atonement/justice and forgiveness

Thank you for proper exegesis, Helen. When Scripture gets in the way of reformed theology, reformed theology wins out in their eyes.

 

I didn't say anything of the like. I stated my wife caught the fact I did not respond biblically to what she knows scripture says and what I contend as well. Not that Helen was right or wrong.

 

And thank you for that helpful and insightful contribution to the debate.

Oh, wait . . .

 

No problem, just pointing out the facts

 

Hi, Helen,

First, thanks for your reply on redemption. We do disagree on what that means, which is not really a surprise, but it's good to clarify points of disagreement.

Maybe you've already explained this, and maybe I've just missed it, but the problem I have with your explanation of atonement in light of John 3:18 is that their unbelief is one of those sins that has been atoned for. I know what you say about the difference between atonement and forgiveness, but I strongly disagree. When the Jews had their Day of Atonement their sins were put away. Nobody had to decide whether to accept that sacrifice or not - that choice was God's alone. Christ's atonement is the same. We owed a debt to God that we could never pay, and Christ paid it. We have no say in the matter - Christ made atonement and God accepted it, and the reason that we know that God accepted it is the resurrection.

Some say that unbelief is not a sin, and please correct me if I am wrong but I do not think you would agree. If so, how can the sin of unbelief be atoned for and still held against the unbeliever?

 

Helen, I didn't say say I didn't understand John 3:18. I said I didn't understand whether you saw unbelief as grounds for God's condemnation of unbelievers. That's the way I interpret that passage in John, but I wasn't sure whether interpreted it that way or not. Anyway, thanks for responding and making that clear.

That bring up this question, then: If the the grounds or basis for their condemnation is unbelief, doesn't that mean that their unbelief is still accounted to them?

 

Hosea 6:6
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Matthew 12:7
If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

Romans 12:1
[ Living Sacrifices ] Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.

The sacrifice for our sin has been made, now God requires our acknowledgement what He has done.

When God lead Israel to freedem instead acknowledge Him they grumbled. God gave adam and eve everthing instead of acknowledge what God had done for them they wanted the only thing God didn't want them to have.

We will never learn only God can fullfill us and He is at the door of our heart through His word asking for us to open the door and let Him, all we have to do is acknowledge Him and open the door

 

Do you normally get your doctrine from wikipedia? That might explain some things. :laugh:

 

BTW, this is not really a discussion about the reformed view of the atonement vs. the usual non-reformed view of the atonement. Most non-reformed people would agree that those who don't believe are condemned on account of their sin, including the sin of unbelief. Most non-reformed would affirm that on the day of judgment, God will judge unbelievers and find them guilty for their sin. Then, in response to that guilty verdict, He will condemn them as just punishment for their sin.

So to say that those who are arguing against Helen are arguing from "reformed theology" is really not right. Speaking for myself, I've been trying really hard not to say anything that most people from both sides of the reformed/nonreformed discussion couldn't affirm, so as not to turn this into a reformed vs. nonreformed discussion, and to keep it focused on the particular theory about the atonement that Helen has put forward for discussion.

 

A Classical response from the Calvinist Side of the Isle:

Just accept the following: 17. "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20. "So then, you will know them by their fruits.

The Problem with Jacob and John's is that they and their followers dance around the truth. The answer is in the text all you have to do is believe it. The motive, the attitude ......

 

Blaspemy of the Spirit

Guys,

Be forewarned! There's a whole lot more to "blasphemy of the Spirit" than you are acknowledging.

Matt 12:32 -- "And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

Hymenaeus and Alexander blasphemed the Spirit and Paul was turning them over to Satan so that they would learn not to. What was Hymenaeus blasphemy? He was saying that the resurrection was past already and overthrew the faith of some. (1Tim 1:20, 2Tim 2:18).

John said (Rev 22:19) -- "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Guys, that's blasphemy of the Spirit in God's mind and the book of life is the ONLY way into heaven!! (Not to mention that Calvinism takes away the words by ignoring them. Calvin saw no tribulation, no revival of the Jews, not MK. And Rev 3:10 says Philly will be taken out pretrib because she guards those things!)

Now to me, an unsaved person who (comparing apples with apples) has a lying belief about the Sprit or the Word till death on the issue of salvation will not be forgiven but turned over to Satan as well! I would, therefore, be VERY careful about what I accept as truth -- from Calvinism in particular since he describes what to the Bible appears to be "another way" into heaven.

skypair

 

You might consider it insulting, but does Scripture support you in that assessment. IOW, does God consider it an insult? Like I said, lets stick with Scriptural concepts.

Like you say, if sin is about justice, and Christ satisfied justice, then what is the basis for condemnation? I can't be justice anymore can it be if Christ has satisfied all justice. That is where my difficulty comes in because Scripturally, hell seems to clearly be about justice. Are you saying that hell is, in fact, not about justice? If so, then that clarifies a lot of things that aren't making sense about your position. If not, then I remain in the dark about how you would hold that "Christ satisfied justice" on the one hand, while on the other hand you say that hell and condemnation are about justice. Do you see the difficulty?

Exactly what any good Cist would agree with.

I don't know if I agree, but I can work within that framework. The difficulty is why simple unforgiveness would result in people being sent to hell. After all, if your debt is paid by someone else you can't refuse payment (it wasn't paid to you) and it doesn't really matter if your protest - your debt is still paid. Likewise, the lender can no longer require the you still pay the debt simply because you didn't agree with someone else paying it. The debt is paid - period.

Now, if you somehow you get the person to whom you owe the debt to refuse the payment from someone else *then* you still owe the debt...but then it would not longer be accurate to say that the debt was paid - only that someone had *offered* to pay it, only that it was *potentially* paid, not really, in truth, paid.

So, do you hold that the atonement *actually* pays the debt of sin? Or that it merely *potentially* pays the debt of sin (which you still need to accept in order to have the debt *actually* paid)? It seems you are saying the former.

 

I'm still missing your point, I think. Why is it righteous for God to be angry even though justice has already been satisfied and unbelief has been atoned for?

 

But condemnation is about justice. Justice is included in the very definition of the word.

To condemn means to "pass sentence upon" and it implies the fact or imputation of a crime. To be condemned doesn't just mean that we are sent to hell, but that we are sentenced to hell.

If we are condemned on the basis of our unbelief, then we recieve a judicial sentence for a crime that's counted against us.

And God's anger (or wrath) is judicial anger against sin. It's an expression of God's justice, since it comes from his righteous judgment. For instance, the day of wrath is the day that God's righteous judgment is revealed. (Romans 2:5) Again, we're told that God's wrath involves repayment for crimes. (Romans 12: 19). And God's wrath comes upon people on account of specific crimes. (Ephesians 5:6 and Colossians 3:6)

 

Ok thanks for clarifying that. Now, if hell is not about justice, wouldn't that mean that no one deserves to go there? That no one has earned hell?

Also, can you explain this passage in light of your position that hell is not about justice:2 Peter 2:4
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment

2 Peter 3:7
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.