atonement/justice and forgiveness

[russell55]

From what I can tell, the true issue is going to center around the meaning of 'condemn' and 'condemnation'. Helen is not using it as in a 'legal' sense (she seems to be equating it with 'damned'). You seem to be. Thus the confusion.

I think you are right, which is the reason I'm asking what the grounds for condemnation are. I'm trying to avoid putting words in her mouth, but I suspect she believes there don't have to be grounds for condemnation--that condemnation doesn't have to be earned.

Which raises other issues. But I'd like to get things pinned down on this issue before we go there.

 

[MB]

Hi Russel;

It is impossible for both halves of this statement to be true because they are contradictory. If their refusal to believe condemns them, then their unbelief is grounds for condemnation. Yet, if God's justice is satisfied, there is no longer any grounds for condemnation. You can't have it both ways.

The reason men go to hell is that they haven't met all the conditions.
Man's sin is paid for in advance but, the condition isn't only having our sins paid for. You see that condition has been paid but, if there is no repentance and confession. The rest of the entire condition has not been met.
It's like I can pay for your breakfast in advance but, if you do not come in and eat it. It doesn't do anything for you. Never the less your breakfast was still paid for.
MB

 

[russell55]

Hi Russel;

I don't think you're saying exactly the same thing that Helen is saying, but I'm not sure. I'm waiting for Helen to answer, and then, hopefully, I'll know.

The reason men go to hell is that they haven't met all the conditions.

I assume you are speaking of all the conditions that must be met for people to be saved.

Man's sin is paid for in advance but, the condition isn't only having our sins paid for. You see that condition has been paid but, if there is no repentance and confession. The rest of the entire condition has not been met.

So, are you saying that the grounds for our salvation is Christ's work plus our repentence and confession?

It's like I can pay for your breakfast in advance but, if you do not come in and eat it. It doesn't do anything for you. Never the less your breakfast was still paid for.

I guess the answer to the question I asked right before this quote is "yes", since in this example, the grounds by which I get to eat my breakfast is you paying for it plus me coming in and eating it. You pay for it, but there are further requirements I must fulfill in order to eat it. Right?

 

[dwmoeller1]

The reason men go to hell is that they haven't met all the conditions.
Man's sin is paid for in advance but, the condition isn't only having our sins paid for. You see that condition has been paid but, if there is no repentance and confession. The rest of the entire condition has not been met.
It's like I can pay for your breakfast in advance but, if you do not come in and eat it. It doesn't do anything for you. Never the less your breakfast was still paid for.

That might answer the question of why the unrepentant doesn't go to heaven, but it doesn't address the question of why they are sent to hell. Why do the unrepentant still go to hell if their sins are paid for and they are no longer accounted guilty?

 

[dwmoeller1]

In that case there are an awful lot of insults against God left standing for eternity. Is that really what you believe?

Curious: From what Scripture do you pull this concept of 'insults against God'?

 

[psalms109:31]

That might answer the question of why the unrepentant doesn't go to heaven, but it doesn't address the question of why they are sent to hell. Why do the unrepentant still go to hell if their sins are paid for and they are no longer accounted guilty?

Revelation 16 :4The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. 5Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say:
"You are just in these judgments,
you who are and who were, the Holy One,
because you have so judged;
6for they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets,
and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve."

7And I heard the altar respond:
"Yes, Lord God Almighty,
true and just are your judgments."

8The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. 9They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

10The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony 11and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.

12The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. 13Then I saw three evil[a] spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.

15"Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed."

16Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.

17The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, "It is done!" 18Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake. 19The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath. 20Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. 21From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.

So many blame God for not saving them, many men who think they have been chosen but have chosen themselves and call themselves the elect of God. Say I did this and that in your name and will be very disappointed when Jesus say's I never knew you, go away you evil doer.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Revelation 16 :

Nice passage...but you didn't answer the question. You demonstrated that God exercises vengeance on the unrepentant, but not the basis for it. You demonstrated that the unrepentant won't repent even under the vengeace of God, but not why God is exercing vengeance to begin with.

