Friday, March 30, 2012

The Importance of Understanding the Death of Christ

Here's the post. I'm going to dive right into the quotes.

First, it wasn't ONLY a human sacrifice that took place. Christ is God. God died. Try to think about that one for a moment and see if changes your view of things at all. Jesus was God and Man at the same time, and He died.

Pilot was also duty-bound to stop it. The religious rulers of the Jews in that day had been waiting and waiting for their Messiah to show up. Why do you think this is so ghastly? Because all the people who SHOULD HAVE KNOWN were the people who killed Him. No, had you and I and everyone else in the world been there at that time, apart from the grace of God, we too would have cried out, "Crucify Him." It's not that we are held responsible for that crime - no, that crime falls specifically on those who committed it. We are held responsible for the attitude that we have against Him NOW. For looking at what happened and saying it's unreasonable to believe. For doubting that Christ's sacrifice was worth as much as it was, for down-playing what actually happened on the cross, for currently spitting in the face of the Son of God. We did not drive the nails into His hands, but we do the equivalent when we negate what He suffered there or how much we need it.

I think everyone should go through the process of imagining a new fantasy world full of characters and rules and their own system of days and nights and weeks and months. It's a very interesting thing to do. Then, after you have that system created, consider just how silly it would be for one of your characters, that you made up, to say, "This gravity doesn't make any sense. It can't work like that."

This is the arrogance and the folly of people who say that God's system doesn't work because they don't think it makes sense. He's God. His system is the one that is in place; His system works because He is all-powerful and He made it. Questioning that is ridiculous.

In God's system, Adam was a representative of the race of humans. He was given a simple rule, one that was easy to keep. He broke it and humanity gained a sin nature. God is not unjust for putting that system in place. Nor would I be unjust to put a system in place in my created world that only allowed short people, like myself, to be able to jump. It's not unjust because it's mine.

An eternity is Hell is NOT worse than what Christ suffered on the cross. If it were worse, then Christ didn't pay our penalty, and we would still owe something. No, what Christ suffered was so far WORSE than an eternity of Hell that it counted for hundreds of thousands of eternities in Hell. God poured out the WHOLE cup of His wrath on Christ - what do you think those three hours of darkness were about? Just because it was a cool effect? That was when the hammer fall, when God struck His own Son, when the breach in fellowship between the Persons of the Godhead happened.

Consider who has it worse: There are two people, we will call them John and Jack. John has had delicious food his entire life. He's eaten whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. Jack has lived on plain, white rice, sometimes going without for a day or too. Suddenly, all they both have to eat ever again is tasteless bread. Who will that effect more? Obviously, John is going to have a much harder time with that.

Consider the glory that Christ had, the companionship with the Father, the sweet fellowship, the oneness. Think about being in perfect harmony with the person you love most, where everything you do makes them love you more and everything they do makes you love them more, until it is just a boundless swelling of joy and love and admiration. Consider that kind of perfection. Now think if that was the way it had ALWAYS been. You had NEVER been without that.

And then it's gone. How would every second, for the Being that can experience simultaneously so much more than we can fathom, NOT be the equivalent of an eternity? A day with God is as a thousand years and a thousand years are as a day. Do you know that in Gethsemane, Christ was not bemoaning only the physical pain? Honestly, I have a hard time thinking that was on His mind at all when faced with something so much more horrendous. It was the separation from the Father that was the blow, it was the weight of disgusting, putrid SIN being on the perfect Son - not the physical stuff.

And then the author calls it a "pathetic moral spectacle." Christ's death is pathetic? Even if Christ were ONLY a man, how dare you say something about such a gruesome and horrific event? Where is there an ounce of respect in that? This I find offensive and hypocritical because I have heard both of the publishers of this blog talk about respect and tolerance. And then they publish a quote from a man who looks at a terrible event in history and the sacrifice of a Person's life when He had done NOTHING to deserve it and he writes, "Pathetic!"

No, dear readers. THAT statement is nothing less than the same hatred and disdain that the crowds displayed when they cried out, "Crucify Him!" That is lacking in common decency. The lack that is evident in those who are lost when faced with the Light that shines on their sins. That is the backlash of salt poured on a wound.

I've written a lot, so just one last note about the last paragraph. Yes, the elect were chosen before people existed. Yes, the others were ordained to Hell. However, for any who sit there wondering if they are or aren't Christians, I refer you to the book of I John, which has a list of ways for you to KNOW - either way. Do you love God? Do you love God's people? Have you not remained in habitual sin? The Bible is underrated for having the answers. Oh, lots of people say it has them, but then they have a question, and they suddenly seem confused as to where to go for the answer. Go to the Word. God gave us answers. He's a loving God. The existence of the Bible is probably the second greatest proof of that, next to the sacrifice of Jesus.

13 comments:

  1. "Do you love God? Do you love God's people? Have you not remained in habitual sin?"

    Well, by your (overly simple, perhaps) definition right there, I was a Christian. In fact if you want to get really, really technical, by the Bible, having once been a Christian I will always be a Christian. Of course, by anything BUT the Bible, Christianity is false and I was never a true Christian because there is no such thing, only a great many deceived people. I used to go to 1 John for help and encouragement, and it never failed to answer that need. In fact 1 John 1:9 remains one of my favorite verses of all times (yes, I'm allowed to have favorite verses, just like I'm allowed to have favorite LotR quotes). It is the epitome of what Christianity and indeed Christians ought to be like, if only it was true.

