I just found a post on why Jesus had to die on the cross.
Is there danger in personalizing it that much? Is it wrong to deal with the Old Testament sacrificial system in that way?
He made sense out of something I do not know if I have been able to make sense out of. It was always a topic I gave the "I don't know" answer to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
You can't say it is not substitution or that "God never really wanted sacrifice" or that God doesn't get angry because his love never changes without ignoring huge portions of Scripture.
I agree that among the effects are that we see how much he loves us and are inspired to love others with that love. But we were objects of wrath. W needed the substitution, the righteous for the unrighteous.
The more it bounces around my mind the more it seems like one of those "I know what the Bible says, but God can't be that way" arguments.
I am left with the thought why did we need a substitute? Did we really? Where does it state that in Scripture that we needed one?
Let's try to answer the third question first, before we get to 'why'.
How about romans 3:26 which talks about Jesus' sacrifice as an act of justice to take care of sins past and present?
I guess I am back to square one saying I do not understand the whole substitutionary atonement and how that can work except that God said it would. Not good solid ground to stand on.
not bad ground necessarily. good start, at least. A good theological explantion needs to have the God-said-its in place.
Better to be at square 1 than on a wrong square all together, I suppose.
The rest of the question seems to be over my head.
Post a Comment