Defending Good Friday; The Necessity of Christ’s Sacrifice

             Incoherent and self-contradictory arguments yield faulty dogmas. You can argue for just about anything as long as you do not endeavor to ensure that your argument does not contradict itself and that it is coherent. Then you take pride in the argument rooted in asinine incoherency and self-contradicting assertions.

            Upon close observation, you will detect stark incoherency and self-contradictory assertions in the arguments of the detractors of Historic Christianity. Being in the season of remembering our Lord’s atoning sacrifice on the cross, it is imperative to consider the arguments against the Lord’s sacrifice on the cross. Let’s consider the Unitarians as a case in point, for they do not believe that Christ died to save you and me from our sins.

Who Are The Unitarians?

            They are liberals with a thought process deeply rooted in the relativistic paradigm, “The Unitarians are a community of people who take their religion, or their spirituality, liberally. That is to say, we hold that all people have the right to believe what their own life-experience tells them is true; what the prompting of their own conscience tells them is right.”¹ 

            Unitarians regard themselves as Christians only from a diluted perspective of living according to the life and teachings of Jesus. Their definition of the term “Christian” is excessively weak and preposterous because they do not consider Christ as God, “Unitarians believe that Jesus was a man, unequivocally human.”²

            They reckon the Bible as not inspired, inerrant and infallible. Unitarians claim that the Bible should be validated by the light of reason and conscience, “Anything in the Bible that Unitarians accept as true is accepted because it rings true in our own humble reflection upon it. We do not accept it just because it is in the Bible.”³

            Some Unitarians believe that God exists as one person, whereas other Unitarians have a diverse belief about God, “Some believe in a God; some don’t believe in a God. Some believe in a sacred force at work in the world, and call it “love,” “mystery,” “source of all” or “spirit of life.””⁴

            Christ's death on the cross makes sense only in the event of HIS resurrection. Unitarians believe in, or should we say, “not believe in” Christ’s resurrection from different perspectives.⁵ These perspectives deny Christ’s bodily resurrection and are predicated on a rigorous denial of attributing any salvific component into Christ’s sacrifice.  The Unitarians believe that Christ’s resurrection was a powerful myth. Alternatively, they consider that the spirit of Jesus triumphed over death and that the church is the physical resurrection, the risen body, of Christ (thereby denying the bodily resurrection of the Lord).

Necessity For Christ’s Atoning Sacrifice

            Before we begin to briefly unpack the Unitarian view laden with invalid arguments, let us succinctly consider Christ’s sacrifice from the Historic Christian perspective.

            Atonement is the work Christ did in his life and death to earn our salvation. The Bible teaches that God’s love and HIS justice compelled Christ’s incarnation on earth and dying for our sins:

            John 3:16, NASB: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

            Romans 3:24-26, NASB: “…in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus…” (Paul states that God had been forgiving sins in the Old Testament but no penalty had been paid. So people could wonder whether God was indeed just and ask how he could forgive sins without a penalty. So God sent Christ to pay the penalty for our sins.)

            On the road to Emmaus, Christ explained that HIS suffering was necessary, “And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:25-27, NASB).

            The book of Hebrews also explains the necessity of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Since it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away our sins (Hebrews 10:4), a better sacrifice is required (Hebrews 9:23). Only the blood of Christ (his death), would be able to really take away sins (Hebrews 9:25-26). Hence, we reasonably conclude that Christ’s atoning sacrifice was necessary for God to save us.

Christ Died In Our Place

            Consider a few passages from the Bible that speaks of Christ’s death as substitutionary (HE died in our place):

            John 1: 29, NASB: “The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”

            2 Corinthians 5: 21, NASB: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

            Galatians 3: 13, NASB: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us…”

            Hebrews 9: 28, NASB: “so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.”

            1 Peter 2: 24, NASB: “and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.”

            These passages teach us that Christ bore our sins, for they were laid on HIM. Because Christ has come to be sin, we have ceased to be sin or sinners.

Questioning Unitarianism

            The fundamental belief of the Unitarians is that all people have the right to believe what they think is right. So if a Unitarian speaks against Historic Christianity, he/she is fundamentally contradicting his / her core belief. In other words, if the Unitarians believe that all people have the right to believe what they think is right, should they not allow Christians to believe in Christ’s atoning sacrifice and bodily resurrection? Should they not consider that the Historic Christian worldview is valid? So if you and I subscribe to Historic Christianity, the Unitarian, by virtue of his own belief, has no right to debunk or condemn our belief as wrong or invalid.  

