atonement/justice and forgiveness

[dwmoeller1]

My poor example aside, can we get back to the subject here?

Sorry, you lost me when you started arguing that condemnation and judgment are not about justice.

 

[russell55]

Our choices don't make us righteous, but they can certainly make us more unrighteous

No. It can’t work that way if it doesn’t work the other.

The reason choices don't make us righteous is because until we are glorified, none of them come from a perfectly righteous heart, so none of them come from perfectly righteous desires. Once we are glorified, then we will always make perfectly righteous choices from righteous heart with righteous desires. When we are glorified, our choices won't make us righteous, but they will certainly keep us righteous by always being righteous choices.

It is the Law which defines sin, right?

The law lists many things that are sin.

I don’t think you can squiggle out of this one that way.

I'm not trying to squiggle. The law gives us knowledge of sin, yes, but sin includes more than just a list of things to do or not do. Nothing done without faith is pleasing to God. If we think something is wrong (even if it isn't) and we go ahead and do it, it is sin. (Romans 14).

Commandment #1 says that rejecting God is sin, which by the way, is the choice we are talking about, isn't it? Rejecting Christ?

No, that’s not the first commandment. The first commandment is that you should have no other gods before or aside from the Lord God. Rejecting the truth, and thus eventually rejecting Christ does not necessarily mean you are placing any other gods first.

The first commandment is a command to love God. If we don't love the Son, then we don't love the Father.

But our choices come from the condition and desires of the heart.

If our desires are sinful, then the choices that come from our sinful desires will be sinful.

Not necessarily. Many times choices are simply intellectual things. It may not be connected to any desire at the moment of choice and, in fact, when the conscience kicks in or new information comes to the fore, that choice may be changed completely. No sin has been commited.

But to the extent that our desires are sinful, the choices that come from them are sinful.

 

[russell55]

part 2:
Quote:
You can make a choice that results in sin, but the choice itself is not good nor evil in and of itself.

If we make the choice to sin because our heart is corrupt, then the choice, having arisen in the corruption of our hearts is a sinful choice.

We seem to be talking about different things. A choice that results in sin is not a choice TO sin. Not that one cannot actually choose to sin, and many do, but that is not what I am talking about here. I can use an example, but I am hoping we will not end up concentrating on an example instead of the issues.

Example: You want to get ahead in your company. You work hard, show good production, and get the attention of the boss. As a result you are invited to go on a vacation weekend with some of the top brass. You are pleased you are being noticed and you go. You have no idea that there will be paid female companions there or that illegal drugs will be available. At this point, simply being in that company may make you feel you have sinned. I don’t want to judge that and I don’t want to take this example too far. What I do want to point out is that the choice to work hard was a good choice. The choice to go on the weekend seemed fine and was not in itself a sin. Did it/could it lead to sin? Oh yeah!

And many of our choices are like that. They seem good, or true, or right, but they are wrong choices. As Christians we do learn to listen to the Holy Spirit guiding us, but the unsaved person has only his conscience, which he may or may not be paying much attention to, or which may seem not to have anything to do with the decision at hand. The choice itself, in other words, seems good, or at least innocuous.

Thus, in the same way, the intellectual decision to ignore ‘religion’ – especially in light of what the person may have seen of the same – seems right, and on the side of truth. Yes, in involves, at least for the moment, rejecting Jesus, too, although ‘of course he was a good man….’ Now, if this man is making the choice at that point because he wants the truth and from what he has seen, Christianity does not have it (Saul was in that position once…), he is still not sinning.

But if he really wants the truth, the Father WILL lead/draw him to the Son. If he continues to want the truth, then He will end up being born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit and will definitely be a true Christian. But his first choice did not make him unrighteous – he was unrighteous already! His second choice did not make him righteous, but it put him in a position to be made righteous by Christ.

If our friend had resisted the truth when it started to point in a way he felt uncomfortable with, and kept resisting and suppressing it, then that original choice would lead him into active rebellion against God and, should that continue, God would, as Romans 1 says, finally hand him over to the lie. But the man did not start out handed over to the lie, or Romans 1 would not state that he is then handed over after continually suppressing the truth and choosing to worship the created instead of the Creator. If the man is already there, he cannot be handed over to that very thing!
So choices can be made which are not sins at all, even when they are wrong choices. But the fact is that wrong choices will lead to massive temptation and to sin.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. First of all, rejecting Christ is always a sin. Those who love the Father love the Son. There are no innocent reasons for rejecting the Son.

