Acts 8:18

How are you doing Brother Ed,

Posted by Catholic Convert:
Western emphasis is very much upon God as Judge in a Roman courtroom. That is not at all how we view God. It seems that the Western view of God a "Judge" is that of one who condemns or frees. We do not eschew the use of this word, and in our Liturgy, we speak of having "a good answer on the great and fearful day of Judgement", but it is not in the context of the courtroom, but in the context of God revealing what we really are in light of His magnificent glory.
However, you must admit that God has many attributes, hist justice being just one of them. "Shall not the "Judge" of all the earth do right," Abraham said. It is the Bible that describes God as Judge, and His Judgements as perfect. The only penalty that could be paid that would satisfy God's justice was the blood of Christ. It was not for a covenant that He died. He died for my sins; your sins; the sins of the world.. If you were the only one alive, and had committed but one sin, Jesus would have loved you enough to come and die just for you. "Behold the lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), NOT, Behold the lamb of God, which restores the covenant with the first Adam. That is not what it says. He came to die for our sins, not to restore a covenant. He lives today offering to be the Saviour of all who will receive Him. Someday He will be the Judge of all who have rejected Him.

You are appealing to jurisprudence, allow me to use your figure. Speeding is not the same as murder, but even all killings are not the same, are they? There is murder, cold blooded and deliberate, and there is unintentional homicide. Very different degrees of actions, which are based on intent and desire. If you are going to use the courtroom analogy, then the Great Judge must also take into consideration what our intent and desireswere also, right? I mean, isn't THAT "just?"
Speeding does not bring the same consequence as murder, but both are still sins, and both may still bring you before a court of law, and both will pronounce you guilty. The penalty for those sins in our penal code differ. The penalty for ALL sins in God's penal code is the same: separation from God for all eternity in a place called Hell. "The wages of sin is death (eternal death)." That is why Christ died for my sin. There are two judgements: one for believers, and one for unbelievers. The one for unbelievers is described in Rev.20:11-15, where all the unsaved will be pronounced guilty before God and sentenced to the Lake of Fire. But even there they will be judged "according to their works," which only goes to show that in a place as horrible as the Lake of Fire will be there will be degrees of torment. In other words there will be greater torment for people like Osama bin Laden, Hitler, and Stalin, then my next door neighbor who has not trusted Christ yet. The works only determine the degree of punishment. The sin that puts one in Hell is rejecting Christ as Saviour.

Perhaps. I am not the see all and be all of doctrinal truth. But I do believe that the Roman courtroom venue as described by Protestantism is not accurate at all. It is not "the Judge". It is the Father dealing with His children. And some are going to be disinherited. Some, who never heard, but kept the Law of God from their hearts (Rom 2. 13 - 16) are going to receive the inheritance. The picture you paint of a legal transaction in which God takes a piece of paper with your name on it and stamps "NOT GUILTY FOREVER" on it has never existed in either the East nor the West. Judgement Day is a time that the masks are stripped off and the real you and the real me stand in front of our Father and the games stop. Then we shall know if we are inheritors of the promise.
Remember the Lord's Prayer that Jesus taught His disciples, when they asked Him to teach them to pray, in Matthew 6. "Our Father who art in Heaven..." This model prayer was given to His disciples, believers, and was never meant for an unsaved person to pray. Only a saved individual can call God as his Father. In John 8:44 Jesus said to some of the most religious people of the day, "You are of your father the devil." He said that the father of the Pharisees was the devil himself. When the unsaved stand before God at the judgement, God will not be their Father; He never was. He will be their Judge. If He is not their Saviour now, He will indeed be their judge in the judgement day, and in no way their Father. For their father was the devil all along. There is a reason, why Jesus said, "You must be born again."
You must be born into God's family for you were never there in the first place. It is only then that you become an heir of God and a joint heir with Christ. The earnest of our inheritance is the seal of the Holy Spirit. We are sealed until the day of redemption or the day we enter Heaven. God has given the believer eternal life, for He has given him the Holy Spirit, with whom He has sealed Him.

