Romans 3:21-26 doesn't support penal substitution

[JonC]

BTW, you should know that research in the UK has found that Indian immigrants, whether Hindu or Sikh, generally have better life outcomes than indigenous Britons. Their marriages and families are more stable and they do better at school and university. To write them all off as self-destructive really won't do.

Just a note :

The above is an error. Many atheists live long lives. Many are very well educated. Many remain happily married. That does not mean that they their sins are not destructive. Sin is always destructive to the sinner. Sin in the world is destructive. Sin in culture is destructive.

Those immigrants you mention, their sins, ARE self-destructive. God causing the sun to shine on the righteous and the wicked alike does not negate the fact that sin is destructive.

To borrow from the past - be killing sin or sin will be killing you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Great! I think we are getting close to the same page. So, given the self-destructiveness of sin, what is God to do? The self-destructiveness of sin puts God in a Divine Dilemma, which goes as follows:

The Divine Dilemma is not, as penalty substitution would have it, that God is caught between His desire to save humanity and His promise to punish humanity.

I don't think this is so at all. God always knew exactly what He was going to do before the Fall. That is why the rescue plan is announced immediately. The Seed of the woman shall crush the serpent's head (Genesis 3:15).

The Divine Dilemma is rather along the following lines: Given the self-destructiveness of sin, it seems that humanity is damned regardless of whether God acts in blessing or in wrath.

God acts in both wrath and mercy. The wrath or righteous anger of God is a very real thing as may be seen in the golden calf incident. 'The LORD was angry enough with you to have destroyed you' (Deuteronomy 9:8). But God's plan involved Israel as the nation into which the Messiah should be born. But God has chosen a vast number (Revelation 7:9-10) of guilty sinners for salvation. These He has given to the Son to redeem, while the Holy Spirit will draw these people, sanctify them and seal them for the day of redemption.

First, to destroy sin once and for all, God exiles humanity from the Tree of Life and consigns them to physical death whereby sin will be extinguished. That is the purpose of physical death; it is the means by which God destroys our sin.

Physical death is disaster. 'A live dog is better than a dead lion.' Death for those outside of Christ leads only to judgment (Hebrews 9:27). The death that is spoken of in verses like Colossians 3:3 is our union with Christ. Just as He has died and risen again to new life, so we, who were spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, have died to sin and risen to sit with Him in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:1-11).

Physical death is how God cuts us off from the creation that we are continually perverting by our sin. It is like the parent that ceases to give allowance to the son that continually uses it to buy drugs.

No, no no!

The Bible goes as far as to say that “He who has died is free from sin (Romans 6:7).” In order to be free from sin, we have to die.

Yes, but not physically!! Look at Galatians 2:20, KJV.
'I am crucified with Christ.....' Oh dear; he's dead.
'......nevertheless I live .....' Oh! I thought you were dead, but now you're alive.
'......yet not I ......' What's going on? First you were dead, then you were alive, and now you say it isn't you.
'.......but Christ liveth in me ......' So you are dead after all and Christ is living in you. Got it!
'....... and the life I now live in the flesh .......' What?
'....... I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.'
What does that mean? It means that the old Martin Marprelate is dead, and jolly good riddance to him. But a new Martin has risen with Christ with all his sins paid for in full, born again by the power of the Spirit, with Christ dwelling in him. So now, in the power of the Spirit, I must put to death that remnant of sin that remains, not in me, but in this mortal body (Romans 6:12-14), but I have passed from death to life (1 John 3:14) and there is no condemnation for me because I am in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). You are right that I shall not be fully free from sin until I shed this mortal body, either in death or when the Lord returns but 'Sin shall not have dominion over you because you are not under law but under grace' (Romans 6:14).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The above is an error.

It isn't an error. It's a fact.

 

[JonC]

It isn't an error. It's a fact.

No, it is an error. Sin itself is destructive, so much so that John Owen wrote "be killing sin or sin will be killing you".

You actually surprised me on this one. I thought you and I were way past surprises, but I did not expect you to minimize the destructive power of sin itself.

But Scripture itself is pretty clear. Sin produces death. Living by the flesh is death.

