atonement/justice and forgiveness

[whatever]

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

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

The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice points the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one second from being made drunk with your blood. Thus all of you that never had the great change of heart, by the mighty power of the Spirit of God upon your souls; all of you that were never born again, and made new creatures, and raised from being dead in sin, to a new state, and never experienced light and life, are in the hands of an angry God.

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.

 

[webdog]

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...

 

[whatever]

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?

 

[webdog]

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

 

[russell55]

. . . one can be condemned apart from any concept of justice as well.

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.

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.

Well Romans 12: 19 does.

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

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.

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming.

It says pretty much the same thing in Ephesians 5:

For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

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.

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.

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

 

[dwmoeller1]

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?

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?

 

[russell55]

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.

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.

 

[russell55]

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

They deserve to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands in the way, it makes no objection against God's using his power at any moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of the tree that brings forth such grapes of Sodom, "Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground?" Luke 13:7. The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads, and it is nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God's mere will, that holds it back.

. . . natural men are held in the hand of God, over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment; the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up in their own hearts is struggling to break out: and they have no interest in any Mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any security to them.

 

[Allan]

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?

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.

 

[dwmoeller1]

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

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

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.

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.

 

[Allan]

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

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.

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, 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.

 

[webdog]

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.

 

[dwmoeller1]

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.

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

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.

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?

 

[dwmoeller1]

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.

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.

 

[russell55]

it is not judically applied to anyone until the person believes/accepts the said sacrifice.

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.

 

[Helen]

Trying to catch up here. Reading all the posts since I posted last, I am thinking that this idea is being made much more complicated than it really is.

1. Christ tasted death for every man. Thus the wages were accepted by Him for every man. That is clear. There is no getting around it. One sacrifice for all. Done deal.

2. I am thinking that the justice was done for the sake of God as much for the sake of man. For God, it satisfied eternal justice. For man, it cleared the way for salvation.

3. Justice satisfied does not equal salvation. I think this is the sticking point, right? Salvation is contingent upon man's response to the truth according to Romans 1. It is contingent upon believing in Christ according to Him in John 3, and since He identified Himself as The Truth, that amounts to the same thing in the long run. If you want the truth, the Father will draw you to the Son, and the way is clear because justice has been satisfied.

4. So it's simply a matter of which side you want to be on. Calvinists say you wiill naturally want to be on the side of sin and rejecting God unless He works on you first. But I don't see the Bible saying that or implying it. I see the Bible pleading with men to believe, even to reason with God. To not harden their hearts (which means they don't start off hard). Men, biblically, have a free will to want whichever side they want. Truth or lie. Up to them. God has done everything that can be done to pave the way and show them where the truth is without forcing the issue one way or the othere.

5. Why would God NOT predestine who would be saved? Jesus gave us the answer when He gave us the two/one basic law: love. First God and then your fellow man/neighbor. Love is not love if it is programmed in (obedience means nothing, in the same way, if there is no choice about disobeying). It has to be a conscious, volitional commitment to another person or thing. We are certainly all commited to ourselves, and that is why Jesus told us to love our neighbor AS ourselves. We already love ourselves. We care DEEPLY about ourselves! Now, we cannot care, we cannot love, as God loves unless He indwells us. But He will not choose as a one-sided deal who He is going to indwell. We must open the door. We must want Him. Or at least, to begin with, want the truth. It will end up being the same thing later. But only because we will want to love will we be able to love. The want comes first. And that is why God judges the heart; the actions are simply the working out of the heart.

6. Jesus said people would die in their sins IF they didn't believe He is God. Their hearts are in rebellion against Him. Thus, the working out of their lives will be a working out of sin, in one form or another, as a lifestyle. That is why the Bible states that those who commit these sins cannot go to heaven. It is because of their hearts, where sin originates.

7. And that is why it will be believing and obeying which will result in heaven and rewards, respectively. The rewards can be won or lost or both depending on our obedience. Salvation, however, is for good because He has not lost one and none of us will be the first. Once we WANT the truth, He will begin to operate in our lives, first leading us to Himself, then giving us a new birth and then indwelling us to transform us into His own likeness.

8. At every step we are allowed say in the matter. This does not diminish his holiness or power or majesty, but only emphasizes it. He is bigger than all that, just as a father is bigger (on a much smaller scale, granted) than his toddler.

So justice satisfied clears the way through the Crucifixion.

Then, what will man do about that? Calvinism claims the word 'choice' but there is no choice really anymore than a horse has a choice between steak and oats. For a horse that is not a choice. But the Bible indicates man has a real choice which is not only available, but possible for every sentient adult at the very least. What are you going to do about Jesus?

What do you want? What are you seeking? You will find it.
At which door are you knocking? It will be opened to you.
What questions are you asking? You will find the answers.

What is it that you want?

That question is only possible because of the Crucifixion; because justice HAS been satisfied.

Refuse it and you stand condemned because of your own heart's refusal.
Accept it, believing and trusting, and you stand saved because of your own heart's acceptance.

Christ has done and will do everything.

Which do you WANT? That is what will end up as your salvation or condemnation -- your own choice in the matter.

On the side of the unsaved, it is the most difficult choice in the world, for it clearly means being willing to give up everything. This is why most have to reach the end of their proverbial ropes where nothing is left to them to give up! But God will even accept that, for which many of us thank Him deeply and continually.

But once saved, we wonder why it ever seemed so hard! It is so glorious and incredible on this side! Our lives need to show that, so that others will be attracted to 'this side' and want Christ, too.

 

[dwmoeller1]

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Then, what will man do about that? Calvinism claims the word 'choice' but there is no choice really anymore than a horse has a choice between steak and oats. For a horse that is not a choice.

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.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Refuse it and you stand condemned because of your own heart's refusal.
Accept it, believing and trusting, and you stand saved because of your own heart's acceptance.

Christ has done and will do everything.

Which do you WANT? That is what will end up as your salvation or condemnation -- your own choice in the matter.

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.

 

[Helen]

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.

oh help.....never mind....I assume you don't know much about horses.

Secondly, if God chooses to condemn unbelief, who are any of us to question Him?

Missed Russell's post, evidently. I'll go back and check.