Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

Is it a good thing to be able to forgive without any price?

If so, is God imperfect for being unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

Yes!
Jews from all over Palestine, Northern Provinces, Gaulanitus, Galilee, Decapolis, Idumea, Perea, and of course Judea, trekked to Jerusalem to make sacrifice for the remission of their sins. They felt as bound to cleanse themselves thus as many women need to wash their hair .......

When they reached the outlying townships they got fleeced by the locals for each dinner and bed that they required. When they arrived at the Great Temple they got fleeced by the money-changer's exchange rates. Then they got fleeced, every many paying 7grams of pure silver head tax (Tyrian half-shekel) Then the merchants fleeced them for the price of a lamb, and the priests fleeced them for sacrificial dues....... all to feel spiritual;ly clean once more.

The whole process was just one corrupt, nasty, greedy milking process.

But there was a man who out in the wastes to the East lof the Jordan river, living as close to self-subsistence as any human can, and at one with his God. He came out of the desert to the Jordan, where the path to the south lay (clear of Samaria) and he called out to them....
...'Come to me! Come to me for immersion in the Jordan for the remission of your sins........ for nothing!'

You should read what he called those priests!


The Remission of Sins should be free, as with forgiveness of all kinds.

I believe that this is a total misrepresentation of what HaTorah requires. First, not all sins require an animal sacrifice. Some merely require a mikvah, which is what Yochannan was doing out in the wilderness. Second, there indeed was corruption in how the Temple was run. However, that was primarily due to fences set up to assure Torah compliance. These are not Torah, but extra requirements, like the mikvah having to be performed at the Temple, in front of a priest, to assure admittance into the Temple. Third, HaTorah requires everyone to set aside a tithe to cover the costs of any pilgrimage. Fourth, HaTorah requires a destitute traveler be provided for. Fifth, Hatorah permits allows those who could not afford a lamb to offer doves instead, in some cases. That said, I do not think that the remission of sin is "free", nor should it be. That is evangelical doctrine and engages in the same deceptive "sales talk" that has become acceptable in modern commerce.

[The Tanager]

But the problem wasn't a physical one, it was a spiritual(?) one. A physical solution would make sense if we were, say, physically trapped in some kind of prison. A physical salvation made sense in Exodus. But the issue of our sin is not a physical issue.

I think Christianity says it is a physical issue. Or perhaps it is better to say a spiritual-physical issue. We are spiritual-physical beings as a whole and sin is not just focused on half of our being. The concept of the Fall talks about the first human rebellion introducing sin into human nature (which is both spiritual and physical).

And even if it were, I fail to see the connection between Jesus physically dying and our sins somehow being forgiven? It makes about as much sense as trying to cure cancer by painting pictures of horses. The solution is so far detached from the problem that I cannot fathom how the two are connected at all. The two being physical does not explain the causal link between the two. In what way does Jesus' death forgive our sins?

This is what I think Christianity teaches about Jesus' death, a picture I first encountered through CS Lewis' writings. There are a lot of different aspects here, so I'll try to be brief on each one and if you have further questions or critiques we can look at those.

God created humanity to live in perfect relationship with God, where we trust God and rely upon God to live the most abundant life, letting our lives be guided by God's perfect knowledge and love. But then sin entered the picture. We got ourselves into a hole, breaking the relationship. And the hole was that we tried to set up on our own, behaving like we belonged only to ourselves. We are in rebellion against what God created us for. We are rebels who must lay down our arms.

The way out of the hole (Christians call it repentance) isn't just about saying you are sorry and you'll get them next time. Repentance here means unlearning the self-conceit, the self-will, the self-reliance that humanity has been training itself in for thousands of years. It means killing a part of yourself.
But this repentance is not something God requires of us before taking us back. If so, God could just decide to let us off, if God wanted to. Repentance simply is a description of what going back to God is like. To ask God to take us back without going through repentance is asking God to let us go back without actually going back, which is illogical.

But, here is the catch. Only a bad person needs to repent, but only a good one could repent perfectly. The badness which makes us need to repent, makes us unable to do it. So, we need God's help. But what do we mean by that? I think Christianity teaches that this means God putting into us a bit of God's self, lending us God's reasoning powers, God's love. Like teaching a child to write letters by holding their hand. The child at first forms the letters because the adult is forming them.

And here is the second catch. We need God to help us surrender, submit, to die to ourselves, and this isn't something that is part of God's nature. How could God teach us something that God doesn't have in God's nature?

And this is where the incarnation comes in in Christianity. If God took on human nature (which can surrender, submit, die), if human nature was amalgamated with God's nature in one person, then that person could help us. He could surrender his will, suffer, die because he was a man, but do it perfectly because he was God. God would have to surrender in every moment of a human life to have a perfect, completed human nature. Humans die and so Jesus would have to surrender even in some kind of death.