 

[Arthur King]

So is it a sin because God says it's a sin, or is a sin because we have decided that it's self-destructive. And do people die because of their self-destructive tendencies, or because God has pronounced, 'The soul that sins shall die'?

BTW, you should know that research in the UK has found that Indian immigrants, whether Hindu or Sikh, generally have better life outcomes than indigenous Britons. Their marriages and families are more stable and they do better at school and university. To write them all off as self-destructive really won't do.
I have never used the word 'dilemma' in writing about God, and I can't recall ever reading the word in a Reformed book.

"So is it a sin because God says it's a sin, or is a sin because we have decided that it's self-destructive."

It is not a sin because "we have decided that it's self-destructive." God created the universe with an objective order. To violate that order is to destroy oneself. Human flourishing and happiness are not subjective. They are objective.

"do people die because of their self-destructive tendencies, or because God has pronounced, 'The soul that sins shall die'"

People die because the have chosen to violate God's created order. They have forsaken the fountain of living waters for broken cisterns that can hold no water.

Regarding the Hindus, the Bible does not promises that following God's laws will lead to prosperity in this life. We are promised a life of joy in Christ and purposeful service, and a death with meaning. We are promised a cruciform life. The ultimate source of happiness is purpose, not material prosperity.

 

[Arthur King]

I don't think this is so at all. God always knew exactly what He was going to do before the Fall. That is why the rescue plan is announced immediately. The Seed of the woman shall crush the serpent's head (Genesis 3:15).

God acts in both wrath and mercy. The wrath or righteous anger of God is a very real thing as may be seen in the golden calf incident. 'The LORD was angry enough with you to have destroyed you' (Deuteronomy 9:8). But God's plan involved Israel as the nation into which the Messiah should be born. But God has chosen a vast number (Revelation 7:9-10) of guilty sinners for salvation. These He has given to the Son to redeem, while the Holy Spirit will draw these people, sanctify them and seal them for the day of redemption.
Physical death is disaster. 'A live dog is better than a dead lion.' Death for those outside of Christ leads only to judgment (Hebrews 9:27). The death that is spoken of in verses like Colossians 3:3 is our union with Christ. Just as He has died and risen again to new life, so we, who were spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, have died to sin and risen to sit with Him in the heavenly places (Ephesians 2:1-11).
No, no no!
Yes, but not physically!! Look at Galatians 2:20, KJV.
'I am crucified with Christ.....' Oh dear; he's dead.
'......nevertheless I live .....' Oh! I thought you were dead, but now you're alive.
'......yet not I ......' What's going on? First you were dead, then you were alive, and now you say it isn't you.
'.......but Christ liveth in me ......' So you are dead after all and Christ is living in you. Got it!
'....... and the life I now live in the flesh .......' What?
'....... I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.'
What does that mean? It means that the old Martin Marprelate is dead, and jolly good riddance to him. But a new Martin has risen with Christ with all his sins paid for in full, born again by the power of the Spirit, with Christ dwelling in him. So now, in the power of the Spirit, I must put to death that remnant of sin that remains, not in me, but in this mortal body (Romans 6:12-14), but I have passed from death to life (1 John 3:14) and there is no condemnation for me because I am in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). You are right that I shall not be fully free from sin until I shed this mortal body, either in death or when the Lord returns but 'Sin shall not have dominion over you because you are not under law but under grace' (Romans 6:14).

The writers of "Pierced for our Transgressions, Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution" affirm the divine dilemma model in their book, notably p.126. It is just an illustration.

"Physical death is disaster." No, spiritual death is a disaster. Living forever in sin is a disaster. When Adam and Eve sinned, they immediately died spiritually, and their bodies also began to decay. They would have eaten from the Tree of Life, thus confirming them in everlasting sin and death (hell), but God graciously separated them from the Tree so that would not happen. In exile, physical death would reach completion and sin would self destruct in the flesh. This is why we still need to go through a physical death and resurrection process to rid ourselves of sin. Physical death is a severe mercy.

 

[Alan Gross]

But now apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets: that is, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiatory sacrifice in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins previously committed in the forbearance of God; for the demonstration of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus.

Paul says that in the death of Jesus, the “righteousness of God has been manifested” and again that Jesus’ death “was to demonstrate His righteousness.” How does the death of Christ on the cross manifest and demonstrate God’s righteousness?

