Banner
The One Who Bled PDF Print E-mail
Practical Christian Living - Dealing With Sin
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Wednesday, 30 January 2013 07:46

I recently received a letter from a student who was struggling in his faith, and the crux of the struggle was how the love of God, as described in the Bible, could be reconciled with some of the choices of God, as described in the Bible.

There are many examples of this problem, so let me pick just several representative ones. God is a loving God, and yet He is the one who commanded the slaughter of entire nations, and He is the one who declares the one who has done nothing but "not hear about Jesus" as reprobate and condemned.

With this question, and all others like it, everything rides on unspoken assumptions. What do we believe mankind is actually like? If we believe that God does to us what the Bible says He does to us, but we don't believe what the Bible says we are like, then of course the result will be injustice. We will have a problem because we try to combine one part of the biblical narrative with our rosy evaluation of ourselves, and we can't do it. But combining the entire biblical narrative with itself is easy.

To return to the two issues above, God tells Abraham that his descendants will not be given the land yet because "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full" (Gen. 15:16) In other words, the judgment of God in these matter was not a blind rage, but rather exquisitely just. And the other nations that were wiped out -- what were they actually like? We have a controversy with God, and so we assume that they were all peaceful little Cananites, flowers in their hair, dancing in meadows with pan flutes. But that is not what they were like at all. And as for the reprobate who does not believe in Jesus, we must remember that he is not condemned for "not knowing about Jesus." He is condemned for violating the standards of his own conscience in fundamental ways, and for doing so every day of his life.

If a judge sentences a man to hang, this is of course unjust if we leave out of the picture the crime that the man was convicted of. But what is our basis for leaving this out? That crime is only "irrelevant" if our dedicated aim is to condemn the judge.

The Bible says that if we don't believe in Christ, the wrath of God remains on us. But the wrath of God does not rest on us arbitarily or capriciously, as though we were a planet filled with innocent, doe-eyed smurfs. No, the Bible removes the inconsistency by reminding us that we are by nature objects of wrath.

If you start with the assumption that humans "don't deserve it" then of course you will come to the conclusion that we don't deserve it. And if the Bible insists we catch it anyway, then the assumption collides with our conceited faith in ourselves -- and we will think that the Bible is advocating a fundamental injustice.

But what if we are flattering ourselves? What if the doctrine of a final judgment is not a doctrine of raging injustice, but rather raging justice? We may come to realize that our problem was not really with the justice/injustice part, but rather with the raging part. If everlasting Hell were unjust, then it would be possible for some to console themselves there. But the everlasting Hell is just, and that means there is no consolation.

If we were race of innocents, and some god were flipping coins to determine who would be lost and who saved, then there might be something to talk about. But we are not a race of innocents. Look around. As Chesterton says somewhere, the doctrine of original sin is the one foundational doctrine of the Christian faith which can be demonstrated and empirically shown.

If there are ten innocent citizens rounded up, and five of them are shot by a despot, there is a gross injustice. But if there are ten inmates on death row, and the governor pardons three of them, there is no injustice done at all to the remaining seven. The only question of possible injustice arises with regard to the three who were pardoned. In other words, the question of justice does not arise when we are talking about Hell. It does arise when we are talking about Heaven.

The question is not "how can a just God send people to Hell?" The question concerns how a just God can allow sinners into Heaven. A God-centered concern about justice would worry far more about Heaven than Hell. A self-flattering, man-centered approach would worry aloud, and does worry aloud, about the purported justice of Hell. But we needn't worry. The Scriptures teach plainly that at the point of judgment, every mouth will be stopped. The Bible tells us that when it comes down to it, there will be nothing to say. The debates will be over.

The real problem, the problem of justice and Heaven, is resolved in the cross. Christ died as a blood atonement so that God could be both just and the one who justifies. God could be just and send us all to Hell. He could be the one who justifies and let us all into Heaven on a boy-will-be-boys basis. But in order to be both just and the one who justifies, Christ had to bleed.

And that is our final theodicy. Christ is the one who bled.


Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 08:33
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
cactus  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:12 am
Good article.


Just to play devil's advocate, some folks might say that if the 10 inmates are on death row because they were predestined from when time began to be there, then it would be injustice to the other 7 because the judge would have arbitrarily pardoned 3 and not all of them, despite all 10 having no ultimate choice in the matter. I dunno, just threw it out there to make it interesting.

In my own heart, I do believe that it's a relatively simple matter when it comes to Jesus and the Cross. We are given all of these opportunities to believe and when people choose to ignore the Cross and ignore Jesus, then God's judgement upon that person is a just and fair thing. Those are the rules of the game.

As it was said "How could a just God let sinners into Heaven?"
james arrick  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:26 am
You will be set apart from the battle and when heathen nations are left to themselves they will kill each other until there is no one standing which is "The salvation of the lord on your behalf ". 2 Chronicles 20: 17
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:49 am
Could you explain what you mean by "God-centered"? It seems to me that a faith that says "God is so good that He loves us, and for us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, and was incarnate that we might inherit immortailty" is not self-flattering, man-centered worship. Yet, the only way I'm finding to read your concern, is as a claim that that is self-flattering.

Also, you seem to suggest that everyone who objects will be shut-up. But there is the other option that He will be revealed as *actually* good--that our questions will be *answered*, not squashed.
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:58 am
The other concern is: When we say a man is just we do not mean that he is like Angelo, always giving the full measure for a measure, or like Shylock, demanding a pound of flesh for any and every offence, or like Javet, exacting every penny for every offense--particularly if the offence is one that hurts the just man not at all. Rather, we mean a man is just if he always works to give everyone fair-play--to hear the whole story--and not to seek his own interests against others interests. Indeed, if a man refuses to pardon offenses against him that hurt him not at all, I would never call that man just.

Why must we nearly invert that when we speak of God? God is just means He only cares for Himself, and like Angelo, Shylock or Javet, demands full payment for every debt--though none of the offenses have the ability to harm God in the least?
David Stewart  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:37 pm
Mathew,

I am unsure if you are simply playing devil's advocate, or whether you feel that the last section of your post is a legitimate point.

First, justice is not defined as whether harm, so ambiguously defined, is committed. For example, I may be a billionaire, and someone might steal $100K from me. Now, that person could argue that I won't miss the money, and that no real harm is done. However, whether I would miss the money or not is tangential to the point that it is my money, and the thief had no right to steal it. Even if I was unaware of the theft, it would still be theft. It would be theft in God's eyes if it was one dollar pilfered.

Second, this idea that you have expressed (but which you may not yourself believe, I can't tell from your post) is fallacious by disanalogy. If the Bible is to be believed, then the way humans relate to each other, especially in terms of forgiving one another, would not be a reliable guide through transposition onto our relationship with God. He is King of the universe. You can offend me, and that is simply one cosmic criminal offending another natural wretch. When we sin against God, we are offending someone Who is infinitely worthy. This is even in the case of what you and I would, naturally, call a slight offense. There are no slight offenses against God because of His holiness, His worthiness, and our reliance on Him for our next breath. There is nothing like this kind of relationship between humans without idolatry taking place.

Lastly, and you may believe this yourself, if the Bible is true, then it describes our thinking as of a lower echelon compared to God's, and not just in terms of fund of knowledge. What we naturally think, our moral compass, is naturally askew, and it is not comprehensively transformed at the moment of justification. Is. 55:8,9.
Charles Long  - re:  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:14 pm
Matthew N. Petersen wrote:
Indeed, if a man refuses to pardon offenses against him that hurt him not at all, I would never call that man just.

What you've done here is confused justice with mercy. You described mercy, and called it justice. But Paul's whole point in Romans 3:25-26 was that mercy and justice were by default mutually exclusive, rather than nearly equal. Paul's point is that Christ had to die as a matter of justice, so as to defend the Father's perfect justice when He shows us mercy. Had Christ not died, God would have been "cheating" -- He would have been playing the unjust judge by showing us mercy.