Why do the unrepentant still go to hell if their sins are paid for and they are no longer accounted guilty? If they are not accounted guilty, then on what basis do they go to hell...or for that matter, on what basis does God exercise vengeance on them?

In human terms at least, if a crime as has been paid for, then wouldn't we all recognize that it is unjust to seek vengeance simply because the criminal was unrepentant?

 

[Helen]

dwmoeller1, if you don't end up in heaven, where do you end up? Do you have a third choice apart from hell?

As for sin being insults against God, what else are they? They are deliberate disobedience, rebellions. They are a refusal to admit or submit to God's authority. That is insulting to Him, especially after everything He has done for us.

I am amazed that some of you simply don't take John 3:16+ at face value! It really does mean what it says!

As far as johnp and the business about Esau being hated before he was born, that is NOT in Scripture. Allowing Scripture to explain Scripture instead of taking material out of context explains, as I have repeatedly (as have others) shown, that Esau himself is never shown as being hated, while those descended from him, Edom/Esau, are primarily because of the way they treated Israel.

 

[Allan]

So Christ died for almost all the sins of the whole world?

Don't ask me ask God, it was Him who stated there is ONE UNPARDONABLE sin. .......Editted script......


Sorry I just woke up and didn't read what I wrote. I made no sense at first so my wife (thank goodness) caught it and told me to read it again. My appologies.

 

[Helen]

Allan, pardon is different from atonement. Atonement means it is paid for, but yes, it happened.

Pardon is saying, "As far as I am concerned, it never happened."

there's a difference.

All sins were paid for. Not all are forgotten/forgiven.

 

[Allan]

Allan, pardon is different from atonement. Atonement means it is paid for, but yes, it happened.

Pardon is saying, "As far as I am concerned, it never happened."

there's a difference.

All sins were paid for. Not all are forgotten/forgiven.

Yes my wife caught it too.

I was trying to write in a fog. I am heading out to a mens study meeting and trying to type after JUST waking up. So my appologies in that.

 

[dwmoeller1]

dwmoeller1, if you don't end up in heaven, where do you end up? Do you have a third choice apart from hell?

Thats reasoning by a the process of elimination. It doesn't really answer the question. It assumes that there are no other possible (notice I say possible, not existent) states other than heaven or hell (or, eternal state vs. lake of fire).

What I am asking is the *purpose* of hell. *Why* are people sent there? On what basis? Specifically, on what basis *if their sins have already been paid for*. Why does God not simply allow some other route for those who don't repent. Satan and his minions don't have their sins paid for by Christ nor are they repentant, so obviously, hell is appropriate place for them. But why are those who have their sins paid for forced into hell?

Consider this: 2Pet 2:9The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished

These seem to be statements of legal justice. If a person's sins are paid for, what are they being punished for? On what basis are they judged if they are not longer guilty of sin?

As for sin being insults against God, what else are they? They are deliberate disobedience, rebellions. They are a refusal to admit or submit to God's authority. That is insulting to Him, especially after everything He has done for us.

Again, how do you establish that this is insulting to Him? An offense is not necessarily an insult. Lets try to stick with *Scriptural* concepts here...esp. since your arguments so far have all be based on showing Scriptural distinctions.

I am amazed that some of you simply don't take John 3:16+ at face value! It really does mean what it says!

What have I not take at face value about John 3:16+?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Yes my wife caught it too.

I was trying to write in a fog. I am heading out to a mens study meeting and trying to type after JUST waking up. So my appologies in that.

So if you are accepting her distinction, then does that mean that Jesus did die for all the sins of all the world?

If so, why then do men go to hell?

 

[johnp.]

Hello Helen.

As far as johnp and the business about Esau being hated before he was born, that is NOT in Scripture.

