I enjoy interacting with Southern Baptist minister Wade Burleson, and fellow commenters, on his blog. Wade has recently announced that he will be discontinuing his blogging (or at least the comments portion) in order to focus more on other aspects of his ministry/career.
We did have one last really good exchange back in October, which I have gleaned from his blog and am reposting here along with all relevant comments.
It's a long read (of short comments). I wouldn't take it up unless your are really interested in the subject matter - which is the conservative Christian doctrine of penal substitution, natural law, hell, etc. and whether this is compatible with a good and loving God. I have always appreciated the interaction at Wade's blog - It's always thoughtful and interesting.
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
The problem is that the idea of the penal substitution violates our sense of natural law.
God punishing an innocent doesn't absolve guilt in any meaningful, moral way for violators. And it is morally wrong.
In fact, all it shows is that God requires vengeance, no matter to whom it is enacted. And it reduces love to a servant of the idea of "justice". And justice only means revenge.
I believe and hope that the opposite is true - that justice is a means to serve love. That justice is not revenge, but is a process of rehabilitation, protection and deterrence.
It is also ironic that the context of Matthew 5:48 ("Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.") is a lesson in why we should forgive our enemies. According to the theology in this post, this is something that God the Father cannot actually do (He gets "paid" anyway). This would mean, if we are to be led by the Father's example, that for us to forgive others, we need to be appeased in some other way.
And this is not what forgiveness means.
The problem is that the idea of the penal substitution violates our sense of natural law.
God punishing an innocent doesn't absolve guilt in any meaningful, moral way for violators. And it is morally wrong.
In fact, all it shows is that God requires vengeance, no matter to whom it is enacted. And it reduces love to a servant of the idea of "justice". And justice only means revenge.
I believe and hope that the opposite is true - that justice is a means to serve love. That justice is not revenge, but is a process of rehabilitation, protection and deterrence.
It is also ironic that the context of Matthew 5:48 ("Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.") is a lesson in why we should forgive our enemies. According to the theology in this post, this is something that God the Father cannot actually do (He gets "paid" anyway). This would mean, if we are to be led by the Father's example, that for us to forgive others, we need to be appeased in some other way.
And this is not what forgiveness means.
Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
"The problem is that the idea of the penal substitution violates our sense of natural law.
God punishing an innocent doesn't absolve guilt in any meaningful, moral way for violators. And it is morally wrong."
Steven, Jesus IS God. Do you understand the implications of that within the context of your comment?
The "Innocent" was Himself in the form of a perfect Human. That is why the Sacrfice is so great.
(My friends, this is why ESS is so very dangerous to our Faith. Because it can only logically lead to lessening the Sacrifice, that "God with us" made.)
"The problem is that the idea of the penal substitution violates our sense of natural law.
God punishing an innocent doesn't absolve guilt in any meaningful, moral way for violators. And it is morally wrong."
Steven, Jesus IS God. Do you understand the implications of that within the context of your comment?
The "Innocent" was Himself in the form of a perfect Human. That is why the Sacrfice is so great.
(My friends, this is why ESS is so very dangerous to our Faith. Because it can only logically lead to lessening the Sacrifice, that "God with us" made.)
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Hi Lydia,
How does this change the equation? God punishing Himself still doesn't truly absolve guilt, right?
If I killed someone's family member, and he chose to punish himself instead of me, no moral system of justice would recognize that as a true payment.
Hi Lydia,
How does this change the equation? God punishing Himself still doesn't truly absolve guilt, right?
If I killed someone's family member, and he chose to punish himself instead of me, no moral system of justice would recognize that as a true payment.
Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Steven,
"If I killed someone's family member, and he chose to punish himself instead of me, no moral system of justice would recognize that as a true payment."
I think you might chalk atonement and the manner through which God punishes Himself for the sins of His people as something men would call "foolishness." I can't, however, escape the fact Steven that the Creator has revealed "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." In other words, it seems difficult to argue with God, particularly since the argument is against Him paying our debt.
Steven,
"If I killed someone's family member, and he chose to punish himself instead of me, no moral system of justice would recognize that as a true payment."
I think you might chalk atonement and the manner through which God punishes Himself for the sins of His people as something men would call "foolishness." I can't, however, escape the fact Steven that the Creator has revealed "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." In other words, it seems difficult to argue with God, particularly since the argument is against Him paying our debt.
Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
"How does this change the equation? God punishing Himself still doesn't truly absolve guilt, right?"
That is why we call it Grace. And the greatest free gift of all.
Romans 3
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
"How does this change the equation? God punishing Himself still doesn't truly absolve guilt, right?"
That is why we call it Grace. And the greatest free gift of all.
Romans 3
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Hi Wade!
The problem is in the appeal to "natural law" to justify our knowledge of right and wrong. Then the doctrine of the penal substitution fails the test of natural law.
So if an alleged act of God violates our inner knowledge of right and wrong, is it an act of God? Or perhaps the work of finite humans?
Lydia,
If grace (God's favor) is all that was required, then the atonement was not required.
Perhaps what evangelical Christianity calls the grace of God actually sells the actual grace of God far short. Let's at least hope that this is the case - for the sake of the whole of God's creation.
Hi Wade!
The problem is in the appeal to "natural law" to justify our knowledge of right and wrong. Then the doctrine of the penal substitution fails the test of natural law.
So if an alleged act of God violates our inner knowledge of right and wrong, is it an act of God? Or perhaps the work of finite humans?
Lydia,
If grace (God's favor) is all that was required, then the atonement was not required.
Perhaps what evangelical Christianity calls the grace of God actually sells the actual grace of God far short. Let's at least hope that this is the case - for the sake of the whole of God's creation.
Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Hi Steven,
You write: "The problem is in the appeal to "natural law" to justify our knowledge of right and wrong. Then the doctrine of the penal substitution fails the test of natural law. So if an alleged act of God violates our inner knowledge of right and wrong, is it an act of God? Or perhaps the work of finite humans?"
Good thoughts. A brief response.
"Natural law" is consistent with God's revealed law. Thou shalt not murder is law, both naturally and through revelation (God's word). If a person whose conscience is seared, or defiled, or dead murders someone, it is a violation of God's standard whether their inner conscience tells them so or not. Likewise, if someone hates someone, a sin that requires a more sensitive conscience to feel than murder, that hatred is a violation of God's standard whether they feel it or not.
Second, your argument that penal substitution "violates the inner sense of right and wrong (natural law)" and thus, is a doctrine created by finite man and not God is something I completely understand. You are saying penal substitution makes no sense to you.
It seems to me that what makes sense to you is God punishing people for their wrongs and rewarding people for their good deeds. I think God acts precisely in this manner--except that what most people consider "good" when compared to the good that is God will find that it is nothing but "filthy rags."
For this reason, even if atonement makes no sense to you, I would fall in the category of "Thy Peace" and say that of all the religions on earth, it seems to me I would be the absolute fool to reject the good news that is found in Jesus Christ because everything else points me to something I do, I say, I accomplish. The good news points me to something God has accomplished for me.
Hi Steven,
You write: "The problem is in the appeal to "natural law" to justify our knowledge of right and wrong. Then the doctrine of the penal substitution fails the test of natural law. So if an alleged act of God violates our inner knowledge of right and wrong, is it an act of God? Or perhaps the work of finite humans?"
Good thoughts. A brief response.
"Natural law" is consistent with God's revealed law. Thou shalt not murder is law, both naturally and through revelation (God's word). If a person whose conscience is seared, or defiled, or dead murders someone, it is a violation of God's standard whether their inner conscience tells them so or not. Likewise, if someone hates someone, a sin that requires a more sensitive conscience to feel than murder, that hatred is a violation of God's standard whether they feel it or not.
Second, your argument that penal substitution "violates the inner sense of right and wrong (natural law)" and thus, is a doctrine created by finite man and not God is something I completely understand. You are saying penal substitution makes no sense to you.
It seems to me that what makes sense to you is God punishing people for their wrongs and rewarding people for their good deeds. I think God acts precisely in this manner--except that what most people consider "good" when compared to the good that is God will find that it is nothing but "filthy rags."
For this reason, even if atonement makes no sense to you, I would fall in the category of "Thy Peace" and say that of all the religions on earth, it seems to me I would be the absolute fool to reject the good news that is found in Jesus Christ because everything else points me to something I do, I say, I accomplish. The good news points me to something God has accomplished for me.
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Hi Wade!
I do not accept the premise that the whole of the Bible corresponds to our current "natural" sense of right and wrong. For instance, I do not accept that it is OK to pass a slave onto my son as property as specified in Leviticus 25:46.
Penal Substitition:
It is not my theology that says God requires appeasement (revenge) for sins. It is yours. I am just pointing out that even by your standards, penal substitution makes no sense, because those who have violated the law are not punished. So I reject retributive justice, but if I did accept it, the penal substitution would not satisfy it.
Hi Wade!
I do not accept the premise that the whole of the Bible corresponds to our current "natural" sense of right and wrong. For instance, I do not accept that it is OK to pass a slave onto my son as property as specified in Leviticus 25:46.
Penal Substitition:
It is not my theology that says God requires appeasement (revenge) for sins. It is yours. I am just pointing out that even by your standards, penal substitution makes no sense, because those who have violated the law are not punished. So I reject retributive justice, but if I did accept it, the penal substitution would not satisfy it.
Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
"If grace (God's favor) is all that was required, then the atonement was not required."
The book of Hebrews can answer this better than I can. Look at what was required for atonement of sin in the OT then read Hebrews. For a glimpse:
Hebrews 7
26 For such a High Priest (Jesus Christ) was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests (OT variety) to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.
"Perhaps what evangelical Christianity calls the grace of God actually sells the actual grace of God far short."
In terms of God sacrifing Himself for our sins so we can have eternal life with Him, I would agree with you. It is so incredible and wonderful that no words do it justice. But there is also bad news as Wade points out in his post.
I will end with this because it is really about Faith:
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Corin 1)
Paul said in Galatians:
20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Steven, It is not just the Cross but the Resurrection which is eternal life with our Savior.
"If grace (God's favor) is all that was required, then the atonement was not required."
The book of Hebrews can answer this better than I can. Look at what was required for atonement of sin in the OT then read Hebrews. For a glimpse:
Hebrews 7
26 For such a High Priest (Jesus Christ) was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests (OT variety) to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.
"Perhaps what evangelical Christianity calls the grace of God actually sells the actual grace of God far short."
In terms of God sacrifing Himself for our sins so we can have eternal life with Him, I would agree with you. It is so incredible and wonderful that no words do it justice. But there is also bad news as Wade points out in his post.
I will end with this because it is really about Faith:
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Corin 1)
Paul said in Galatians:
20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Steven, It is not just the Cross but the Resurrection which is eternal life with our Savior.
Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Steven,
You write:
"I am just pointing out that even by your standards, penal substitution makes no sense, because those who have violated the law are not punished. So I reject retributive justice, but if I did accept it, the penal substitution would not satisfy it."
