The Bible Geek

My favorite podcast for several years has been “The Bible Geek” with host Robert M. Price.   A New Testament scholar, former evangelical pastor, and current atheist, Bob Price has a great love and respect for theologies, religions and myths (including comic books, of course!).   

He has little patience with “axe-grinding apologetics”, but he also has great friendships with apologists which creates an atmosphere where relationship is valued over polemics - although Bob will certainly tell you what he thinks about an issue!

He is also a master of accents, reading questions from listeners in the accent of their choice.  He usually reads Scripture in the voice of Charlton Heston, unless Jesus is speaking, then it is Willem Defoe.  And the apostle Paul is Paul Lind (Bewitched). 

All in all, it is a fascinating podcast if you like such things.  

I got a bit of a thrill when he recently addressed some of my questions.  If anyone is interested, I will paste the questions below.  Happy listening!   Or not listening!  :)

These questions are addressed at the beginning of the Dec. 5 2013 podcast.  I am particularly impressed by his response to the first question.  There is a lot for me to explore in there.

Hi Bob!

1.  My chosen myth is that of a pantheist, or panentheist, God.  God is all that is (including myself and the Bible Geek!).  And even if there is a stand-alone person of God in the mix, creation must reflect God's thought and intention,  and therefore that creation should be considered part of God, just as our thoughts and intentions are a big part of who we are.

Is there any history of this type of thought within the Judeo-Christian tradition?

2.  It seems to me that the problem people have with determinism, whether theistic or naturalistic, is that they assume there is a separate "I" being played like a marionette.   However there is no separate "I."    We are not controlled by naturalistic factors - we ARE those naturalistic factors.   The alternative is that we are disconnected from the phenomena around us.  It seems to me the same is true if one believes in theistic determinism.  God is not pulling our strings to achieve His intention - rather we ARE God's intention.

I suppose I agree with the Calvinists a bit on this one.  Too bad they mix up God and the devil!

I would be interested in your thoughts on freewill within this context.  Is there an "I" that is separate from naturalistic phenomena or from God's intention?  The idea seems incoherent to me.   

Thanks so much for your incredibly valuable insight.  I am in the car a lot teaching music lessons and playing gigs, and I always enjoy the Bible Geek!

These questions are addressed in the middle of the Dec. 7 podcast.  I was glad to hear him generally agree with me on the first, as the meaning of “turn the other cheek” has come to mean “ignore” instead of what it actually means - “OFFER the other cheek.”    The 2nd question was not addressed directly, but he offered interesting thoughts anyways.  The 3rd question response was interesting, but I think it may show a bit of a weak link in Mr. Price’s Christ Myth Theory.  However I am still very interested in the theory, and it is quite possibly correct.  Who knows?

Greetings to the garrulous Geek who knows his Greek!

I have a few questions for you, sir.

1.  I have been listening to some episodes of The Bible Geek over the last year and the subject of "turning the other cheek" has come up a few times.  Your view seems to be that the best interpretation of that passage is that it is a rejection of a retributive honor system.  While this makes some sense for sure, particularly since it is a direct challenge to "an eye for an eye" in the context of the Sermon on the Mount, I wonder if there is more to it than that.  

The passage does not say simply to walk away.  Rather it says to offer the striker the other cheek as well.   This seems to go a bit further than rejecting retaliation for the offense.   To me, it seems to imply a non-violent power play, where the struck takes back control from the striker - as in "You may have hit me, but I am the one calling the shots.  Here, hit my other cheek as well."

Doesn't this seem close to the kind of non-violent resistance we saw from Ghandi in the 20th century?  It seems an act of taking back power for the powerless by shaming the conscience of the offender.    

What sayeth the Geek?

2.  I join the Geek in criticizing the Penal Substitution Theory as fundamentally unjust.   How does punishing an innocent for the crime of another satisfy justice in any coherent way?   The sins of humanity are not presented by Paul as being akin to a parking violation, where another might pay a measly fine in our stead.  Rather the author of Romans sees the sins of humanity as a capital offense - "the wages of sin is death".

Killing an innocent in a guilty person's place makes no sense according to any civilized justice system.  Or, to put it in a way we have all heard many times, two wrongs do not make a right.

However, I am wondering if the "substitution" idea can still be moral if we remove the "penal" from in front of it?

The version I will offer here is still one of substitutionary atonement. It maintains that Christ still takes the place of sinners in a sense. But it removes the "penal" part, which is the idea that Christ's sacrifice was to appease God.

