Why do some people not like the idea of OSAS?

[Hillsage]

I would use co-conspirator rather than accomplice, but lets go with your word. Who are the accomplices? Christ and whom? Christ and mankind? Christ and the Father?

If Christ was an accomplice to mankind's sin and therefore somehow guilty so as to deserve punishment, then 1 John 3:5, 1 Peter 2:22 and 2 Cor. 5:21 are simply incorrect.

therefore a sinless accomplice in 'the sin nature' with those who did sin; 1JO 3:5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
again a sinless accomplice with those who did sin; 1PE 2:22 He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips.
still a sinless accomplice giving us His righteousness; 2CO 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Not sure how co-conspirator really applies concerning 'the creator/WORD' who conspired /spoke it ALL, and then willingly became a 'co-conspirator' who was tempted with that sin nature, like us, but never committed the crime of sin which WE ALL did.

But this may just be a rabbit hole too deep/dark for us to come out with much light.

 

[Wick Stick]

The question is not whether we are just. It's whether God is just in crucifying Christ for our sins. Here is an all-loving Supreme Being who could, if He wished, just forgive all sin with a waive of His metaphorical hand, but chose instead to have His Son brutally murdered. Call it what you will, but don't call it just. It is never justice to punish A for B's offense.

Seems like we have different definitions for "just."

Forgiveness is never just. It's better than just.

 

[BlessedPeace]

'Letter of the law' counselor. ; God didn't "brutally punish" Jesus....the Jews and the Romans did.

How easily that can be overlooked.

JOH 19:10 Pilate therefore said to him, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?" 11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you (THE JEWS) has the greater sin."

And neither God the Father or the Holy Spirit force Jesus to do it.

JOH 10:17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.
18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father."

And the Jews responsible cursed their future in the process. Matthew 27:25

Might say he committed suicide. But of course that can't be, because suicide is sin.

It wasn't suicide. If it need have a label perhaps martyrdom would suffice.
No greater gift ...John 15:13

Or is this where someone who drove the getaway car gets charged for murder, when someone else committed the actual crime. I believe 'accomplice' is the 'letter of the law' legal term....correct?

Um, I wouldn't think so,no.

 

[RedFan]

Seems like we have different definitions for "just."

Forgiveness is never just. It's better than just.

And I am testing whether that forgiveness could have been accomplished, if God so desired, without the UNjust punishment of the innocent for the guilty.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yet His justice does allow him to brutally punish Jesus for our sins? How is that just?

Its called redemption

And its called Love.

Thats how much God loved you.. Will you recieve his gift?

 

[Spyder]

Referring to post 724 - For an answer to that, one would have to look at the punishment intended for those who broke the Covenant of Moses.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

And I am testing whether that forgiveness could have been accomplished, if God so desired, without the UNjust punishment of the innocent for the guilty.

And as I showed

No

If there any other way, Jesus would never have seen the cross.

 

[St. SteVen]

And I am testing whether that forgiveness could have been accomplished, if God so desired, without the UNjust punishment of the innocent for the guilty.

That's an interesting question.
And the logic behind it fuels the heroic deed.

1) There was a requirement. (perhaps the BIGGER question)
2) Humankind was required to pay.
3) Jesus stepped in and paid our penalty. (the innocent for the guilty)
4) Our debt has been paid in full.

This still leaves us with lots of questions and problems.
But I am personal satisfied that the death penalty required of all humankind has been paid in full.

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

/

 

[RedFan]

And as I showed

No

If there any other way, Jesus would never have seen the cross.

And my question is, WHY was there no other way for the omnipotent, all-loving Father to pull it off?

Several theories have been advanced to explain what happened on Calvary, all of them using the language of “payment” in describing the sacrifice. The “ransom” theory, see Matt. 20:28/Mark 10:45, suggests that by sinning mankind became Satan’s captives, and Christ gave himself as a ransom to redeem mankind from Satan’s dominion, resulting in what Rom. 6:16 characterizes as a change of masters. Origen, Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa all championed this theory. (Augustine added some conjecture on why Satan would ever make that deal – one of the starker examples of his often questionable logic.)

In contrast, the “restitutional” or “penal substitution” theory, initially developed by Anselm and refined by Calvin, is far more prevalent today. It holds that Christ paid the penalty for mankind’s sin―a death penalty imposed by God since the Fall of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17)―and thereby satisfied the legitimate demands of God’s justice.

While the payees are different in each (Satan in the “ransom” theory, God in the “restitutional” or “penal substitution” theory), both theories involve swaps that deviate from the “punish the guilty, not the innocent” model of justice. Therein lies the issue.

 

[Spyder]

And my question is, WHY was there no other way for the omnipotent, all-loving Father to pull it off?

