Board index ‹ Salvation

[Shifty Eyes]

So I "broke" life by sinning and God is going to "fix" it by killing himself? Okay...

Assuming that actually means something, why is killing himself the only way he is able to fix life? Why can't he just snap his fingers and fix life? He is God, after all.

If the local judge had the power to fix the window that Tim broke by snapping his fingers, why wouldn't he do that instead of paying to have it fixed?

[jimwalton]

> Why can't he just snap his fingers and fix life? He is God, after all.

Because there are realities involved with fixing sin, just like with fixing a window. God can no more wave a magic wand over sin and fix it than a judge can snap his fingers and repair glass.

I would hope you understand that God's omnipotence doesn't mean he can do anything. It means God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature. He has power over the course of history. He has the power to change human personality as individuals allow. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm. What all of this means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he does, for he has the ability to do it.

There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of.
- He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory
- He can’t act contrary to his nature
- He cannot fail to do what he has promised
- The theology of omnipotence rejects the possibility of dualism
- He cannot interfere with the freedom of man
- He cannot change the past
- It is not violated by self-limitation on the part of God
- It does not imply the use of all the power of God

So God can't snap his fingers and fix sin. Sin has certain qualities and characteristics as a non-material reality, and it must be dealt with according to its properties. Just because he is God doesn't mean he can act capriciously and outside of his nature and the proper objects of his power. Sin and death must be dealt with according to the properties of sin and death, not just with a twinkle of the nose.

[Shifty Eyes]

> He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of. - He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory - He can’t act contrary to his nature - He cannot fail to do what he has promised - The theology of omnipotence rejects the possibility of dualism - He cannot interfere with the freedom of man - He cannot change the past - It is not violated by self-limitation on the part of God - It does not imply the use of all the power of God

Which one of these things is stopping God from just "fixing" life without killing himself? Would that be logically impossible? Would that be contrary to his nature? Would that violate a promise he made? Would that interfere with the freedom of man?

[jimwalton]

The first one: "He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of." You want him to wave away sin with a brush of his hand. Can't be done. Sin is real, and the death that comes from it has to be dealt with not unjust some arbitrary way, but in the way required by its character and the nature of it: substitutionary atonement. That's why the OT is filled with the sacrificial system, but then the NT takes it to its only legitimate place: the death of a perfect human to atone for the death of guilty humans.

[Shifty Eyes]

I asked why God can't do the thing I conceived of. You can't just say "God can't do 'A' because he can't do everything you conceive of". You need to say what specifically about 'A' is preventing God from being able to do it.

It seems like your answer is that he could just "fix" life for us no strings attached (still not buying this whole "fixing" life nonsense btw) but he doesn't want to. He feels that somebody needs to be punished for breaking it in the first place. It doesn't seem to matter to him that punishing himself even though he didn't break it is incredibly unjust and illogical.

[jimwalton]

I have already explained it several times, but I'll try again. The universe has some set properties about it. There is within it characteristics that mirror the nature of its creator, YHWH. When death entered the system, it created an imbalance, a disequilibrium, if you will, that could only be righted by the correct factors to bring the system back into balance. I can't pay a monetary debt by blowing a feather across the room; it's the incorrect medium for the imbalance at hand. I have to pay either in goods, services, or currency. It's the nature of the debt.

I have already, therefore, said specifically what "about 'A' is preventing God from being able to do it."

> It seems like your answer is that he could just "fix" life for us no strings attached (still not buying this whole "fixing" life nonsense btw) but he doesn't want to.

I never said this. In fact, I said the opposite. He has to fix it by the death of an innocent, and there are strings attached, and he does want to do it.

> He feels that somebody needs to be punished for breaking it in the first place.

This is implicit in the nature of the infraction, as I have said. He can't atone for death by the wave of a hand, it has to be with the death of an innocent. Somebody *does* need to be punished for breaking it in the first place, because an imbalance has been caused by the trespass.

> It doesn't seem to matter to him that punishing himself even though he didn't break it is incredibly unjust and illogical.

Punishing himself is not unjust because he does it voluntarily as an act of love, just as if you owed a debt of a million dollars and a friend stepped in and paid it for you. There's nothing unfair about that.

[Shifty Eyes]

> He can't atone for death by the wave of a hand, it has to be with the death of an innocent.

Why? Because the universe "has some set properties about it"? Who set those properties?