    Anyway. I am pointing out that I too took hope from 1 John, and if some day you come over to the "dark side," shall we then dismiss this whole blog as lies because you were, of course, lying?

    As for Christ's crucifixion: to have never known physical pain (save a normal 30 year lifetime), to have never known corruption, to have never so much as been in the presence of sin...and then to take all this and more upon himself, losing in the process the connection to his Father that made him impervious to such things...if this were true, Christ would have indeed made a sacrifice beyond measure. But the point we make, is that it is not true. And not being true, Christ's death becomes, quite bluntly, the execution of a madman (for if Christ was not God, I do not think anyone would argue he was sane). I wouldn't agree with the author and call it "pathetic," but I would call it no different from the two other human beings crucified to his right and left.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Threnody: My apologies for the muddiness; that was not meant to be in any way considered an exhaustive list of proofs, merely some examples of what I John contains. I find it odd that you, on your blog, have asked people not to bring up your not having been a Christian, and then you comment on my blog immediately bringing it up. Had you been a true Christian, you would still be a Christian. However, you are not; therefore, you never were. "Once saved, always saved" also translates into "Not saved, never saved." It's not just a one-way thing. You have proved many times that you are not a Christian - therefore, you never were. No matter how much you argue that you - to borrow a Biblical phrase - "kept all those commandments from your youth up," you still lacked something. And like the rich young ruler, you went away. Though, you went away happy and he was sad.

    lol One, I wasn't lying. Two, I can't join the dark side, even if somehow I wanted to. Once we're out of the dark side, we can't go back. God is gracious and kind enough to keep us out of it forever. That's part of the promise in Romans 8. NOTHING can separate me from His love, not even me! (Pretty awesome.)

    It didn't sound like that was the point of the author. The author (of the book, not the blog) seemed to be coming from the direction of, "Even if Christianity were all true, such and such..." That was where I took issue. Sure, if Christ were not God, then He was either a great deceiver or insane and the Pharisees were completely right, by Mosaic law, to kill Him. But He was not a deceiver nor insane. He is God.

    This is why I often don't like commenting on things without a lot of context - it's too hard to know where people are coming from.

    Bradley: Thanks for the encouragement. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just trying to point out that Christianity loves to rest on overly simple definitions. And so perhaps, if I was not "saved," overly simple definitions such as the one you just tossed might have had a lot to do with the years of thinking I was, hmm?

      Delete
    2. Except I wasn't giving a definition. I was giving examples. I could have been more clear, yes, but reading through it, it doesn't read like it was supposed to be a definition. So maybe the problem lies not with Christianity, but with people assuming.

      Delete
    3. I'm not really sure how you can say "However, for any who sit there wondering if they are or aren't Christians, I refer you to the book of I John, which has a list of ways for you to KNOW - either way." isn't a definition. Or at least, more than an example. You said, here are a list of ways you can KNOW you are a Christian. But what does it say for your Christianity, or anyone's, when I, as a Christian, went through the exact list you mention and KNEW I was saved? You say my present actions define my past, but I was as sure as you are now that I was in fact saved, and in what is a matter of faith and the heart...well. Just my two coppers.

      Delete
    4. I was saying that the three things I listed aren't an exhaustive list. There's a lot more in I John than those three things, and I wasn't saying that even THAT is an exhaustive list. And, although I personally would think that I John would, in most cases, be enough - my point was not that there is a definition. My point was that there is help for people who are questioning.

      And it doesn't say anything about Christianity because you weren't a Christian when you KNEW you were saved. There are other examples of that in gospels - where people KNOW they're saved and aren't. Obviously, "knowing" something doesn't necessarily mean it's true. You would say that even though I KNOW I'm a Christian, I'm not because it's not real. Therefore, it only makes sense that I can say it doesn't matter if you KNEW you were a Christian because if you were, you still would be.

      Delete
    5. But if one cannot, in fact, truly "know" they are a Christian...how can "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life" be true?

      Delete
    6. I didn't say you can't know. What I said was that what a person thinks they know and what they actually know can be two different things. People knew the sun moved; now we know the earth moves. But to say that because we were once wrong about something we "knew" therefore we can never know anything is quite a leap.

      Delete
    7. That isn't what I said at all. It's quite plain what I said. You, however, are waffling between "1 John tells you how to KNOW you are saved" and "even if you KNOW you are saved you could, in fact, be wrong." So which is it? Does the Bible (not just 1 John) provide definitive proof on how you can KNOW for sure you are saved, or doesn't it?

      Delete
    8. Well, sorry for being dense. 'Cause that's not at all what it looked like to me.

      Yes, you can know. You can also be deceived into thinking you know. They're not exclusive of each other. Hopefully that's clear enough.

      Delete
  3. Varda,
    This statement: "This pathetic moral spectacle would not be necessary if the original rules were ones that it would be possible to obey." was not referring to the crucifixion. It was actually referring to something the author had discussed in the previous paragraph, and was a Catholic pope who was telling kids that if they attended his festival he would resolve their sins. As the poster, I should have told readers what that statement was referring to, which I have now done. However, you should not have assumed that statement was referring to the crucifixion. Next time a quote is unclear, and you have not read the book yourself, please ask the person who did read the book before you go on a rant about your assumptions.
    Thank you.
    Lalaith

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh look, a problem caused by people assuming! ;)

      Good advice, Lalaith, and nice to know. I'll keep it in mind for other quotes.

      Delete