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.
Steven,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this. As one who has argued for God based on humanity's innate knowledge of moral truth, I find your questions compelling. There is often times a sort of 'having your cake and eating it too' element when Christians argue that our moral intuitions offer evidence for God but that we must appeal to a mysterious goodness of God that goes against our innate views on hell.
To utilize the moral argument honestly, Christians must accept hell as a moral good, honestly and wholeheartedly. Most would prefer, I think, to just talk around the issue. Because we cannot comprehend the goodness of God in its entirety, we don't really possess the appropriate framework to comprehend the justness of hell. Isaiah provides us some insight on the magnitude of God's goodness... we're relegated, I think, to trusting his assessment of the evil nature of man when confronted with God in His full glory in order that we might ascribe justness to hell.
Tough issue to be sure. Thank you again for sharing your insights.
Hi, Steven- I respect your perseverance. I lost the thread at... "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins". Just who are all these transactions with? An imaginary being? It is all so deeply twisted.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow- merry Christmas and new year. I hope your family are all well!
Randy,
ReplyDeleteDo you think we have to change the definition of "moral good" if we describe hell in such a way?
As you mentioned, I think it is either the mystery defense or changing the goalposts for what we use the word "good" for.
Burk,
I can understand losing interest when you do not accept some of the premises of this debate (namely, that there is a God, that the Bible matters in some way, etc.). I am fairly agnostic on some of these questions, but I still find it extremely relevant to discuss these issues, whatever the premises, because what is moral is the key question. What is good? And that is something that carries over into all our lives, whether it has any "eternal" implications or not!
I think we're back to facing a moral dilemma. The problem here (yes, compounding the mystery element) is that we haven't sufficient information to determine the greater good. We don't truly understand the nature of man. We don't know the nature of heaven or hell. We can't comprehend moral perfection... the list is long.
ReplyDeleteSo, it is not that we lack the capacity for judging the morality of judgment... we lack information. Paul tells us basically that we must exercise faith in those mystery elements, but he precedes this by giving apologetic arguments for God's existence and by offering his reasons for believing in the truthfulness of the Scriptures. He argues that we have sufficient reasons for trusting God and Christ, and that we should trust in those elements of mystery based on this knowledge.
Brief treatment I know...I had a long one and it was apparently too long.
Randy,
ReplyDeleteDo you think Paul was a universalist? I think he was....at least in certain parts - I am not convinced that his theology is entirely consistent with itself - but the thrust of Romans 9 - explained by Romans 11 - seems pretty clear. And 1 Corinthians 15 - God will have the final victory culminating in that great statement - "God will be all in all." hardly consistent with an everlasting hell.
But it's difficult to know for sure. You know that I think that the Bible is a man-made library of documents (albeit an amazing one). But I still find it highly interesting and important to try to find what the authors' intent was.
Steven,
ReplyDeleteI think it's tough to contend that Paul was a universalist. Though I think your piece on Romans 9 could be interpreted as you suggested, I think it's important, when confronted with verses that are perhaps unclear, that we look to clear statements. Throughout Romans, Paul speaks to judgment, to a dichotomy between believers and non-believers, to tribulations of the unsaved soul, and to the truth of Scripture (which clearly indicates that hell is a real place of torment).
Though I understand your personal objections to the doctrine of hell, I think it's clear that Paul did not share this view.
Randy,
ReplyDeleteI agree with all the items you have listed. But none of them are inconsistent with Christian Universalism, which is the idea that God will never give up on a soul, and that eventually there will be a universal reconciliation of all creation.
Though Paul does not directly reference hell, there are a few passages from Romans that make this notion hard to justify:
ReplyDelete2:5-9
3:21-24
4:13-16
8:7-14, 30-36
9:5-8, 15-18
10:13-14
In 2, Paul discusses the day of wrath and righteous judgment as well as the tribulation of the soul for those who are selfish and do not obey the truth.
3 speaks to righteousness by faith.
4: The promise is guaranteed by faith.
8. "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." This clearly indicates that all are not in Christ. Also he speaks here to predestination. He tells us that the elect will be justified, as opposed to bearing wrath.
9: We see that not all physical descendents of Abraham are included. He also tells us that God has mercy on some while hardening others.
10: Faith again. Calling on the Lord in order to be saved. In order to call, Paul says one must believe. Belief is the precursor to salvation.
It is important to remember too that the Scriptures deemed to be holy clearly speak to hell resulting from the judgment Paul validates.