            In fact, strictly speaking, the Unitarian worldview does not allow for rejection or condemnation of any other contradicting worldview based on the opinion that the contradicting worldview is wrong or incorrect. However, if the Unitarian condemns another worldview, then, by virtue of his condemnation, he rejects his own worldview.

            If your Unitarian friend considers himself to be a Christian, he professes to follow Christ. But the Unitarian does not consider Christ as God. So, in essence, the Unitarian follows another human being (who could have been mightily wrong in his deeds. Oh well, according to the Unitarian belief, in the relativistic paradigm, there cannot be wrongs, there can only be rights. But that’s for another day!).

            So a Unitarian could follow both Christ and Muhammad although both taught mutually contradictory teachings. (For instance, Christ claimed to be God, whereas Muhammad did not consider Christ as God.) The Unitarians are blissfully ignorant or remain in blatant denial of the fact that their worldview allows them to follow those who can only be partially right in their thoughts, words and deeds, thus allowing them to believe in incoherent and contradictory teachings.

            (If a Unitarian can follow another human being, what prevents him from following Hitler or Pol Pot or Stalin, who obviously thought that their massacres were justified?) 

            The Unitarian need not be totally committed to following the person that he claims to follow, for his worldview allows him to follow ‘A’ and ‘B,’ and if both ‘A’ and ‘B’ teach mutually contradictory teachings, then the Unitarian can only follow ‘A’ or ‘B’ partially. Therefore, the Unitarian proclamation that he follows Christ can only be partial at its very best. Partial commitment is not an absolute commitment that Christ demands of HIS disciples.   

Conclusion

            Disregard the Unitarian or any other worldview that disbelieves in Christ or HIS atoning sacrifice. Let us humbly and worshipfully reminisce and be thankful for Christ’s atoning sacrifice for you and me. Charles Wesley wrote the most meaningful words for this season in his hymn “And Can It Be That I Should Gain”:

And can it be that I should gain

An interest in the Savior’s blood?

Died He for me, who caused His pain—

For me, who Him to death pursued?

Amazing love! How can it be,

That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

Amazing love! How can it be,

That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

’Tis mystery all: th’Immortal dies:

Who can explore His strange design?

In vain the firstborn seraph tries

To sound the depths of love divine.

’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore,

Let angel minds inquire no more.

’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;

Let angel minds inquire no more.

He left His Father’s throne above

So free, so infinite His grace—

Emptied Himself of all but love,

And bled for Adam’s helpless race:

’Tis mercy all, immense and free,

For O my God, it found out me!

’Tis mercy all, immense and free,

For O my God, it found out me!

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,

Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;

Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—

I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;

My chains fell off, my heart was free,

I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

My chains fell off, my heart was free,

I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.

Still the small inward voice I hear,

That whispers all my sins forgiven;

Still the atoning blood is near,

That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven.

I feel the life His wounds impart;

I feel the Savior in my heart.

I feel the life His wounds impart;

I feel the Savior in my heart.

No condemnation now I dread;

Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;

Alive in Him, my living Head,

And clothed in righteousness divine,

Bold I approach th’eternal throne,

And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

Bold I approach th’eternal throne,

And claim the crown, through Christ my own.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.unitarian.org.uk/pages/frequently-asked-questions-faq

²Ibid.

³Ibid.

⁴http://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/higher-power

⁵https://www.unitarian.org.uk/pages/frequently-asked-questions-faq

Justice in Suffering

As a mother walks on the sidewalk with her baby in a stroller, a drunken taxi driver ploughs into them; the baby dies instantly. A pregnant mother tried her best to curb her chain-smoking, but failed; her child is born with birth defects.

Some are born into a wealthy home with a silver spoon; they enjoy their abundance. Some in an average middle class home struggle to receive what they need - even a modern day essential such as an unlimited talk time on cell phone. Others are born in slums and their struggles are for a mere cup of tea and a slice of bread. 

How is a child born in a slum less deserving of the mortal pleasures? How would a child born to a chain-smoking mother deserve a life time of disability?

We have absolutely no control over the place, health, and wealth of our birth. The sovereign God authors the script; we are the reluctant actors. Are we mere dominoes that fall when knocked down? God gives as HE wills. So am I to merely accept and try to live my best? “Life sucks; I am a mere puppet in the hands of a cruel God,” so we scream. The scream seems legit! 

God decides that some be born in wealth and some in dirt. After such a birth, what is God’s plan to make a life good? Bible says that in all things God works for the good of those who love HIM (Romans 8:28, NIV). Do these sound good - defective births, untimely death, and birth in a slum? Or should we rethink our definition of good? If we are born into a healthy and wealthy home, then God is good. If not, do we rethink God?

