D
The general theory of salvation is pretty clear - Jesus' death on the cross in one way or another prevented some of us from suffering the eventual punishment for our sins. My question is, what is the "one way or another?"
The usual answer seems to be that the only way we could be saved was through a sacrifice. Usually, this is phrased with an imperative - justice must be satisfied if we are to be saved. We have offended a law and deserve punishment. Without Jesus' sacrifice, we would feel the full force of God's necessary wrath. The immediate objection is that this makes God a servant to justice; it seems that he has no other method by which to save us except through sacrifice of his son.
The best response, as far as I can tell, is that it isn't necessary for God to sacrifice his son to save us. This situation is his choice. Is this the usual understanding of it? God designed the law in such a way that only the death of a perfect being - and there are relatively few of those - would satisfy the law and allow our salvation?
This is the part I struggle with. If I were to engineer a situation in which, say, I had to donate all of my blood to my daughter to save her life, this would be considered a little weird, not virtuous. If a situation naturally arose in which I had to do it, however, it would probably be considered virtuous. Christ's self-sacrifice on the cross is consistently portrayed as a virtuous act, so I don't imagine I'm understanding it correctly. If the world was built so that it was the only possibility, it seems weird, not praiseworthy.
(Please note that I'm of course not questioning the idea that God had to do anything to save us. He could have left us in our sins.)
The usual answer seems to be that the only way we could be saved was through a sacrifice. Usually, this is phrased with an imperative - justice must be satisfied if we are to be saved. We have offended a law and deserve punishment. Without Jesus' sacrifice, we would feel the full force of God's necessary wrath. The immediate objection is that this makes God a servant to justice; it seems that he has no other method by which to save us except through sacrifice of his son.
The best response, as far as I can tell, is that it isn't necessary for God to sacrifice his son to save us. This situation is his choice. Is this the usual understanding of it? God designed the law in such a way that only the death of a perfect being - and there are relatively few of those - would satisfy the law and allow our salvation?
This is the part I struggle with. If I were to engineer a situation in which, say, I had to donate all of my blood to my daughter to save her life, this would be considered a little weird, not virtuous. If a situation naturally arose in which I had to do it, however, it would probably be considered virtuous. Christ's self-sacrifice on the cross is consistently portrayed as a virtuous act, so I don't imagine I'm understanding it correctly. If the world was built so that it was the only possibility, it seems weird, not praiseworthy.
(Please note that I'm of course not questioning the idea that God had to do anything to save us. He could have left us in our sins.)