Steven, I am genuinely confused. What you call "retributive justice" I call "righteous punishment." When God punishes a lawbreaker the punishment meets the crime. It's righteous and just. The punishment for disobedience to God is eternal separation from God and His blessings of life eternal and inheriting an earth where the curse has been reversed (heaven).
Also, to argue that it is irrational, illogical and anti-common sense for God to punish the sins of His people in their Substitute is no skin off my nose.
The only other alternative is that there is no substitute or Savior, and/or there is no God that punishes sin.
It would seem to me to require greater faith to believe in the alternatives than it does in Jesus the Christ.
Steven,
You write:
"I am just pointing out that even by your standards, penal substitution makes no sense, because those who have violated the law are not punished. So I reject retributive justice, but if I did accept it, the penal substitution would not satisfy it."
Steven, I am genuinely confused. What you call "retributive justice" I call "righteous punishment." When God punishes a lawbreaker the punishment meets the crime. It's righteous and just. The punishment for disobedience to God is eternal separation from God and His blessings of life eternal and inheriting an earth where the curse has been reversed (heaven).
Also, to argue that it is irrational, illogical and anti-common sense for God to punish the sins of His people in their Substitute is no skin off my nose.
The only other alternative is that there is no substitute or Savior, and/or there is no God that punishes sin.
It would seem to me to require greater faith to believe in the alternatives than it does in Jesus the Christ.
Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Steven,
Could not have answered objections to atonement better than Lydia does in the comments above.
Steven,
Could not have answered objections to atonement better than Lydia does in the comments above.
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Hi Wade and Lydia,
Retributive Justice is the idea that punishment is deserved for no greater purpose than to create an "evening out" of things. It's the idea that punishment is revenge and nothing more.
When I punish my child, I (hope I!) do so because it satisfies one or more of 3 conditions:
1. It educates and rehabilitates
2. It creates a deterrent against future wrong doing
3. It protects him and others around him
The problem with Hell is that it does none of these things. So it is revenge pure and simple.
Why is revenge righteous? Especially when God calls us to forgive our enemies? Assuming forgiveness means actual forgiveness and not simply achieving appeasement from another source.
Hi Wade and Lydia,
Retributive Justice is the idea that punishment is deserved for no greater purpose than to create an "evening out" of things. It's the idea that punishment is revenge and nothing more.
When I punish my child, I (hope I!) do so because it satisfies one or more of 3 conditions:
1. It educates and rehabilitates
2. It creates a deterrent against future wrong doing
3. It protects him and others around him
The problem with Hell is that it does none of these things. So it is revenge pure and simple.
Why is revenge righteous? Especially when God calls us to forgive our enemies? Assuming forgiveness means actual forgiveness and not simply achieving appeasement from another source.
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
And once again, even if required revenge is in the nature of God - how does the penal substitution satisfy it? The guilty party goes free. No just punishment has been enacted, but rather a revenge killing for its own sake.
If the answer is mystery, or "yes it seems immoral but we have to trust that it's not" then the whole business of doing theology is irrelevant.
(I am enjoying this conversation, I always enjoy reading both of your points of view.)
And once again, even if required revenge is in the nature of God - how does the penal substitution satisfy it? The guilty party goes free. No just punishment has been enacted, but rather a revenge killing for its own sake.
If the answer is mystery, or "yes it seems immoral but we have to trust that it's not" then the whole business of doing theology is irrelevant.
(I am enjoying this conversation, I always enjoy reading both of your points of view.)
Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Steven,
You write:
"The problem with Hell is that it does none of these things. So it is revenge pure and simple."
Revenge? How about punishment.
You are suggesting that murderers, people full of hate, the sexually immoral, child abusers, the proud, the selfish, those who denigrate others, and those with no respect for life are not to be judged by God?
Try arguing before a judge that he is not to punish lawbreakers but simply to pardon them.
It won't work. Righteous and just judges punish lawbreakers.
I'm not sure what your concept of hell is, but it sounds like something from Dante's Inferno rather than Scripture. God righteously, judicially, and personally punishes sinners for their sin. There will be no complaint of "I don't deserve this."
But the good news is God pays our debt and credits us with His righteousness when we trust His Son.
Steven,
You write:
"The problem with Hell is that it does none of these things. So it is revenge pure and simple."
Revenge? How about punishment.
You are suggesting that murderers, people full of hate, the sexually immoral, child abusers, the proud, the selfish, those who denigrate others, and those with no respect for life are not to be judged by God?
Try arguing before a judge that he is not to punish lawbreakers but simply to pardon them.
It won't work. Righteous and just judges punish lawbreakers.
I'm not sure what your concept of hell is, but it sounds like something from Dante's Inferno rather than Scripture. God righteously, judicially, and personally punishes sinners for their sin. There will be no complaint of "I don't deserve this."
But the good news is God pays our debt and credits us with His righteousness when we trust His Son.
Christiane has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Hi STEVEN,
I am wondering if you have ever seen the Mel Gibson film 'The Passion of the Christ' ? No English is spoken in that film. It's not needed.
You know, sometimes in attempting to understand and explain that which cannot be understood easily, our 'words' fail to portray a holy event in all of its mystery and majesty.
The crucifixion is only a part of the great Mystery of Christ, which includes His Incarnation, His Passion, and yes, Wade is correct in including Christ's Resurrection.
Some describe the Crucifixion by saying that it was done out of wrath against sin, and some by saying that it was done out of love for us.
How difficult it is for us to express clearly in words that which may not be fully understood.
I think you have seen into our human inadequacy to describe that which is sacred.
We try to explain 'the fullness of truth' with 'OUR words'. . but it isn't enough. And realizing this, we then do what we should have done all along:
we point towards Christ.
