewish theology, not inherent in it.
I cannot speak to what biases my college professor might have had, personally, but it *was* a secular school and secularly focused class.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: (Maybe an off topic discussion-- when the article says 'Sages,' does it mean . . . um, Prophets (revealing new scripture) or commentators on existing scripture?)
More the latter. Jews believe there has been no prophecy for over 2000 years.
quote: The way I understand it, and was taught in college (admittedly a while ago), the Sadducees were the traditionalists and the Pharisees of Jesus's time were the more "modernist" school of thought.. . that the ideas of a resurrection and the like were developments in Jewish theology, not inherent in it.
*snort* I would debate that very strongly, but I do understand why Christian theologians would prefer that view.
I am not offended, and hope I am giving no offense. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow...I hope no one expects me to respond to each post individually...
I'd just like to highlite a few points I caught:
-----------------------------------------------
jebus202:
quote:God can't change his mind after having had a conversation with a person. The idea is ridiculous. God is perfect and all-knowing, nothing new can be presented to him that would make him change his mind.
In the old testament especially, God changes his mind. See Exodus 32:7-14, where God wants to go down and smite all the Israelis, but Moses talks God out of his divine testosterone, as one theologian said.
Then again, the OT also says God is unchanging and invariable. Hmm.
I noticed, also, that you argued this point and neglected to answer any of the actual questions in the OP, which only grow more difficult if you say God does not change his mind.
-----------------------------------------------
Jim-me:
So Satan has our souls, and we need Jesus to ransom them back? Why does Satan have our souls to begin with? What kind of awful deal is that?
-----------------------------------------------
Mothertree:
quote:If we don't know he exists or care what he thinks, in what way are we in his presence?
Alright, so I know he exists and care what he thinks. This still doesn't cover any of the Jesus questions.
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
So Satan has our souls, and we need Jesus to ransom them back? Why does Satan have our souls to begin with? What kind of awful deal is that?
In Christian Theology this is a result of the fall-- that is, the inherent human abuse of freewill that Christians call "original sin".
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. So rivka, would it be fair to say that the Jews await a sort of restoration? Might this be in connection with the comming of the Messiah(I can't remember the Jewish term)?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:a lot of non-Christians find issue with step four, arguing that Jesus's sacrifice should apply to all people, regardless of whether or not we purposefully and affirmatively accept it.
This is essentially saying admittance to Heaven should be a right, not a privilege. It's saying that no matter how much a person disses God in the course of their life, no matter how much they ignore him, no matter how many of his laws they willfully break, they should still get to enjoy the full benefits entitled someone who spends their lives loving him, praying to him, and doing their best to follow his laws. What an interesting thought. I wonder if these same people would welcome me into their home if I used their names as epithets, dumped trash in their front yard, and spent most of my time telling half-truth gossip about them with the intent of ruining their reputation. Somehow, I think not. Nor should they.
quote:2. If this is the case, why could God not just as easily have changed the law so that sin did not require atonement, and simply forgive the sins of the good people of the world without the nasty crucifixion business? He could have still sent his Son down as a teacher. From what I understand of God, he really wants all people to be with him in heaven, so why not just tweak his own laws a bit?
This is essentially saying that when we do bad things, there should be no consequences. It's the response of a 3 yr old who thinks that saying "I'm sowwy." should fix it all. The problem with removing consequence is that "I'm sowwy" become just words, meaningless. Pain teaches, instructing us to stop doing what we're doing. When the ancients sacrificed a lamb, it was a true sacrifice -- that lamb represented a tangible value of loss. There would be no wool in the fall for years to come. Grain sacrifices meant less food to eat. The sacrifices weren't God's attempt to punish -- it was for the people to feel the full burden of their wrongdoing. And in having made the sacrifice, being able to accept forgiveness.
