Christ's death was unjust if physical death wasn't the penalty for sin (Talk.Origins)
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
"[I]f physical human death was not really an important part of the penalty for sin, then the agonizingly cruel physical death of Christ on the cross was not necessary to pay that penalty, and thus would be gross miscarriage of justice on God's part."
- Morris, Henry M. 2000. vital importance of believing in recent creation. Back to Genesis 138 (June): a-c
Talk Origins is taking this out of context. It is not an argument against Evolution theory itself but attempts to reconcile the Biological account to Evolution theory.
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1.The claim is a non sequitur. According to creationists, God instituted the penalties for sin. If God has any power to speak of, he could have withdrawn the penalties whenever he wanted. Neither Christ's life nor his death would have been necessary. This is true whether or not the penalty for sin included physical death. It is not for us to say what is necessary for God to do.
There are several problems with this response.
- Once sin (evil) entered in to God's creation it had to be dealt with.
- Allowing evil into heaven would ruin it like it has done to Earth.
- Redeeming those who do not want to be redeemed would be violating their free will. This eliminated the possibility of a general redemption.
- God’s sense of justice would not allow having those not wanting to be redeemed to pay the price while simply pardoning those who would choose to be redeemed.
- To satisfy justice God had to provide a substitute for those who would choose to be redeemed. This made Jesus’ life and death a necessary part of God’s plan for redemption.
2. If physical death was part of the penalty for sin, then Christ did not pay that penalty because physical death is still with us.
Christ’s death on the cross was about redemption, not the immediate removal of the affects of sin.
3. Origins are not determined by one's personal decision of what religion to follow.
Not relevant since this claim is an issue of Biblical interpretation, and its incompatibility with Evolution, and not which view is actually correct.