God is responsible in a certain sense, in that He created man. But whether or not God is responsible doesn't matter so much as that it is God's character to love. And His love motivates Him to give His life for us.

James, I'd like to explain why I answered "yes" to Mark's question.

A question to ask is, what is the punishment that Christ took? It is death. Death is the inevitable result of sin. One man sinned, it was inevitable that he should die. But Christ said, "Let there punishment fall on me."

This should not be understood as Jesus agreeing to let God kill Him so that He wouldn't have to kill us, but that sin must inevitably lead to death, because that is the nature of sin. It's like gravity leads to falling. Or, perhaps a better analogy, that God's character leads to Him so loving us that He gave us His Son.

In addition to Adam's sinning, we have each chosen the way of sin in our own lives. So it's not a question of only suffering for someone else's choice, but since we have each one gone our own way, and chosen the way of death, it is inevitable that we should die.

Think of it this way. Selfishness can only lead to pain, misery, suffering, and finally death. There is nothing God can to about this. It is part and partial to what selfishness is.

What God can do is to transform us from being member so the kingdom of the evil one, where selfishness reigns, which must lead to death, to being members of His kingdom where love and unselfishness reigns. The only way to do this was to make clear God's character. So Jesus came to do this very thing. And we killed Him. Our punishment fell on Him. But it need not fall on us, because we may open our eyes of faith to believe in what Jesus Christ revealed; there is hope for us in our responding to the height and depth of God's love revealed at Calvary.

James, humanity has already been redeemed. We were bought back from the enemy 2,000 years ago. It is not the God's fault that we have not been re-integrated into the heavenly family. "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God." We have steadfastly insisted on holding on to views of him that are close-minded and narrow. That makes us feel good but it shows that we don't know Him. You can obey without knowing but you cannot give allegiance to someone without knowing that person. Our need is not salvation but life eternal. We have the first but we keep postponing the latter.

Quote:

---

I get the impression that you are stating that God's law is not really a law, or at least that the breaking of His law is not deserving of punishment (justice). For if God's law does not require justice, then there is no need of punishment.

---

What does Paul mean when he says that the purpose of the law is to reveal (define) sin?

/Thomas

But Tom, the question is why was He wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquity? Was it necessary that this was so? Did this have to be?

Yes, "why" is indeed the question. Which is why I asked it! Was Christ's death something necessary in order for God to forgive us? Or was it necessary for us? That's an important question to consider.

Quote:
What God can do is to transform us from being member so the kingdom of the evil one, where selfishness reigns, which must lead to death, to being members of His kingdom where love and unselfishness reigns. The only way to do this was to make clear God's character. So Jesus came to do this very thing. And we killed Him.


Is it your belief, Tom, that Christ did not need to die but only to show us God's character in Person by living a holy life and teaching mankind during that life?

No.

And that we simply killed Him while He was living a life that was to reveal God's character to us (but His death really was not necessary)?

No.

If "Yes", then what does the Bible mean by "without the shedding of blood is no remission of sin?" (Hebrews 9:22)

If "No", then why was His death (or ours) necessary? Why not simply transform us from members of Satan's kingdom to members of God's kingdom without any death taking place whatsoever?

How would this work Denborg? Doesn't our being transformed into Christ's kingdom depend upon our being reconciled to Him, which is dependent upon our being born again? How could God transfer us into His kingdom without our being converted? And how are we converted if not by a perception of the height and depth of God's love, and an acceptance of the principles of His government?

I get the impression that you are stating that God's law is not really a law, or at least that the breaking of His law is not deserving of punishment (justice). For if God's law does not require justice, then there is no need of punishment.

The punishment which is necessary is death. This is not an arbitrary, or imposed, punishment, but is an inevitable result. You can't have sin without death. If the written law were removed, it would still be the case that sin would result in death. It is not the law which causes death to occur, but sin.

You correctly state that the natural consequences of sin is death. For by sin we are separated from the Life Giver. But why not simply transform us from the kingdom of sin and death to the kingdom of holiness and life?

Again I would ask, how could this be done? Especially bearing in mind that God is a God who cares supremely about not stepping on our free will. The only way it seems to me that God can transform us is the way that He did, which is through the cross of Christ. As Jesus said, as the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Jesus Christ tied being born again to believing in Him, which He tied into His death on the cross. So I don't see how you can have God "simply transform us from the kingdom of sin and death to the kingdom of holiness and life" without Christ's death on the cross? How would we be born again without the cross? Can you explain this please?

Why must we, or Christ as our substitute, die if not to meet the just demands of the law?

Because the inevitable result of sin is death.

Why doesn't God simply say, "OK, if you are truly sincere, I will change your character so that you do not sin anymore. And we'll forget that whole sin thing in the past"?

Our problem with sin does not have to do with God. Our problem is with sin. I posted something from Fifield which deals specifically with the question you're asking it, so I will repost it.

Perhaps those "pet phrases" are more than just mere "pet phrases". Perhaps they carry a very significant meaning, and to you they were pet phrases because you never gave their meaning that much thought before.

I don't think this is likely. I majored in Religion at Andrews and went completed the course work for a Masters of Divinity at the Seminary. I've also thought about this since then very, very much. But I'm open to any thoughts you may have which my professors, or I, may not have thought of.

