atonement/justice and forgiveness

[Helen]

Response to Russell:

You wrote: God can't condemn someone without just cause to do so.
I’m sorry, but God can do what He wants. If He has chosen to condemn unbelief even though justice regarding the Law has been satisfied, are you going to argue with Him?

You said Romans 12:19 states that God’s anger is against sin. “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.”
I see no sin mentioned there, but rather a caution regarding what we see as the right or satisfying thing to do in various circumstances. We are being warned not to sin…

Russell: 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.”

And if you let Bible explain Bible, you will see from Romans 1 and a good many other passages that a lifestyle containing these sins is the result of suppressing the truth. The sins are the working out of the condition of these rebellious hearts. In addition, although the sins are atoned for, why should God not be angry with their continuation and the pain they cause His children? Is He not to protect us and be jealous for our safety.

You pointed out the quote from 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."

Please note that the wrath is coming on the sons of disobedience. This is what they have become due to their choices; the condition of their hearts in suppressing what they knew to be true. They purposely hardened their hearts against God and God’s people.

Are you trying to say that God has no ‘right’ to be angry once legal justice has been satisfied? Would you have no right to be angry if your house were torched and you lost all your possessions and photos and everything – even though the person responsible was in jail? Justice is not the same as forgiveness, and that is something I don’t think some of you are grasping. Justice can be satisfied and anger can still be there at the person himself/herself, especially as shown by what that person has done. That is what these verses are indicating. But you cannot take them alone to build your theology. You MUST allow Bible to explain and expand upon Bible and not a chosen theology.

In short, God’s wrath will come upon anything these people do – regardless of which sin is being highlighted – because of who these people have chosen to be.

 

[russell55]

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

No one, as far as I know is questioning the fact that God condemns unbelief. That's the point that everyone agrees on.

But if God condemns unbelief, then unbelief is grounds for the condemnation. That means it's a crime for which unbelievers are sentenced to hell; a wrongdoing for which they are held accountable. If God condemns unbelief (and everyone agrees with this), that means that unbelievers are charged with the crime of unbelief, found guilty, and condemned.

However, if justice has been actually satisfied on their behalf (rather than just conditionally satisfied), there is no crime for which they can be found guilty and condemned. The person for whom justice has been actually satisfied cannot be condemned for anything.

You can't hold to both things--God's justice being actually satisfied for a person and that person being condemned on the grounds of unbelief--without holding to a view that's logically impossible.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I assume you don't know much about horses.

What about horses absolutely prevents them from eating steak?

 

[whatever]

What about horses absolutely prevents them from eating steak?

I know! I know! Their Creator made them that way!!!! Therefore, horses are automatons because they can't eat steak!

 

[Helen]

What about horses absolutely prevents them from eating steak?

Meat would kill them. They are unable to digest it. It would clog up their entire digestive tracts even if you could get it down them. Their teeth are also not equipped to be able to handle meat.

If you like, however, give a horse a choice between oats and a piece of steel. That should give you some idea of the choice as Calvinists see it. It is really no choice at all.

 

[Helen]

Russell, is a choice, in and of itself, a sin? I think the argument between the two of us is hinging on that.

 

[russell55]

Response to Russell:

You wrote: God can't condemn someone without just cause to do so.

I’m sorry, but God can do what He wants.

God can do what he wants, but what he wants is always consistent with his nature. He's revealed himself as a God with the attribute of justice. That means that by his very nature, he can't be unjust. Therefore, he can never condemn someone without just cause to do so.

If He has chosen to condemn unbelief even though justice regarding the Law has been satisfied, are you going to argue with Him?

I don't have to argue with Him, because I know the Judge of the Earth does what's right. That means there is always just cause for his judgments against someone. Since he condemns unbelief, we know that unbelief is a just cause for condemnation.

You said Romans 12:19 states that God’s anger is against sin

. “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.”