How does God decide our place of birth? God is a God of Justice (Deuteronomy 32:4; Revelation 16:5 et al.). We believe a ‘Just’ God should not relegate humans into slums or sickness. If a baby is born in a slum or with sickness, we sense a denial of justice. So, we view God as a source of happiness. In other words, if I am happy, then God is just. If I am unhappy, is God unjust?

Happiness is a relative term. The poor may be satisfied to receive a slice of bread and a cup of tea. A meager quantity such as this would not satisfy a person belonging to the middle-class or rich. (Please allow me to switch tracks.) If God in HIS justice provides the middle-class and rich with just a hut to live, they would not be happy (unless we find a middle-class or rich human living in a hut). Hence, God’s justice need not necessarily result in human happiness, even if HE intends it to be.

Without sickness there is no healing, without adversity no miracle. God’s glory is powerfully evident during adversities (miracles of Christ). A healthy life causes happiness, and sickness triggers sadness. Even if healing is not taken into consideration, the sick are happy to receive good medical care and financial support. Joyful testimonies of people having received such benefits during their sickness are an affirmation. In this instance, the justice of God brings happiness to a suffering soul. In some cases, people grieve in their sickness despite receiving good medical care and financial support. Situation remains status quo – happiness need not result from God’s justice, although God does provide a way out of suffering.

Ever wondered why the disciples of the Lord - Andrew, Philip, Nathanael (Bartholomew), Simon the Zealot, Thaddaeus-Judas, and the late entrant Matthias were not given prominence in the Bible, yet each one died a martyr’s death? If they had received their prominence, then their martyrdom could seem justifiable. The Bible does not teach that prominence, popularity, and power are the only destinations for the Lord’s disciples. Instead, the Lord’s disciples are to be obedient to the Lord, and accept what God in HIS justice offers to them. Happiness is never found in prosperity, but in obedience to God, in doing HIS perfect and pleasing will.

In a nutshell, God’s justice cannot be understood from man’s perspective. Our perspective mutates circumstantially. But, God gives to man everything what each thing requires to be the kind of thing it is (distributive justice).¹

In God there is no injustice (2 Chronicles 19:7), so God cannot offer cruel things. What God gives is good, but our understanding of good needs to be redefined. (Please allow me to use ‘justice’ and ‘good’ interchangeably.) It is unjust (‘not good’) that someone be killed, but it is justice (‘good’) when a soldier dies for the sake of his country. ‘Good’ needs to be comprehended from a greater perspective (in this case - community). Thus, justice should also be seen from a greater perspective (community), not just from a personal perspective. 

We are a long way off the Garden of Eden - intended as a place of equality and rest. Sin and evil blessed us with societal strata. For instance, doctor’s and sanitation workers are essential to our existence, but their characteristics are poles apart. Without doctors we may die early, and without sanitation workers we would live in miserable stench. (Only those who bear stench can remove garbage.) The complexity of our world demands people in all societal strata. Doctors and sanitation workers are necessities. Hence, God gives to man everything that he needs to be as God wants him to be. (We will not address the existential dilemma of doctors being content, and sanitation workers demanding status i.e. to be doctors).

Our society is constructed such that some ought to be placed higher or lower. So, God in HIS justice decides the birth. But HE has also given much to the middle-class and wealthy with an intent that they would take care of the poor and lowly. It is the failure of these sections of the society that we still have the underprivileged. How many times have we seen a sanitation worker and given him food or a drink? After all, he keeps our precincts clean! If we have much, and fail to take care of our neighbor in need, then we are to be blamed, not God (Cf. Luke 12:48; Matthew 25:34-46). God has not failed in being just; we are failing in our responsibility. God’s people are to serve to alleviate pain and poverty, for we are the body of Christ. We cannot ignore our neighbor in pain.

Suffering is an outcome of sin and evil. But the suffering soul ought to remove his focus from self and look to God for HIS omnipresent grace and strength. God ensures justice by always satisfying a suffering soul (Psalm41:3; Isaiah 53:5; Malachi 4:2; Luke 9:11). Hence, we must trust God. HE alone provides us with sustenance. The unhealthy or poor should trust HIM even more.

We celebrated “Good Friday” – the Lord’s suffering. Even though we shudder at the extent of suffering the Lord bore, we are glad for that suffering brought salvation to mankind. Thus God established justice from suffering. One’s suffering brought mankind much good. Similarly, God will bring good even from one man’s suffering.

Hence, I believe that there is justice in suffering. Amen. 

Reference:

¹Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Question 21, Article 1.