Christ submitted himself to death at the hands of sinners. He showed us the wages of our sin by taking them on himself, for sinfulness responds to love in violent ways. Contemplating the death of Christ at the hands of men, who represent the imperfections we all have, convicts our hearts. This leads us to turn from the destructive ways of sin. Therefore Christ has substituted himself for us, showing and bearing the consequences of our sin and convicting our hearts in order to lead us to the more beneficial path of right action. And of course, this right action, leads us to "at-one-ment" with God.

Christ dies for our sins, because of our sinfulness. But not because God needed to be appeased, but rather because there is a natural suffering that comes about when we do not know love.

This interpretation is one along the lines of Ghandi's hunger strikes. By taking this physical burden on himself to protest potential combat between Muslims and Hindus, he convicted the hearts of both sides and, at least for a while, led them to avoid conflict. His was a substitutionary atonement.

Is there a history of this view of atonement in Christianity?

3.  Finally, I am getting more and more familiar with the Christ Myth Theory.   While I still don't see it as the most likely candidate for describing the "historical" Jesus, the Geek has certainly succeeded in convincing me that it is a possibility to be taken seriously.

My question is this - according to the CM Theory, what would have been the catalyst for the formation of the early church?   It makes sense that if there was a person named Jesus, and he was crucified, and his followers believed him to have been raised by God, then this would have led to a reinterpretation of Jesus' past role on earth, a development of a heightened Christology over time, and the formation of a new religion.

If the Christ idea came about from a combination of Gnosticism, other mystery religions, and the notion of Yahweh as a dying and rising God - what was the spark which brought it all together into what would become Christianity?

I love your show.  Thanks for the education and the entertainment, friend!

A Violation of Religious Freedom or a Prevention of Religious Domination?

The Obama administration has decided that large institutions run by religious organizations cannot be exempted from including birth control in the health insurance plans they offer.  The rule does exempt churches and other places of worship whose primary purpose is to facilitate the practice of religion.  However, if a religious institution runs a hospital, a university, or another organization that goes beyond religious services, thereby servicing and possibly employing many people outside that religion, then they must comply with this new ruling.  Making sure birth control is easily available to women is a feature of the Affordable Care Act.

The Obama administration’s reasoning is based on the position of many, many medical organizations that making birth control easily available to women is a good for the public health that cannot be compromised by an employer, even if the employer is affiliated with a religion that disagrees with the practice.  Once again, churches would be exempted, but not institutions affiliated with religion serving the greater community beyond the specific practice of religion.  Of course, the Catholic Church is very, very unhappy about this decision as they run many hospitals and universities which would fall under the birth control coverage mandate.

I had to think about this for a while.  Religious liberty is a foundation of our society and should never be taken lightly.  But after considering it for a couple of days, I agree with the administration’s position.

First, we must establish that there is a limit on the practice of religious freedom.  Few would argue that Native Americans should not be able to smoke peyote in their ancient religious rituals.  (Actually, I think anyone should be able to do this, but I suppose that is another subject!).   However, imagine a religion with an initiation ritual requiring five year old children to walk five miles barefoot in the snow.  Let’s call this religion Freezism.  And when practicing this Freezist ritual, hypothermia frequently sets in.  Would our society tolerate this tradition?  Probably not, because of how the religious practice would affect others - namely five year old children who are too young to choose this religious practice for themselves.   So this barefoot snow ritual would not be an exercise of religious freedom so much as it would be an exercise of religious domination because of the risk of severe physical injury to those too young to participate in a truly willing manner.

So religious liberty is not an absolute - just like freedom of speech does not cover threats of violence or yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Now imagine a university or a hospital run by a religion that does not believe in treating heart disease.  Let's call this religion Coronism. Their theology posits that God’s relationship with man dwells physically within a person’s heart, therefore no medical treatment should directly interfere with a person’s ticker.  It is a danger to a person’s soul.  Now imagine that this institution, a hospital let’s say, employs many, many people not affiliated with Coronism, and the hospital tries to exclude heart disease treatment from the health insurance policies offered to its employees.

Surely this would be too great a burden on the public health to be allowed.  It would be religious domination rather than religious freedom.  The Coronists would be forcing their employees to go without heart disease coverage, or to pursue coverage elsewhere at much greater personal expense.  The Coronists would be forcing unwanted religious restrictions, or at least the hardship of bypassing (haha) them, onto employees, onto workers in the community.

By requiring the Coronists to include heart disease treatment in the health insurance policies they offer, no one is forcing any Coronist to receive heart disease treatment.  But no one is allowing the Coronists to make it difficult for their employees to get the treatments they may need and desire and which medical science tells us are associated with health and well-being.