Hi STEVEN,
I am wondering if you have ever seen the Mel Gibson film 'The Passion of the Christ' ? No English is spoken in that film. It's not needed.
You know, sometimes in attempting to understand and explain that which cannot be understood easily, our 'words' fail to portray a holy event in all of its mystery and majesty.
The crucifixion is only a part of the great Mystery of Christ, which includes His Incarnation, His Passion, and yes, Wade is correct in including Christ's Resurrection.
Some describe the Crucifixion by saying that it was done out of wrath against sin, and some by saying that it was done out of love for us.
How difficult it is for us to express clearly in words that which may not be fully understood.
I think you have seen into our human inadequacy to describe that which is sacred.
We try to explain 'the fullness of truth' with 'OUR words'. . but it isn't enough. And realizing this, we then do what we should have done all along:
we point towards Christ.
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Wade,
"Revenge? How about punishment."
I have said that the version of punishment you present is no different than revenge. If I am wrong, then please explain how.
"You are suggesting that murderers, people full of hate, the sexually immoral, child abusers, the proud, the selfish, those who denigrate others, and those with no respect for life are not to be judged by God?"
That would be actual forgiveness, and I am just thinking of Jesus' statement to "forgive your enemies".
But I am not suggesting that law-breakers should go unpunished. I am suggesting that just punishment is always an act towards the greater good. Hell does nothing to further the greater good. It accomplishes nothing tangible. It is an act of God towards His creation that is not in their best interest.
"Try arguing before a judge that he is not to punish lawbreakers but simply to pardon them. It won't work. Righteous and just judges punish lawbreakers."
But for what purpose? To further the greater good or to preserve their own power and honor?
1. How is punishment as presented here different than revenge?
2. What does Jesus mean when He says "forgive your enemies" in the context of "be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."? Does He mean we should still insist on punishment from someone, but take it from someone else? Surely not?
3. Your language is more of judges and convicts. Mine is more of parents and children. While these can certainly overlap, do you think this difference is indicative of our difference in point of view?
Christiane,
I like your approach. I don't have a problem with mystery at all! Surely most of our existence is mysterious. I just have a problem with the idea that we can appeal to mystery when our ideas don't seem to work, but then call out other ideas when they don't work.
best to all - I always try to see us as partners, rough stones rubbing together to create more fineness.
Wade,
"Revenge? How about punishment."
I have said that the version of punishment you present is no different than revenge. If I am wrong, then please explain how.
"You are suggesting that murderers, people full of hate, the sexually immoral, child abusers, the proud, the selfish, those who denigrate others, and those with no respect for life are not to be judged by God?"
That would be actual forgiveness, and I am just thinking of Jesus' statement to "forgive your enemies".
But I am not suggesting that law-breakers should go unpunished. I am suggesting that just punishment is always an act towards the greater good. Hell does nothing to further the greater good. It accomplishes nothing tangible. It is an act of God towards His creation that is not in their best interest.
"Try arguing before a judge that he is not to punish lawbreakers but simply to pardon them. It won't work. Righteous and just judges punish lawbreakers."
But for what purpose? To further the greater good or to preserve their own power and honor?
1. How is punishment as presented here different than revenge?
2. What does Jesus mean when He says "forgive your enemies" in the context of "be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."? Does He mean we should still insist on punishment from someone, but take it from someone else? Surely not?
3. Your language is more of judges and convicts. Mine is more of parents and children. While these can certainly overlap, do you think this difference is indicative of our difference in point of view?
Christiane,
I like your approach. I don't have a problem with mystery at all! Surely most of our existence is mysterious. I just have a problem with the idea that we can appeal to mystery when our ideas don't seem to work, but then call out other ideas when they don't work.
best to all - I always try to see us as partners, rough stones rubbing together to create more fineness.
Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Steven,
You write to me: "Your language is more of judges and convicts. Mine is more of parents and children. While these can certainly overlap, do you think this difference is indicative of our difference in point of view?"
Good point. I believe there is a HUGE difference.
God is Judge of the Universe, Father to those who trust Him.
Blessings,
Wade
Steven,
You write to me: "Your language is more of judges and convicts. Mine is more of parents and children. While these can certainly overlap, do you think this difference is indicative of our difference in point of view?"
Good point. I believe there is a HUGE difference.
God is Judge of the Universe, Father to those who trust Him.
Blessings,
Wade
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
I will be a Father to my child regardless of whether he trusts me or not. That is what the "natural law" inside me, my moral intuition, tells me is right.
I would never close the door eternally on my child.
Should I expect less of God?
I will be a Father to my child regardless of whether he trusts me or not. That is what the "natural law" inside me, my moral intuition, tells me is right.
I would never close the door eternally on my child.
Should I expect less of God?
Kristen has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
I completely agree with Christine:
"I think you have seen into our human inadequacy to describe that which is sacred."
The Bible describes the perfect holiness of God and the sinfulness of humanity. Sinfulness cannot dwell in the presence of holiness-- it must be cast out. God the Son came to fix the separation caused by sin. There are many metaphors in the Scriptures that describe what the Atonement accomplished, but all human language that describes such things is and must be partial, limited in understanding, and bound by our own human preconceptions.
The main thing that happened, as far as I can tell, was a Substitution. Christ's life for our death. Christ's sinlessness for our sin. The very being of God poured into the separation between us, in a way that will eventually destroy the death we were born into.
The Bible does speak of it in legal terms of judgment and punishment, but that is only one of the ways in which it is spoken of. It is indeed also spoken of in relational terms of Father and child, of the prodigal who comes home to find the Father running down the road to greet him. . .