And having completely done this, living the perfect human life, Jesus resurrected. We must then somehow share in this dying to get out of the hole we are in. God comes to dwell within us, and to teach our human natures from the inside out, so to speak, how to live the surrendered life God originally planned for us. God isn't overriding our wills, but teaching us like a child is learning its letters.

So, in this sense, Jesus' life and death is absolutely necessary for the forgiveness of sins and putting us right with God.

[Justin108]

I think Christianity says it is a physical issue.

Where?

Repentance here means unlearning the self-conceit, the self-will, the self-reliance that humanity has been training itself in for thousands of years.

Right. And I fail to see why Jesus' death is necessary for repentance

But, here is the catch. Only a bad person needs to repent, but only a good one could repent perfectly.

Why?

The badness which makes us need to repent, makes us unable to do it.

I see no reason why being bad would make it impossible to repent.

repent
rɪˈpɛnt/
verb
feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin.

If one can feel regret, then one can repent. Bad people can feel regret, ergo bad people can repent. I have done things I am not proud of, and because of this regret I see no reason why my repentance is impossible

So, we need God's help. But what do we mean by that? I think Christianity teaches that this means God putting into us a bit of God's self, lending us God's reasoning powers, God's love.

Ok. And why would Jesus need to sacrifice himself to achieve this?

And here is the second catch. We need God to help us surrender, submit, to die to ourselves, and this isn't something that is part of God's nature. How could God teach us something that God doesn't have in God's nature?

He's omniscient, meaning that he knows how to teach surrender even if it is not in his own nature just as I can teach a dog to sniff out drugs even if I myself cannot sniff out drugs.

If God took on human nature (which can surrender, submit, die), if human nature was amalgamated with God's nature in one person, then that person could help us.

As explained above, God can teach us to surrender without first becoming human

He could surrender his will, suffer, die because he was a man, but do it perfectly because he was God.

This is categorically impossible. How can someone be man (imperfect) and god (perfect) at the same time?

[The Tanager]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by saying sin isn't a physical thing, but a spiritual thing? Humans are spiritual-material beings according to Christianity, as I can see it. Sin affects our human nature. So, what I'm saying is that restoring our relationship with God will have to involve changing our human nature.

If the problem is that we have set up on our own and rebelled against how God set things up; that we are self-reliant, then repentance means turning from this. Turning from that means losing our self-reliance. Only the self-reliant need to repent, but they are self-reliant, so they can't repent because repenting here means not being self-reliant. Christianity says that our human natures are in such a stage that no one does this perfectly. But doing this perfectly is simply what it means to be in a perfect relationship with God, the way God set things up to be from the beginning.

repent
rɪˈpɛnt/
verb
feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one's wrongdoing or sin.

If one can feel regret, then one can repent. Bad people can feel regret, ergo bad people can repent. I have done things I am not proud of, and because of this regret I see no reason why my repentance is impossible

Repentance, as Christianity seems to mean it, does not mean to merely feel or express regret, but to actually turn around and live in an entirely different way. To unlearn the self-reliance.

Ok. And why would Jesus need to sacrifice himself to achieve this?

What do you mean sacrifice himself?

He's omniscient, meaning that he knows how to teach surrender even if it is not in his own nature just as I can teach a dog to sniff out drugs even if I myself cannot sniff out drugs.

But smelling is a part of your nature. The dog just has a greater capacity for doing this than you. You can't teach something that is not in your nature. You can't teach the dog how to fly (obviously I don't mean in a plane or something like that) because it's not in your nature, for instance.

To be able to surrender God would have to take on a nature that can surrender. God does that and surrenders the human life perfectly in every respect, including death, which happened to be (but didn't have to be) death on a cross. We need to share in this nature, to have our nature changed out, made new.

This is categorically impossible. How can someone be man (imperfect) and god (perfect) at the same time?

Man, as a category, doesn't necessitate the idea of being imperfect. God is said to have created them and saw that it was good. Sin makes individual human persons imperfect. God incarnated as Jesus and lived a perfect human life of relationship.

[Justin108]

So, what I'm saying is that restoring our relationship with God will have to involve changing our human nature.

And what I'm saying is an omnipotent God can do this without needing to sacrifice Jesus

Only the self-reliant need to repent, but they are self-reliant, so they can't repent because repenting here means not being self-reliant.

So God expects us to do something that is logically impossible?

Repentance, as Christianity seems to mean it, does not mean to merely feel or express regret, but to actually turn around and live in an entirely different way.

