The sacrifice on the cross as an act of love?

[dje101]

Hello, I am in a class where we are discussing free will and that nature of evil as the result of the existence of free will, etc., and I had this question pop in my head that I need help with, please.

God made man in his own image, and thus he gave us free will because the only way we can truly love is if we have the option to NOT love, if we have the ability to turn away from God and say “no” rather than saying “yes”. Because we have that option, it is our “yes” that has such meaning.

God is by nature truth and love. Now, he gave himself on the cross as the ultimate act of love for us. But his very nature IS love, so if he didn’t make that sacrifice, then would he be going against his own nature?

Which leads me to this question: If NOT sacrificing himself would have been contradictory to his nature, then did God actually have a choice in sacrificing himself on the cross?

Which then led me to the question “if the nature of God required the sacrifice, then was the sacrifice an actual act of love?”

Would really appreciate some help on this one. Thanks a lot everyone, God bless.

-Dje101

 

[fhansen]

Of course it’s an act of love-because love compels the act. For us love is a choice, and from there acts follow. For God love is His nature from the outset, and from there acts follow. Either way, as one loves, one acts accordingly- according to the dictates of that love.

 

[Benadam]

Which leads me to this question: If NOT sacrificing himself would have been contradictory to his nature, then did God actually have a choice in sacrificing himself on the cross?

Jesus wanted another choice to be made in the garden of Gethsemane

 

[po18guy]

Methinks you are thinking too much. We cannot fathom an infinite God. Just that simple. Many have driven themselves insane trying. Rather, enjoy the mystery.

 

[The_Revelator]

Your confusion is understandable, but the solution is rather simple. Although some may not like its implications.

God can have free will and at the same time be destined to always make the “good” and “loving” choice, if God is the metric by which one defines “good” and “loving”. In other words, God can choose to destroy humanity in a flood, or He can choose not to, and both choices would be equally “good”, based solely upon the criteria that God chose it. And thus sin isn’t an act that’s evil in and of itself, it’s an act that’s evil for the simple reason that it goes against God’s will.

But this makes the assertion that God is pure love rather meaningless, because you’re using God as the metric by which you’re defining love. Thus He can’t help but be pure love. To truly have a God that’s pure love you need a definition of love that’s independent of God Himself. But if you had such a definition, and God was obligated to abide by it, then God would indeed lack free will, and therefore the ability to love.

So here’s the problem…if God is the metric by which you’re defining love, then saying that God is pure love is meaningless. If on the other hand you have an independent definition of love to which God is obligated to adhere, then God lacks free will.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

So here’s the problem…if God is the metric by which you’re defining love, then saying that God is pure love is meaningless. If on the other hand you have an independent definition of love to which God is obligated to adhere, then God lacks free will.

When Jesus spent his time on Earth, he would have lived by the greatest commandments, he could do nothing greater. How did Jesus love all his neighbours as he loved himself? How did he love the man who nailed him to the cross?

We know that the soldier’s action represented my sins and your sins, so it seems that Jesus would also love all of us as he loves himself.

Jesus said, if you know me, then you know the Father, is the divine nature of Jesus the same as the human nature of Jesus?