Now imagine another religion that does not believe in fire alarms.  Pyroism? Surely if the Pyrists ran a hospital for the general public, they would not be allowed to subject their employees and clientele to that danger?

At the risk of changing the subject temporarily, I actually think the real problem with the Obama/Catholic conflict is the link between the employer/employee relationship and health insurance.  This link is terrible.  An employer should offer pay.  That’s it.  Then individuals should purchase their own insurance.  We would have greater job mobility for workers, and Catholics could create their own policies which do not cover birth control, while employees at Catholic institutions (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) could buy the insurance they want which provides the services they desire.

But that is not the world we live in.

So the issue of religious freedom means deciding when one person’s “freedom” infringes on the freedom of another.   And the Obama administration has decided that when a church operates an institution that goes beyond the specificities of religious practice, not covering birth control creates an undue burden on the health and well-being of employees.  It is not an expression of religious freedom, it is an expression, however big or small, of religious domination.

And I agree.  Do you?

Catholic Sex Casually

Addition:  The following is not to suggest that there are arguments which are not worth engaging with.  I think all arguments are worth considering and responding to, because they come from people.  Rather, I just want to point out that we can really spin some webs when it serves our purpose. 




I will make up a moral.   

It is wrong to chew gum.  Sure, part of the purpose of chewing is for a person’s enjoyment.  The experience of flavor is a blessing from God, but the primary purpose of chewing is to eat - to gain sustenance for the body.  Chewing gum (particularly sugar-free gum which has no calories at all) divorces the enjoyment of taste from the gathering of sustenance.  It is a denial of the body and God’s created order.

How does one casually respond to an argument like this?  Perhaps with something like.... 

It’s OK....seriously.

The Catholic church acknowledges that sex serves the purpose of achieving intimacy between husband and wife, but it also believes that this intimacy must be married (haha) with the unfettered possibility of conception in order to be right.  Therefore, birth control is wrong and any type of sex besides vaginal intercourse is wrong.  Sexual intimacy must be married to procreation.  Chewing must be married to eating.

There are arguments used by the church to support this view, but I will not debate them too much here.  I am just pointing out that when a rather outlandish moral is offered up, it can be difficult to know where to begin when engaging with it.  

How would you begin to argue with my gum-chewing moral?  Surely there are numerous underlying assumptions, few of which anyone would deem obvious, that would need to be addressed.

Why is experiencing flavor wrong when divorced from consuming calories?  Isn’t this actually a nice thing, because one can have some enjoyment without gaining weight?  Why is it wrong to expand on nature’s “original” purpose for things a bit?  Aren’t art and sports and airplanes etc. all pretty great things which expand on nature’s original purpose?    

So sex using birth control?  Sex in a different way than just vaginal intercourse?     Chewing gum?

It’s OK....seriously.

An Imaginary Article.....

Bill O'Reilly Accuses God of Class Warfare.

After reading the Magnificat, attributed to Mary the mother of Jesus in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke, O'Reilly accused God of "encouraging the redistribution of wealth" and thereby "punishing job creators everywhere."

"I can't believe this," said O'Reilly. "These ideas are anti-conservative and therefore downright un-American. If God had been around in the 1950's, He would have been blacklisted."

The Magnificat

46 And Mary said,
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 His mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
52 He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever."

Christmas Came Out Of A War.

I wrote and recorded this song in December of 2007. At the time, the Iraq war was in my thoughts. This year the "occupy" movement, and accompanying discussion, has led me to listen to the song again with slightly different ears.

There were a few little lyrics mistakes in the singing which I just corrected. I like it better now!

For those who have heard this song enough already, I shall try to scratch out a new Christmas song soon (since, you know, there are clearly not enough of them....)

Special thanks to Beth Swales for beautiful harmony vocals!

Merry Christmas!

Christmas Came Out Of A War (unmastered) by stevenstarkmusic

Get A Job!

‎"They need to get jobs. They are annoying. They just enjoy shaking things up for its own sake. They are dirty. They need to do something productive."

- an imagined discussion between Roman citizens concerning Jesus and his followers.

Blog Adventures - Good or "Good"?

I am getting into a bit of trouble over here in the comments section of Baptist pastor Wade Burleson's blog. Wade leads Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, OK.

I realize many readers of this blog question Christianity, particularly conservative Christianity, in terms of epistemology. People often judge their religion's truth by different methods and standards than they do many aspects of everyday life - this is called compartmentalization. This is an essential topic to discuss. But I am even more interested in moral compartmentalization, where some believers attribute actions to a "good" God that they would never consider good for themselves or for others. When this happens, when the word "good" is divorced from what we consider to be good, then the word loses its meaning.