According to penal substitution, the need for God to demonstrate His righteousness arises from actions on His part that make him seem unrighteous. Specifically, God’s action of “passing over the sins previously committed in the forbearance of God” is taken to mean that God left sins unpunished prior to the coming of Christ, and therefore has made Himself to look unjust, unrighteous, and unfaithful to His commitment to uphold His own worth and holiness in punishing sin. However, penal substitution will argue, God’s action in “displaying publicly” or “setting forth” Jesus as a sacrifice shows Himself faithful in punishing sin by pouring out the withheld punishment on Jesus on the cross. When the text says that God set forth Jesus as a “propitiatory sacrifice” that word “propitiation” means the averting of wrath. So penal substitution takes that to mean that God withheld wrath from sins past, and displaced that wrath on Jesus instead in the event of the crucifixion.

But let’s ask the question: does a person really come away from the Old Testament feeling like God is not one who punishes sin? Look at this brief sketch of judgment in the Old Testament: humanity is spiritually dead in their own sin, cast out of Paradise and God’s presence and consigned to physical death, a global flood, the scattering of all nations following the tower of Babel, fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, the ten plagues on Egypt including the death of all the firstborn, 40 years wandering in the harsh wilderness, the annihilation of the Canaanites, the persecutions under foreign powers and the wars of the Judges, and then exile to Assyria, then Babylon, then rule under Persia, then Greece, then Rome. Furthermore, when Paul begins his argument in Romans, he begins right off the bat saying that “the wrath of God is revealed (past tense and present tense) from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness.” The following paragraphs of his argument in Romans 1 make all sorts of references to Genesis, making it clear that Paul is arguing about the wrath of God revealed against humanity since humanity’s original Fall. Remember also what Paul says in Galatians 3. The whole problem of Galatians 3 is that Israel is under a curse. So penal substitution advocates have to argue that though Israel is in bondage to the curse of the law, having drank the cup of God’s anger to the dregs, and though the wrath of God has been revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of humanity, God also seems negligent in punishing sin. That makes absolutely no sense. There is no way that Paul or other Jews in the first century would be sitting around thinking, “Gosh, when is this softy, pacifist God going to start taking sin seriously and execute His punishments?” Yes, they were hoping that God would punish Rome, the current foreign empire they were under, but the narrative context for such punishment would be the elevation of Israel to reign over the world. Again, the real question against God’s justice is when He will restore Israel and the rest of the nations through her; any expected outpouring of wrath would fit within the pursuit of that goal.

Look at these strong statements from the prophets Isaiah and Daniel that God has been active in punishing Israel for her sins. In Isaiah 51:17, the prophet says to Jerusalem, “Arise, O Jerusalem, You who have drunk from the LORD’S hand the cup of His anger; The chalice of reeling you have drained to the dregs.” Jerusalem had drained the cup of God’s wrath down to the dregs. Is that compatible with the idea that God seemed to let their sins go unpunished? Similarly, in Daniel 9:11, Daniel confesses that, “Indeed all Israel has transgressed Your law and turned aside, not obeying Your voice; so the curse has been poured out on us, along with the oath which is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, for we have sinned against Him.” Again, it makes no sense to have these verses in mind and then think that there is some major problem of God appearing negligent in punishing sin.

Furthermore, in those instances in which God does withhold punishment from Israel, as in the moments following the incident with the Golden Calf, it is to prove His justice in the sight of the nations (see Exodus 32). As Isaiah 48:9 says, “For the sake of My name I delay My wrath, And for My praise I restrain it for you, In order not to cut you off.” Withholding punishment from Israel proves that He is just, that is, faithful to His promises to bless all nations through Abraham's offspring.

Rather, it makes far more sense that God’s action of “passing over the sins previously committed” refers to His delay in purging and purifying Israel from sin. God’s delay in purging sin may indeed have included certain instances in which wrath was withheld, but the overall charge against God’s faithfulness/justice is that God seems truant in fulfilling His promise to bless all nations through Abraham’s offspring, that is, Israel. The complaint is, “God, if we are the nation through whom you are to save the world and reverse Adam’s curse and crush the serpent, why do we struggle with sin just like the other nations, and why have we been stomped on by wicked and ungodly empires for the last 500 years?” Remember, because of God’s promises, Israel’s failure is God’s failure. If God fails to save the world through Israel, then He is an unjust God.