Matthew N. Petersen wrote:

Why must we nearly invert that when we speak of God? God is just means He only cares for Himself, and like Angelo, Shylock or Javet, demands full payment for every debt--though none of the offenses have the ability to harm God in the least?

If you see this as an inversion, then clearly you have a huge beef with Anselm's "Cur Deus Homo." How long has this been going on?
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:37 pm
Charles Long Cross posted with me. I may respond to him later.

David Stewart: I am serious, BUT, I am not attempting to challenge Christ. Rather, I am scared that this post will confirm that students' worst fears--when in fact, the answer to all the questions about where can love be found is Christ. (And love in the sense he means it.)

Regarding your first point: As Aquinas points out, if a judge were to pardon your thief, he would be unjust. But, as Aquinas points out, if the wealthy man were to, he would not be. When bishop Myriel pardons Valjean, he is not unjust. If a thief steals from me, he has taken what he has no right to. But if I pardon him, the stolen goods are now his, and he is no longer a thief. Moreover, if I were that billionaire, and someone stole, say $100, from me, I would be a small, petty, unjust man were I to insist on not pardoning him. If I leave a dollar on my desk, and someone walks by and takes it, I should shrug it off. If I do not, I am petty. Yet, you would have me imitate my God, and claim that justice has been offended, and the debt absolutely must be repaid?

Regarding the the final paragraph: That point implies that we do not know what good is, and it may even be what we now call devilish. Frankly, I refuse to worship a god who may indeed be a devil, and deny any slander against my King and my God which claims he might be.

Regarding the second: The trouble is that that assumes that "God is infinite" means "God is infinitely large"--that God is big beyond all bounds, rather than simply beyond all bounds, including bigness and smallness--and then defines largeness in a very petty sense. Thus you doubly mistake infiniteness for largeness, and mistake largeness for smallness. Even among us sinful men, the greater the man, the less he cares for offenses against himself; and the smaller he, the more he prides himself on his "worth" and station, and holds those who offend against him the more guilty.

No, rather, God is one who in humility considers others better than Himself, and came down from heaven, deigning to be born in a stable, that He might raise us up, and do justice to all the wronged men by healing their hurts. His largeness is a largeness of humility, and thus we praise Him for his humble pomp which He from heaven doth bring.
Charles Long  - re:  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:01 pm
Matthew N. Petersen wrote:


Regarding your first point: As Aquinas points out, if a judge were to pardon your thief, he would be unjust. But, as Aquinas points out, if the wealthy man were to, he would not be... Yet, you would have me imitate my God, and claim that justice has been offended, and the debt absolutely must be repaid?

You are assuming here that to imitate God is always the same as to obey Him. but He has been very clear that in some things we are to obey by imitating, and in others we are to obey by not imitating. As it turns out, God actually said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." So, let's ask ourselves -- will God repay every injustice, or will He not? Of course He will. But does the answer to this question depend on whether or not we are supposed to imitate Him? No, of course not.

God is both just and the justifier. But you are wanting to say that He is only the justifier. You must remember that one of God's roles is that of a judge (ya know, the one who cannot legitimately brush sin under the carpet). It does no good to point out that God has other roles also. In fact, as I said before, Paul plainly discusses these two seemingly contradictory roles (just and justifier), and shows that the two are harmonized in the bleeding of Christ.
Lukesma  - and it gets worse  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:17 pm
Also, Matt, tagging onto Charles' post...
God does have an unbending justice to Him which does track every idle word, every thought, and every action.
Remember James 2:10. God is the one who decreed it, which must mean that this justice is good... or else God would not be.
Lukesma  - and it gets worse  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:17 pm
Also, Matt, tagging onto Charles' post...
God does have an unbending justice to Him which does track every idle word, every thought, and every action.
Remember James 2:10: For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
God is the one who decreed this, which must mean that this justice is good... or else God would not be.
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:50 pm
Charles (second Charles post, not first):

I'm not denying that God is just, I'm claiming that you define just incorrectly.

I do not know what you mean by "God having roles" usually the attempt is to ground God's unflinching justice in his *nature*.

Regarding imitation: I am assuming that Jesus Christ imitates God, and perfectly images Him--Jesus says the first, and St. Paul the second, and this point is the very heart of our gospel. Moreover, we are called to imitate God by imitating Jesus.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ demands justice be paid for the offences against His infinite honor?

If not, why do you worship a false god other than the one that Jesus Christ perfectly images? If so, then do you believe a righteous man should do the same? That he should demand that God repay every offence against him? If someone steals a dollar from me, do I have an obligation to imitate Jesus Christ, and rather than praying for his pardon, pray for his condemnation? (Though I, of course, should also be willing to imitate the Father, though not Jesus and pour out my wrath on Jesus rather than on the thief, perhaps by stomping on a crucifix?)

No, that's simply blasphemy. What is God's reaction to sin against Himself? Does He say "My infinite person has been offended, and justice must be done"? Or does He say "Father forgive them"?

Luke,

Yes, every little sin is equally a sin, and equally must be destroyed. Every sin kills, and life is only in Jesus, and in Jesus' destruction of sin. But that isn't the question at hand.
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:14 pm
I should also add, Charles, that the man who petitions God for vengeance is not laying aside the claim to vengeance, and forgiving; but is still seeking vengeance. He just isn't hoping to enact that vengeance himself. So if God is vengeful, and asks us to rely on his vengeance, we are still imitating Him in His vengefulness.
Andrew  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:28 pm
Matthew N. Petersen wrote:
Yes, every little sin is equally a sin, and equally must be destroyed. Every sin kills, and life is only in Jesus, and in Jesus' destruction of sin. But that isn't the question at hand.
No, I think it is.

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and compassion on whom I have compassion".

God "wants all to be saved", and yet for those who will not listen there remains judgement.

We, as humans, work in a land where there are degrees of sin - sins we choose not to make an issue of, and sins we do, and varying punishments for varying sins. And, as one sinner to another, we must make these accommodations. But the great mistake - the great arrogance - is to think God is under the same conditions, or to think that there is anything one of us can do for God that obliges him to offer mercy.

We should weep in helpless gratitude that holy God would show us mercy, not take him to task over the process.
Melody  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:42 pm
Regarding small offence sin; it would seem to me that original sin, eating an apple that they were told not to eat for heaven's sake, is such a small issue. It wasn't stealing, it wasn't adultery, it wasn't murder, it was just taking a bite of a silly little apple. And this was enough to get Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden and condemned to death when they got old? How could anyone worship such a God?

Regarding righteousness and good works: why on earth does the Bible call all of our righteous deeds that we do for God "filthy rags"(Isaiah 64:6)? I mean, even Mother Teresa? What kind of God would consider them that?
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:08 pm
Andrew,

Then you are missing what I'm saying. The question between you and I is not over degrees of sin, but over God's reaction to sin. Is all sin equally evil, which is to say equally demanding punishment, which God satisfies by punishing Himself; or is all sin equally evil, which is to say, equally deadly, which death and sin God saves us from by giving us his life in his Incarnation, Cross and Resurrection. You are taking the first option, I the second.

An analogy that would work to describe your position is a teacher who finds her students disobedient, and so must punish them. An analogy that would work for mine is a man who finds his child drinking deadly poison, and thus wishes to give his child the remedy. You say all sin equally demands punishment; I say that all sins are deadly poison.

