The Atonement

[Individualist]

Why do Christians think Christ had to make atonement for the sins of mankind? Why couldn't God just forgive them? Had God prevoiusly placed some obligation on Himself? Why would He have done that?

[Bill the Cat]

The justice of a Holy God must punish sin. Fortunately He provided the sacrifice to satisfy that justice for those who believe.

[Individualist]

The justice of a Holy God must punish sin. Fortunately He provided the sacrifice to satisfy that justice for those who believe.

God is obligated by something beyond Himself?

[DaveKicks]

God is obligated by something beyond Himself?

I recently wrote an short discussion about this very topic.

In a nutshell:

God cannot simply forgive and forget sin without actually doing something about it. By doing nothing but proclaiming sin "forgiven," God would be essentially ignoring it and therefore polluting His own holiness by allowing still-sinful creatures into His presence. As such, God needed to do something to actually remove sin from us.

The price of sin is life. And God, in His great mercy, decided to take that burden on Himself.

full text: http://davekicksass.com/theology/?p=34

[Bill the Cat]

God is obligated by something beyond Himself?

No, it is part of who He is.

[Jnthn]

Why do Christians think Christ had to make atonement for the sins of mankind?

It would be more accurate to say that Christ wantedto rather than had to. It's part of His nature.

Why couldn't God just forgive them?

Because God is just, and demands justice. It's part of His nature

Had God prevoiusly placed some obligation on Himself? Why would He have done that?

I suppose you could say in a roundabout way that God obligated himself every time he promised Messiah, from the Garden of Eden, through His prophets right up until Messiah Jesus came.

Why did He do it? God is love. It's part of His nature.

J

[Soyeong]

Why do Christians think Christ had to make atonement for the sins of mankind? Why couldn't God just forgive them? Had God prevoiusly placed some obligation on Himself? Why would He have done that?

God didn't have to make atonement for the sins of mankind, but He did so because he desired to have a loving relationship with us. However, we have all sinned against God and wronged Him, so that puts a kink in the relationship. The problem is as much as God desires to have it restored, it would not be loving to serve injustice by simply forgiving us. Justice demands that wrongs be righted, so the penalty of our wrong must be paid. When Jesus gave his life for us, he offered to pay that penalty for us in exchange for our lives devoted to him. In my opinion, it is a small price to pay considering the value of having a clean record before God and a loving relationship with Him. The alternative of choosing to pay the penalty myself and being separated from God's presence is just added incentive to avoid it.

[bling]

Why do Christians think Christ had to make atonement for the sins of mankind? Why couldn't God just forgive them? Had God prevoiusly placed some obligation on Himself? Why would He have done that?

I have explained this in my thread on Jesus being our wipping boy?
What is at issue?
1. Is there some overriding “Law” that would prevent God from forgiving sins without the shedding of blood?
2. There are benefits to punishment of the wicked: Punishment is part of discipline and has lots of benefits that God would be fully aware of:
a. Deterrent to crime
b. Measures the offence (the greater the offence the greater the punishment)
c. Shows you are truly a child because parents see to it that their children are punished for their crimes.
d. It is fair and just, there needs to be consistency.
e. There is closure with punishment (You do the time for the crime and you can move on).
3. The idea of punishing the innocent instead of punishing the guilty, even if the innocent is OK with it, is not just and fair.
4. I have offended God so it is just and fair for God to see to it that I am punished me, so if Christ is taking my place is God punishing Christ?
5. If Christ is replacing me, then is Christ not also replacing everyone else, so does that not mean universal salvation for everyone?
6. What is the relationship between forgiveness of sin and punishment for sin?
If there are other issues please help me understand them.
The solution I have come up is the result of trying to address these issues and considering the impact on me if Christ had not gone to the cross.
In thinking about God;
1. Did God suffer while Christ was on the cross? Why?
2. Could we say that God suffered more than Christ?
3. Could God not have prevented Christ from ever going to the cross?
In thinking about me;
1. When I/you realized and understood some things about Christ going cross did I/you suffer?
2. Why , when and how much did I/you suffer?
3. Could I (personally) have kept Christ from going to the cross?
4. If I had not sinned then there would have been another way for man to fulfill his objective without Christ having to go to the cross, so can I feel some personal responsibility?
5. Could I handle the physical punishment required for the offence of sin?


Response to the issues:
1. God can forgive without punishment of the guilty, but since there is benefit to punishment and a Loving parent would make sure His children were punished than God will have to make a way for His Children to be punished.
2. A. We are the offender and do not want to sin again, which is throwing salt on the wounds of Christ and others, see the severity of sin by see what Christ went though.
B. The punishment to us which is felt with Christ’s physical and mental suffering, should/could be in proportion to our sins?
C. God as our Parent is seeing to it that we are punished, by allowing a willing Christ to be tortured.
D. It is just to us since we as the guilty are being punished, it is not “just” or fair to Christ, but God is not punishing Christ. God is allowing wicked children of satan to torture Christ, but that is the way God works all the time. God allows satan’s children to do terrible things that provide opportunities for those that are willing or will become willing through their mistakes to repent and accept His Love in the form of forgiveness. The murder of Christ did become a real piercing part of Peter’s message in Acts 2:38.
E. We do not feel the need to be further punished for our sins. We can look back on the cross with mixed emotions since great sorrow and great Love are both there.