The truth is above all the pictures, hidden in the nature of God, and as far above us as His thoughts are above our thoughts. If a particular concept does not seem to one of us here to make us mindful enough of the holy beauty of the God who is Love, then another concept of the Atonement from the same Scriptures can help. Our faith is not in "penal substitution." It is in the Christ who atoned for us.
I completely agree with Christine:
"I think you have seen into our human inadequacy to describe that which is sacred."
The Bible describes the perfect holiness of God and the sinfulness of humanity. Sinfulness cannot dwell in the presence of holiness-- it must be cast out. God the Son came to fix the separation caused by sin. There are many metaphors in the Scriptures that describe what the Atonement accomplished, but all human language that describes such things is and must be partial, limited in understanding, and bound by our own human preconceptions.
The main thing that happened, as far as I can tell, was a Substitution. Christ's life for our death. Christ's sinlessness for our sin. The very being of God poured into the separation between us, in a way that will eventually destroy the death we were born into.
The Bible does speak of it in legal terms of judgment and punishment, but that is only one of the ways in which it is spoken of. It is indeed also spoken of in relational terms of Father and child, of the prodigal who comes home to find the Father running down the road to greet him. . .
The truth is above all the pictures, hidden in the nature of God, and as far above us as His thoughts are above our thoughts. If a particular concept does not seem to one of us here to make us mindful enough of the holy beauty of the God who is Love, then another concept of the Atonement from the same Scriptures can help. Our faith is not in "penal substitution." It is in the Christ who atoned for us.
I will be a Father to my child regardless of whether he trusts me or not. That is what the "natural law" inside me, my moral intuition, tells me is right.
I would never close the door eternally on my child.
Should I expect less of God?
Mon Oct 18, 01:08:00 AM 2010
Hi Steven,
What I am going to say is not popular and many Christians disagree with it. But a picture of God's attributes is never complete without including His Wrath. Many tend to skip over those parts of the Word because they are uncomfortable.
When Jesus Christ comes back, He is coming like this:
11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean,[f] followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[g] sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev 19
Here is a snippet of what happens in Rev 21:
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”
6 And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
If you read the OT to the NT, you can see where God gives multiple warnings to people and proof of His Sovereignty in not only caring for them but saving them from total destruction. But so many times they turned their backs on Him. Even to the point of demanding a king like the pagans when God told them He was their King.
And then He, totally innocent, becomes Sin for us so that we might have His righteousness and eternal life.
The question for me becomes not why would God close the door eternally upon someone, BUT, why have people ignored all the warnings and the truth of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His resurrection?
Wade Burleson has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Steven,
It seems to me that you believe in the "universal Fatherhood of God" but as I read Scripture I hear Jesus say to the Pharisees "You are of your father the devil," and passages where God "adopts" believers into His family, and because of these and other Bible passages I must reject your notion that God is the Father of all human beings and accept the truth of Scripture that He is the Father of those who are "born again" by the grace of God and have been "given the right to be called the sons of God" due to their faith in Jesus Christ.
My understanding of God is not threatened one iota by your belief in the Fatherhood of God for all human beings. Were I a universalist and believed that Christ paid the ransom for every sinner and the Holy Spirit regenerates in time every sinner, I, too, would believe in the universal Fatherhood of God. But I am not a universalist because I don't see the Word of God teaching universalism.
But your desire for a loving, gracous, merciful, pardoning, Heavenly Father is not only GOOD, it is a legitimate understnding of WHO GOD IS -- to those who receive His Son.
"Kiss the Son, Lest He be angry."
Thanks! Enjoyed the conversation.
Wade
Steven,
It seems to me that you believe in the "universal Fatherhood of God" but as I read Scripture I hear Jesus say to the Pharisees "You are of your father the devil," and passages where God "adopts" believers into His family, and because of these and other Bible passages I must reject your notion that God is the Father of all human beings and accept the truth of Scripture that He is the Father of those who are "born again" by the grace of God and have been "given the right to be called the sons of God" due to their faith in Jesus Christ.
My understanding of God is not threatened one iota by your belief in the Fatherhood of God for all human beings. Were I a universalist and believed that Christ paid the ransom for every sinner and the Holy Spirit regenerates in time every sinner, I, too, would believe in the universal Fatherhood of God. But I am not a universalist because I don't see the Word of God teaching universalism.
But your desire for a loving, gracous, merciful, pardoning, Heavenly Father is not only GOOD, it is a legitimate understnding of WHO GOD IS -- to those who receive His Son.
"Kiss the Son, Lest He be angry."
Thanks! Enjoyed the conversation.
Wade
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Lydia,
"The question for me becomes not why would God close the door eternally upon someone, BUT, why have people ignored all the warnings and the truth of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His resurrection?"
These are not mutually exclusive questions. The latter is something that many people just do not believe is literally true. People whom God has created.
If God knew they would never accept Him, why would He create them? If He doesn't have sure knowledge, why would He forever shut the door, for there is still a chance?
Wade,
Fair enough, we have our disagreement. I think God, as you describe Him, is more powerful than good.
Of course, I see the Bible as an amazing, yet man-made, attempt to understand God, rather than a perfect, or even sufficient, revelation. So there's another disagreement.
But the penal substitution idea doesn't make sense and implies an immoral premise at the heart of conservative Christian doctrine.
Of course I disagree with many people whom I love and respect on this. Best wishes to us all as we search for what is truly right! :)
Lydia,
"The question for me becomes not why would God close the door eternally upon someone, BUT, why have people ignored all the warnings and the truth of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and His resurrection?"
These are not mutually exclusive questions. The latter is something that many people just do not believe is literally true. People whom God has created.
If God knew they would never accept Him, why would He create them? If He doesn't have sure knowledge, why would He forever shut the door, for there is still a chance?