Perhaps you are confused by my comment about slights against a person. But my point there is that as far as the hurt to God is all sins are equally trivial. Whatever we may do, it hurts God far less than stealing a dollar from me or you hurts me or you. So if God is right to demand justice for our sin; we are right to demand justice for the dollar stolen. Indeed, we are obligated to do so, and are evil if we do not. If someone steals a dollar from us, we should remain wrathful toward the thief till he is punished, or, if we wish to show mercy to the thief, we should be wrathful toward Christ Himself.
Charles Long  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:48 pm
Matthew, you are really screwed up on this. You're saying that either we act vengefully all the time out of obedience to God, or if not, then God never does. You're wrong. Both of these things are true: we are not to execute vengeance, and God most certainly will.
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:53 pm
Melody: It seems to me that that verse refers to Israel's striving at that time. (And by fortiori, to the non-Christian's righteousness.) But if the righteous deeds of the Christians are but menstrual rags, that's some crappy cloths Christ's Bride is clothed it. "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in linen, dirty and blood-stained: for the linen is the righteousness of saints."?

But aside from that, the problem with out righteousness isn't that it is a different sort of thing (so that good may be something entirely different than we think it is), but that it isn't good enough. God doesn't fail to measure up, He measures up far more than we could imagine.

As to the line of reasoning "if you being evil do X how much more God..." it is a Dominical form. Perhaps you should take up the argument with Christ--"But Jesus, a father who gives his son bread is not good. God's goodness completely transcends this evil father's goodness, and so it is good for God to give a snake and a stone."
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:59 pm
Charles,
Charles wrote:
You're saying that either we act vengefully all the time out of obedience to God, or if not, then God never does. You're wrong. Both of these things are true: we are not to execute vengeance, and God most certainly will.
You are still misunderstanding me. I did not say that we should act vengeful--indeed, I even made an explicit distinction that you have entirely missed. We are perhaps not supposed to act vengeful. But if someone steals a dollar from us, we should pray that God would wreak vengeance on him for that theft. And we should have an unsated desire for vengeance. Even if the thief asks for forgiveness, we should only forgive him on the condition that we are still able to pursue our vengeance, though the object should of our prayers for vengeance should be transferred to Christ?

Anyway, this is what you say that God does. And, since Christ is the perfect image of Christ, this is what you must say Christ does--indeed to the point that he only prays for forgiveness of those who crucify him on the condition that he enact vengeance on someone else (perhaps himself?), and that since we are called to imitate Christ, that we must do the same. We shouldn't act vengeful, but we should pursue vengeance.
Melody  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:07 pm
My tongue was actually planted firmly in my cheek as I typed my previous comment. I hear these kind of argumemts frequently. But there is an aspect to all of this that I have not yet seen here and that is the concept of original sin. If I were as pure as the driven snow and never even snuck a fingerful of cookie dough from God - and even if I gave everything I had to the poor and was the best 'do gooder' ever, it is still not enough to get me into heaven because my heart is black with sin. Jesus commanded, "You shall love the Lord your God, with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength; and your neighbor as yourself." I cannot keep those commandments and neither can anyone else. Maybe I can most of the time but not 100%. Like George Will once said, the Ten Commandments were not the Ten Suggestions. Why would God give the law if he knew not one single person that would ever be born (Jesus excepted) would ever be able to keep it? And why would he punish us for not being able to keep it? And why would he wait thousands of years to send the sacrifice for us? Could it be that he desires uncoerced love? The first commandment, "Thou shalt not eat..." was not obeyed, and how hard could that have been, given that they could eat EVERYTHING else? I believe that this entire discussion must begin and stay in Genesis or it veers radically off track. Even there, God commanded Cain and Abel to bring a sacrifice for sin of an umblemished lamb (how hard can this be?). Cain brought fruit and vegetables instead. God was not pleased (yet Matthew, how was God harmed by this?). We know how Cain reacted.
Charles Long  - re:  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:21 pm
Matthew N. Petersen wrote:
...since Christ is the perfect image of Christ, this is what you must say Christ does...


Matthew, look -- you have got to slow down and think about what you're saying here. You keep repeating the mantra that Christ models the Father, but you're taking it way too far. There are limits to the degree to which Christ has modeled the Father. For one, the Father is not eternally begotten of the Father now, is He? For another, the Father was not crucified by Jews and Romans, was He? The Father was not incarnated along with the Son now, was He? You know what I'm saying here is true. So stop acting like it's some great heretical denial of the faith for me to suggest that perhaps (oooo, this is crazy) just maybe Christ is playing a different part in the sacrifice than the Father is. The Father has executed justice on Christ, and Christ did not do that; rather, Christ had the sentence of justice executed upon Him. This in no way derogates from the fact that Christ models the Father.


Matthew N. Petersen wrote:
...indeed to the point that he only prays for forgiveness of those who crucify him on the condition that he enact vengeance on someone else (perhaps himself?)...

Yes, Matthew, God's wrath for sin is executed against Christ (at least, with respect to those who are in Christ). That's what penal substitutionary atonement is. That's what you should have learned up, down, and sideways when you were trained in the Reformed tradition. God cannot overlook sin -- this is central to Paul's point in Romans 3, around verse 25-26. The Father cannot overlook sin, and this is why He gave Christ as the propitiation -- so that the Father could justify us and still maintain His perfect justness without taint.
Eric the Red  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:33 pm
Here is what I see as the fundamental flaw in Calvinism in general, as well as Doug's analogies:

Assume everything Doug says about humans to be correct: That we are evil, reprobates, and richly deserving of the worst hell God is capable of creating. At that point, there is no justice issue with God giving people their just desserts.

But why would a God of mercy and compassion continue to allow the human race to breed, producing billions of humans who are going to suffer in hell for all eternity? How can love, mercy and compassion do anything other than stop the misery by ensuring that if humans must be consigned to hell, at least there won't be many of them.

And that is the point at which I think any claim that the God of Calvinism is just breaks down. God created the world knowing full well that the consequence of creating it would be billions of souls tossed into the lake of fire. Not only that, we were created with a predisposition to sin; God could have created us with either a predisposition not to sin, or no predispositions at all. A God who is just, merciful and compassionate would not have brought that world into existence in the first place. If I did something to create that much misery, I'd be hustled off to the nearest psych ward.

Yes, the governor is not unjust to the seven he allows to be executed if he pardons three. But if a governor were somehow creating more and more murderers, I would certainly consider that grounds for impeachment.
james arrick  Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:04 am
Eric,

Read 2 Chronicles 20. That will tell you how a God of mercy and compassion continues to allow the human race to breed, producing billions of humans who are going to suffer in hell for all eternity. Also, I would suggest that it might be your eschatology that is playing a greater role in your doubts on Calvinism then it is your actual soteriology.
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:11 pm
Melody,

I think I understand original sin differently than you do. I don't think any amount of good we do can save us because we'd still die. And every sin, no matter how small is deadly poison. Regarding Cain and Abel, I would say that God was displeased with Cain's sacrifice not because God somehow was hurt, but more like a parent isn't father isn't pleased when his child does wrong.

Charles,

I have no doubt that you are a better person than your doctrine, and I have no doubt that you are not a Trinitarian heretic, but that you only haven't fully realized the implications of your doctrine. And I may even be wrong about the implications. But my argument is Doctrine X is wrong because it implies Y which is heretical. I can't make that argument without referencing the heretical position I believe it implies.

Second, I am definitely not saying that God can overlook sin, nor do I believe He has. I'm not a universalist, and I'm definitely not that type of universalist. My point is that we should see God more as a parent with erring children, a teacher who wants excellence from his pupils, or a doctor whose patients have septisemic plague; than an offended judge.

Now, you say the Father cannot overlook sin. Then it is equally true that the Son cannot overlook sin. (Otherwise, this "inability" isn't part of His nature, and He very well could overlook sin.) But I don't see the Son requiring justice, instead, I see the Son pleading for forgiveness. Moreover, if the Son cannot, then where did He pour out his wrath? And if we are conformed to the image of the Son, where should we pour out our wrath?