But through Jesus and his death and resurrection, God has fulfilled his promises to bless all nations through Abraham's offspring. Through his death he has purified humanity of sin, and by his resurrection, brought us out of exile to sin, Satan, and death. God is just (faithful to bless all nations through Abraham's offspring) and the justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus (regardless of whether that person is Jew or Gentile).

"With respect to God, the effect of Christ's satisfaction is the glorifying of His justice;

"for, for that end was Christ "set forth to be the propitiation,"
or to make atonement for sin;

"to declare the righteousness of God, to show it in all its strictness,

"that he might be just,
and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus;"

appear to be just in so doing; yea, all the divine perfections are glorified hereby;
(see Rom. 3:25, 26;

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,
to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,
through the forbearance of God;

26 "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness:
that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

Ps 21:5; "His glory is great in thy salvation:
honor and majesty hast thou laid upon him.")

Adapted from: John Gill
A Body of Doctrinal Divinity
Book 6 Chapter 5

OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST

new thread:
The Penal Substitutionary Satisfaction by Jesus Christ
in "The Council of Peace" from Eternity Past.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, it is an error. Sin itself is destructive, so much so that John Owen wrote "be killing sin or sin will be killing you".

You actually surprised me on this one. I thought you and I were way past surprises, but I did not expect you to minimize the destructive power of sin itself.

But Scripture itself is pretty clear. Sin produces death. Living by the flesh is death.

The fact is what I wrote.
Studies in the UK have shown that Indian families, who are mostly Hindu or Sikh, have better outcomes than indigenous British families. I do not minimize sin - it will send all those who have not trusted in Christ to hell - but the fact is that we all know people who are not Christian who live highly respectable lives. @Arthur King pointed out various mass murderers to make his point, and I am pointing out that not all non-Christians are mass murderers, adulterers or wife-beaters. The lives of many of them put some professing Christians to shame.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The writers of "Pierced for our Transgressions, Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution" affirm the divine dilemma model in their book, notably p.126. It is just an illustration.

The writers of Pierced for our Transgressions quote Athanasius on page 126 and say , "This seems to present a dilemma." There are no dilemmas with God.

"Physical death is disaster." No, spiritual death is a disaster.

To be sure spiritual death is a disaster, but so, to those who do not know Christ, is physical death, since it leads to judgment. Even those who are saved should not actively seek death since that is to despise the gift of God, and to refuse further service for Him. 1 Corinthians 15:26. 'The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.'

 

[JonC]

The fact is what I wrote.
Studies in the UK have shown that Indian families, who are mostly Hindu or Sikh, have better outcomes than indigenous British families. I do not minimize sin - it will send all those who have not trusted in Christ to hell - but the fact is that we all know people who are not Christian who live highly respectable lives. @Arthur King pointed out various mass murderers to make his point, and I am pointing out that not all non-Christians are mass murderers, adulterers or wife-beaters. The lives of many of them put some professing Christians to shame.

No, it doesn't s not a fact. The secular world often does not recognize the destructive nature of sin.

I know that all Christians are not murders, adulterers, or abusers. I never claimed they were.

My statement is that the wages of sin are s death. Sin produces death. Sin leads to destruction.

Sin is like a lion crouching at ones door. If we are not killing sin then sin is killing us.

Your statement that no Christians often have good marriages and good educational opportunities is irrelevant. Sin IS destructive. Living for the flesh IS death.

You are completely wrong on this one. Sin is destructive. You may not see it, but the destruction is there. We know this not because John Owen insists it's true (he does) but because Scripture insists it is true.

 

[DaveXR650]

You are completely wrong on this one. Sin is destructive. You may not see it, but the destruction is there. We know this not because John Owen insists it's true (he does) but because Scripture insists it is true.