Secondly, in the case of the work trip scenario, to the extent that the choice to go on the trip was made from wrong motives, the choice is sin. And our motives are never perfectly righteous in this world. There will always be a little bit of self-promotion, for instance, or bits of other sinful motives.

Is His wrath an expression of His justice?

Of course it is. The day of wrath is when God's righteous judgment is revealed. God's wrath is poured out as a result of his righteous judgment. And that's what justice is: righteous judgment.

I misstated myself and I apologize. I should have asked “Is His wrath an expression of His justice ONLY?”

I assume you mean "Is God's wrath always an expression of his justice?" Yes. Justice means giving someone what they deserve. In the case of God's wrath, it's meting out the hurt (not the best term, but it's late, and I can't come up with a better one) that people's sin earns them. Since God will never give someone worse (or more hurt) than they deserve--that would be injustice--God's wrath is always in accord with perfect justice, and as such is the perfect expression of justice.

God will give people better than they deserve--that's grace--but never less than they deserve--that would be injustice. So on the benevolent side of things, he will give better than they deserve, but on the wrath side, never worse. If God poured out his wrath on people who had nothing left on their account for which the wrath was deserved--no crimes or demerit--then that would be unjust.

Your statement in response to me was certainly correct, but the revealing of justice is also not the same as the execution of justice

. The execution was Jesus on the Cross; the revealing is something else.

Revealing justice is expressing it. God expressed his justice in Christ on the cross, and to the extent that justice was actually satisfied on the cross, it will not (indeed cannot, if God is just) be expressed on the sinner.

Will people feel the wrath of God? Absolutely! But that is because they have suppressed the truth and preferred the lie

. The sins simply follow that and are an expression of it.

Yes, it's because they suppressed the truth. But it's also because of their sin. Scripture attributes it to both, and I posted all the verses. It doesn't have to be one or the other, as if they are mutually exclusive. They can both be true.

 

[russell55]

part 3:Please do not confuse judgment and justice. Justice is a very limited legal term – as you said, it is giving what has been deserved or earned. Jesus took that, tasting death for every man. Paying twice would unbalance the scales. So justice is fulfilled in Christ.

But judgment is simply deciding about something one way or the other.

Sometimes judgment is just deciding something. But even then, if God is just, the decision has to be in accord with justice. It can't be unjust.

But the sort of judgment we're talking about here is condemnation, and condemnation has everything to do with justice. Condemnation presupposes a crime for which the condemnation comes.

And as you say, paying twice would unbalance the scales. Yet in Romans 2, we're told that on the Day of Wrath, God will render to each person according to their works. The wrath of God on the disobedient will be giving them what they deserve for what they have done. They will be paying.

So either this passage is wrong, along with all the others that say God condemns or pours out wrath on people because of what they've done, or your interpretation of Hebrews 2:9 is wrong. Somethings not adding up.

No, that is not quite right.

The OT word for justice is ‘mispat’ and is used 424 times in the OT. There are two main words for righteous: sadaq, used 40 times, and saddiuq, used 206 times. They are different things. The latter two are occasionally translated ‘justice’ or one of its derivations in some translations, but the word for justice is primarily mispat.

Look at the New Testament. All those words--justification, justice, justify, just, righteous, righteousness come from the same word family, and in the case of just and righteous, and justice and righteousness, from the very same words. That's why, for instance, in Romans 3: 26, the ESV translates the words righteousness, just and justifier; the NIV uses justice, just, and one who justifies, and Young's Literal Translation says righteous, being righteous, and declaring righteous.

Mercy triumphs over justice, remember? By that alone, it becomes evident that righteousness is far more than simple justice.

Mercy triumphs over justice? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Mercy is always given in a way that accords with justice. That's the whole point of Romans 3: 25 and 26. That's why Christ had to die: so God could give mercy in a way that is just. So that God could remain righteous and still give mercy to those of faith.

 

[Helen]

Russell, thank you again for taking the time for this. I think we have both presented what we believe and why. I know I won't change you and I think you know the same about me. So the readers have had a chance to see what we are talking about and why we believe the way we do. This is on the 13th page. That's enough for me. I've made the point I wanted to make, and I thank you for allowing me to do it.

I think you have also made the point you wanted to make.

God bless you and may He give us both wisdom.