You are correct that Christ does not have all the same personal qualities as the Father, but all the things you list are hypostatic, not natural. You are incorrect that there is a limit--indeed, it was precisely that issue that was so hotly debated in the early Church. Christ is the full image of the Father. And I do not see how claiming that in this respect Christ does not image the Father does not amount to a claim that in some respect Christ does not image the Father, and a claim to have knowledge of God outside of the image of Christ. (The knowledge that the Father has an insatiable wrath toward sin is not something we see by looking to Christ, but by looking to a hypothetical treatment of Christ.) Which I object to, based on another thing they should have taught me, solo Christo.
Charles Long  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:23 pm
Matthew, thought experiment: let's say you're right about the heretical implications of PSA. Okay -- by your accounting of things, explain how God deals with our sin.
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 8:47 pm
Our sins are a deadly poison. God saved us by drinking the poison we have mixed, and thus destroying it by the power of his indestructible life. Now, even death, we find life, since God is our life, and even in death we find Christ who died; and even through death we find life, for Christ is Risen! And we shall rise in His Resurrection.
Charles Long  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:49 pm
Matthew, okay. Please explain Romans 3:25-26 according to your accounting of things.
Carson D. Spratt  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:53 pm
Matthew, you're still soft-pedaling the human approach to sin. The way you present it, we're erring but ignorant, doing something deadly in some sort of innocent state. That is not the case. We all choose sin, choose it knowing that it's wrong, and wanting to spit in God's eye. Don't downplay the human condition of rebellion.
Also, God punishing sin and God correcting his children are not mutually exclusive concepts. The way God shows His love for His children, the same love that you want to emphasize, is by reproving them and punishing them for their sin. A man who loves his son spares not the rod, and God is our Father. You can't set judgement and love at odds: for the repentant, judgement is life, and for the damned, judgement is death. For Christians, ultimate judgement fell on Christ, and for unbelievers, it falls on their own selves. But either way, God is going to judge each and every sin.
If we don't see God as being angry at our sin, then we forget both God's holiness, and the incredible extent of His mercy towards us: and our understanding of these is fully necessary to loving Him as He loves us.
Jane Dunsworth  Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:26 am
Matthew, I'm not very familiar with the position you're advocating (not that I haven't heard its general outlines before) so please don't think I'm laying a trap here, I really want to understand.

Why, by this account, can the omnipotent God not simply destroy the poison by an act of His power? It seems to me that there must be some other principle that is preserved by taking it in our place, otherwise it would not be necessary. What is that principle, if not justice?
Matthew N. Petersen  Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:52 pm
Carson,

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think we are ignorantly doing something deadly. Sometimes, of course, we are, sometimes we are trying to spit on our neighbor, sometimes we are trying to spit on God. But my claim is about how God takes it. God takes it similarly to how we do when someone we love tries to hurt us--by pitying us, and saving us from our own hurt.

Granted. Its probably helpful to distinguish between rebuke or chastisement and punishment. The first is done as an act of love in order to bring someone to repentance. The second is not. So when we execute someone, we are punishing them, but not chastizing them. Pr. Wilson's system is built around the necessity of the second, which I deny. But I definitely acknowledge the first.

In a sense, my point is that God hates the sin, and destroys the sin, and its effect. But that is different from saying that God must punish the sinner.

(What about Hell? People are resurrected to Hell, so Hell is consequent on the Incarnation and Resurrection. Without Christ's Resurrection, there is no resurrection, even of the damned. At least that's my opinion. But I'm more or less taking the position Lewis takes in The Great Divorce, amd he glosses Hell differently.)

Charles,

I honestly don't know what you think I need to explain about that verse. So I'm not grasping wildly, could you carefully and slowly explain why you think its a problem for what I am saying?
Eric the Red  Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:39 am
James, I have now read II Chronicles 20 and I don't see anything in it that is responsive to my question. So, maybe I'm dense and just didn't see it, but please explain.
Matthias McMahon  Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:51 am
Eric, do you forget or are you simply ignoring that the Bible says God has purposes in the evil that takes place, and that this describes the God of Calvinism? I'm genuinely curious. Your tone smacks of familiarity with Calvinism, but your words betray any such familiarity.

And, I suppose, what exactly do you mean by "flaw"? Are you alleging an internal contradiction, or are you attempting to express your personal disagreement in objective terms?
katecho  Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:18 pm
Matthias McMahon is on to Eric's MO. Well said.
james arrick  Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:00 pm
Eric,

You asked a question.

Eric the Red wrote:


But why would a God of mercy and compassion continue to allow the human race to breed, producing billions of humans who are going to suffer in hell for all eternity?



I said that 2 Chronicles 20 answered it. In it the Moabites, Amorites and people of Mount Seir are spared when the Israelites refuse to kill them when they first enter into the Promised Land. Now, after years of peace the countries have continued to bread and all of the spared nations decide to gather together their forces and come kill the Israelites. King Jehoshaphat stood in the house of the Lord and brought all of the Jews to him and the spirit fills him telling them all to not fight against the invading nations but to stand apart so that they may witness "The salvation of the Lord on your behalf ". 2 Chronicles 20: 17. As the invading nation come into the valley they turn their knives on each other killing every last person.

The God of mercy and compassion has actually shown you how he allowed a couple human tribes to breed, put aside for salvation a select people and then allow the rest to suffer in hell for eternity. When left to themselves they would turn the blades on each other.

The key here is that the Spirit of God possesses real men to tells His people to witness the salvation of the Lord. God is saving us from ourselves, from what we would do to ourselves if he did nothing. In the story, the God of heaven is saving his chosen people from being a part of the same fate. They would have been in the middle of the dogfight and I think it is implied they would have all died as well. God could have drowned His foes in a flood Exodus 14:13. Instead, He saved his people from themselves and he told them that it was the salvation of the Lord on (their) behalf. The fact still remains that if the Israelites had not shown up to witness, the heathen nations would have still killed themselves. God wanted them to see what he was saving them from, and nothing else. Their presence didn’t affect the outcome.

Here’s a question for you my friend. Was it unmerciful for God to allow the heathen nations to kill themselves?
Ioannes  Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:11 am
Eric the Red,

Paul addresses your point in Romans 9:

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
don jones  - Wrath  Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:47 am
Wrath is an expression of God's jilted love. It is His jealousy over our rejection of His love. The one who created and sustains us moment by moment is arrogantly rejected by us. Of course He is wrathful.
Charles Long  - re:  Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:43 am
Matthew N. Petersen wrote:
Charles,I honestly don't know what you think I need to explain about that verse [Romans 3:25-26]. So I'm not grasping wildly, could you carefully and slowly explain why you think its a problem for what I am saying?


I simply asked you to explain what it meant. Exposit this verse within the framework of the theory of justification you've proposed here. Pretend I'm a total newb to Christianity, and I say to you, "Hey Matthew, what's up with this propitiation stuff in Romans 3? And why couldn't God just declare us all righteous with a dismissive hand wave and be done with it?" What would you say? What does Romans 3 have to say about this?
Matthew N. Petersen  Thursday, January 31, 2013 10:40 am
For roughly the same reason I can't wave my hand and declare my students good students? I'm missing something, since asking why God couldn't just wave his hand and declare us righteous doesn't make sense to me. Because righteousness isn't some "thing" but is God Himself, so your question is "Why did God have to unite Himself to us to unite Himself to us. Why couldn't he have united Himself to us without uniting Himself to us, but merely wit a dismissive wave of the hand." Because a dismissive wave of the hand wouldn't be loving? Because the plan from the beginning had been Incarnation, and full unity between God and man, and so "a dismissive wave of the hand" would be to give sin the victory?

What's up with hilasterion in Romans 3? Since we were in sin, God's presence would have been Hell, (because we would be in the direct presence of someone we hate) so God mercifully poured out his blood for us, that by trusting in it (there's probably a Eucharistic reference there too) we can be transformed into His image, and can put on immortality, without being destroyed.