I do not see what you are saying here in the greater context of the chapter. Perhaps I need to study it a bit. But you go on to say that Christ died for our sins. This is where my view of the covenant takes me in a different way. Christ is the Last Adam. My view is that He died for Adam and to pay for the covenant breaking of Adam. By doing so, He restored the familial relationship of mankind and God, becoming the Last Adam. Now each one of us is responsible to repent and enter into the kingdom, becoming sons and daughters of God. Outside of the family, God deals with us as "strangers and foreigners" to the covenant (Eph 2: 19), but inside, we are children beloved. We are dealt with as children, which means that not only are we beloved, but we must also grow in righteousness and holiness and be obedient to the will of our Father. You know, I find it interesting to think that pagans cannot commit "mortal sin". (Actually Protestants can't either!!) That is because a "mortal sin" is a sin which is done in full consent of the will, and with FULL KNOWLEDGE, and without coercion from outside sources. In other words, it is really a WILLING APOSTASY. And most likely, very, very few people perform such a willing apostasy. Hope you are well. Nice talking with you.

Honestly Ed, I believe that your ideas about Covenant theology confuse your thinking on the clear teaching of Scripture. You said: "But you go on to say that Christ died for our sins." This is perhaps the most important truth in the New Testament, that Christ died for our sins. It is the heart of the gospel message. Over and over, again and again, is this truth repeated. John 1:29; John 3:16;
1Cor.15:3 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"

The Bible does not teach that He died for Adam. Adam's sin was paid for by God, when God sacrificed an animal Himself, and clothed Adam and Eve in skins instead of fig leaves. He paid the penalty for our sins; he atoned for our sins--not for Adam's broken covenant. I don't find that in Scripture. It is imaginative, but not Biblical..
The only way to become a child of God is to be born again (not by baptism), but by the Holy Spirit, working through the Word of God, trusting Christ as your Saviour. John 3:3; 1Pet.1:23; John 1:12,13
Hope this has helped some.
DHK

 

Hello DHK --

Gotta run off to noon Mass (try to get to my Lord as often as reasonably possible) but I did want to make a quick question here.

1Cor.15:3 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"

I think this is one of the areas wherein we have a real problem in definition. What exactly did St. Paul mean by the phrase "our sins?" You see, you read that as "our INDIVIDUAL sins", whereas I see St. Paul's thinking as being corporate (the word "our" being plural and multiple) and he is speaking of "our sins" in the larger context of the Church, the corporate Body of Christ.

Our sins as in "the people of God" not as in "my personal sins".

My state of separation is taken care of by my being adopted into the family of God through the portal of baptism. Once I am "in Christ" I am no longer separated from God by dint of my fleshly union with Adam (Rom. 5:12) and I am no longer in a state of separation which the Bible calls "death".

But there is still the issue of my ongoing sins which I commit in my sinful state. St. Paul spoke of this dichotomy in Romans 7, where he lamented that despite his best desires and intentions, he still did that which he did not wish to do.

But as St. Paul exclaimed at the end of Rom 7 that despite serving the flesh, he was delivered by Jesus Christ, so that he and all believers who "walk not after the flesh" but after the spirit, are not condemned. And it is Christ Who gives this power and excellency through the forgiveness of sins we find in daily repentance and continual turning from our sins to God through Christ.

That is where I am going right now. I shall be confessing my sins and recieving the Bread of Life which, combined with confession, cleanses me of the sins which I have recently committed (like, for instance, being a rude pain to people on this board -- not very Christ like I must say!!) and restores me to fellowship with God.

And I do so in obedience to 1 John 1: 9.

As I said, if all my sins, past, present, and future, are paid for, forgotten, and never brought to God's attention, what is the purpose of 1 John 1: 9 as well as John 5:29 and Romans 2: 5 - 10. Why even bother?

I am well, and hope the same for you. However, my wife, who is very ill, seems to be getting worse. Her name is Karen, and prayers for her would be appreciated. She is very lukewarm and uninterested in Christ (she made a profession of faith and that is "good enough").

I am to convince her to repent and turn to our Lord, some real heart work must be done by the Holy Spirit.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Hello Lisa --

Have to run soon, so an indepth response cannot be done right now.

Regarding the "hardness" or "simplicity" of the Faith, it is indeed HARD when one has been loaded down with 25 years of presuppositional theology which states that ALL of Catholicism is wrong.