The thing is, if you unjustly hurt someone and know you've hurt them, if you're a decent person, you want to make it up to them and try to undo or fix the wrong thing you've done. If you feel the full burden of what you've done, you may (for yourself) need very much to perform some act of contrition for that person. That's sacrifice and it illustrates your true repentance. If instead you just threw out an offhand casual apology, ("Sorry I poisoned your cat, dude. I just wanted to see what would happen to him.") would you really feel as if you'd made up for what you'd done? Or would you feel lik a bit of a cheat, and then resent the person who forgave you? Don't answer too quickly. People who continually take and take and take without ever giving back almost never feel grateful to their benefactors -- usually they resent them. The sacrifice requirement isn't for God; it's for us.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is essentially saying admittance to Heaven should be a right, not a privilege. It's saying that no matter how much a person disses God in the course of their life, no matter how much they ignore him, no matter how many of his laws they willfully break, they should still get to enjoy the full benefits entitled someone who spends their lives loving him, praying to him, and doing their best to follow his laws.
Sure. Why not? Is it possible to save yourself through works, or not?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's important to point out that God's laws are not arbitrary. They're there to protect us from harm and pain, and by following them we are able to be our happiest.
Lucifer/Satan said they were arbitrary, that God was just trying to spoil their fun, so to speak. And he's been saying it ever since. Well, look around people. This world is a result of not following God's laws. Being Christian is about saying, Yeah, God's laws were for the best all along and choosing to live under them in heaven. Those who don't want to follow them would just be unhappy in heaven and start the sin problem all over again. Well, sin is having its proving time now. When God comes again, he won't have to tolerate it anymore.
posted
It is not possible to save yourself through works--but that is a belief of some Christian denominations.
And someone can live a sinful life and honestly accept Jesus on their death bed and be saved. The parable about the workers who worked a full day getting paid the same as those who only worked one hour is about this very issue. All of the workers were promised a full-day's wage--how long they worked really didn't matter.
posted
I'm sure many of you already know the Mormon view, but I will throw it out there anyway.
We believe that part of the effect of the atonement is enjoyed by all, regardless of belief, deeds, race, gender, etc. That is the restoring of the physical body in resurrection. We believe that were it not for the atonement, that wouldn't come to anyone, and that with it, it is a free gift for all.
But the overcoming of sin, we believe, comes through a combination of faith and works. We believe that faith without works isn't faith at all. Therefore, while we are not saved by works because we still rely on Christ's atonement for it to even be possible, works do have a hand in our salvation. What is wrong is to think that we can be saved by our works *alone*.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a Protestant Christian, I have definitely wondered this - why was Christ's suffering necessary if God is all-powerful?
My suspicion is that it was not necessary to save our souls, but was a symbolic act, a sort of very real parable to illustrate a point that mankind would remember.
I definately respect this viewpoint. Is this line of thinking part of your church's doctrine or is it your own personal belief? If the first, what church do you go to?
quote: If I punch you in the nose, nothing I do or say can ever remove the fact that I punched you. YOU can forgive me; I can make restitution a million times by giving you and all your descendents safety and prosperity. The fact, the history, remains unchanged-- I socked you. I can't do anything about it. Because I've sinned, Justice (Justice, in the Mormon philosophy, cannot be altered, even by God) will not allow me to dwell in Heaven.
From this point of view, because all humanity sins we're all screwed.
I can accept the reasoning that it's out of God's hands and in the hands of some eternal ideal of Justice. However, the Justice that you describe sounds nothing like Justice to me. What type of just system sets everybody up to fail? If sinning is inherent in who we are, then being punished for sin is being punished for existing. This is not just.
Instead I think that making restitution, paying for the medical bills of the punched nose and apologizing profusely, is indeed just.
quote: The sacrifice requirement isn't for God; it's for us.
This makes sense for the sheep sacrifice, but I fail to understand the connection to the sacrifice of Christ. Christ's sacrifice is CHRIST'S sacrifice- nobody else's.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can accept the reasoning that it's out of God's hands and in the hands of some eternal ideal of Justice. However, the Justice that you describe sounds nothing like Justice to me. What type of just system sets everybody up to fail? If sinning is inherent in who we are, then being punished for sin is being punished for existing. This is not just.