Why does it say "be just and the justifier of the ungodly"? I suppose if we already believe that justice and justification are opposed, we could see Paul talking about that in this verse. But I have no idea how that could possibly be found in that verse.
Lukesma  - but James does  Thursday, January 31, 2013 11:56 am
Matt, consider James 2:13: "For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."
katecho  Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:11 pm
Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
But why would a God of mercy and compassion continue to allow the human race to breed, producing billions of humans who are going to suffer in hell for all eternity? How can love, mercy and compassion do anything other than stop the misery by ensuring that if humans must be consigned to hell, at least there won't be many of them.

and
Quote:
God could have created us with either a predisposition not to sin, or no predispositions at all. A God who is just, merciful and compassionate would not have brought that world into existence in the first place. If I did something to create that much misery, I'd be hustled off to the nearest psych ward.

Let me paraphrase Eric as concisely as I can:
"Who does God think He is anyway??!?! God or something?!?!?!"

Armed with hyperCalvinism and a firm rejection of the truth regarding our disposition to sin prior to the fall, and armed with an unstated moral sentimentalism that is completely incompatible with his own naturalism, Eric's position is basically that God must not (may not) have any real purpose for allowing sin and suffering. Particularly not on any significant scale. Eric seems to assume that all sin and suffering is pointless and unsalvageable for anything good. In other words, God can't have any use for sin and suffering, therefore it is pointless.

What if Eric is simply wrong in this assumption? What if God does have a purpose for sin and suffering? Take the cross as the perfect example. God used that horrific murder for the most profound good of all: our reconciliation. This loudly demonstrates God's power over even our most craven sins. What we meant for evil, He meant for good. God demonstrates that He can turn our excrement into roses. This is very reassuring and useful. As a utilitarian, Eric's imagination seems to be bound in chains if he can't see this.

Eric's imagination collapses in on itself. Eric concludes that the proper thing for God to have done is nothing at all. God should have foreseen the consequences and suffering and simply not bothered with creation. This is exactly the conclusion that every deist should come to. The god of deism is not a storyteller. It is mute. It has no glory for an audience to notice, so creating an audience is pointless. The deistic god is inept to have set in motion a wave of pointless sentient victims, that all testify of nothing. Eric is right that such a god would be fit for the psych ward.

However the God of Scripture is no idle clock winder. He is a purposeful storyteller. He has ordained that every decision and action we make will come under judgment, often in our own lives, and that our manner of life is so full of meaning and significance that it affects generations to follow of those we represent. We are surrounded by meaning that we did not originate. We can't escape it. The eternality of heaven and hell testify of the ultimate significance that rests in the manner in which we lived our lives, here and now. To understand the deep import, both for us and in God's eyes, just consider the Lake of Fire.

The really sad thing is that Eric's moral instincts don't even have an outlet in his naturalism. If he really wanted to stop all of the misery and suffering in his ancient explosion debris field, why have children? Why produce more victims like some deistic creator? In fact, why not euthanize on a mass scale to bring this pointless suffering cycle to an end? What is logically wrong with this conclusion? Has Eric simply invented a purpose and meaning to his existence, to make it bearable? Living under the fantasy of a made-up purpose would be the height of self-imposed suffering for those of us with a rational mind.

In the Christian faith, our actions have eternal consequences. This is in contrast to Eric's attempted escape from imposed meaning and purpose. If there is no Heaven, and no Lake of Fire, and not even a final judgment, then all of Eric's choices truly are meaningless fizzing. They have no import or relevance.

Thanks be to our God for an eternal Lake of Fire and the ultimate significance it testifies with respect to our actions in this life. It has a great and sobering purpose after all.
katecho  Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:43 pm
Matthew N. Petersen has set up a glaring false dichotomy. When it comes to sin and God's justice, Matthew suggests that God must be either a doting parent chasing after His uncoordinated children, rescuing them from their skinned knees, or else a penny-pinching, i-dotting, t-crossing legalist demanding payment to the last denarius.

Matthew suggests that we should look to Christ's example to see which of these two options God is like. I've done so, and Christ is not like either of the simplistic options that Matthew presents.

Recall Christ's parable of the slave who owed 10,000 talents. The lord of that parable was initially quite willing to forgive debt, but we know what happened next:
Quote:
Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you entreated me.
'Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, even as I had mercy on you?'
And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. --MATTHEW 18:32-34

Torturers? What's that doing in the Bible, and on Christ's lips, no less? Is this how a merciful father treats his children when they drink poison? Hmm. Maybe the sin situation is more deliberate and wicked than Matthew wants to portray it. Perhaps the lord's wrath is called for.

Christ addresses persistent sin and wickedness with harsh rebukes and warnings of wrath to come. Who speaks more of torment, damnation and hell than Christ? Let Christ be our example and teacher on this subject.

Matthew N. Petersen wrote:
Quote:
My point is that we should see God more as a parent with erring children, a teacher who wants excellence from his pupils, or a doctor whose patients have septisemic plague; than an offended judge.

How does Christ portray the lord in the parable of the slave who owed 10,000 talents? Was that lord portrayed as a parent, as a teacher, as a doctor, or as an offended judge? Which one turns the convicted over to torturers?

It seems what is missing from Matthew's theology is the concept of God's righteous wrath. Actual wrath and anger from God. Many Christians struggle with this, but it is all over Scripture. It can't be avoided.

It would be interesting to see Matthew's exegesis of the following passages:
Quote:
GENESIS 6:3 Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

This is the passage where God sends the flood to destroy all of the persistent wickedness of mankind. Is destroying the earth with a flood the model of a parent, a teacher, a doctor, or a judge?

What about God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Does fire and brimstone model the actions of a parent, a teacher, a doctor, or a judge?

Quote:
ROMANS 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

What does it mean for God to demonstrate His wrath? Do doctors do that with their patients? What is the role of God's wrath in Matthew's theology?

Here are some other passages concerning God's wrath, as Judge:
Quote:
JOHN 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Quote:
ROMANS 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness

Quote:
ROMANS 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Quote:
EPHESIANS 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Quote:
REVELATION 14:9-10 And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

I'm certainly not denying God's abounding mercy and love which will redeem the world through Christ, but I can't deny the wrath of God which requires a bloody Lamb in the first place. God's righteous wrath requires that we all die. Period. Nothing else requires it, and there is no way to avoid it. The only question is whether we die apart from Christ, and stay dead, or die in Christ and rise with Him.
cactus  Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:57 pm
Eric,

I think the biggest issue that a lot of folks tend to have is that they believe they understand election pretty completely.


Calvin said this
" First, then, when they inquire into predestination, let then remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the divine wisdom, where he who rushes forward securely and confidently, instead of satisfying his curiosity will enter in inextricable labyrinth."

There is a mystery, an unavoidable one mind you, that is inherently built into predestination and election.


What Eric is suggesting here is not simply "Well, why did God do it at all?" It's deeper than that. Eric is, at the most basic level, saying "There has to be MORE to it than that. There is more to the puzzle than I can understand."

In the Ask Doug segment on "Was CS Lewis a Calvinist?" Doug says that he believes CS Lewis exists somewhere at this position: "God elects/predestines and man has free will, and they both exist somewhere up here above my head that I can't quite understand." (Paraphrased) This is generally the most honest position a Christian can start from on the approach to the whole idea of election. However, it seems like some of the folks here want to beat Erics head in for even questioning the concept, which by its very nature is mysterious and hard to understand.
cactus  Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:58 pm
Eric,

I think the biggest issue that a lot of folks tend to have is that they believe they understand election pretty completely.


Calvin said this
" First, then, when they inquire into predestination, let then remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the divine wisdom, where he who rushes forward securely and confidently, instead of satisfying his curiosity will enter in inextricable labyrinth."

There is a mystery, an unavoidable one mind you, that is inherently built into predestination and election.


What Eric is suggesting here is not simply "Well, why did God do it at all?" It's deeper than that. Eric is, at the most basic level, saying "There has to be MORE to it than that. There is more to the puzzle than I can understand."