Rom 9:11,13 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad...Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

It is plain that Jacob and Esau's destiny was not based on them and that little passage in Romans says it is God's demonstration of His dealing in election to us.

Allowing Scripture to explain Scripture instead of taking material out of context...

Or as you sometimes say, "Let the Book of Jasher and stories from other middle eastern cultures explain scripture."

There are a number of extra-biblical stories that have come down through the millennia in not only Hebrew culture, but other Middle Eastern cultures as well.

The following website references the book of Jasher with these two facts:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37846&page=2 (#16)

What light from yon window me dear since you were using them to deny Rom 9:11,13 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad...Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

...as I have repeatedly (as have others) shown, that Esau himself is never shown as being hated...

Rom 9:11,13 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad...Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

You have only shown that you are one who says it says that but it means this.

john.

 

[Helen]

john, the Bible explains Bible. Before the twins were born God only said that they would be twins and that the elder would serve the younger. This is in Genesis. As far as the hating and loving go, that is explained in Obadiah. Please read it.

 

[russell55]

I am amazed that some of you simply don't take John 3:16+ at face value! It really does mean what it says!

If anyone is not taking that passage at face value, it's you, Helen. Here's why.

Now this is the basis for judging:that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. (John 3:19)

That tells you that loving darkness rather than light is grounds or basis by which people are judged. That means that people who love darkness rather than light deserve the condemnation they get on the basis that loving darkness rather than light is an offense that deserves condemnation.

In other words, for unbelievers, there is still at least one demerit on their account: Loving darkness rather than light.

 

[Helen]

So if you are accepting her distinction, then does that mean that Jesus did die for all the sins of all the world?

If so, why then do men go to hell?

oh help....Why does Jesus say they go to hell? I've quoted it. I've referenced it. Don't you believe it?

 

[Helen]

If anyone is not taking that passage at face value, it's you, Helen. Here's why.


That tells you that loving darkness rather than light is grounds or basis by which people are judged. That means that people who love darkness rather than light deserve the condemnation they get on the basis that loving darkness rather than light is an offense that deserves condemnation.

In other words, for unbelievers, there is still at least one demerit on their account: Loving darkness rather than light.

Don't quit there, please. Go on to the next verse:

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

There is a comparison in that passage, and to avoid it is not being honest about your argument.

 

[johnp.]

Hello Helen.

john, the Bible explains Bible. Before the twins were born God only said that they would be twins and that the elder would serve the younger. This is in Genesis. As far as the hating and loving go, that is explained in Obadiah. Please read it.

I did read it.

What are you doing trying to back up your interpretation of scripture with extra-biblical stuff?

The explanation of Obadiah can be found in the second paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Obadiah

As far as the hating and loving go, that is explained in Obadiah.

The reason God hated Esau is because He chose to hate him and love his brother. God used Esau soley for the purpose of explaining to you that God is Sovereign and will send a man to Hell for no better reason than He wanted to show you how He deals with all mankind. Not very nice is it? Sending Esau to Hell just to demonstrate His purpose in election. That's why it's important that it was before they had done right or wrong. Double predestination is proved in this verse.

john.

 

[russell55]

Don't quit there, please. Go on to the next verse:

Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

There is a comparison in that passage, and to avoid it is not being honest about your argument.

Helen, I didn't quote it because I don't understand how it plays into the discussion of the basis or grounds for condemnation. It would help, I guess, if you explained why you think it does.

As I see it, the text you quote here gives the explanation for people not coming to the light, but it doesn't speak specifically to the question of the basis for their condemnation. That is given in the previous verse:

And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil.

I'm really wondering why you haven't answered the questions about what the just grounds are for God sentencing unbelievers to hell? Perhaps you think your answer is obvious from what you've written, but I'm still having a hard time understanding what you are saying. I think it would clear a lot of things up if you would just answer these questions: Are there grounds for God sending unbelievers to hell, or are there no grounds? If there are grounds, what are they?

Please. No one's trying to set you up, at least I'm not. I just want to understand what you're saying.