Again, this is possible without the need for Jesus to be sacrificed

Ok. And why would Jesus need to sacrifice himself to achieve this?

What do you mean sacrifice himself?

It's a bit late into the argument to be asking this. Did Jesus not come to earth in order to be sacrificed for our sins?

He's omniscient, meaning that he knows how to teach surrender even if it is not in his own nature just as I can teach a dog to sniff out drugs even if I myself cannot sniff out drugs.

But smelling is a part of your nature.

God designed our nature so naturally he would understand our nature. Then there's the fact that he is omniscient and so automatically understands everything

You can't teach something that is not in your nature.

You can if you're omnipotent and omniscient

[The Tanager]

It's a bit late into the argument to be asking this. Did Jesus not come to earth in order to be sacrificed for our sins?

It's never too late to try to better understand one another. What do you think of when you use this metaphor? That Christians think God is putting Jesus on an altar and sacrificing Jesus to God's self to make Him feel not so angry at our sin? Or that God sacrificed His inability to suffer so that He could redeem human nature and get us out of the hole we were in? There could be other things. Different people have different ideas when using that phrase.

And what I'm saying is an omnipotent God can do this without needing to sacrifice Jesus.

We also must take into account free will, I think. God does not want to override our free will. Thus God "teaches" us like we learn our letters. He's not just making a new human nature from scratch and forcing that new nature upon us. He is redeeming the human nature we already are.

So God expects us to do something that is logically impossible?

No. That's why God incarnates as Jesus.

Again, this is possible without the need for Jesus to be sacrificed

Christianity says it's not. It says no one will fully repent and rely on God and live how humanity was designed to live in relationship with God. Not on their own. That's where Jesus comes in.

God designed our nature so naturally he would understand our nature. Then there's the fact that he is omniscient and so automatically understands everything.

Our capacity to surrender isn't like the characteristic of having the ability to walk. It's just a description of being a creature. It arises simply from the fact that the Creator doesn't submit, but creatures naturally are under their Creator. Omniscience doesn't mean all of a sudden being able to surrender. It's knowledge comes from being the creator of all, not from being a creature.

You can if you're omnipotent and omniscient

Those don't mean being able to just do anything one can put together. It's not a lack of omnipotence that results in God not being able to make a round square. That is a logical impossibility. Omnipotence and omniscience don't include logical impossibilities. It's logically impossible for the Divine, the Creator to be able to surrender (an attribute that comes directly from being created), unless that being took on a created nature.

[Justin108]

We also must take into account free will, I think. God does not want to override our free will. Thus God "teaches" us like we learn our letters. He's not just making a new human nature from scratch and forcing that new nature upon us.

God: do you want a new nature that is without sin?
Me: Yes please

Problem solved.

Besides, where was my free will decision when sin entered my nature in the first place? I never asked to have a sinful nature.

Again, this is possible without the need for Jesus to be sacrificed

Christianity says it's not.

Then Christianity is lying when it says God is omnipotent

Omniscience doesn't mean all of a sudden being able to surrender.

No but it does mean God has the ability to teach us how to surrender. If you know everything, then you know how to teach people everything that can be taught.

You can if you're omnipotent and omniscient

Those don't mean being able to just do anything one can put together.

Umm.. yes they do. Unless something is logically impossible (like a triangle with four sides), then being omnipotent means you can do anything. Since there is nothing logically impossible about God teaching us something that is not in his nature, God should be able to do it.

It's not a lack of omnipotence that results in God not being able to make a round square. That is a logical impossibility.

I never said God should make a round square. A round square is impossible by definition. This is not true for teaching us something that is not in God's nature. There is nothing in either definition to prevent this.

It's logically impossible for the Divine, the Creator to be able to surrender

Who said he needs to surrender? All he needs to do is teach us how to surrender. God doesn't have to surrender anything

[The Tanager]

God: do you want a new nature that is without sin?
Me: Yes please

Problem solved.

Do you mean a new nature that is without the capability to sin or a nature that hasn't yet sinned? If the first, then your scenario has us asking to be made into robots. And then we aren't our free selves anymore. If the second, then we could just as easily mess that up, plus it would be new selves each time we 'start over.' It's not like our natures are like batteries that are interchangeable. The 'new' nature we get is having our previous human nature, who we are, redeemed, cleansed, made into what we were meant to be from the get go.

Besides, where was my free will decision when sin entered my nature in the first place? I never asked to have a sinful nature.

How would this change the fact you have one and how does it lessen some being trying to save you from that situation, when they didn't put you in that situation?

Then Christianity is lying when it says God is omnipotent

Do you mean that in this kind of sense? John went 10 for 10 at the plate. The next time up he strikes out. He has lost his perfect batting average. The only way to get John back to a perfect batting average is to negate that the strike out actually occurred. Are you saying, yeah, but an omnipotent being could find another way? If so, that's not what omnipotence means.