In the Ask Doug segment on "Was CS Lewis a Calvinist?" Doug says that he believes CS Lewis exists somewhere at this position: "God elects/predestines and man has free will, and they both exist together somewhere up here above my head that I can't quite understand." (Paraphrased) This is generally the most honest position a Christian can start from on the approach to the whole idea of election. However, it seems like some of the folks here want to beat Erics head in for even questioning the concept, which by its very nature is mysterious and hard to understand.
katecho  Thursday, January 31, 2013 2:19 pm
Eric is not a dispassionate or objective questioner of our belief. He impugns our faith at every opportunity. Even here he suggests that our God should be committed to a psych ward if any significant number of people were known by God to be destined for eternal fire.

Eric has simply pronounced his opinion, again. Eric would impeach God if He could. Eric's was not a question, let alone the question of an honest seeker.

However, we can still clarify the assumptions that are at work in Eric's beliefs and opinions. We can also work to clarify our own position.
Charles Long  - re:  Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:59 pm
Matthew N. Petersen wrote:
Why does it say "be just and the justifier of the ungodly"? I suppose if we already believe that justice and justification are opposed, we could see Paul talking about that in this verse. But I have no idea how that could possibly be found in that verse.

And that is precisely why you cannot wrap your head around Doug's post, my comments, or any coherent explanation of PSA. But this is your modus operandi, here and in other threads: you look right at the plain meaning of a scripture, deny that it could mean that, obstinately refuse to tell what you think it does mean, and instead propose some lib-weird pseudo-pomo theory that comes from who knows where. And the cap stone is where you tell us there's nothing obvious in scripture. If I tend to sound impatient with you, it's because I am.

In Romans 3, Paul is making an argument about the justice of God and how the sacrifice of Christ was necessary (in part) to maintain God's perfect justness while God was justifying us stinkers. Paul himself sets these two things against each other, and he does it right there in that part of Romans 3 I asked you about. I sent you right to it, you looked right at it and read it, and still you say you can't figure out why anybody would think that justice and mercy are in tension. Matthew, the reason I think they're in tension is because the bible describes those things as being in tension. The antithetical paradigm of justice and mercy is a thoroughly biblical paradigm, and Paul whacks us with it right here in this passage.

In Romans 3 Paul says, in effect, "God had to send Jesus to die the death for sin for two reasons : 1) because God had held back from punishing sins that had been committed in the past, and 2) because He intends to not punish those faithful who sin now." But without a propitiatory sacrifice, Paul argues, these two overlookings of sin by God would make Him unjust -- they would make Him a cheater, and unjust judge, a corrupt perverter of the law.

Now God could have been perfectly just by simply refusing to overlook sin in any case, which would mean that nobody would be saved. But, as Paul describes, God is also (in addition to being perfectly just) loving toward us, gracious to us, and desiring that we should be reconciled to Him. So God, wanting to reconcile us sinners to His perfect self, also reconciled His perfect justness with His mercy toward us. He did this, Paul says, by slaying Christ in our place.

But (and this is very important, so pay attention) the force of Paul's argument is this: God did not have the option of simply overlooking sin forever, without slaying somebody over it. How do I know this? Where did I get this crazy idea? Matthew, I got it from Paul, right here in Romans 3: "...God put [Christ] forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."(Romans 3:25-26 ESV)

See? The reason God had to slay Christ is that He had already overlooked sin, and intended to keep not punishing sinners who have faith; but this overlooking could not continue forever without some sort of reckoning. Justice demanded a reckoning. If God were to defer a reckoning forever, then His reputation as a just God would have been impugned. So, Paul says, God offered up Christ as the reckoning, in order to demonstrate God's perfect justice. God solved the puzzle of mercy and justice being in tension, and He did it by substitution. This is what Paul is arguing.

If you think this is not what Paul is arguing, then please, let's hear what you think Paul is saying here. Let's hear you actually discuss what the scripture says. I seriously doubt that you will do this, but hey -- I'm the irrationally eternal optimist.
katecho  Thursday, January 31, 2013 3:35 pm
Eric the Red wrote:
Quote:
And that is the point at which I think any claim that the God of Calvinism is just breaks down. God created the world knowing full well that the consequence of creating it would be billions of souls tossed into the lake of fire. Not only that, we were created with a predisposition to sin; God could have created us with either a predisposition not to sin, or no predispositions at all.

Eric seems to want to slip in some disinformation about those nasty Calvinists. I'd like to call his bluff. Eric is challenged to put into evidence a quote suggesting that Calvin believed that man was created with a predisposition to sin. I'm not aware of any notable Calvinists who hold that view either. If Eric can't support this assertion, then he should retract it.

Instead, Scripture explains that everything, including man, was created good. Man was in fellowship with God. Certainly man was created with the capacity to disobey, as well as to obey from a proper heart motive. Eric's suggestion that man was created originally to be pre-inclined or pre-disposed to disobey is not a Calvinistic or Scriptural position. Adam and Eve were not created in a hole, rather they fell into that hole after their free choice of betrayal against the grace and blessing that God showered on them.

Because Adam and Eve represented all mankind covenantally, all of the offspring of that first Adam are born down in that hole with them. Since the fall, we are born in dimness and subjected to futility. We are in darkness, but not an utter darkness, and we are without excuse because of the light God has progressively shown, yet we are still prone to sin and rebellion and missing the mark. Our will freely pulls from our hearts, but the heart of unbelief does not contain anything that comes from faith, which is why it always falls short. This condition came after the fall, not prior to it as Eric states. We must have a new heart.

Fortunately, God's grace abounds. As Adam and Eve represented their offspring, so we can represent our offspring in faith, to a thousand generations. God is turning back the curse and lifting His people out of the hole covenantally, washing and regenerating us with new birth. We may still disobey and sin in this life, but the heart of faith now contains good works prepared by God for those who believe. We must will to work out what God has worked in us, just like Adam and Eve before the fall. We do this in gratitude, not in order to earn salvation. Adam and Eve didn't need to earn salvation, but they did need to joyfully and willfully obey God from the heart. Living faith does this.
Eric the Red  Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:39 pm
Katecho, in answer to your question about Calvinism teaching that mankind is predisposed to sin, I just googled "predisposed to sin" and had no trouble finding plenty of Calvinists who believe it. In fairness, I also found those who disbelieve it. The Calvinist church in which I grew up certainly taught it. But whether or not it was true of Adam and Eve, there is no doubt that Adam's posterity inherited a sin nature that, for all practical purposes, means we today are predisposed to sin.

To clarify my original comment, I think that Calvinism is internally consistent once its premises are granted, and my dispute is with those premises, not the conclusions that follow from them. Of course a God who is sovereign can do as he pleases, which includes predestining people to hell, even if they never really had any real chance at any other fate. If you're omnipotent, you can do pretty much whatever you please simply because nobody can stop you.

The question is whether what the God of Calvinism actually did can be called "just" by any reasonable definition of the word. And Paul's "because I said so" response in Romans 9 doesn't even attempt to answer the question; it merely changes the subject.

Paul goes on to talk about vessels of dishonor that were created specifically to show the power of God. Well, I have vessels of dishonor in my house too, but they aren't sentient, living, suffering beings that feel pain and have dreams and aspire to better things. In fact, they aren't even aware of their own existence, never mind that they're vessels of dishonor.

And what we end up with in Calvinism is that God has something to prove (to whom, one might ask) and so he created the world so that he could show off his power and glory. But in order to do that, he had to create living, feeling, sentient beings that were predestined to suffer, for no reason other than that God would have a chance to show off how great he is. Is the only way for God to show off his glory is to create suffering? Sorry, folks, that kind of behavior wouldn't be tolerated in a four year old.

