 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Why is this so Unfair? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 5/12/2003 9:52 PM (GMT -6) |   | It seems like we’re officially off topic, so I would like to ask Iconoclast to help me understand the idea of the cross as communicating God’s unconditional love.
As I understand the “penal substitution” view, the cross demonstrates God’s love for us in that, while God’s holiness requires punishment of our sin, Christ takes our punishment as our substitute. He “laid down his life” for us.
If you remove the requirement of punishment for sin, in what sense does the cross demonstrate God’s love for us?
Jesus said, “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” The part about “laying down his life” is fairly obvious. But what, in your view, does “for his friends” mean?
Say a husband commits suicide in order to demonstrate that he loves his wife. The wife will think that was a strange way for him to show his love. However, if husband dies in order to somehow save her life, it is obvious how his death demonstrates his love for her.
Are you saying that the atonement is only necessary epistemologically? I.e., God speaking our “legal view” language? I.e., the “wife” is under the delusion that someone must die in order for the husband to love her? Therefore, the husband commits suicide because that is the only way to convince her that he loves her?
If the atonement is only epistemologically necessary, what about the unevangelized? Do they perish without explicit knowledge of Christ? If not, what role does the cross play for them? It would seem the cross is unnecessary both ontologically and epistemologically.
I’m not wanting to argue against your view. I just think I’m missing something. Hoping you can clarify.
Thanks,
JET
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/13/2003 8:12 PM (GMT -6) | | JET
Say a husband commits suicide in order to demonstrate that he loves his wife. The wife will think that was a strange way for him to show his love. However, if husband dies in order to somehow save her life, it is obvious how his death demonstrates his love for her.
Iconoclast
I agree. That would not show love for his wife but quite the opposite – “I can’t stand you so much I am going to kill myself.”
But why do you suggest that God committed suicide for us? God didn’t kill Himself. WE killed God.
Think of it like your adolescent child who is in an emotional rage because you are enforcing some rule that is clear to you is no different than keeping them from playing barricade on the freeway which results in sudden death. Let’s say that the child jumps in your car and is going to go do something that will hurt them badly - you have three options – one is to do nothing and let them take the consequences for their misbehavior (I told you barricade on the freeway would mangle your body), another is to become violent and meet violence with violence and the last is to lay your body down in front of the car so that they would have to kill you in order to do something that would kill them.
That is demonstrating radical love. You are willing to lay down your life to protect your child from doing something willfull that will hurt them. You do not meet their violence with violence and you do not let them just take the full consequence (which would seriously hurt them) you SHOW them just how serious the consequence is by showing them how far you are willing to go to prevent them AND you show this in a way that they can see for themselves that it is done out of LOVE and NOT conformity.
There is only one issue. We WERE in union with God. We stole the knowledge of good and evil and now judge ourselves, each other and God. We no longer believe that God loves us or that we are lovable. We think that it is about being “good enough”. WE have thus broken union with God – HE didn’t break union with us – and He is calling us back. All we have to do is believe that God really loves us, that He really loves the real man, the person we actually are right here and right now.
Yes, I think it is “legal view” language.
JET
If the atonement is only epistemologically necessary, what about the unevangelized? Do they perish without explicit knowledge of Christ? If not, what role does the cross play for them? It would seem the cross is unnecessary both ontologically and epistemologically.
Iconoclast
People came to know God before Jesus was crucified. The knowledge that God loves us all deeply is all around us and it is within us.
But as to this notion of epistemologically necessary versus ontologically necessary let me suggest that this dichotomy of “necessity” is itself a “legal view” construct. Jesus dying for us changes and deepens our relationship with God. When I do something special for my wife that has meaning to our relationship. Thus ontologically Jesus has done something for us that has deep meaning throughout eternity. Throughout eternity we will all continue to be deeply blessed by pondering the depth of God’s love “that He hath done this.”
Psalms 22:31
They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done [this].
Epistemologically it aids our ability to see God’s love which is really still all around us and within us. It helps our doubting minds to find an anchor. Now, is it a tragedy that the whole world doesn’t have more access to this powerful aid in our ability to see God’s love all around us and within us? Well, yes and no. It is unfortunate that as the church we have not been able to more powerfully integrate the power of Jesus into our lives and thus love each other with His love. If we had done that then more people would also have this powerful aid. At the same time God is working in each and every one of our lives. It is not that God’s love is not evident all around us it is just that the more WE love each other the more powerfully others will be able to see this truth as well.
Great question. Hope that helps.
Thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 05/14/2003 01:13:44 AM
Edited by - Iconoclast on 05/14/2003 01:15:29 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| 27 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:00 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|