Wade,
Fair enough, we have our disagreement. I think God, as you describe Him, is more powerful than good.
Of course, I see the Bible as an amazing, yet man-made, attempt to understand God, rather than a perfect, or even sufficient, revelation. So there's another disagreement.
But the penal substitution idea doesn't make sense and implies an immoral premise at the heart of conservative Christian doctrine.
Of course I disagree with many people whom I love and respect on this. Best wishes to us all as we search for what is truly right! :)
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Kristen,
Thanks for your words, I enjoyed reading them.
Lydia,
One more thought:
"But a picture of God's attributes is never complete without including His Wrath. Many tend to skip over those parts of the Word because they are uncomfortable. "
I have specified what is required for a just punishment, and eternal hell does not meet this criteria. It's also possible that many who are uncomfortable with the "wrath" of God, as presented here (hell), are uncomfortable because they know it's wrong.
Of course God can send people to Hell. He is powerful. But it makes no sense to call it good, unless we change the definition of good itself.
Kristen,
Thanks for your words, I enjoyed reading them.
Lydia,
One more thought:
"But a picture of God's attributes is never complete without including His Wrath. Many tend to skip over those parts of the Word because they are uncomfortable. "
I have specified what is required for a just punishment, and eternal hell does not meet this criteria. It's also possible that many who are uncomfortable with the "wrath" of God, as presented here (hell), are uncomfortable because they know it's wrong.
Of course God can send people to Hell. He is powerful. But it makes no sense to call it good, unless we change the definition of good itself.
BeamStalk has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
I think Steven is holding his own, but Wade you brought up something:
It won't work. Righteous and just judges punish lawbreakers.
Do they punish all lawbreakers equally? Is every punishment the death penalty? With the concept of Hell, it is. Every punishment from the slightest infraction to Genocide is punished by something worse or equal to (depending on your stance of Hell) the death penalty.
Now you say that is what we deserve. Why do we deserve it? Because we and that means everyone created by God cannot live up to the standard God has set. Is this an intentional set up, because it certainly seems that way.
If I write a program and it fails to live up to the standards I have set for it, am I to blame the program?
I think Steven is holding his own, but Wade you brought up something:
It won't work. Righteous and just judges punish lawbreakers.
Do they punish all lawbreakers equally? Is every punishment the death penalty? With the concept of Hell, it is. Every punishment from the slightest infraction to Genocide is punished by something worse or equal to (depending on your stance of Hell) the death penalty.
Now you say that is what we deserve. Why do we deserve it? Because we and that means everyone created by God cannot live up to the standard God has set. Is this an intentional set up, because it certainly seems that way.
If I write a program and it fails to live up to the standards I have set for it, am I to blame the program?
Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
"If God knew they would never accept Him, why would He create them? If He doesn't have sure knowledge, why would He forever shut the door, for there is still a chance?"
2000 years, so far, is not enough time? My question is why didn't He shut the door long ago? We did not deserve Jesus Christ's sacrfice. It is the most loving and merciful gift in the world. You cannot earn it. It is FREE. Why aren't more people receiving that gift of eternal life?
He does have sure knowledge. Scripture tells us that Jesus knew what people were thinking when they had not spoken.
Why did He "choose" the Jews to show His Sovereignty through? Why did He prosper pagan kings to punish Israel? Why did He allow innocent babies to drown in the flood?
I would recommend all of Romans but here is a clue to the above from Romans 9:
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
"If God knew they would never accept Him, why would He create them? If He doesn't have sure knowledge, why would He forever shut the door, for there is still a chance?"
2000 years, so far, is not enough time? My question is why didn't He shut the door long ago? We did not deserve Jesus Christ's sacrfice. It is the most loving and merciful gift in the world. You cannot earn it. It is FREE. Why aren't more people receiving that gift of eternal life?
He does have sure knowledge. Scripture tells us that Jesus knew what people were thinking when they had not spoken.
Why did He "choose" the Jews to show His Sovereignty through? Why did He prosper pagan kings to punish Israel? Why did He allow innocent babies to drown in the flood?
I would recommend all of Romans but here is a clue to the above from Romans 9:
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
"I have specified what is required for a just punishment, and eternal hell does not meet this criteria. It's also possible that many who are uncomfortable with the "wrath" of God, as presented here (hell), are uncomfortable because they know it's wrong."
You are not alone. Thomas Jefferson cut out all the passages he did not like to produce a more comfortable bible for himself.
But think about this:
Because God loves, He also hates. There can be no love unless there is the antithesis of love, which is hate. Those two emotions are inseparable.
If you love babies you will hate abortion. If you love good, you hate evil. If you love God you hate Satan.
Proverbs 6 lists all the things God hates. Romans and Malachi both mention that God hated Esau!
But contrast that with His great love to die on a Cross for your sins even though He was totally innocent.
"I have specified what is required for a just punishment, and eternal hell does not meet this criteria. It's also possible that many who are uncomfortable with the "wrath" of God, as presented here (hell), are uncomfortable because they know it's wrong."
You are not alone. Thomas Jefferson cut out all the passages he did not like to produce a more comfortable bible for himself.
But think about this:
Because God loves, He also hates. There can be no love unless there is the antithesis of love, which is hate. Those two emotions are inseparable.
If you love babies you will hate abortion. If you love good, you hate evil. If you love God you hate Satan.
Proverbs 6 lists all the things God hates. Romans and Malachi both mention that God hated Esau!
But contrast that with His great love to die on a Cross for your sins even though He was totally innocent.
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Lydia,
You do well to show the immoral ideas in conservative Christian thinking.