3. Christ going to the cross provide another way for us to be punished without physically taking the punishment for our sins, but we were still punished so He is not taking our punishment away, but allowing for a different form of punishment. Christ being physically punished meant that we did not have to be physically punished.
4. God is not punishing Christ instead of us, but allowing Christ to be tortured and die, so we do not have to experience the physical punishment of our sins.
5. The nonbeliever is not punished by Christ going to the cross, so his punishment still awaits him.
6. Since we have received the benefits from being punished than God can mercifully forgive us. If forgiveness came before the punishment it would not be fair to punish us.

[Rainbow Brite]

Why do Christians think Christ had to make atonement for the sins of mankind? Why couldn't God just forgive them? Had God prevoiusly placed some obligation on Himself? Why would He have done that?

The atonement is judgment of mercy Jesus is given power over (John 5:22) because having lived as a human, he knows who has really tried to be sinless and who hasn't.

Like if I was a restaurant owner who had no sense of taste but wanted to run the best restaurant, I would trust in the man with the best sense of taste and the best ability to cook, as well as the best ability to fulfill my wishes, to hire and fire employees.

That's why there is a Trinity, so that Jesus can be the Son acting as the Father receiving His will through the Holy Spirit, while still being his own person desirous of seeing that his Father's wishes are fulfilled.

[Individualist]

I recently wrote an short discussion about this very topic.

In a nutshell:

God cannot simply forgive and forget sin without actually doing something about it. By doing nothing but proclaiming sin "forgiven," God would be essentially ignoring it and therefore polluting His own holiness by allowing still-sinful creatures into His presence. As such, God needed to do something to actually remove sin from us.

The price of sin is life. And God, in His great mercy, decided to take that burden on Himself.

full text: http://davekicksass.com/theology/?p=34

Why would God be polluting His holiness if He allowed sinful creatures into His presence? Why is life the price of sin?

No, it is part of who He is.

You said, "The justice of a Holy God must punish sin" (emphasis mine). As someone just said, there is a difference between having to do something and wanting to do something. Does God have to or does He want to? Why?

[Individualist]

Because God is just, and demands justice. It's part of His nature.

Who or what determines justice, if not God?

God didn't have to make atonement for the sins of mankind, but He did so because he desired to have a loving relationship with us. However, we have all sinned against God and wronged Him, so that puts a kink in the relationship. The problem is as much as God desires to have it restored, it would not be loving to serve injustice by simply forgiving us. Justice demands that wrongs be righted, so the penalty of our wrong must be paid.

It wouldn't be loving to simply forgive sins? Who would be hurt?

[Bill the Cat]

Why would God be polluting His holiness if He allowed sinful creatures into His presence? Why is life the price of sin?

You said, "The justice of a Holy God must punish sin" (emphasis mine). As someone just said, there is a difference between having to do something and wanting to do something. Does God have to or does He want to? Why?

Does the sun have to or want to shine, or does it simply shine by nature of what it is?

[Soyeong]

It wouldn't be loving to simply forgive sins? Who would be hurt?

If someone harmed me and I demand justice, in what way would it be loving for God to simply for them?

[Mountain Man]

Why do Christians think Christ had to make atonement for the sins of mankind? Why couldn't God just forgive them? Had God prevoiusly placed some obligation on Himself? Why would He have done that?

Think about it:

Suppose there is someone that every time they come into your house, they put their muddy feet on your coffee table, eat all your food, and pee all over the seat of your toilet. You forgive them and invite them in, and it happens again, so you forgive them again, it happens again, you forgive them, and so on.

That doesn't make any sense, does it? Most reasonable people might extend the benefit of the doubt the first time, but after the second time they would demand to see proof of a redeemed character before they allowed the offender to set foot in their house a third time.

That explains why God can't just "forgive and forget" and let just anybody into his presence. As for Jesus' sacrifice, it's an extension of the covenant God made with Israel. Since God chose to be bound by the covenant, he couldn't just ignore it without being a hypocrite, so he provided Jesus as a sacrifice in order to fulfill the terms of the first covenant and usher in a second covenant based on grace rather than the law, and in order for us to be reconciled with God, we must agree to the terms of the contract.

[Rainbow Brite]

It wouldn't be loving to simply forgive sins? Who would be hurt?

That's what does happen, if you are sorry for them. Jesus judges the quality of your repentance and gives you mercy rather than death.

The confusion is thinking Jesus is a whipping boy to appease God's anger, and that he took punishment in place of anyone in a direct way. I also don't think his temptations and suffering were a test for God if God is omniscient, or even really a test for Jesus himself.

I think it was to show us that Jesus is a human qualified to be Judge over us, because he was able to remain obedient to God despite pressure from others to fold and give up, so that we can trust him to be that Judge and ask him for mercy.

Thus his showing us his sacrifice on the cross does save us, but it saves us because it should cause us to trust him as Judge. Not because he acts as a whipping boy or that it was like a pagan human sacrifice to God.

If you look at it that way then it makes sense and perhaps best resolves the problem of, "The idea of punishing the innocent instead of punishing the guilty, even if the innocent is OK with it, is not just and fair."