Instead I think that making restitution, paying for the medical bills of the punched nose and apologizing profusely, is indeed just.
The following is just my opinion, since I have wondered the same thing myself.
I believe it is a "raising of the bar". The idea here is that God doesn't just want us to live with Him, He wants us to be like Him and have the sorts of responsibilities He has. So the requirement is being trustworthy. So in overcoming sin, it is more than absolution being saught here, but change into the sort of person who wouldn't sin anymore.
It is apparent to me that this change is never complete in this life (for all but Christ Himself.) That this process continues for quite awhile into the next life. But because of the unique nature of mortality, what happens here is particularly telling of our inner strength and choices. The more progress we make in this life, the more advantage we gain along that path of progress. This isn't an advantage over others, it is an advantage for ourselves and how much there is yet to accomplish.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also believe that Hell is made up of regrets and that it is the result of having True Perspective.
Does anyone remember in Douglas Adams "Hitchhiker" series how the worst punishment possible to inflict on a person was to give them True Perspective? You stick them in a room and they are exposed to the truth of just how insignificant they are in the unimaginably enormous universe. This punishment is inflicted on Zaphod, but since he learns that the universe was actually created solely *for him*, he comes out feeling better than ever!
I imagine that Satan's free will has something to do with it too. Has anyone ever seen Buffy? In the final season, "The First" is a lot how I imagine Satan to be. Incorporial, can't physically harm you, but he can tell you stuff, mess with your mind. If you are burdened with a guilty conscience, he can get a foothold in and really do damage. In order to be compeletly free of those effects, considering having True Perspective, one must have enough faith in Christ and have done what they can to overcome their own sins and weaknesses. The idea here is that Christ's atonement and our requested (by Him) response to it is THE only way to overcome this.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>What type of just system sets everybody up to fail?
No one's being set up to fail-- aren't we all (generally speaking) responisble for our own mistakes? Additionally, in the Mormon cosmology, every single being that ever lived knew the price of coming to earth-- and we agreed to come anyway.
I'd like to contrast this:
quote:our agency also ties in with one of the purposes of this life-- to learn and gain knowledge. If we were forced to do right, rather than allowed to choose right, we would be cut off from the learning process, and our existence would be in vain. God chose man's agency over automatic obedience.
with this:
quote:And I think God would be worshipped only out of fear. So instead, Lucifer, Satan by now, had to be allowed to carry out his ideas. The angels and others had to see what sin, or breaking God's law, really could do. Our Earth is the result. That's also why so many bad things are allowed to happen here. People want to blame God for it, but really, it's all a result of sin. Angels and other beings watch us down here on this Earth and they see what rebellion does--what pain it causes, and they see that yeah... God's law had a purpose. It was to save us all from this.
It's an interesting contrast, don't you think?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is apparent to me that this change is never complete in this life (for all but Christ Himself.) That this process continues for quite awhile into the next life. But because of the unique nature of mortality, what happens here is particularly telling of our inner strength and choices. The more progress we make in this life, the more advantage we gain along that path of progress. This isn't an advantage over others, it is an advantage for ourselves and how much there is yet to accomplish.
I think that this is a beautiful vision and I have nothing but respect for it. However, I don't think it really explains why the Atonement of Christ is necessary for progression. Couldn't people learn of their strengths and grow without it? Why does this eternal debt need to be paid?
quote: I imagine that Satan's free will has something to do with it too. Has anyone ever seen Buffy? In the final season, "The First" is a lot how I imagine Satan to be. Incorporial, can't physically harm you, but he can tell you stuff, mess with your mind. If you are burdened with a guilty conscience, he can get a foothold in and really do damage. In order to be compeletly free of those effects, considering having True Perspective, one must have enough faith in Christ and have done what they can to overcome their own sins and weaknesses. The idea here is that Christ's atonement and our requested (by Him) response to it is THE only way to overcome this.
