atonement/justice and forgiveness

Ever read it? Edwards tied God's anger to His justice.

If you agreed with Edwards then I would agree with you, but you say that God's justice has been satisfied but He is still angry, and I just want to know how that can be.

 

If my son was murdered, and the murderer got the death penalty, are you saying I shouldn't still be angry with the murderer if he never asked for forgiveness?

While justice may have been served, my anger was not appeased. If he asks for forgiveness, that's another thing...

 

webdog,

Fortunately you and I are not God. What this means for this discussion is that what you or I would do in a given situation is irrelevant when speaking of what God would do.

It pleased God to bruise His Son. He did not spare His Son. but He delivered Him up for us all. He saw the travail of His soul and was satisfied. So why is He angry?

 

God said, though, if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive them.

 

Not if God is a just God. In the same way that a just human judge can't condemn someone unless there is a crime to condemn them for, God can't condemn someone without just cause to do so.

Well Romans 12: 19 does.

God's wrath is repayment for wrongdoing. And Colossians 3:5,6 also says that it is on account of sin that God's wrath comes.

It says pretty much the same thing in Ephesians 5:

The words "on account of" and "because" are telling you that these things--sexual immorality, covetousness, etc--are the grounds upon which God expresses his wrath toward sinners. Those things give him just cause to do so.

Then why do those texts quoted above say thatGod's wrath comes on account of specific sins?

 

No I am not saying that. But if the murder of my son negated the need for the death penalty - if the death of my son meant that all legal justice was satisfied - then wouldn't it be unjust if the murderer still got the death penalty regardless of whether or not he had repented?

 

Even those who accept universal atonement usually say that the application of the atonement comes through faith, so that although Christ tasted death for every man, those who never believe never have that atonement applied to them. Therefore their sins remain accounted to them and they are condemned for them.

 

A couple more quotes from Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God

 

Not if that Repreve was based on whether one would accept/received his payment or not.

It would be unjust if that person accepted that which was done on his behalf and was still executed.

It would be accounted FOR justice being satisfied if that person accepted another persons substitution on their behalf and was set free since the debt was paid and accepted.

Salvation is conditional only in the sense that we accept that which God has done on our behalf. Salvation is all OF God but we MUST believe/receive that which was given on our behalf.

 

If so, then that death did not actually satisfy legal justice - it only satisfied it conditionally.

So it didn't actually count for justice being satisfied, it merely conditionally was made available. The debt wasn't actually paid, it was merely potentially paid.

 

No, the satisfaction concerns the sacrifice made in fulfillment to the judicial requirements set forth of debt payment. Though the judicial requirement is met and paid on behalf of all; it is not judically applied to anyone until the person believes/accepts the said sacrifice.

No, justice IS satified with the sacrifice as payment, but the judgment is not issued yet for that satifaction to be met until their death. for it is appointed once unto man to die AND THEN the judgment.

 

This is a great point. Since the wages of sin is death, and since that justice is satisfied, the calvinist's justice system would have those in Christ never dying a first death.

 

Not quite following this yet. Can you explain what you mean by 'judicial application'?

Yet when that judgment is issued, if justice is satisfied, how can the judge still render a guilty verdict? If justice is satisfied, then doesn't that force a just judge to render a non-guilty verdict?

I can understand that if justice is conditionally satisfied then the judge can rule guilty or not guilty based on whether the defendent met the conditions. I just am not seeing how justice can be actually satisfied yet the judge still renders a guilty verdict - that seems a contradiction to me. Can maybe you come up with an analogy where something is both actual and conditional?

 

Or the Cist system would simply see 'the wages of sin is death' as referring in context to that which is opposite of eternal life - ie. eternal death, the second death, not phyiscal death.

After all, John 11:26
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

1 John 3:14
We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

So, in some sense at least, eternal life is a current reality, not merely a future. And, in some sense at least, we can truly say that we in Christ will never die.

 

From what I understand of what Helen is saying, this is where you differ from her. I think she has said that even those who don't believe don't have any sins--even the sin of unbelief--counted against them in a judicial way. People are condemned apart from any concept of justice.

If this were just a typical unlimited atonement vs limited atonement discussion, I wouldn't even be in it. I've been there and done that.

 

Unless it was done only conditionally (ie. I am satisfying justice for your sins *if* you accept my sacrifice), it wouldn't matter. If the reprieve was granted unconditionally, if Christ's sacrifice is applied to all men actually, not conditionally or potentially, then it would remain unjust to be punished for sins that are actually paid for. It would remain unjust whether or not one accepted the sacrifice.

Thus, I can only conclude that you hold that the satisfaction of justice was conditional, not actual. If that is the case, then I agree, it would be unjust to grant a reprieve if the conditions weren't met.

If it was done on his behalf, then it doesn't really matter if it is accepted or not. Not unless it was done conditionally to begin with.

If its conditional in that sense, then its conditional, period. The only way it can be noncontradictory to say it ALL of God, but we must <fill in blank>, is if what God has done is conditional.

 

Not a bad analogy. I think I will use that in the future.

Why is that not a choice though? There is nothing impossible about a horse eating steak. It may not be what he likes. It may be against his nature to eat meat, and it may be difficult even to accomplish. But there is no real reason why the horse couldn't choose steak over oats. The horse can masticate it and swallow it so its not like saying a choice between eating oats and eating dirt from Pluto. Why in the world would you say that its not a real choice? That seems to place a very very narrow meaning on the concept of free choice.

 

I am interested in your response to the verses Russell posted which seem to indicate that condemnation and wrath are about sin, not simply unbelief.

Also, you still haven't answered as to why belief is something which is condemned.