The Romans 2 passage certainly speaks to God's wrath. The Christian Universalist (CU) certainly believes in that. But wrath is a function of God's redemptive mercy to a CU. Notice that Paul mentions that "the Jew" will receive God's wrath as well as the Gentile ("first", in fact). But in Romans 11 Paul clearly states that "all Israel will be saved."
ReplyDeleteThe Romans 3 and 4 passages are certainly consistent with the "strong" CU view which requires faith in Christ for salvation. The CU simply believes that all will eventually come to faith in Christ, even if it is after death.
Romans 8 is the same, save in verse 13 which states that "if you live according to the flesh, you will die.." - but keep in mind that all Christians claim to have died to the flesh. So it makes sense that a "death" is in store for those who are currently unsaved, but who will be saved and reborn in the spirit.
For the rest of Romans 8 and Romans 9 - you probably know my view already. the "vessels of wrath" and the "vessels of mercy" are not everlasting ends, but predestined temporal means to reveal God's love and mercy. How would we know God's mercy without seeing the alternative? Yet we know from Romans 11 that God's ultimate end for Israel (despite the fact that most of them are currently numbered among the vessels of wrath) is salvation.
And of course, if some souls are lost forever then Paul’s statements at the end of Romans 11 in verses 32 and verses 36 are inconsistent with what he has already said, or become meaningless hyperbole. And these statements are the grand summing up of Paul's entire theology.
I am not sure which Scriptures you are referecing that Paul was familiar with which reference an everlasting Hell. But once again, the CU believe in Hell, just not an everlasting Hell which does not serve any ultimate redemptive purpose.
Keep in mind Paul’s great statement in 1 Corinthians 15 that “God will be all in all.” Is this meaningless hyperbole, or is it another summing up of Paul's theology?
Fun discussion man. I love CU because it presents Christianity as something that is actually good, perhaps beyond our wildest dreams. It is truly something to be hoped for. And it beautifully marries determinism with free will - for only one true end exists (God), but the path we choose to arrive at that end is in our control. We choose our level of suffering and difficulty. But if Christ is truly the shepherd who "goes after the lost sheep UNTIL HE FINDS IT", then there is only one final end.
My favorite Christian universalist writer, Thomas Talbott, puts forth three propositions which are inconsistent with each other. Here is a brief paraphrase:
1. God desires the salvation of all.
2. God is truly in charge of all and will bring about whatever end he desires
3. Some people will be lost forever.
Which proposition do you think is not true?
Thanks for the comment - I enjoyed revisiting all those verses in my favorite book of the Bible. I really appreciating you taking the time!
One more highly relevant verse regarding the Jews' rejection of Christ and the fate of the Gentiles:
ReplyDeleteRomans 11:12
"Now if their (the Jews) stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!"
Paul says a couple of things before this:
ReplyDelete1. Believers are the true descendents of Abraham. Even gentiles who believe will be "grafted in" to the vine whose foundation is the Jewish believer.
2. If the Jew ceases his unbelief, he too will be grafted into the vine. Then, those Jews who are re-grafted will experience Christ in an even greater way than the gentile.
Before speaking to the salvation of the descendents of Abraham, Paul spends a great deal of time telling us that those descendents are characterized by their faith and not by their blood. Again, he tells us that faith is the precursor to salvation. The if/then statement given above is nonsensical if we assume no "otherwise" implied statement. It comports well to the rest of Paul's writings about faith and the nature of Abraham's descendents though.
Once again, yes, the Christian Universalist view is that salvation is through faith in Christ - but all will eventually come to faith in Christ.
ReplyDeleteI understand the view. I just don't see the Biblical basis. You could take Paul's epistles by themselves and not know for certain whether he believed in eternal hell. Paul, though, was a devout Jew. Even if you don't find the arguments supporting the notion that Paul references NT documents as Scripture compelling, there is no doubt that Paul affirms the OT as Scripture. The OT certainly affirms the idea of everlasting hell. Further, Paul talks time and time again about the importance of having faith here on earth and about the need to preach in order that others may hear and believe. Given that the rest of the NT is clear on the doctrine and Paul seems to support it, I just don't think I would hang my hat on the CU idea.
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts... I am sure we will agree to disagree here.