I have never argued that God is not powerful. He CAN do whatever He wants to us. But this doesn't make it GOOD.
A friend of mine likes to say that Calvinists make the mistake of mixing up God and the devil. Sorry if that is offensive, but it seems relevant. I am poking a bit, but I hope it's for light, not just heat.
If you keep reading Romans into chapter 11, remember what Paul says about God accepting the Jews anyway. Perhaps verses 28-32 or thereabouts shows God's ultimate purpose in creating vessels of grace and vessels of wrath.
Perhaps creating vessels for the sake of punishing them forever is not an idea worthy of God. Let's hope that God is actually good.
Lydia,
You do well to show the immoral ideas in conservative Christian thinking.
I have never argued that God is not powerful. He CAN do whatever He wants to us. But this doesn't make it GOOD.
A friend of mine likes to say that Calvinists make the mistake of mixing up God and the devil. Sorry if that is offensive, but it seems relevant. I am poking a bit, but I hope it's for light, not just heat.
If you keep reading Romans into chapter 11, remember what Paul says about God accepting the Jews anyway. Perhaps verses 28-32 or thereabouts shows God's ultimate purpose in creating vessels of grace and vessels of wrath.
Perhaps creating vessels for the sake of punishing them forever is not an idea worthy of God. Let's hope that God is actually good.
Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
"If God knew they would never accept Him, why would He create them? If He doesn't have sure knowledge, why would He forever shut the door, for there is still a chance?"
Steven, I want to add something here. When my child was 6 she asked me if Satan apologized, could he be saved? I answered, "Go ask your dad". :o)
So my question to you is, why did God allow Satan?
"If God knew they would never accept Him, why would He create them? If He doesn't have sure knowledge, why would He forever shut the door, for there is still a chance?"
Steven, I want to add something here. When my child was 6 she asked me if Satan apologized, could he be saved? I answered, "Go ask your dad". :o)
So my question to you is, why did God allow Satan?
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Remember how Jacob greeted Esau? Their reconciliation was moving:
Jacob said, "To see your face is like seeing the face of God, since you have received me with such favor." Gen. 33:4
So Jacob saw the face of God in one whom God created for the purpose of eternal destruction?
I think there is a deeper meaning here.
Remember how Jacob greeted Esau? Their reconciliation was moving:
Jacob said, "To see your face is like seeing the face of God, since you have received me with such favor." Gen. 33:4
So Jacob saw the face of God in one whom God created for the purpose of eternal destruction?
I think there is a deeper meaning here.
Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Perhaps creating vessels for the sake of punishing them forever is not an idea worthy of God. Let's hope that God is actually good.
Mon Oct 18, 03:01:00 PM 2010
Who am I to judge God who created me before the foundation of the world? That is what Romans is communicating.
If God is not good then He would not have allowed Himself to be mocked, beat and nailed to a tree for us undeserving humans. Do you not see the great love in that?
I just do not understand why that isn't enough?
Perhaps creating vessels for the sake of punishing them forever is not an idea worthy of God. Let's hope that God is actually good.
Mon Oct 18, 03:01:00 PM 2010
Who am I to judge God who created me before the foundation of the world? That is what Romans is communicating.
If God is not good then He would not have allowed Himself to be mocked, beat and nailed to a tree for us undeserving humans. Do you not see the great love in that?
I just do not understand why that isn't enough?
Christiane has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Hi STEVEN,
You wrote this:
"Surely most of our existence is mysterious."
Yes. It is.
It was also for St. Augustine, until he realized something important:
"People travel to wonder at the height of the mountains, at the huge waves of the seas, at the long course of the rivers, at the vast compass of the ocean, at the circular motion of the stars, and yet they pass by themselves without wondering."
Saint Augustine
"Too late have I loved You, O Lord; and behold,
You were within,
and I without,
and there I sought You.
You were with me when I was not with You.
You called, and cried out, and burst my deafness.
You gleamed and glowed, dispelling my blindness.
You touched me, and I burned for Your peace.
For you have made us for Yourself,
And our hearts are restless until they rest in You.
Too late have I loved You, Beauty ever ancient, ever new.
You have burst my bonds asunder;
I will offer up to You an offering of praise."
-- St. Augustine of Hippo
Hi STEVEN,
You wrote this:
"Surely most of our existence is mysterious."
Yes. It is.
It was also for St. Augustine, until he realized something important:
"People travel to wonder at the height of the mountains, at the huge waves of the seas, at the long course of the rivers, at the vast compass of the ocean, at the circular motion of the stars, and yet they pass by themselves without wondering."
Saint Augustine
"Too late have I loved You, O Lord; and behold,
You were within,
and I without,
and there I sought You.
You were with me when I was not with You.
You called, and cried out, and burst my deafness.
You gleamed and glowed, dispelling my blindness.
You touched me, and I burned for Your peace.
For you have made us for Yourself,
And our hearts are restless until they rest in You.
Too late have I loved You, Beauty ever ancient, ever new.
You have burst my bonds asunder;
I will offer up to You an offering of praise."
-- St. Augustine of Hippo
Kristen has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Lydia said:
"Romans and Malachi both mention that God hated Esau!"
Some cultural/language context is appropriate to mention here, I think. The "love/hate" dichotomy was used in the ancient Jewish culture to indicate a choice being made. It doesn't mean literal love and hate. Jesus used the same terminology when He said we could not follow Him without "hating" our mother and father and even our own life. Obviously, if He had meant real hate, He would have been directly contradicting the "honor your father and mother" commandment, as well as the "love your neighbor" commandment. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" simply means, "I chose Jacob and passed over Esau."