However, once it was understood, I guess it seems easy to me. Forgive me for not remembering how hard my own personal journey was.

As for the covenant issues: what you described is a contract. In a contract, things are exchanged between two parties. In fact, one party does not even have to be present to make the exchange, but can work through an intermediary agent. It worked that way when I bought my house. I never saw the lady who actually OWNED the house, just her adult kids.

A covenant, on the other hand, is life being given to life. Here is the best Biblical passage I know to describe this:

Eze 16:8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

This is the language of marriage. "thy time was the time of love" "spread my skirt over thee" "entered into a covenant with thee".

It is the same reason why in older days, marriage was referred to, especially among the Puritans, as "the covenant of marriage". Life is given to life and the two flesh become one flesh. A contract in no way does that, but sadly, all Evangelical soteriology is based not on a covenant, but on a contract.

Hmmm? and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Yup. The BRIDE of Christ!! Marital language.

God makes the promise and stipulates the requirements of His people so that the promise may be fullfiled?

Indeed. Indeed!! The first requirement is that we are baptized and by baptism are entered into intimate union with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection life. (Rom. 6:3) This is why we say that baptism is essential to salvation, because it is the entering into covenant with our divine Bridegroom.

1. The Old Testament covenant

It was very common practise for two people of similar social standing to come to an agreement that not only bound themselves but also their servants and households (and even their offspring) to some sort of obligation. It was such a widespread and common practise that it doesn't appear to have been necessary to give exact details in Scripture, but by piecing together the references we have about covenants that were made, a five-point outline can be arrived at.

These five characteristics are as follows.

a. The agreement of the terms

Faith - the prerequiste to salvation.

b. The swearing of an oath

In Latin the word sacramentum means "oath". The oath in the Old Covenant was circumcision. When the covenant was "cut", both parties were swearing that if they broke the covenant, what had happened to the animal would happen to them.

c. The offering of a sacrifice

Circumcision was also a personal sacrifice, the cutting off of one's old life for the new life. In the OT, the one circumcized was considered "dead" to the pagan world around him and to be the exclusive property of God.

Baptism is the same sign/seal in which we offer to "sacrifice" our lives. We are now turning our backs upon our old godless way of life and sacrificing that life to God, taking upon ourselves the Cross of the New Covenant and bearing it as a new life.

d. The witness

Circumcision is the "mark" which is the witness of the covenant and a witness against covenant breakers. The same is true of baptism.

e. The feast

Oh Yeah!! And they ATE the sacrifice, didn't they? That is why Christ said "This is the New Covenant IN MY BLOOD. He is the sacrificial Lamb of the New Covenant Whom we offer as sacrifice and eat of in celebration. When we celebrate the Eucharist, this is why we say to God that we are offering ourselves, for in Christ, we do participate in the sacrifice which He offered. We are "one flesh" with Him.

Hey, Lisa, that was EXCELLENT!! I wonder how these five dovetail with the five I had in mind, which were set forth by Ray Sutton in his book THAT YOU MAY PROSPER -- Dominion by Covenant.

1. T = Transcendence of God (The stronger dictates the terms to the weaker. God establishes the terms of the covenant)

2. H = Hierarchy (Covenants are adminstered hierarchially.)

3. E = Ethics (Code of "law" which is obeyed or the covenant is breeched)

4. O = Oaths and Sanctions (Oath is made to be faithful to the covenant and sanctions are established for breaking the covenant)

5. S = Succession (Covenants pass down from generation to generation)

Actually, I like your list better. Sounds more like marriage. I think these two lists would go together without necessarily opposing each other.

Well, I think that if a person has a general understanding how a covenant (or in our times most likely referred to as a contract) works, he will also understand how he is obligated as a christian.

I think this is why a lot of marriages are in deep trouble, because they are treated as a contract rather than a "one flesh" relationship, which is the essence of a covenant.

As for my choice of words between "fullness" and "intimacy", I am using them to mean the same thing. Again, I refer to the marital bed. A marriage is only consumated in fulness when it is completely intimate. Fullness to mean that there is nothing hidden anymore, that all we are is laid bare.