Several theories have been advanced to explain what happened on Calvary, all of them using the language of “payment” in describing the sacrifice. The “ransom” theory, see Matt. 20:28/Mark 10:45, suggests that by sinning mankind became Satan’s captives, and Christ gave himself as a ransom to redeem mankind from Satan’s dominion, resulting in what Rom. 6:16 characterizes as a change of masters. Origen, Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa all championed this theory. (Augustine added some conjecture on why Satan would ever make that deal – one of the starker examples of his often questionable logic.)

In contrast, the “restitutional” or “penal substitution” theory, initially developed by Anselm and refined by Calvin, is far more prevalent today. It holds that Christ paid the penalty for mankind’s sin―a death penalty imposed by God since the Fall of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17)―and thereby satisfied the legitimate demands of God’s justice.

While the payees are different in each (Satan in the “ransom” theory, God in the “restitutional” or “penal substitution” theory), both theories involve swaps that deviate from the “punish the guilty, not the innocent” model of justice. Therein lies the issue.

Because the Covenant of Moses was a contract that must be fulfilled. The people of Israel broke the contract repeatedly, but God restored them repeatedly. In order to establish a New Covenant, the penalty of the contract had to be paid. It was not easy without killing all the people of Israel. One solution - it required a spotless sacrificial lamb.

 

[RedFan]

That's an interesting question.
And the logic behind it fuels the heroic deed.

1) There was a requirement. (perhaps the BIGGER question)
2) Humankind was required to pay.
3) Jesus stepped in and paid our penalty. (the innocent for the guilty)
4) Our debt has been paid in full.

This still leaves us with lots of questions and problems.
But I am personal satisfied that the death penalty required of all humankind has been paid in full.

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

/

As a beneficiary of the atonement, I'm certainly not complaining! I'm just struggling with an apparent injustice of the choice of methods.

 

[RedFan]

Because the Covenant of Moses was a contract that must be fulfilled. The people of Israel broke the contract repeatedly, but God restored them repeatedly. In order to establish a New Covenant, the penalty of the contract had to be paid. It was not easy without killing all the people of Israel. One solution - it required a spotless sacrificial lamb.

The "requirement" of the sacrificial lamb is the crux of the issue. In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Graebner trans., Zondervan 1949), Luther comments on Gal. 3:20: “We are the offending party; God is the party offended. The offense is of such a nature that God cannot pardon it.” Why not? No matter what the “offense” is (original sin inherited from Adam; Israel breaking the covenant; our own personal actions contravening God’s law; fill in the blank yourself), what is it about the nature of the offense that renders it unforgivable without the spotless sacrificial lamb?

Hebrews tells us that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. (I will leave for another post discussion of the bloodless paths to forgiveness of sin mentioned in the OT, including Exodus 30:11-16 (paying money), Leviticus 5:11-13 (burning flour by the poor), or more generally, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalm 40:6, Psalm 51:16-17, Isaiah 1:11, and similar verses suggesting that the Lord does not delight in burnt offerings.) OK, Why not?

I've got some thoughts on this, but I welcome yours.

 

[ChristisGod]

The "requirement" of the sacrificial lamb is the crux of the issue. In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Graebner trans., Zondervan 1949), Luther comments on Gal. 3:20: “We are the offending party; God is the party offended. The offense is of such a nature that God cannot pardon it.” Why not? No matter what the “offense” is (original sin inherited from Adam; Israel breaking the covenant; our own personal actions contravening God’s law; fill in the blank yourself), what is it about the nature of the offense that renders it unforgivable without the spotless sacrificial lamb?

Hebrews tells us that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. (I will leave for another post discussion of the bloodless paths to forgiveness of sin mentioned in the OT, including Exodus 30:11-16 (paying money), Leviticus 5:11-13 (burning flour by the poor), or more generally, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalm 40:6, Psalm 51:16-17, Isaiah 1:11, and similar verses suggesting that the Lord does not delight in burnt offerings.) OK, Why not?

I've got some thoughts on this, but I welcome yours.

I wrote a thesis paper on this topic with the atonement.

 

[St. SteVen]

Because the Covenant of Moses was a contract that must be fulfilled. The people of Israel broke the contract repeatedly, but God restored them repeatedly. In order to establish a New Covenant, the penalty of the contract had to be paid. It was not easy without killing all the people of Israel. One solution - it required a spotless sacrificial lamb.

Why do you jump forward all the way to Moses and the Israelites?
What became of the Fall and all who lived before Moses time?

/

 

[RedFan]

I wrote a thesis paper on this topic with the atonement.

Can you share it?