Since we're using Buffy analogies... I think that True Perspective as you relate it correlates to the way Angel reacts to getting his soul. He realizes how he's erred and he continually tries to make it better, knowing he never can. In great contrast, Spike gains this True Perspective and after a relatively short period of time he comes to the conclusion that since he didn't have True Perspective when he commited the acts, he wasn't really responsible. He gets over the guilt and simply tries not to "sin" anymore. Personally, I prefer the way that Spike handled the situation.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in definite atonement, or particular redemption, as it's sometimes called. It's also referred to as "limited atonement" but that's an unfortunate name, I think, because it gives the wrong impression.
At any rate, here is the nutshell version:
1. The wages of sin are death, so Christ had to die on the cross in order to pay the price of man's sin. He couldn't redeem us by doing 1000 pushups or anything like that.
2. When Christ died, he accomplished definite atonement for those that are saved. In other words, he definitely redeemed those people that are saved, rather than just making redemption available to all.
3. Nothing I or any other man or woman can do will "earn" me redemption. Redemption is a free gift of grace, the gift comes from God to man, and only God can effect salvation.
Here's a good explanation, with scriptural foundations, for those that want to know more in detail.
quote:Thus choice which the Christian faces then is not between a "limited" and "unlimited" atonement, but between a "definite" or "indefinite" or between a "person" or an "impersonal" atonement. It is the Reformed contention that God's Word teaches that Christ died for persons, his sheep, those whom he loved, from all eternity.(7) It is our view that Jesus did not die to make salvation available or merely possible, but that when he said "It is finished" (John 19:30) he was declaring that, as the once for all sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 7:27), he had completed the work which his Father gave him to do (John 6:57; 10:17-18).
quote:The NT makes clearer the fact that Jesus was given a people by the Father. In John 6.37-39 Jesus gives us some insight into His eternal relationship with His Father.
Everyone whom the Father gives to me will come to me, and the one coming to me, I will not cast out...this is the will of the One who sent me, that I shall lose none of everyone whom he has given me, but (instead), I will raise him up on the last day.
The Father has given a people to Jesus to save and resurrect. These people are a gift from the Father to the Son. A gift does not give itself! The Son has come (v.38) to do the Father's will. The Father's will is that none should be lost. Verse 65 intensifies the particularist theme.
...For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray Him...This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.(32)
Jesus knew those who would apostatize and betray him. Only those given to him by the Father come. The Lord is repeating what he has already said in vs.44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."
People are the objects of the Father's drawing work. The people drawn are those whom God has chosen before the foundations of the world. Those whom God has drawn to Christ come to faith. They believe in Jesus. According to vs.65, it is only when we are drawn by God, led by the hand as it were, that we come to faith. It is the work of the Spirit of God to lead blinded sinners to sight and faith, as Jesus made the blind man to see.(33)
quote:This is essentially saying admittance to Heaven should be a right, not a privilege. It's saying that no matter how much a person disses God in the course of their life, no matter how much they ignore him, no matter how many of his laws they willfully break, they should still get to enjoy the full benefits entitled someone who spends their lives loving him, praying to him, and doing their best to follow his laws. What an interesting thought. I wonder if these same people would welcome me into their home if I used their names as epithets, dumped trash in their front yard, and spent most of my time telling half-truth gossip about them with the intent of ruining their reputation. Somehow, I think not. Nor should they.
That's because they aren't all-knowing, perfectly compassionate beings. But I believe God is, and I'd expect God loves these people regardless of whatever trash they say about Him. That is Christ's message, no? Celebrating the return of the lost sheep? Why would God turn them away if He could do otherwise?
Hence, I would ask the same question as Tom...
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I definately respect this viewpoint. Is this line of thinking part of your church's doctrine or is it your own personal belief? If the first, what church do you go to?
I am a Methodist Christian, but my beliefs are my own and not necessarily my church's. They could be my church's too - I honestly haven't looked into the details. I don't believe any church gets to tell me what I believe, though. I believe it acts more like a shepherd, helping to guide me, even though I still have to decide where I ultimately go.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