Scott Hahn did a wonderful talk on this where he spoke of the wedding night as the "unveiling" of the bride by the groom. Her veil was removed (and we imagine, a lot more). And the Greek word for this in the Septuagint is "apocalupis" Sound familiar?

Since, I have yet to meet an infallible person, I will stick with those who stay in line with the Word of God, the Bible.

Oh, Lisa C'mon! How do you determine just WHO is interpreting it infallibily?

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for the responses!

It'll probably be a couple days before I can get back to posting -- please be patient!

God bless,

Mark

 

Hi Lisa,

Things are pretty hectic, so this'll be a pretty quick post (but hopefully it'll make some sort of sense in spite of being written stream-of-consciousness).

As far as I can tell, you and I are exactly in agreement when it comes to God answering our prayers for our Christian friends. (In fact, I actually thought about including "in faith" in the question, but I thought my sentence was already getting convoluted without adding an additional clause!)

I'll admit I was a little surprised by your response about God's foreknowledge -- my thought would be that God either knows all or he doesn't, without thinking about whether it would be more fun for Him one way or the other! But I don't think that our difference there (if there is one) is a biggie with respect to our discussion. It's sort of a "Mark-ism" -- one of those concepts that's fun to roll around in my brain sometimes, but probably not really essential!

Anyway, what follows are the LAST TWO (yay!) "preliminary, getting us on the same page" questions.

If you think back to the first couple questions about man's sinfulness on earth, I think we pretty much agreed that during our lives here, we're going to sin, are tempted, have sinful habits, etc. As we become closer and closer to God that decreases, but it doesn't go away entirely. Now, let me shift the focus to heaven.

1. In heaven, will we still sin, be tempted to sin, have sinful habits, etc.? Or will we be made perfect?

2. (This second one is another "Mark-ism"). Might this be the sort of thing that 1 John 1:9 (for example) has in mind, when it says that Jesus will not only "forgive us our sins" but also "cleanse us from all unrighteousness"? (Since that sort of "total" cleansing from unrighteousness doesn't necessarily seem to happen while we're still alive on earth).

Thanks for your thoughts, and sorry (again) about the quick-and-dirty writing style of the above!

Mark

[ January 21, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Mark H. ]

 

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for your thoughts! I'm still swamped (preparing for a trial next week), but I'll try to put a few ideas together later today or over the weekend if I can.

But I haven't forgotten you, and I'm enjoying our discussion!

God bless,

Mark

 

Hi Lisa,

I hate to say this, but I'll have to wait to do a thoughtful post until after my trial on Thursday.

(So, look for me on Friday, same board, same thread!)

Mark

 

Hi Lisa!

My trial is over (non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam), so life is a bit more back to normal. So, finally, I can look over your last post with the attention it deserves!

On the “big God question,” I’m getting the impression we’re not that far apart. I think we both see the distinction between foreknowledge and “strict” predestination (if that’s the appropriate term). Maybe we can take up “the nature of God” on another thread, if we ever reach the end of this one!

With respect to the “sin” questions, I think you’re right that we may diverge a little bit, but I’m not sure if we diverge in a way that’s significant to the topic at hand (which, if you remember back 20 years ago when we started this thread, is “purgatory”). But let me make sure I’m understanding you right.

First, we agree that we do continue sinning on earth even after (as you put it) we have “truly given ourselves over to God.” Second, we agree that we will not be sinning in heaven. I’m guessing that you might agree that this won’t be because we’re externally restrained from sinning (i.e., God doesn’t lock us in a mental/physical/spiritual straitjacket in heaven to keep us from doing so!), but because we simply won’t want to sin – it won’t have an attraction for us in heaven.

You’ve mentioned three great terms that go great together – we’re “forgiven,” “covered,” and “washed” in His blood. Here’s what I think you mean by those terms – let me know if I’m getting the wrong impression:

“Forgiven” – by this, I think you mean a change in God’s “attitude” toward us, with no change in us. By analogy, if my sister’s son (my nephew) goes out and plays in the swamp behind their house, even though he’s been told not to, my sister can forgive him if he’s sorry. The result is that she’s no longer mad at him and isn't holding it against him, but he’s still covered in mud.