I see no sin mentioned there, but rather a caution regarding what we see as the right or satisfying thing to do in various circumstances. We are being warned not to sin…

Did you read it in context? It's talking about when someone persecutes or mistreats us, whe are not supposed to exact justice (payback) ourselves, but leave the payback to the wrath of God. God will give them what they deserve for their crimes against us. God's wrath is associated with vengeance, which is a word of retributive justice. God's wrath, according to this verse, is the outpouring of retributive justice. If God's justice has been satisfied on someone's behalf, then he can't have wrath, which is retributive justice, against them.

Russell: 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.”

And if you let Bible explain Bible, you will see from Romans 1 and a good many other passages that a lifestyle containing these sins is the result of suppressing the truth. The sins are the working out of the condition of these rebellious hearts. In addition, although the sins are atoned for, why should God not be angry with their continuation and the pain they cause His children? Is He not to protect us and be jealous for our safety.

First of all, the verse has to mean what it says right where it is. If it says it is on account of those things that God's wrath comes, then God's wrath comes because of those things. It may come because of other things as well, but those things are included as the reasons for the coming of God's wrath.

Secondly, if those sins are atoned for, then there is peace between God and the person who committed those sins in regards to those sins. That's what atonement means. God does not continue to be angry against sins that have been atoned for.

And yes, God works to protect people, but those sorts of actions are not wrath, which is retributive. This passage calls it wrath, not discipline, not protection.

You pointed out the quote from 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."

Please note that the wrath is coming on the sons of disobedience.

Yes, but it is coming because of these things. There are particular crimes that are the grounds for the expression of God's wrath.

Are you trying to say that God has no ‘right’ to be angry once legal justice has been satisfied?

I'm saying that God's wrath is not exactly like human anger. It's God's expression of retributive justice. It is a legal thing. Once that retributive justice has been exacted, or as you say, once justice has been satisfied, any more retribution for that same crime would be unjust.

Would you have no right to be angry if your house were torched and you lost all your possessions and photos and everything – even though the person responsible was in jail?

If the sentence was what the perfect Judge had determined was exactly the right sentence for the crime, I would have no right to exact more retributive justice. I'd have no right to pummel them upside the head with a 2 by 4, because they are already paying for their crime in the way determined right. They have already gotten what they deserved for that crime.

Justice is not the same as forgiveness, and that is something I don’t think some of you are grasping

. Justice can be satisfied and anger can still be there at the person himself/herself, especially as shown by what that person has done.

I think what you're not understanding is that God's wrath is not just being angry at someone. It is an expression of justice. It's giving people what they deserve.

And yes, it is forgiveness is different than justice, but that really has no bearing on my objection to what you are putting forward here.

That is what these verses are indicating

. But you cannot take them alone to build your theology. You MUST allow Bible to explain and expand upon Bible and not a chosen theology.

I'm not defending a chosen theology. I think you'll find people of every sort of theological stripe disagree with you on this.

And the "allowing Bible to explain Bible" comments really aren't helpful. Do you really thing I don't think I'm doing that? So does everyone else who discusses things on this board.

In short, God’s wrath will come upon anything these people do – regardless of which sin is being highlighted – because of who these people have chosen to be.

I don't disagree with this, really. But if God's wrath comes upon them because the sort of people they have chosen to be makes them deserving of God's wrath. Being the sort of person they are is a crime for which they will be judged guilty and sentenced to endure the wrath of God.

 

[russell55]

Russell, is a choice, in and of itself, a sin? I think the argument between the two of us is hinging on that.

If it's a sinful choice, yes. Choosing something righteous is a righteousness, choosing something wrong is unrighteousness.

The choice not to believe God or trust in Christ, for instance, breaks commandment number 1.

But I don't think anything hinges on this.

It hinges on whether God always acts justly, and whether his wrath is an expression of justice.

 

[Helen]

If it's a sinful choice, yes. Choosing something righteous is a righteousness, choosing something wrong is unrighteousness.

But I don't think anything hinges on this.

It hinges on whether God must always act justly, and whether his wrath is an expression of justice.

Then here is our basic disagreement, perhaps, at the core. First of all, all our righteousness is in Christ. Our choices do not make us righteous and, in fact, are not righteous in and of themselves. Choices are simply choices.