In Owen's "Mortification of Sin", if I remember correctly, he at one point links sin with loss of blessing and even worse - actual active harm done by God to the one who disobeys. He even said that you don't want God to be against you. So "sin", as a thing can be destructive, or it can be pleasurable and profitable at least while you are on this earth. And even when it does bring damage and destruction that is often, according to Puritan writers like Owen, the result of God's direct displeasure (or wrath) over the presence of sin. If you try to make sin into a situational or even almost a medical type of problem that God is curing you are missing a lot.

So sin is sometimes destructive. Ask anyone with a sexually transmitted disease, or a citizen of a nation that lost a war; but often sinful behavior results in "success" by worldly standards. You get backed into a corner logically if you try to deny the primary problem with man being that we sin and actually offend God. When you start trying to make everything a matter of healing or deliverance you give an incomplete explanation of our situation. And it won't work to claim this was Owen's view.

 

[kyredneck]

In Owen's "Mortification of Sin", if I remember correctly, he at one point links sin with loss of blessing and even worse - actual active harm done by God to the one who disobeys. He even said that you don't want God to be against you.

Agree. Think of Job and imagine what all 'delivered unto Satan' could entail:

5 to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor 5

20 of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme. 1 Tim 1

26 and they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his [GOD'S] will. 2 Tim 2

often sinful behavior results in "success" by worldly standards

Disagree. I can't see the saints being allowed to prosper from sin:

7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life. Gal 6

 

[DaveXR650]

Disagree. I can't see the saints being allowed to prosper from sin:

7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal life. Gal 6

I agree with you there. But as a general consideration of the overall state of man and looking at our physical lives in the present world system the idea of natural law does not fully explain the reasons we need to be right with God. And I think that is what happens if you deny the aspect of the atonement that is penal.

It is completely true that in the end, it is of course ultimately better for everyone who follows God's will. But for now. Well, look at the exchange between Christian and Apollyon in Pilgrims Progress. Apollyon points out that people who leave his kingdom usually end up in a bad way, and he tells Christian that he will increase his wages and give him more if he will go back with him. I know a very successful guy whose motto is "Nice guys finish last". That's the common world system motto and it does work - for now.

My objection to what Arthur and Jon are saying is that I'm afraid they are overemphasizing the idea that our main problem is that sin hurts us in a natural, present way, by affecting our lives, health and happiness - when the proper thing to emphasize is the fact that we have offended a holy God and have ruined our relationship with him. And I say that because scripture says much about the success of sinful men, says a lot about the world system, and my own observation is that many times nice guys do finish last.

Regarding Galatian 6 above, that to me shows the ultimate truth of the fact that nothing is more important than having the right relationship with God. Because like the verse says, sowing to the Spirit will eventually result in eternal life. The comparison here is not because of natural things that might happen to you. Not that they won't, but that just isn't the primary concern.

 

[JonC]

In Owen's "Mortification of Sin", if I remember correctly, he at one point links sin with loss of blessing and even worse - actual active harm done by God to the one who disobeys. He even said that you don't want God to be against you. So "sin", as a thing can be destructive, or it can be pleasurable and profitable at least while you are on this earth. And even when it does bring damage and destruction that is often, according to Puritan writers like Owen, the result of God's direct displeasure (or wrath) over the presence of sin. If you try to make sin into a situational or even almost a medical type of problem that God is curing you are missing a lot.

So sin is sometimes destructive. Ask anyone with a sexually transmitted disease, or a citizen of a nation that lost a war; but often sinful behavior results in "success" by worldly standards. You get backed into a corner logically if you try to deny the primary problem with man being that we sin and actually offend God. When you start trying to make everything a matter of healing or deliverance you give an incomplete explanation of our situation. And it won't work to claim this was Owen's view.

Sin can never truly be profitable. It is always destructive. It's pleasure is of the flesh as it destroys (sin is deceitful).

I remember a Tim Keller sermon where he likens sin's destructive power to addiction. It always promised but never delivers, drawing the sinner deeper into bondage.


Christ delivered us from the bondage of sin and death - NOT from the bondage of God.

 

[JonC]

I agree with you there. But as a general consideration of the overall state of man and looking at our physical lives in the present world system the idea of natural law does not fully explain the reasons we need to be right with God. And I think that is what happens if you deny the aspect of the atonement that is penal.