“Covered” – by this, I think you may mean a sort of a change in outward appearances. (I’m reminded of the “snow-covered dunghill” analogy that’s attributed to Luther – it’s got a white covering, but it’s not white underneath.) Or, in my swamp analogy, my sister might put a blanket over my nephew, so that she no longer can see how muddy he is.

“Washed” – by this, I think you mean an actual cleaning. In my swamp analogy, this would involve my sister actually sticking my nephew in the tub and getting the mud off.

If I’m getting the wrong impression from your terminology, let me know!

Mark

P.S. – No, I’m not a criminal lawyer. (Or, at least, I’m not a lawyer who handles criminal cases!)

I have represented inmates in civil suits a couple times, though -- and it was sort of spooky going to visit some of the witnesses who were in sort of "high-medium" security facilities!

 

Hi Lisa,

I think I’m zeroing in on where you’re coming from (although, if I may say so, you’re a bit of a moving target on the “can salvation be lost” question! But that’s not crucial to our current discussion…)

Anyway, at the risk of bypassing some other interesting topics (which, God willing, we can always pick up again later!), let me focus in on the “washing” aspect and see if I’m understanding you right. (This will pull ideas from not only your most recent post, but one or two earlier ones, too).

First of all, you and I agree on the underlying presence of sin in human life – as you say, “we sin daily.”

Now, there comes a point (for a Christian) at which you (in your words) “have truly given yourself over to God.” It’s at this point, if I understand you correctly, that you would say that “forgiveness,” “covering,” and “washing” occur.

The “washing” part, as you describe it, is an actual cleansing of our sins. This includes not only a washing of past sins, but also (at the risk of sounding flippant, which I don’t mean to be) a sort of “Scotchguarding” against the “uncleanness” of future sins. As you said, “He knows what our future sins will be” (there’s that foreknowledge issue again - yipes!) “but he has already washed them from us and forgotten them.” So, we will commit future sins, but aren’t “dirtied” by them (for want of a better word).

But, since those future sins will occur, it also appears that the “washing” that happens at the point of “truly giving oneself over to God” does not include a “cleansing” of the underlying problem – the tendency to sin. That still is with us, throughout our earthly life. However, it does appear that we’re cleansed of that tendency at some point, since we will not sin in heaven.

Have I got this right so far, or am I misinterpreting you? (One thing these board have taught me is the danger of making assumptions about what other people are thinking!)

God bless,

Mark

 

Hi Lisa,

Yeah, I'm a sneaky one, no doubt about it. Better keep both eyes on me!

Although actually, the poor communication skills are mostly on my part. I knew the "Scotchguarding" reference was probably a bad idea, but after my metaphor in the other post about my nephew and the muddy swamp, I just couldn't resist! (I'm a sucker for a fun metaphor.)

But anyhow, I wasn't trying to imply that you were saying that we were "Scotchguarded" against sinning -- you did say, very plainly, that we still do sin. But I thought you were saying that even though we sin, we're protected from the effects of those sins -- sort of like Scotchguard protecting a sofa from stains if you spill your drink. (Or sort of like saying we would still go in the swamp, but don't get muddy). But that whole analogy was probably a bad idea.

Anyway, all that aside, here's the "trap" (or whatever), such as it is:

On earth, we sin. Even after giving ourselves totally to God, we still sin. But in heaven, we don't sin. To me, this implies that God works a change in us between earth and heaven -- he removes that tendency to sin (call it what you will).

There's my trap. Yea or nay?

Mark H.

P.S. -- Why don't they have an icon of a little smiley face digging a pit and covering it with palm fronds? Or maybe carrying a big steel-jawed bear trap?

 

Hi Lisa,

Y'know, back when you first posted those, I thought that might be what you were getting at. But I wasn't sure, because some people might say that 1 Cor. 15:35, etc., are focused more on the "body" side of things (with Paul answering the question of "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?").

But we do seem to have ended up with more or less the same idea, even though we got there by different routes. (With me going the long way, apparently!)

Anyhow, I'll be back a little later today to "spring the trap." (Eek!) But first I gotta get a little law stuff done.

Mark