 

[St. SteVen]

As a beneficiary of the atonement, I'm certainly not complaining! I'm just struggling with an apparent injustice of the choice of methods.

I agree.
The whole thing is wonky, all the way back to the Garden narrative. (Orchard?) - LOL
Looks like a set-up with disastrous results. Who is responsible really? (logically)

/

 

[Spyder]

Why do you jump forward all the way to Moses and the Israelites?
What became of the Fall and all who lived before Moses time?

/

Well, I suppose it is because that is the one I see as the Old Covenant where we recognize the Ten Commandments. While I know there are others, the one from Moses gets the most attention to our need for a New Covenant.

The Five Key Covenants God Makes With Humans in the Bible

Learn about what a covenant is and how God repeatedly repaired his broken partnership with humans, including establishing the new covenant through Jesus.

bibleproject.com

 

[Eternally Grateful]

And my question is, WHY was there no other way for the omnipotent, all-loving Father to pull it off?

And I explained. He is a perfect Judge

A perfect judge can not Just let people get away with their crimes. They would either have to let everyone out of Hell. Or they would have to send everyone to hell Since ALL have sinned.

So God has to find another way. And that way is love. As I explained.

Several theories have been advanced to explain what happened on Calvary, all of them using the language of “payment” in describing the sacrifice. The “ransom” theory, see Matt. 20:28/Mark 10:45, suggests that by sinning mankind became Satan’s captives, and Christ gave himself as a ransom to redeem mankind from Satan’s dominion, resulting in what Rom. 6:16 characterizes as a change of masters. Origen, Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa all championed this theory. (Augustine added some conjecture on why Satan would ever make that deal – one of the starker examples of his often questionable logic.)

In contrast, the “restitutional” or “penal substitution” theory, initially developed by Anselm and refined by Calvin, is far more prevalent today. It holds that Christ paid the penalty for mankind’s sin―a death penalty imposed by God since the Fall of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17)―and thereby satisfied the legitimate demands of God’s justice.

While the payees are different in each (Satan in the “ransom” theory, God in the “restitutional” or “penal substitution” theory), both theories involve swaps that deviate from the “punish the guilty, not the innocent” model of justice. Therein lies the issue.

Lets look at it this way.

The wage of sin is death (spiritual)

The only way to redeem a person who is guilty is then death (spiritua

God came, fulfilled the law, because the lamb of God who knew no sin. And died that death (spiritual) in our place.

its called penal substitution, The one being that substitute had to be innocent of the same crime, This is what the word says about Jesus

Again, Jesus said IF there is ANY OtHER WAY, remove this cup.

It there was any other way. Jesus would never have died..

 

[St. SteVen]

Well, I suppose it is because that is the one I see as the Old Covenant where we recognize the Ten Commandments. While I know there are others, the one from Moses gets the most attention to our need for a New Covenant.

Okay, thanks.
From my perspective the value of the New Covenant was ONLY to do away with the Old Covenant.
Abraham was the Father of faith. That is more significant to me. I'm probably not alone in that.

We can even go back to Enoch for an example of the ALL IMPORTANT relationship with God.
The relationship makes every twist and turn of doctrine irrelevant to me.
I don't care how you get there. JUST GET THERE.

/

 

[RedFan]

And I explained. He is a perfect Judge

A perfect judge can not Just let people get away with their crimes. They would either have to let everyone out of Hell. Or they would have to send everyone to hell Since ALL have sinned.

So God has to find another way. And that way is love. As I explained.

Lets look at it this way.

The wage of sin is death (spiritual)

The only way to redeem a person who is guilty is then death (spiritua

God came, fulfilled the law, because the lamb of God who knew no sin. And died that death (spiritual) in our place.

its called penal substitution, The one being that substitute had to be innocent of the same crime, This is what the word says about Jesus

Again, Jesus said IF there is ANY OtHER WAY, remove this cup.

It there was any other way. Jesus would never have died..

I think we are talking past each other. I don't disagree that the wages of sin is death, and we deserved death. The sinless Christ did not deserve it. He volunteered for it anyway, and God allowed him to be killed in our stead. We agree on that much.

And for present purposes I will even go along with your conclusion that if there were another way to pull this off, then Christ's prayer in the Garden (if this cup can pass me by, then let it pass me by) would have drawn the Father's response "OK, Son, your off the hook (no pun intended, Son)" -- and since that was not the response, then there must have been no other way.

But my question stands: WHY NOT? I'm struggling to distill the answer from your post. The comment "A perfect judge can not Just let people get away with their crimes" doesn't help, because God DID let US get away without personally being punished by punishing the innocent Son in our stead. And that brings us back to my original and still unanswered question: How can it be just to punish the innocent for the guilty's offense?