I don't see a clear teaching of everlasting Hell in much of Scripture. There are many passages that are ambiguous on the nature of Hell, but they are at odds with some very clear universalist statements by Paul - we well as other references to the nature of God as revealed by the life of Jesus. (rejecting retribution, preaching forgiveness of ones' enemies)
ReplyDeleteOnce again, CU believe in Hell, but not one of everlasting duration. The believe that God will have a final, complete victory
I would suggest that it doesn't take "much of Scripture" to make the point. If the point is made one time, that would suffice. The eternal punishment/hell/damnation reference is made more than one time. Hell (not defined as eternal) is referenced throughout the OT, but the doctrine certainly need not be restated time and time again.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. On my re-read, that came off as argumentative and perhaps disparaging... was not the intent. I like that you have clearly given this a lot of thought and I appreciate the arguments you have offered.
ReplyDeleteNo worries - But I am wondering which references you mean.
ReplyDeleteThere is the reference of Jesus to "eternal punishment" in the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew. This is a symbolic story, first of all. Secondly, it references good works as the criteria for salvation. Few Christians accept that view. Rather they interpret this story in light of other Scripture. We could do the same for this story in light of the many universalist statements throughout the Bible (which are rendered incoherent, if we do not accept this view, I think).
Also, the adjective "aionios" in Greek, meaning "eternal", does not necessarily correspond to everlasting. Aionios is used through Scripture to describe things that couldn't be "everlasting". For instance Paul's use of it in Romans 16:25-26 to describe a secret "which is now disclosed". "Aionios" means eternal, but what does eternal mean, except perhaps something like "from the realm of God."
And my understanding is that the Greek word used to mean punishment in Matthew is a word that means corrective punishment, not pure vengeance.
Anyway, if you have a moment, I would like to see what references you mean, besides this one.
I will take back the "much of Scripture" comment as light and careless. I am wondering if there is any Scripture that references everlasting in a decisive fashion? Perhaps some Revelation passages? There are exegetical considerations for those passages as well. It's an interesting conversation and not at all clear-cut towards everlasting hell if one takes harmonizing all of Scripture to be a possibility.
ReplyDeleteIn my research, I thought it interesting that the OT references generally used to validate everlasting hell were those found in prophetic passages (Daniel, Isaiah, and Zecheria). I find myself wondering whether Scripture is intimating that eternal hell is actualized only upon the coming of Christ or on the day of judgment... that prior to Christ, eternal judgment was not prescribed/actualized. Perhaps this will become a question for Mr. Koukl.
ReplyDeleteI did think, though, that the NT references to the everlasting hell were clear. The one thing that we do not know is the criterion for election.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Eternal judgement" is an interesting phrase. Does this mean an eternal process of judgement, or a reality, created by judgement, that lasts forever? Can judgement lead to positive change?
ReplyDeleteOnce again, the definition of "eternal" is interesting in the bible. I don't think it necessarily corresponds to our notion of a temporally everlasting state.
If hell is an everlasting separation from God, then 1 Corinthians 15:28 is incoherent - a meaningless exaggeration from Paul. The same is true of many other parts of Scripture. In the absolute end, will God allow an everlasting separation, a rift in His creation? Will He not be completely victorious in healing all things? Will He not be "all in all"?
Did Jesus come to save people from their sins or to save them from God? Is God's wrath in competition with his mercy, or is it an expression of his mercy? Is the lake of fire a vengeful punishment or a purifying fire (though symbolic, of course). If good is really good, and evil really evil, then after a period all evil pursuits will prove fruitless. All will turn to God, towards their true self-interest. God need only leave the gate open (as He does in Rev. 21:25 - "and the gates will never be shut by day. And there will be no night there.")
Is Christianity something that we should hope is true, or something that we should hope is not true?
I don't think that the doctrine of hell forces us to wish Christianity to be untrue, but I understand your sentiment. It does give me pause when I contemplate the nature of man, though. Just what/who is it that is sentenced to hell?
ReplyDeleteI retracted my statement on the OT namely because I can understand how one might view the passages as being unclear. I think the same can be said for the 2 passages you referenced. I certainly don't think they qualify as CU proof texts; I read and re-read and I can't say that I really understand what is being said by Paul or by John. Given that, I am forced to return to those passages that look to be straightforward. Regardless of the stance on everlasting hell, we are compelled to share the gospel. One thought that I have had is that perhaps sharing th gospel is truly for the edification of the sharer and not as much for the salvation of the sharee. i.e. the best way to learn is to teach.
“Just what/who is it that is sentenced to hell?”
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly a question worthy of pause. Did you come up with any good leads as you contemplated what/who (or even how) something is sent to hell?