Just because to you they became trivial and "pet", does not make them devoid of truth and meaning.

Well this is the whole question. If we ask the question, "Why did Jesus have to die?" and the answer is "to meet the just demands of the law," what does that mean? We answer, "The wages of sin is death. The law demands the death of the sinner." Why? "Because that's what justice demands?" Why? "Because if God were to forgive us with the punishment being paid, that would be unjust?" Why would it be unjust? How does Christ's death make it just for God to forgive us? Is the problem that we have one of retributive justice, or one of alienated hearts and minds? If the purpose of Christ's death is one of satisfying God's justice, why didn't Jesus every say this?

It's true that because I noticed that I was using certain phrases without understanding their meaning does not cause the phrases to not have meaning. The question is if these phrases actually do have some deeper meaning. I've thought about this a lot, and I think that Waggoner, Fifield, to name two, have seen these things accurately. Especially Fifield, who wrote more explicitly about it.

At any rate, I'm glad to see you participating in the discussion, and hope that you will keep the same open mind that you are requesting I have.

(This is the statement from Fifield that I alluded to. It addresses the question of God's forgiving us.)

Any pardon and any forgiveness that would not take away the effect of sin, but that would lead us more and more into sin, and into the misery that comes from sin, would be worth nothing. If the law of God was an arbitrary thing, that did not have any penalty attached to it, the Lord could say, I will pardon you. But when you transgress the law, it is death; and when you keep the law, it is life and joy and peace....

If God had not been wise, He might have pardoned our sins in an imprudent way. Now, brethren, every father in this world knows what it is to want to let his children do things which they would enjoy doing, and he has to restrain that which would bring present pleasure, restrain that love, because of the evil effects it would have.

Was sin ever less repentant than at the foot of the cross? There you have the thing. There was God revealing Himself in Christ on the cross, and there was sin unrepentant, hatred and mocking at the foot of the cross. How did God feel toward those unrepentant sinners? -- "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." That is how Christ felt, and that is how God felt. He did not have any grudge against them. He would like to forgive everybody. But why could He not do it? -- It would annul His law, if it was an arbitrary law; but if it were not, it would lead men to go into sin, and sin and death would result. It would be God simply taking the place of the imprudent father and spoiling his child. And therefore, because He could not do that, He set forth Christ to be, not the propitiation of God's wrath, but the propitiation of our sin, that God might be just, and still the justifier of them who believe in Jesus; because He would take the sins away from them if they believed in Him, and then He could set them free, and be just in doing it, for He would not lead anybody else into sin in doing it.

O, I am so glad that we have a God whose very nature and disposition is to pardon sin; that we have a Father who is not holding any grudge against us, but instead of that is giving His own life, in His Son, that He my so manifest His love as to bring us back to Him, and so give us the life power as to live His life. It was needed that His life should be revealed, and His divine life imparted, that we might live that life on earth; and that is what He did in Christ. O, I am so glad we have such a God as that, who gives His own life to win us back to Him! The love of God is the one changing thing in a universe of change.

Regarding your question, Thomas, here's something Waggoner wrote:

What Is the Use of the Law?

This is the question that the apostle Paul asks in verse 19, both for the purpose of anticipating the objections of the Antinomians, and also that he may the more emphatically show the place of the law in the Gospel. The question is a very natural one. Since the inheritance is wholly by promise, and a covenant confirmed can not be changed,--nothing can be taken from it, and nothing added to it,--why did the law come in four hundred and thirty years afterward? "Wherefore then serveth the law?" More literally, Why then the law? What business has it here? What part does it act? Of what use is it?

The Question Answered.

The law of God existed in the days of Abraham, and was kept by him. Gen.26:5. God proved the children of Israel, as to whether they would keep His law or not, more than a month before the law was spoken upon Sinai. Ex.16:1-4,27,28.

"It Was Added."

The word here rendered "added" is the same as that rendered "spoken" in Heb.12:19: "They that heard entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more." It is the same word that occurs in the Septuagint rendering of Deut.5:22, where we read that God spoke the ten commandments with a great voice; "and He added no more." So we may read the answer to the question, "Wherefore then the law?" thus: "It was spoken because of transgressions." It is the reprover of sin.

Because of Transgressions.

"Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound." Rom.5:20. In other words, "that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." Rom.7:13. It was given under circumstances of the most awful majesty, as a warning to the children of Israel that by their unbelief they were in danger of losing the promised inheritance. They did not, like Abraham, believe the Lord; and "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." But the inheritance was promised "through the righteousness of faith," and, therefore, the unbelieving Jews could not receive it. So the law was spoken to them, to convince them that they had not the righteousness that was necessary for the possession of the inheritance; for, although righteousness does not come by the law, it must be witnessed by the law. Rom.3:21. In short, the law was given to show them that they had not faith, and so were not true children of Abraham, and were therefore in a fair way to lose the inheritance. God would have put His law into their hearts, even as He put it into Abraham's heart, if they had believed; but when they disbelieved, yet still professed to be heirs of the promise, it was necessary to show them in the most marked manner that their unbelief was sin. The law was spoken because of transgression, or, what is the same thing, because of the unbelief of the people.