Man, beast, and the fall

[Mr. Bultitude]

John Piper says in Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die:

I have heard it said, “God didn’t die for frogs. So he was responding to our value as humans.” This turns grace on its head. We are worse off than frogs. They have not sinned. They have not rebelled and treated God with the contempt of being inconsequential in their lives. God did not have to die for frogs. They aren’t bad enough. We are. Our debt is so great, only a divine sacrifice could pay it.

This presents me with some questions.

1. Though of course God's saving grace is a free act and not something he was "bound" to do, wasn't he willing to do it because of how he created us? He created us to be his image-bearers and to glorify us. Animals have neither purpose, so for that reason alone he wouldn't have been willing to die for them. Am I off-base here? (Side note: our status as image-bearers is why we have so great a debt, I think. We are stewarding a great treasure and have discarded it.)

2. Haven't animals rebelled from God's purposes? The fall affected not only man, but all of creation. Man is supposed to steward and shepherd the animals. Now animals are wild and will even attack and eat humans. All of the great predators of land and sea have been known to make meals of man, if I'm not mistaken. Is that not rebellion?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

David:

1. Theologians speak of a "consequent absolute necessity" with respect to the atonement. Christ did not have to come and die for any. His electing love was a free choice on His part; given His own ineffable rigtheousness, however, there was no other way for God to save guilty sinners, if that was His desire (and thanks be to God it was!), than to send Christ to die in their place. Only in this way could God remain just and also justify the ungodly. This is what Piper seeks to express in saying "God did not have to die for frogs." He did have to die for His own if such were ever to be saved.

2. No, animals, not being in the image of God, are not moral creatures and thus not capable of rebellion in the same way that humans are (though they are in many ways, as you recognize, affected by man's rebellion). Man, in the broader image, reflects that he bears such in things like personality, spirituality, rationality, morality, authority, and creativity. The lower creation possesses none of those attributes.

Peace,
Alan

 

[MW]

Our debt is so great, only a divine sacrifice could pay it.

According to the Westminster Larger Catechism, answer 71, our debt is so great, only divine grace could provide a proper, real, and full satisfaction to divine justice. As Calvin taught, "the merit of Christ depends entirely on the grace of God (which provided this mode of salvation for us)."

 

[VictorBravo]

All of the great predators of land and sea have been known to make meals of man, if I'm not mistaken. Is that not rebellion?

Not in the moral sense, no. It is disorder, but they are not morally culpable for the disorder introduced by sin. Man, of course, is.