> Somebody does need to be punished for breaking it in the first place, because an imbalance has been caused by the trespass.

And punishing an innocent for the crimes of the guilty "balances things out"? What the hell kind of scales does God use?

> Punishing himself is not unjust because he does it voluntarily as an act of love, just as if you owed a debt of a million dollars and a friend stepped in and paid it for you. There's nothing unfair about that.

We've already been over why that's a poor analogy. Who do I owe a million dollars to in this analogy? There is always going to be some evil third party that demands we owe it something (our lives) for some infraction (sinning). You have tried to turn this evil third party into "the set properties of the universe".

[jimwalton]

> Who set those properties?

They are a necessary part of creation because creation reflects the nature of God. God didn't consciously "set" them; he could not possibly create something contrary to his nature. Psalm 19.1-4.

> And punishing an innocent for the crimes of the guilty "balances things out"? What the hell kind of scales does God use?

The only kind that are just. Someone has to be punished for the crimes committed; it's the only way justice can be satisfied. An innocent steps forward, motivated by love, to pay the debt incurred to let the debtor go free. The scales are set by the nature of the crime, and the debt is paid from the resources of and by the love of the innocent. There's nothing unjust about these scales.

> Who do I owe a million dollars to in this analogy?

I chose a million dollars because it's generally an amount outside of the capability of the debtor to pay. In reality, to be more theologically correct, I would have chosen a quadrillion dollars—outside of the scope of anyone to pay.

> You have tried to turn this evil third party into "the set properties of the universe".

You are having a conversation with a Christian to find out what the Bible teaches. The very least I can do is be honest with you about what the Bible teaches. I'm not turning this evil party into "set properties," I'm informing you that sin in the Bible is a debt incurred, that justice can only be supplied according to the properties of the infraction, and that a loving benefactor has stepped in to pay the debt for you. That's what the Bible teaches.

[Shifty Eyes]

> They are a necessary part of creation because creation reflects the nature of God. God didn't consciously "set" them; he could not possibly create something contrary to his nature. Psalm 19.1-4.

Well then God's nature is unjust. Demanding that somebody (regardless of guilt) needs to be punished for the crimes of the guilty is unjust. Either the guilty need to be punished for their crimes, or they need to be forgiven. It's really that simple. Do you honestly believe it is just to punish an innocent volunteer for something they didn't do? That's pretty messed up.

Now, you can try and get around the issue by saying, "It isn't God's fault that somebody needs to be punished", but it is. He made the universe such that the only way the guilty can be forgiven is if an innocent volunteer takes their punishment upon himself. That's unjust. If he wants to forgive people, why didn't he make the universe such that they can be forgiven without the the need for an innocent person to be punished for something they didn't do? He could have done that, but it's not in his nature to be sensible apparently.

> I chose a million dollars because it's generally an amount outside of the capability of the debtor to pay. In reality, to be more theologically correct, I would have chosen a quadrillion dollars—outside of the scope of anyone to pay.

I don't think you understood my question. I asked who I owed the million/quadrillion dollars to in this analogy. There is some entity that I must owe the money to, right?

In every analogy you come up with, there will be some entity that is demanding I owe it a debt. Is that entity the same entity that is "benevolently" offering to pay the debt in my place?

[jimwalton]

> Well then God's nature is unjust.

You're not seeing straight. I'm always afraid to use analogies with you, but I'll try once more. If I create a perfect crystal goblet, beautiful in its precision and artistry, have I made a mistake? No. It's perfect. Now supposing someone drops it and it shatters into many pieces. Have I made a mistake? Is it my fault? Does that mean something was wrong with the way I made it? No on every count.

1. The nature of glass is that it can break.
2. I didn't drop it, so I'm not responsible for its breakage.
3. The fact that it broke doesn't mean there was a flaw in the design.

> Now, you can try and get around the issue by saying, "It isn't God's fault that somebody needs to be punished", but it is. He made the universe such that the only way the guilty can be forgiven is if an innocent volunteer takes their punishment upon himself. That's unjust. If he wants to forgive people, why didn't he make the universe such that they can be forgiven without the the need for an innocent person to be punished for something they didn't do? He could have done that, but it's not in his nature to be sensible apparently.

I have addressed this about five times already.

> There is some entity that I must owe the money to, right?

I have addressed this about three times already.

Are you familiar with the Lord's prayer (Matthew 6.12): "Forgive us our debts (sins)?"