Now, does this mean that there isn't a chance that the Bible (as understood by Calvinists) is true and maybe God really is the monster that Calvin made him out to be? Of course not. Just don't insult anyone's intelligence by calling it justice if you turn out to be right.
Matthew N. Petersen  Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:32 pm
Charles,

This is actually an excellent example of something that seems obvious to you, but not to me. Your reading is not at all obvious to me, and indeed, seems very forced. You would do well to argue for it rather than shouting. For instance, you assume "and" in "just and justify" is contrasting. But why can't it be expressing a continuation and intensification of the previous word? To me the second reading seems much more natural

What do I think is going on? The Apostle Paul has been talking about how salvation is not through Moses (the Law) but is instead through Christ's trust in the Father, and he will be presently talking about how justification comes to circumcision and uncircumcision alike, through the Abrahamic promise which the Mosaic Law does not set aside.

In the passage in question, it's God's promise to Abraham that is being questioned: (The words translated "righteous", "just", and "justify" are all basically the same, and mean "keeping one's promises.) The problem that needs addressed is the promise to bless all nations in Abraham's seed. All nations had not been blessed. Had God failed to keep his covenant? How could he be righteous if he did not keep his covenant?

So: God has sent Christ to give us His blood in the Eucharist that by it our sins may be washed away, and though Abraham's children had for a long time not been a blessing to all nations, and God had put up with the Israelites and their failure to bless all nations (thus calling God's own honor into question), now, by Christ's sacrifice, God has kept his promise, and justifies all who have faith in Jesus; thus blessing all nations, and keeping his promise to Abraham.
katecho  Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:12 pm
Eric the Red continues to punch at God as if his own worldview supplied him with moral fists to swing, but we've been over that in the past.

Eric may be able to google for the words "predisposed to sin", but that was never the question. Eric had stated that we were created in this condition from the beginning, presumably to preserve his view that God is a monster. However, Eric was factually in error concerning both Scripture and the Calvinist position. Eric wishes to ignore man's role in the curse which followed from Adam and Eve's freely chosen betrayal of their Creator. What we inherited from Adam was separation from God, and a need for reconciliation. We were not created in a separated condition from the beginning, as Eric tried to suggest.

Eric grants that Calvinism is internally consistent (maybe just a nod to relativism, but significant anyway), yet somehow Eric thinks he still has access to some framework to declare it monstrous in some objective sense. What standard might that be? He doesn't say, he just invokes something about "reasonable definitions" whatever those might be today. Eric says:
Quote:
Of course a God who is sovereign can do as he pleases, which includes predestining people to hell, even if they never really had any real chance at any other fate. If you're omnipotent, you can do pretty much whatever you please simply because nobody can stop you.

That view sounds remarkably like Eric's own naturalism, where power is all that really "works". Eric's utilitarianism is not about what is moral, but about what works. Power works. Did the aborted unborn child get a "real chance at any other fate"? What about the crack baby? Or did their parent make the choice for them because they were more powerful? But why does Eric project his utilitarian morality onto us? What gives?

If God was just on some power trip, tormenting us like insects, as Eric supposes, then why did God become an insect like us and subject Himself to torture and humiliation at our hands? Why does God save the worst wickedness and injustice for Himself? If God is out to be a tyrant and a bully, He is doing it all wrong. Or perhaps Eric is not being honest.

Why does Eric suppose that we each deserve something called a "real chance" in the first place? What if that "real chance" was only available back in the garden? Would it make Adam and Eve's representation of us any less accurate? It seems that Eric simply assumes the Fall didn't really change much of anything, and we should each still be able to choose whether to fall for ourselves, as if the actual Fall had never happened. Eric feels disenfranchised. He prefers a pure democracy over a representative republic. How dare Adam represent Eric the Red. Eric would have chosen to obey God completely. Er, wait. What? Eric's own attitude seems to be making the case that Adam represented him quite accurately.

If Adam didn't represent him accurately, then Eric needs to prove it by honoring God today, while it is still called today. God will not undo the Fall so that we can each choose whether to fall for ourselves, but God will, and has, made a way to be reconciled back to Him. That is available to Eric today. If Eric refuses, then he cannot blame God by waving predestination in everyone's face. If Eric flees the light of a candle, then he can't claim that he would have approached a bonfire. Predestination is about God knowing Eric better than he knows himself, and certifying it with eternal decrees. It's not about Eric trying to outmaneuver God's decrees in a last minute mood swing in order to accuse God of injustice. God can't be snuck up on like that. He sees everything at all times. Everything is already factored into the decrees, including God's own intervention to redeem.

Eric has presented no evidence that his will is being violated, yet Eric seems prepared to accuse God anyway. If he freely refuses life, would Eric still try to blame God for this freedom? "Why did God make me with the freedom to refuse redemption?!?!?!!?! Whoa is me!!! Pitiful me!!!"
Charles Long  - re:  Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:30 pm
Matthew N. Petersen wrote:
Charles,
In the passage in question, it's God's promise to Abraham that is being questioned: (The words translated "righteous", "just", and "justify" are all basically the same, and mean "keeping one's promises.) The problem that needs addressed is the promise to bless all nations in Abraham's seed.


The first problem you have is that the term "justified" is also applied (by Paul in these verses) to us. If you limit the definition of "justified" so that it only includes God keeping His promises (as you have done), then how do you make sense of that term being applied to you? In what sense are you, by your faith in Christ, "justified"?

Also, you say that the problem in view in Romans 3:25-26, the problem that needs to be addressed, is God keeping His promises. Really? So what about the first 2 1/2 chapters of Romans where Paul says the problem that needs to be addressed is sin? How can you get from Romans 1:1 to Romans 3:24 and have it never occur to you that the big problem needing to be addressed is sin? I think Paul is a better writer than to be justly accused of not making that point sufficiently. Stop reading crappy NPP stuff, and work your way through the scriptures.

Whatever this justification is, it is something that would have called God's righteousness into question if Christ had not been slain for sin. But if justification is (as you put it) merely God keeping His promises, then Paul is speaking nonsense -- for how would God keeping His promises ever possibly call God's righteousness into question? Why would God need to slay Christ in order for His keeping of His promises to seem legit? See, the very structure of Paul's argument shows your definition to be a square peg that will not fit into the round hole. But when you understand rightly the tension between justice and mercy that Paul is working with here, then Paul's argument works.
Matthew N. Petersen  Thursday, January 31, 2013 9:55 pm
Sigh. I have answered the question you put to me earlier in this thread.

Anyway, it does not say that God could not have kept his promises another way, and thus been just another way. It says that God kept his promises this way. But as I said above, I believe that this was the only way to keep his promises.

Moreover, as I said, the issue is sin (though you seem to have missed it in my response). God blesses the nations in Christ by removing their sins. He does this in the Eucharist, which is for the forgiveness of sins, and, as Hebrews says, cleanses the heart, not only the outside.
Jane Dunsworth  Friday, February 01, 2013 8:07 am
Matthew, perhaps you missed my question about why God cannot justify us as an act of His power. Note, I'm not asking why He can't just "wave" his hand -- I'm asking why He can't just do whatever is necessary to accomplish it, without self-sacrifice/sacrifice of His Son.

For example, why can't He just smash all the poison, and then take those who are already damaged by it, and freely grant His renewing life to us? Why is the destruction of Christ necessary to accomplish it, if there is not something to be "satisfied" as well as something to be remedied?

As I said, I'm not trying to gotcha you, but I'm wondering how you account for the necessity of sacrifice if there is nothing to be satisfied, but only (as I am possibly wrongly reading you) lots of things to be fixed?
Matthias McMahon  - re:  Friday, February 01, 2013 9:41 am
Eric,

Why would you question God's notion of "justice"? It clearly seems to work for him, after all. And he's lived for all eternity this way, without incident, as it were.

Also, is there really anything in the Naturalistic worldview that says "creating people with a predisposition to sin" isn't Just? What's the observable data that makes this statement more meaningful than mere conjecture on your part?

This notion isn't condemned by naturalism or utilitarianism, so I don't understand why you would still have a problem. (Well actually, I know why precisely you have a problem with it. But it's not because of Naturalism or utilitarianism)

Your conclusion "that God has something to prove (to whom, one might ask)" is not one that follows from Calvinism, though it makes sense how you would come to it, given the apparent misapprehensions you routinely exhibit.