It is completely true that in the end, it is of course ultimately better for everyone who follows God's will. But for now. Well, look at the exchange between Christian and Apollyon in Pilgrims Progress. Apollyon points out that people who leave his kingdom usually end up in a bad way, and he tells Christian that he will increase his wages and give him more if he will go back with him. I know a very successful guy whose motto is "Nice guys finish last". That's the common world system motto and it does work - for now.

My objection to what Arthur and Jon are saying is that I'm afraid they are overemphasizing the idea that our main problem is that sin hurts us in a natural, present way, by affecting our lives, health and happiness - when the proper thing to emphasize is the fact that we have offended a holy God and have ruined our relationship with him. And I say that because scripture says much about the success of sinful men, says a lot about the world system, and my own observation is that many times nice guys do finish last.

Regarding Galatian 6 above, that to me shows the ultimate truth of the fact that nothing is more important than having the right relationship with God. Because like the verse says, sowing to the Spirit will eventually result in eternal life. The comparison here is not because of natural things that might happen to you. Not that they won't, but that just isn't the primary concern.

Your argument is not with me...unless you can quote me emphasizing the danger of sin is that it hurts us in a natural and present way by affecting our health and happiness.

If you take the time to read my post you will find I argued much differently.

I said that many who live in sin live happy lives, are well educated, are healthy, and have good marriages.

And then I said that even here sin is destroying the sinner. I added that just because the destruction is not seen does not mean it that s not there.

Those things you and Martin point to as proof that sin itself is not destructive is the deception of sin.

Scripture itself teaches us that sin is destructive, that sin devours, destroys, produces death.

How can we deny those facts?

 

[Arthur King]

I agree with you there. But as a general consideration of the overall state of man and looking at our physical lives in the present world system the idea of natural law does not fully explain the reasons we need to be right with God. And I think that is what happens if you deny the aspect of the atonement that is penal.

It is completely true that in the end, it is of course ultimately better for everyone who follows God's will. But for now. Well, look at the exchange between Christian and Apollyon in Pilgrims Progress. Apollyon points out that people who leave his kingdom usually end up in a bad way, and he tells Christian that he will increase his wages and give him more if he will go back with him. I know a very successful guy whose motto is "Nice guys finish last". That's the common world system motto and it does work - for now.

My objection to what Arthur and Jon are saying is that I'm afraid they are overemphasizing the idea that our main problem is that sin hurts us in a natural, present way, by affecting our lives, health and happiness - when the proper thing to emphasize is the fact that we have offended a holy God and have ruined our relationship with him. And I say that because scripture says much about the success of sinful men, says a lot about the world system, and my own observation is that many times nice guys do finish last.

Regarding Galatian 6 above, that to me shows the ultimate truth of the fact that nothing is more important than having the right relationship with God. Because like the verse says, sowing to the Spirit will eventually result in eternal life. The comparison here is not because of natural things that might happen to you. Not that they won't, but that just isn't the primary concern.

You say "My objection to what Arthur and Jon are saying is that I'm afraid they are overemphasizing the idea that our main problem is that sin hurts us in a natural, present way, by affecting our lives, health and happiness - when the proper thing to emphasize is the fact that we have offended a holy God and have ruined our relationship with him."

My argument is that the only true source of happiness IS our relationship to God. He is our good. To deny that is to be a moral relativist - positing that there are other goods than God.

To ruin our relationship with God, therefore, IS to ruin our happiness. Central to our design as created beings is loving God and obeying him. That is what we are made for. So to rebel against God is to rebel against our own design. It is to de-create ourselves. Breaking God's laws CANNOT take place outside of disordered creation.

Happiness is not material prosperity or success in this life. Happiness is living out one's God given purpose. The happy life is the cruciform life.

 

[Arthur King]

In Owen's "Mortification of Sin", if I remember correctly, he at one point links sin with loss of blessing and even worse - actual active harm done by God to the one who disobeys. He even said that you don't want God to be against you. So "sin", as a thing can be destructive, or it can be pleasurable and profitable at least while you are on this earth. And even when it does bring damage and destruction that is often, according to Puritan writers like Owen, the result of God's direct displeasure (or wrath) over the presence of sin. If you try to make sin into a situational or even almost a medical type of problem that God is curing you are missing a lot.

