atonement/justice and forgiveness

[Helen]

Hello Helen.



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



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.

1. I did not 'back up' my interpretation with extra-biblical stuff in my article. I added it as an interesting bit. There is a difference.

2. Obadiah says clearly why God hates Esau/Edom (not the man, but the nation):
Because of the violence against your brother Jacob, you wil be covered with shame;
you will be destroyed forever.
On the day you stood aloof while strangers carried off his wealth
and foreigners entered his gates
and cast lots for Jerusalem,
you were like one of them.
You should not look down on your brother in the day of his misfortune
nor rejoice over the people of Judah in the day of their destruction,
nor boast so much in the day of their trouble.
You should not march through the gates of my people in the day of their disaster,
nor look down on them in their calamity in the day of their disaster,
nor seize their wealth in the day of their disaster.
You should not wait at the crossroads to cut down their fugitives
nor hand over their survivors in the day of their trouble.

the day of the Lord is near for all nations.
As you have done, it will be done to you;
your deeds will return upon your own head.

This is obviously not two people, but two nations.

Now let's go to the verses in Malachi which Paul refers to in Romans:

An oracle: The word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi.
"I have loved you," says the Lord.
"But you ask, 'How have you loved us?'
"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the Lord says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."
Edom may say, "though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins."
But this is what the Lord Almighty says:
"They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord. You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the Lord -- even beyond the borders of Israel!'

Again, two nations are being talked about. And this is what Paul is referring to in Romans. God did not choose to hate the person Esau before his birth. That is NOWHERE indicated in the Bible. There is nothing that shows that after Jacob returned from Laban with his wives and children that Esau was anything but a brother to him. Together they buried their father. In fact, when the land became insufficient for their combined vast flocks, it was Esau who had the grace to move away instead of fighting for 'his' land (Genesis 36:6-8). For those who are not aware, Genesis 36:1 identified Esau as Edom.

In short, again, Bible explains Bible.

 

[Helen]

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:

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.

Jesus, again, gives the grounds in John 3:18. "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

The last part of the passage speaks specifically to the fact that some choose to live by truth and they come into the light. Paul talks about those who refuse the truth in Romans 1.

In the meantime, what part of John 3:18 does not make sense to you? Jesus gives the reason as clearly as possible about why people are condemned.

 

[webdog]

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

 

[Allan]

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?

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.

 

[whatever]

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

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

Oh, wait . . .

 

[webdog]

No problem, just pointing out the facts

 

[whatever]

Jesus, again, gives the grounds in John 3:18. "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

The last part of the passage speaks specifically to the fact that some choose to live by truth and they come into the light. Paul talks about those who refuse the truth in Romans 1.

In the meantime, what part of John 3:18 does not make sense to you? Jesus gives the reason as clearly as possible about why people are condemned.

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?

 

[russell55]

Jesus, again, gives the grounds in John 3:18. "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

The last part of the passage speaks specifically to the fact that some choose to live by truth and they come into the light. Paul talks about those who refuse the truth in Romans 1.

In the meantime, what part of John 3:18 does not make sense to you? Jesus gives the reason as clearly as possible about why people are condemned.

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?

 

[psalms109:31]

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

 

[Blammo]

Hello Helen.



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



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.

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

 

[russell55]

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

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.

 

[GordonSlocum]

If justice is served, why then do people still go to hell?

And if one is going to answer "Because they choose to.", please explain how this answer fits the people described in Matt 7 who were clearly unwilling to go to hell and wanted to enter heaven.

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 ......

 

[Helen]

If sin is not an insult against God, what is it? It is most certainly rebellion, and often the 'in your face' kind. Personally, I consider that insulting to God.

Perhaps you would rather the word 'affront'? Surely sin is, at the least, an affront to God...

And would any affront be left standing for eternity? Justice says no. Justice was taken care of by Christ.

That paved the way for salvation for those who believe on Him, those who want the truth.

Forgiveness is a personal thing that comes afterwards.

 

[skypair]

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

 

[dwmoeller1]

If sin is not an insult against God, what is it? It is most certainly rebellion, and often the 'in your face' kind. Personally, I consider that insulting to God.

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.

Perhaps you would rather the word 'affront'? Surely sin is, at the least, an affront to God...

And would any affront be left standing for eternity? Justice says no. Justice was taken care of by Christ.

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?

That paved the way for salvation for those who believe on Him, those who want the truth.

Exactly what any good Cist would agree with.

Forgiveness is a personal thing that comes afterwards.

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.

 

[Helen]

Justice has been satisfied. Hell is not about justice. It is about God's anger at a person refusing the truth and thus refusing God's provision through Christ. It is about a person choosing the lie despite all evidence to the contrary.

It is, in the long run, about God's anger. And a very righteous anger it is, too, for He satisfied justice at enormous cost to Himself.

 

[whatever]

Justice has been satisfied. Hell is not about justice. It is about God's anger at a person refusing the truth and thus refusing God's provision through Christ. It is about a person choosing the lie despite all evidence to the contrary.

It is, in the long run, about God's anger. And a very righteous anger it is, too, for He satisfied justice at enormous cost to Himself.

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?

 

[russell55]

Hell is not about justice.

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)

 

[dwmoeller1]

Justice has been satisfied. Hell is not about justice. It is about God's anger at a person refusing the truth and thus refusing God's provision through Christ. It is about a person choosing the lie despite all evidence to the contrary.

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.

 

[Helen]

I remember a sermon called "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"....

Now, either Jesus tasted death for ALL men, as Hebrews says, and thus fulfilled the Law, accepting the wages of sin for all men, or He did not.

Either He is the sacrifice once for all, again as Hebrews says, or He is not.

If Hebrews is correct, then all sins have been atoned for.

And that, at a cost we cannot begin to imagine.

Why should God not be angry if we ignore and deny that?

And where else should anyone go, if not to be with Him eternally?

Read Romans 1. When the lie is consistently, deliberately chosen, THEN God hands them over to that sort of lifestyle. That sort of lifestyle is a witness against them, regarding what they have chosen and who they have become. But it, like hell itself, is the result of something they consistently and deliberately chose, and which angered God.

Justice can condemn, but one can be condemned apart from any concept of justice as well. God has satisfied justice through His own sacrifice on our behalf. However, that is not the only way someone can be condemned, as the Bible clearly shows.

In Romans 1 it does not say that God's anger is against sin. It says God's anger is against those who suppress the truth by their lifestyles and choices. That is a very important difference.

Yes, God hates sin. It IS an affront/insult to Him. But when He gave up His life willingly on the Cross, He accepted the wages of death our sins earned, and wages are only paid once. Nor was it physical death which is being talked about. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" was the cry of spiritual death, or separation from the Father, which was far more agonizing than anything we can ever imagine, as He became sin for us and atoned for all of it for all time.

Refuse that and you deserve God's wrath....and will get it. It has nothing to do with justice regarding the Law, but rather with the total refusal to accept the truth either about oneself or about God Himself.