As a former Baptist who grew up in the town of Enid, this is the angle I take when occasionally dipping my toe in here. Wade is smart fellow, a historical scholar, and a nice guy, so he, and the other fine folks folks commenting, are fun to interact with.

Little Dragon - Yahweh or No Way?

ME: (strumming through the Plain White T's song "Hey There, Delilah" which LD is learning) "Hey There, Jezebel....Hey There, Esther....Hey There, Bathsheba...."

LD: Ha ha! Is Bathsheba really a person's name?

ME: Sure. She is the woman in the Bible that King David fell in love with. Then he sent her husband Uriah to the frontline of a battle, hoping that he would be killed, which he was. Then David married Bathsheba.

LD: What? That is terrible!

ME: He did get punished.

LD: OK, good. I was thinking that would be really weird if he didn't.

ME: Yeah, this prophet named Nathan came to him and said that God was angry. Then King David's baby died as a punishment.

LD: What?!

ME: Yeah, sounds like more of a punishment for the child than for David, huh?

LD: Yeah! I hope that was on Nathan's orders and not God's.

ME: No, it was on God's orders.

LD: WHAT?!!!!

ME: At least according to the Old Testament writer.

LD: That is terrible. Why didn't God just make David's wife not love him or something? Why kill his child?

ME: Yeah, I know!

LD: I tell you what, if I was that baby, I would not want to go to heaven. I would definitely rather go to the other place. I mean, He just killed me!

ME: I hear ya.

LD: If someone just killed me, I would not want to hang out at his house.

ME: I understand. But remember, not everyone believes that the Old Testament is exactly right about what God is like. Many people believe it was written by humans and therefore is not exactly perfect.

LD: Yeah I mean, if God really did that, he should be taken down and replaced with some other God from some other religion.......though I don't know who exactly that would be.

ME: I agree! OK, so back to "Hey There, Bath...I mean... Hey There, Delilah"!

I can't help but notice a parallel in Scripture to LD's pronouncement against this concept of God. In Psalms 82 God takes his place in the divine council and judges the other gods. He does not condemn them because they are gods of different peoples, less powerful, or competition. Rather he judges them because of their inability to "give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute." "The foundations of the earth are shaken" because of the injustice over which they preside. This is stirring imagery - right to the bones of the world! As John Dominic Crossan says, "they are dethroned for injustice, for divine malpractice, for transcendental malfeasance in office."

It would seem that LD agrees with the author of Psalm 82 that might does not make right - whatever name, mental image or association one might ascribe to it. For King David's child to die because of David's sin is not a just punishment by any rational accounting of justice in the modern world. David did not "maintain the right of the lowly", but in this story, neither did God.

Psalms 82 not only suggests how we might judge ourselves and our leaders, but also how we might judge different concepts of God.

Question on Calvinism

In Calvinist theology, all people are depraved and sinful. God chooses some of them to be redeemed. The evidence of their election is their belief in and acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for them. God chooses others to be damned for their sins so that He can demonstrate divine punishment on them forever to further His own glory.

Presumably, under this system, God loves people differently. He loves the elect more than the damned, and this is why He saves them. If this is so, then God cannot be “all loving”. This is because there are people that He is loving less than others, and therefore He is loving less than the maximum possible amount.

So God is all powerful, but not all loving. Again, He is choosing some to redeem and some not to redeem, and if there are different levels of love, then there is some love that he is choosing not to exercise.

So if God is not all loving, can God be properly described as all holy or all righteous? Can the terms “righteous” or “holy” be meaningful if they are separated from love?

Consider Matthew 22:35-40:35

and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. ‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

So all the law hinges on commandments to love and to love fully. Is God righteous if He chooses to love less than He is able? If righteousness and holiness are conceptually divorced from love, do they have any meaning? Or are people praising God with statements like “God is holy” simply saying “God is God”, which tells us nothing about His character?

A response to Wade Burleson's recent blog on Christian Universalism

Warning! Theology to follow....

I am not a person who thinks that the Bible is God's perfect, inerrant revelation. In fact, I think the Bible is 100% man-made, albeit one of the most important man-made books ever. And it offers us spiritual riches for sure, perhaps even an entry-point into certain kinds of deep truth. I believe in faith (when it means "trust" anyway) and I use God-language in describing reality and in my deepest thoughts and feelings. I think I am a reverent agnostic.

Anyway, this post is not to criticize or defend Scripture, but I wanted to be clear on my opinion of Scripture.