So sin is sometimes destructive. Ask anyone with a sexually transmitted disease, or a citizen of a nation that lost a war; but often sinful behavior results in "success" by worldly standards. You get backed into a corner logically if you try to deny the primary problem with man being that we sin and actually offend God. When you start trying to make everything a matter of healing or deliverance you give an incomplete explanation of our situation. And it won't work to claim this was Owen's view.

You and @Martin Marprelate seem to be arguing that a person with a perfectly ordered soul and a perfectly ordered life can still break God's laws. Can you explain how this is possible? How does someone break God's laws without disordering their loves?

I just don't understand this idea of a human being breaking God's laws while maintaining perfect order within their soul and their life, and than only experiencing disorder as a punishment from God. That makes no sense to me.

 

[Arthur King]

The writers of Pierced for our Transgressions quote Athanasius on page 126 and say , "This seems to present a dilemma." There are no dilemmas with God.
To be sure spiritual death is a disaster, but so, to those who do not know Christ, is physical death, since it leads to judgment. Even those who are saved should not actively seek death since that is to despise the gift of God, and to refuse further service for Him. 1 Corinthians 15:26. 'The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.'

If you never physically died, you would live forever in your sinful flesh, which would be hell. Again, Romans 6:8 "He who has died is freed from sin." How does one get free from sin? Dying with Christ.

True, physical death and resurrection by itself does not save people's souls. We must die and rise with Christ through confession and repentance.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You and @Martin Marprelate seem to be arguing that a person with a perfectly ordered soul and a perfectly ordered life can still break God's laws. Can you explain how this is possible? How does someone break God's laws without disordering their loves?

I just don't understand this idea of a human being breaking God's laws while maintaining perfect order within their soul and their life, and than only experiencing disorder as a punishment from God. That makes no sense to me.

Ecclesiastes 7:20. 'For there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin. Romans 3:23. 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.'
@DaveXR650 will no doubt answer for himself, but I have never claimed that people have 'perfectly ordered souls' and lives. 'For we all stumble in many things' (James 3:2). In an earlier post you were talking of sinners in terms of the Maquis de Sade and other monsters. The fact is that most people quietly shuffle on towards judgment with respectable lives.
I have preached in prison in the past and the great advantage there is that people usually know they are sinners. My church has recently started a plant in the town of Budleigh Salterton. East Devon, where I live is generally regarded as the retirement capital of Britain, and B.S. is pretty much the epicentre of that*. As we have done door-to-door work, our great problem is in persuading people that they have any need of Christ. They pay their taxes, they help mow the croquet lawn twice a week, they give to good causes if someone shakes a collecting-box at them. Yet they are lost because their righteousness does not match up to the righteousness that a thrice-holy God demands. They need a Saviour, and one is graciously provided for them, but they see no need of Him.

*It is said that people come to East Devon to die; but when they get there, the air is so pure that they find they can't do it!
My excuse is that I was born here.

 

[DaveXR650]

@DaveXR650 will no doubt answer for himself, but I have never claimed that people have 'perfectly ordered souls' and lives.

Martin, I can use all the help I can get. By the way also, I appreciate Arthur and Jon and the way they discuss things even though they don't agree with me. I find it useful and enjoy it.

To answer the question I would just say that we never have perfect order in our lives while we live in these bodies. But when we are saved there is a new principle put into us, the Holy Spirit and he gives us power to stop being dominated by sin and to have day to day practical victory over sin. For the Christian, we still have indwelling sin, which can break forth into all types of sin if we are not careful. Mortifying or killing the remaining indwelling sin is a primary function of a believer. But if you can go on like you did before you were saved and sin freely and willfully you should doubt you are a believer because that is indeed impossible. Arthur, if you don't feel like reading all the time you can listen to a MLJ archive sermon called, strangely, "The Mortification of Sin" which explains all that. And he explains what "dying with Christ" includes and doesn't include.

I won't be posting more today because I'll be celebrating our independence. Martin will know this as the Great Rebellion. If I still have enough fingers to type I'll post more later. By the way Martin, my wife and I enjoy watching British television and we especially like Midsomer Murders. Stay away from Midsomer. They have a higher murder rate than Baltimore!