It is the Law which defines sin, right? Where is the law which says a wrong choice is a sin? I cannot find it in the Bible. I find the actions which stem from wrong choices are sins. I find that Christ also attributes the origin of sin to the condition and desires of the heart. But the choice that led to those I do not find defined as sin. You can make a choice that results in sin, but the choice itself is not good nor evil in and of itself. What it leads to is what is good or evil.

Is His wrath an expression of His justice? No, I don't think that is necessarily so. Justice is a very limited thing. It is a legal evening out of the balance. But reactions to things can far exceed anything the legal requirements exact. God's reaction is a righteous reaction when it comes to condemning unbelief, but it does not have to do with justice, which is what the Law is concerned with, and which was fulfilled when Christ fulfilled the Law not only in His life, but on the Cross.

God is far more than the statue of Justice indicates, blind to all else but the weight of the scales. That is only part of the whole thing.

 

[russell55]

Then here is our basic disagreement, perhaps, at the core. First of all, all our righteousness is in Christ.

Of course, and Christ made righteous choices as part of a perfectly righteous life. And his righteous life is imputed to us and so we are counted as righteous.

Our choices do not make us righteous and, in fact, are not righteous in and of themselves. Choices are simply choices.

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

It is the Law which defines sin, right?

The law lists many things that are sin.

Where is the law which says a wrong choice is a sin?

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

I find that Christ also attributes the origin of sin to the condition and desires of the heart.

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.

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.

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.

Justice is a very limited thing. It is a legal evening out of the balance.

Exactly. It is giving people exactly what they deserve.

But reactions to things can far exceed anything the legal requirements exact.

If you are an imperfect person and not the perfect Judge of the Earth, that might be so. But not if you are the righteous God whose judgments are perfect.

God's reaction is a righteous reaction when it comes to condemning unbelief, but it does not have to do with justice

Righteousness and justice are the same thing. They are translated from the same words. Biblically, you can't separate them. That's why one version of the Bible will have the word righteousness where another will have justice. The words, as defined biblically, are interchangeable. So if, as you say, God's reaction is a righteous reaction, then it has everything to do with justice.

God is far more than the statue of Justice indicates, blind to all else but the weight of the scales. That is only part of the whole thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I'll say say once again that justice (or righteousness) is one of God's attributes. Justice (or righteousness) defines everything that he does. Every act has to accord with justice.

 

[Helen]

Thank you for taking the time with that response. I’ve put in some responses to your responses… however it is too long according to this little limit we have, so it's in at least two parts...LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helen
Then here is our basic disagreement, perhaps, at the core. First of all, all our righteousness is in Christ.


Of course, and Christ made righteous choices as part of a perfectly righteous life. And his righteous life is imputed to us and so we are counted as righteous.

No problem, as long as we both understand that Christ and Christ only is our righteousness.

Quote:
Our choices do not make us righteous and, in fact, are not righteous in and of themselves. Choices are simply choices.
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. A simple choice can be changed before any action or any real desire is taken or formed. The choice itself is the starting point, not the unrighteousness itself. It leads to it, but making choices does not make us either righteous or unrighteous in and of themselves.

Quote:
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.
“Indeed, I would not have known what sin was except through the law.” Romans 7:7b

“Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” 1 John 3:4

“…by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:20b

“And where there is no law, there is no transgression.” Romans 4:15

“Sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Romans 5:13

“…and the strength of sin is the law.” 1 Corinthians 15:56

Quote:
Where is the law which says a wrong choice is a sin?

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.

Quote:
I find that Christ also attributes the origin of sin to the condition and desires of the heart.

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.

 

[Helen]

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.

Quote:
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?” 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.

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.

 

[Helen]

part 3:

Quote:
Justice is a very limited thing. It is a legal evening out of the balance.

Exactly. It is giving people exactly what they deserve.

Quote:
But reactions to things can far exceed anything the legal requirements exact.

If you are an imperfect person and not the perfect Judge of the Earth, that might be so. But not if you are the righteous God whose judgments are perfect.