As for Romans 9, it seems fairly clear to me (my pastor also preaches this) that the context is not eternal salvation, but the choice of God for what part one is to play in His plan. It's about earthly calling/destiny, not eternity. Israel was chosen, but is now temporarily rejected so that the Gentiles can come in. This does not mean than an individual Israelite is prevented from coming to salvation even if they wanted to. Romans 11 makes that clear.
Beamstalk said:
"Because we and that means everyone created by God cannot live up to the standard God has set. Is this an intentional set up, because it certainly seems that way."
Yes, I think it's an intentional setup. Romans 11:32 says God shut everyone up under sin so that He might have mercy upon all. That's just a few chapters later than Romans 9, so I think it needs to inform our reading of Romans 9.
However. I'm really not sure it's appropriate to argue Calvinism vs. Armenianism on this blog post. I think Wade is quite right to say that God's judgment is for sin, and that it's belief in Christ that saves us from our sin.
I would also like to say that I don't think love and holiness are meant to be opposed. God is Love; therefore love must be holy. God loves us all but also hates everything we do that hurts ourselves or others-- because He loves. Something has to be done about this; hence the Atonement and our resulting sanctification, so that one day He can have a Kingdom where no one does any harm to another, ever again.
Lydia said:
"Romans and Malachi both mention that God hated Esau!"
Some cultural/language context is appropriate to mention here, I think. The "love/hate" dichotomy was used in the ancient Jewish culture to indicate a choice being made. It doesn't mean literal love and hate. Jesus used the same terminology when He said we could not follow Him without "hating" our mother and father and even our own life. Obviously, if He had meant real hate, He would have been directly contradicting the "honor your father and mother" commandment, as well as the "love your neighbor" commandment. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" simply means, "I chose Jacob and passed over Esau."
As for Romans 9, it seems fairly clear to me (my pastor also preaches this) that the context is not eternal salvation, but the choice of God for what part one is to play in His plan. It's about earthly calling/destiny, not eternity. Israel was chosen, but is now temporarily rejected so that the Gentiles can come in. This does not mean than an individual Israelite is prevented from coming to salvation even if they wanted to. Romans 11 makes that clear.
Beamstalk said:
"Because we and that means everyone created by God cannot live up to the standard God has set. Is this an intentional set up, because it certainly seems that way."
Yes, I think it's an intentional setup. Romans 11:32 says God shut everyone up under sin so that He might have mercy upon all. That's just a few chapters later than Romans 9, so I think it needs to inform our reading of Romans 9.
However. I'm really not sure it's appropriate to argue Calvinism vs. Armenianism on this blog post. I think Wade is quite right to say that God's judgment is for sin, and that it's belief in Christ that saves us from our sin.
I would also like to say that I don't think love and holiness are meant to be opposed. God is Love; therefore love must be holy. God loves us all but also hates everything we do that hurts ourselves or others-- because He loves. Something has to be done about this; hence the Atonement and our resulting sanctification, so that one day He can have a Kingdom where no one does any harm to another, ever again.
Steven Stark has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Lydia,
The problem of Satan (or evil) is difficult within a theistic framework. Perhaps evil was allowed so that we could make a choice. However everlasting damnation stops any possibility of choice. And I am unconvinced of any theodicy that requires the purposeful creation of people to eternally suffer. By what standard is this good?
I am perplexed that you are OK with a God that created many of your neighbors for the purpose of everlasting damnation.
You are right. I do not see the salvation of some as enough.
But thanks for your opinion, it is interesting to me for sure.
Christiane,
Good stuff. I think the world is mysterious, including myself, for sure! ;)
Paula,
I love the story! This world is remarkable and mysterious.
Kristen,
I think your take on Romans 9-11 is more consistent with a loving God. The vessels of wrath and grace both serve the purpose of revealing God's all-encompassing love. Perhaps we would not know what it was if we could not see life without it.
But Paul's reference to the ultimate fate of the Jews and his statements about the mystery of God and His mercy towards all reveal that the vessels of grace and wrath are temporal means, not everlasting ends. What is the end, the final purpose of all things?
I hope that it is God for all. Romans 11:36. 1 Corinthians 15:28.
Best to all! Thanks for a delightful conversation. And I truly mean that.
Lydia,
The problem of Satan (or evil) is difficult within a theistic framework. Perhaps evil was allowed so that we could make a choice. However everlasting damnation stops any possibility of choice. And I am unconvinced of any theodicy that requires the purposeful creation of people to eternally suffer. By what standard is this good?
I am perplexed that you are OK with a God that created many of your neighbors for the purpose of everlasting damnation.
You are right. I do not see the salvation of some as enough.
But thanks for your opinion, it is interesting to me for sure.
Christiane,
Good stuff. I think the world is mysterious, including myself, for sure! ;)
Paula,
I love the story! This world is remarkable and mysterious.
Kristen,
I think your take on Romans 9-11 is more consistent with a loving God. The vessels of wrath and grace both serve the purpose of revealing God's all-encompassing love. Perhaps we would not know what it was if we could not see life without it.
But Paul's reference to the ultimate fate of the Jews and his statements about the mystery of God and His mercy towards all reveal that the vessels of grace and wrath are temporal means, not everlasting ends. What is the end, the final purpose of all things?
I hope that it is God for all. Romans 11:36. 1 Corinthians 15:28.
Best to all! Thanks for a delightful conversation. And I truly mean that.
Lydia has left a new comment on the post "What Sends a Person to Hell and Takes a Person to ...":
Kristen, I agree with what you wrote concerning Esau. Thanks for clarifying.
Kristen, I agree with what you wrote concerning Esau. Thanks for clarifying.