All that said, I also enjoy arguing for Christian Universalism (the idea that in the end, God will save all), even when it means accepting the premise that Scripture is wholly reliable and uniquely inspired in its communication about God. It's a premise that I disagree with, but one that I can accept for the sake of argument. Why do I care? Because I love Christianity and I would rather it exist as something that a reasonable person could hope is true, rather than in a form that any reasonable person should hope is not true.

Wade Burleson, in a recent blog post here talks about Christian Universalism, which is a hot topic thanks to Rob Bell's new book. It's called "Hell's Bells" I think. Oh wait. I mean "Love Wins" is the title! ;)

I would like to say that I enjoy discussing things with Wade quite a bit. He considers what his conversation partner is saying, he is polite and he is straightforward. I have always appreciated this. Wade does a great job of outlining the two premises that many Christian Universalists accept which leads them to the conclusion that God will save every person who has ever lived. He phrases the premises in the following way:

1. It is God's redemptive purpose for the world, and therefore His will, to reconcile every single sinner to Himself.

2. It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for every single sinner.

Wade states that if a person believes these two premises, then it will necessarily lead to Christian Universalism, for God has both the will and the power to save every person.

Wade agrees with premise two, but he disagree with premise one. This is the standard Calvinist position, in contrast with the Arminian position that accepts premise one but not premise two.

Wade believes that God does not wish to save certain people. He believes that God has created people that He does not love enough to save. Wade writes that while he agrees with Bell on God's love, grace and kindness, he disagrees "with him over the extent to which, or maybe it is better said "the sinners to whom," God has chosen to show His love, grace and kindness."

God will withhold his life preserver from many, despite having the power to pull them out of the waves, and it is simply because He does not want to help them.

I may get into what I perceive as a deeper disagreement with Wade in a subsequent post, but first I look at the Scriptures Wade uses to justify His position that God does not wish salvation for all people.

"How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?" (Hebrews 2:1-4).

First, the typical Christian Universalist maintains an exclusivist position. This means that they do not believe a person can come to God if he ignores salvation through Jesus Christ. Rather, the universalist simply believes that in the end every person will cease to ignore salvation and will be saved by God. So this Scripture does not seem to violate Christian Universalism at all. Secondly, if one looks at the context of this verse, then we see that there are consequences for ignoring God's salvation. Once again, this is certainly a view shared by the Christian Universalist. If being apart from God is suffering and being with Him is bliss, then this is obvious. The typical CU position I have run across is that people will certainly resist God's salvation, leading to their own suffering. But given the unending love of God, the extreme benefit to the sinner of coming to God, and the unlimited means at God's disposal (patience, time, etc.), then all will eventually come home. So the Hebrews verse presented simply says that a person cannot be saved if he ignores God's salvation. A Christian Universalist would agree but add that in the end God will accomplish His redemptive purpose by leading all people to stop ignoring this great salvation.

I could bring up Scriptures which state plainly that God does will the salvation of every sinner (1 Timothy 2:3-7 comes to mind). But it's not too hard to come up with a view and find Scriptures to support it. Many criticize the Bible for this, perhaps justly, but I also think it contributes to the richness of the Bible. It can be quite theologically ambiguous. Perhaps we must seek ourselves, using our ethical intuitions and our reason in determining a view of God that is (hopefully) truly worthy of praise. For his supreme power? Sure. But much more importantly, for His perfect goodness.

And my question to Wade must be - if God has the power to save, to reconcile, to perfect His creation, and yet He lacks the will to do so, then is God perfectly good? I imagine that Wade would respond that our sinfulness means that we all deserve eternal separation from God (presumably by God's own decree), and that God is not obligated to do anything for us in order to maintain His perfect goodness (I apologize to Wade if this is an incorrect guess at his view). But this seems odd to me. If one has the power to make something better, to sincerely convict the heart of the sinner, to bring about healing and redemption, and one does not do it, this does not sound like perfect goodness.

Then we might also ask why God wishes to create sinful creatures with a will counter to His own (yet He created them that way so is it really counter to His will?) if there is no ultimate purpose of redemption for them. The Calvinist response I have often read is something like - God has created some people not to save so that, in the interest of His own glory, he can display His justice on them for eternity. Their suffering will be a testament to God's holiness, righteousness and justice. And their suffering is God's intent.

But if this is what we use the label "good" for, then I am not sure I want to be "good".

I appreciate Wade's engagement with this issue. I will try to write a bit further on broader notions of love, justice and goodness. And I would love to read other's thoughts.

Blog Adventures yet again part 5

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.

I will post the comments only - the original post is here if you would like to read it.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.)

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.

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.

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 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 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?

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.

Lydia 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?

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 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! :)

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.

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?

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?

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.

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 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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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 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.