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. And of course God’s judgments are correct! Will all justice satisfied through His Son, are you thinking, or even imagining, that He would not be furious with those who then rejected it? That is not a matter of justice, although it is a matter of judgment.

Quote:
God's reaction is a righteous reaction when it comes to condemning unbelief, but it does not have to do with justice

Righteousness and justice are the same thing. They are translated from the same words. Biblically, you can't separate them. That's why one version of the Bible will have the word righteousness where another will have justice. The words, as defined biblically, are interchangeable. So if, as you say, God's reaction is a righteous reaction, then it has everything to do with justice.

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.

Quote:
God is far more than the statue of Justice indicates, blind to all else but the weight of the scales. That is only part of the whole thing.


I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I'll say say once again that justice (or righteousness) is one of God's attributes. Justice (or righteousness) defines everything that he does. Every act has to accord with justice.

Not so. Mercy triumphs over justice, remember? By that alone, it becomes evident that righteousness is far more than simple justice.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Meat would kill them. They are unable to digest it. It would clog up their entire digestive tracts even if you could get it down them. Their teeth are also not equipped to be able to handle meat.

So, they can choose to eat meat, and they can accomplish that choice...just not easily and it harms them. IOW, its a perfectly valid choice.

It fits the Cist point of view extremely well. The only difference is that men are horses that are corrupted in nature so thoroughly that to them meat is oats and oats are meat. So they only want to eat meat and they end up dying as a result. Oats are offered to them but they view oats like a normal horse would view meat. The choice between the two is a perfectly legitimate choice...its just easy to predict what the horse will pick because of its nature.

If you like, however, give a horse a choice between oats and a piece of steel. That should give you some idea of the choice as Calvinists see it. It is really no choice at all.

Nope, stick with original analogy. Its perfect. Cist definitely don't see it as the choice between oats and steel.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Russell, is a choice, in and of itself, a sin? I think the argument between the two of us is hinging on that.

Is making a choice, in and of itself, sin? No. However, if the choice has a moral element - that is, it is a choice between wrong and right - then if one chooses wrong, then how could the choice not be sin?

Whatever is not of faith is sin.

 

[webdog]

So, they can choose to eat meat, and they can accomplish that choice...just not easily and it harms them. IOW, its a perfectly valid choice.

That's not a choice at all. A choice involves a decision between two things. Since a horse cannot eat meat, that is not a choice. If you stated the horse could choose between oats and carrots, that's a valid choice.

Can you choose to jump from St. Lous to Russia? Is it a valid choice?

 

[dwmoeller1]

That's not a choice at all. A choice involves a decision between two things. Since a horse cannot eat meat, that is not a choice. If you stated the horse could choose between oats and carrots, that's a valid choice.

But a horse *can* eat meat. They can't chew it easily (not the right kind of teeth), but they can chew it (they do have teeth and working jaw muscles). They take harm from ingesting it, but they can ingest it. So, the horse most definitely can eat meat by any reasonable definition of 'eat' - its not outside their natural abilities.

 

[Helen]

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

 

[johnp.]

I don't know anything about horses so I have an interest here of learning about horses. (Anyway, nothing much else is going on.)

An horse has a mouth of teeth, they can chew. They have a throat so they can swallow and this leads to a stomach, or stomachs, which is all tied together with other bits.

That in itself doesn't enable a horse to eat meat does it? Desire must also be a factor.

I have a mouth and I am like the horse, I can swallow but I cannot swallow free will. I have had a chew or two but it went no further than a knowledge of God. I have no desire to change, how can the horse swallow even if the meat is stuffed into his mouth? Oats is meat enough anything else makes the horse sick.

Calvinism is green.

HEB 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

john.

 

[dwmoeller1]

That in itself doesn't enable a horse to eat meat does it?

In one perfectly valid sense, it does. In fact, that sense is probably the most natural sense. Just because I don't desire to drink poison does not at all mean that I am not able.

Free will (defined properly) is perfectly compatible with Cism.

I have no desire to change, how can the horse swallow even if the meat is stuffed into his mouth?

One may never choose a certain way, but one remains able to choose that way (at least in some sense which is perfectly valid).