Since there is nothing logically impossible about God teaching us something that is not in his nature, God should be able to do it.

You can only teach that which you know. It's logically impossible to not know something and still teach it. The fact of being the self-existent Creator and not a creature means He doesn't know how to submit or surrender to someone above Himself. Not knowing this, by the nature of His kind of existence, He couldn't teach it to us.

Omniscience is usually meant in philosophical discussion to refer to knowledge of all true propositions, not knowledge of things like how it personally feels to lie or things like that. So, I'm not sure you are using it how philosophers typically do in talking about the ability to know how to teach people to surrender. Teaching is an ability and seems more to come under omnipotence. And it's logically impossible to teach that which you don't have the ability to do.

[Justin108]

Do you mean a new nature that is without the capability to sin or a nature that hasn't yet sinned?

An adjustment to our current nature that removes our sinfulness. Kind of like a software update that removes the bugs

The 'new' nature we get is having our previous human nature, who we are, redeemed, cleansed, made into what we were meant to be from the get go.

Right. And God can do exactly that without Jesus dying

Besides, where was my free will decision when sin entered my nature in the first place? I never asked to have a sinful nature.

How would this change the fact you have one and how does it lessen some being trying to save you from that situation, when they didn't put you in that situation?

A few minutes ago you were appalled by the idea of God changing our nature against our will

God does not want to override our free will

...and now all of a sudden it doesn't matter? Did I inherent sin against my free will? Yes or no?

...when they didn't put you in that situation?

If God didn't give me a sinful nature then who did?

Do you mean that in this kind of sense? John went 10 for 10 at the plate. The next time up he strikes out. He has lost his perfect batting average. The only way to get John back to a perfect batting average is to negate that the strike out actually occurred. Are you saying, yeah, but an omnipotent being could find another way?

Yes. Time travel

You can only teach that which you know.

Yes. And God knows everything

The fact of being the self-existent Creator and not a creature means He doesn't know how to submit or surrender to someone above Himself

The fact that he's omniscient means he does. He might not be able to do it himself but he still knows how.

Suppose there was a man named Jack. Jack was born a cripple and could never walk. Jack dreams of being a sprinting coach. Is it logically impossible for Jack to be a sprinting coach simply because he cannot sprint himself?

And it's logically impossible to teach that which you don't have the ability to do.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ayers.html

[The Tanager]

An adjustment to our current nature that removes our sinfulness. Kind of like a software update that removes the bugs

Removes it how, though? Beginning that we are free will beings and we messed things up and sinned, I see three adjustments that can be made (there could be more, I'm just sharing what comes to mind).

1. We are given an update that takes away our ability to sin. Thus we lose free will and have become a new kind of being.

2. We have our log history erased. This doesn't change the nature itself and so we end up with the same errors.

3. This update forgives our past errors and guides us into eventually being free from errors.

Right. And God can do exactly that without Jesus dying

How can God give us a perfect human nature without violating our free will.

A few minutes ago you were appalled by the idea of God changing our nature against our will

Okay...

...and now all of a sudden it doesn't matter? Did I inherent sin against my free will? Yes or no?

What doesn't matter? God didn't change our nature against our will. Humans changed it.

Yes. Time travel.

You aren't giving John a perfect batting average again, you are erasing the history that made his batting average imperfect. You are hitting the restart button. You'd still have to deal with future at-bats. You haven't done anything to ensure a perfect batting average.

Yes. And God knows everything

Philosophically, omniscience has usually been defined as knowing all true propositions. How does this definition fit how you are using it here to say God knows how to teach people how to surrender? That is not what has been traditionally meant by classical theism's view of God being omniscient.

The way you are talking about it would seem to fall under omnipotence. That since God is omnipotent, God should be able to teach us how to surrender since that is a logically possible action. But it is logically impossible for a being who can't surrender/submit to another to be able to surrender. And it is logically impossible for us to teach what we do not know/have knowledge of.

Jack can be a sprinting coach because Jack still has a wonderful mind and can learn and teach the mental techniques and verbal messages needed to impart wisdom onto the sprinter. The logic of how the muscles work and all of that. Jack isn't teaching the sprinter how to walk.

Rehman isn't teaching what he doesn't know. He knows the game of football. He understands it. His nature may be limited by his body to where he can't play football, but football is not just a physical thing. We can mental-ize truths about the game, the strategy, how to kick a ball, etc. But we can't teach those things until we know them. Rehman knows them. And so he can teach them. Surrender is a completely foreign concept to God, in His divine nature.