Eric the Red wrote:
Is the only way for God to show off his glory is to create suffering?


Clearly, the answer is, "No," since suffering isn't the only thing that takes place in this world.
Gianni  Friday, February 01, 2013 10:23 am

Matthias: "Eric, why would you question God's notion of "justice"? It clearly seems to work for him, after all."

Checkmate.
Matthew N. Petersen  Friday, February 01, 2013 1:26 pm
Jane,

I did indeed miss your question above. Thanks for asking it again. I think it's a good question.

I'll get to my attempt at an answer in a moment, but I should say that there are numerous answers to that question throughout Church history. For instance, in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe justice does not demand that a ransom be paid to God, but rather, that a ransom be paid to the White Witch. That is, it would not be fair to her to simply steal Edmund away, and so Aslan and she bargained to trade His life for Edmund's. She possessed a deep magic *from the dawn of time* (and thus a created magic) that demanded payment. And payment was granted *to her*, but she was overcome by a deeper magic from before the dawn of time (that is, an uncreated magic).

Note that Lewis' view differs from Wilson's (and from Penal Substitution in general) in two main points 1) the payment was not to the Father, but to the Devil and 2) the magic that must be overcome was a magic from the dawn of time, not, as Penal Substitution would have it, a magic from before the dawn of time.

(We might still ask why God created this deep magic from the dawn of time. But I'm not sure that's a question we can answer. We must begin with the contingent necessity of God's acts--contingent because He could have done otherwise, necessity, because now that He has done so, there is no way around it. Could God have created the world in a way that there would be no debt owed to the White Witch? Perhaps. But He did not. That is not the world we are in, and in this world, there is a debt to her that must be paid.)

Gregory of Nyssa takes this view so far as to say that this was a trap for the salvation of Devil--he would look to swallow God, but instead of consuming God, he, or rather his wickedness, would be consumed by God. (I am not endorsing his view.)

Second, Dante answers the question by noting that if God simply undid the sin, He would only have given man a fake power to choose. "You may choose whatever you want, so long as it is what I want..." Thus, Dante claims, that if God could not simply exercise His power without destroying man.

Another point to consider is that that asks an analog of the question C. Hitchins asks in Missionary Position--why wouldn't it have been better for Mother Theresa to be a philanthropist, than to become poor herself. The Christian answer is that it is less loving to do that, and thus does less good than it would seem.

But I think these answers leave off a little--namely, they still answer questions about the purification of the people by the Blood of Christ, not the purification of the heavenly sanctuary itself by the Blood of Christ. Why did Christ need to purify the Heavenly Sanctuary with His Blood?

I believe (I, not the Church) that human life is always and intrinsically sacrificial. Part of what it is to be human is to offer oneself to the Father. And so if God were to be a perfect human, He needed to offer Himself to the Father. Had there been sin or not, the Incarnate Christ would have offered Himself to the Father. (Though we cannot begin to think what it would have been like for this to happen in a sinless world.)

Moreover, by this offering, He allows us to perfectly offer ourselves to the Father in Him, and in His offering.

As to why He needed to become Incarnate, that had always been the plan, and part of why the Devil tempted Adam and Eve into sin was in an attempt to thwart God's plan for the Incarnation. Had He not been Incarnate, the Devil would have won. And anyway, human nature could not find its end without the Incarnation.
Ioannes  Friday, February 01, 2013 3:04 pm
Eric the Red,

We agree the key question is whether God is just. You imply he isn't, "according to any reasonable definition." OK. Prove it.

Cordially,
Iohannes.
katecho  Saturday, February 02, 2013 12:51 am
Matthew N. Petersen has set up a glaring false dichotomy. When it comes to sin and God's justice, Matthew suggests that God must be either a doting parent chasing after His uncoordinated children, rescuing them from their skinned knees, or else a penny-pinching, i-dotting, t-crossing legalist demanding payment to the last denarius.

Matthew suggests that we should look to Christ's example to see which of these two options God is like. I've done so, and Christ is not like either of the simplistic options that Matthew presents.

Recall Christ's parable of the slave who owed 10,000 talents. The lord of that parable was initially quite willing to forgive debt, but we know what happened next:
Quote:
Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you entreated me.
'Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, even as I had mercy on you?'
And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. --MATTHEW 18:32-34

Torturers? What's that doing in the Bible, and on Christ's lips, no less? Is this how a merciful father treats his children when they drink poison? Hmm. Maybe the sin situation is more deliberate and wicked than Matthew wants to portray it. Perhaps the lord's wrath is called for.

Christ addresses persistent sin and wickedness with harsh rebukes and warnings of wrath to come. Who speaks more of torment, damnation and hell than Christ? Let Christ be our example and teacher on this subject.

Matthew N. Petersen wrote:
Quote:
My point is that we should see God more as a parent with erring children, a teacher who wants excellence from his pupils, or a doctor whose patients have septisemic plague; than an offended judge.

How does Christ portray the lord in the parable of the slave who owed 10,000 talents? Was that lord portrayed as a parent, as a teacher, as a doctor, or as an offended judge? Which one turns the convicted over to torturers?

It seems what is missing from Matthew's theology is the concept of God's righteous wrath. Actual wrath and anger from God. Many Christians struggle with this, but it is all over Scripture. It can't be avoided.

It would be interesting to see Matthew's exegesis of the following passages:
Quote:
GENESIS 6:3 Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

This is the passage where God sends the flood to destroy all of the persistent wickedness of mankind. Is destroying the earth with a flood the model of a parent, a teacher, a doctor, or a judge?

What about God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Does fire and brimstone model the actions of a parent, a teacher, a doctor, or a judge?

Quote:
ROMANS 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

What does it mean for God to demonstrate His wrath? Do doctors do that with their patients? What is the role of God's wrath in Matthew's theology?

Here are some other passages concerning God's wrath, as Judge:
Quote:
JOHN 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Quote:
ROMANS 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness

Quote:
ROMANS 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Quote:
EPHESIANS 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Quote:
REVELATION 14:9-10 And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.

I'm certainly not denying God's abounding mercy and love which will redeem the world through Christ, but neither can I deny the wrath of God which requires a bloody Lamb in the first place. God's righteous wrath requires that we all die. Period. Nothing else requires it, and there is no way to avoid it. The only question is whether we die apart from Christ, and stay dead, or die in Christ and rise with Him.

About the Proprietor

proprietor

RSS Feed Twitter Feed goodreads Feed Facebook Page

Family Blogroll

Father
Sister Heather
Avuncular
Femina
Nate
Shadow Shroud
Nephew
Amoretti

Blogroll

Touchstone
Federal Vision
Al Mohler
A Twofer
Peter Leithart
David Field
Pyromaniacs
Highlands Study
Basilica
N.T. Wright
James White
Postmillennialism
Reformation21
Boars Head Tavern
Frank Turk
David Bahnsen
Justin Taylor
Bayly Blog
Roy Atwood

Tim Challies
Mark Horne
Wedgeworth
Xon
Green Baggins
Politeuma
One Flock One Shepherd
De Regno Christi
Biblical Horizons
Westminster Project
JDONATHAN
The Avenue
Remanations
Mike Bull
Daniel Newman
Right Mind
Debbie Maken
David Cassidy
Mere Orthodoxy

Pastors Blogroll

Randy Booth
Dale Callahan
The Avenue
Rogers Meredith
Steve Hemmeke
Virgil Hurt
Peter Leithart
John Barach
Garrett Craw
Tim Gallant
Alan Burrow
Tom Brainerd
Uri Brito
John Stoos

Ben House
Jamie Soles
Toby Sumpter
Gene Helsel
Todd Davis
David Bostrom
Brian Penney
Brian Penney II
Joe Thacker
Jerry Owen
Joost Nixon
Pawel Bartosik
Kevin DeYoung