Crucifixion and forgiveness, a non sequitur

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Nice goad. But I'm still not interested. I simply fail to see how anything particularly fruitful can be had in having a formal debate on a subject like this that's been debated hundreds of times already over the centuries and by people who are far more competent at it than either of us.

-CryptoLutheran

I like to do it because it helps me understand my own views better and grow in my ability to articulate and defend them.
 
Upvote 0

Serving Zion

Seek First His Kingdom & Righteousness
May 7, 2016
2,335
900
Revelation 21:2
✟223,022.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
In my experience, Christians ask this question when they're cornered.

No, this topic does not have that potential. For me to accept Christianity, it is necessary - but not sufficient - that this question is answered. Simply expressing your core beliefs in a coherent, self-consistent manner is the bare basic of what is required, but fantastical and absurd ideas that are self-consistent are still not worthy of belief until they are corroborated by physical evidence.

This is the apologetics forum, where nonbelievers are encouraged to ask questions about Christian theology. Questioning the motive of nonbelievers who accept this invitation is, as I said, the tell-tale indication that you're cornered.

You said you can contribute, so if that's true and if you're not cornered, then let's hear it.
Thanks for this, NV. I see here that I will not able to help you at this time. There might yet be another opportunity!
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,947
The Void!
✟1,126,193.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Please present a sound, valid logical syllogism which explains why Christ's execution was either a physical or logical necessity for the forgiveness of sins.

You may assume the existence of God in the form of the trinity.

You may assume the "existence" of sin, but only if you clearly define what it is ("Missing the mark" or "offending God" is not a complete, exhaustive, and clear definition; I must be able to determine on my own what is or isn't a sin from your definition).

If you think you need another logical premise for free, please state clearly what it is and why you need it as another freebie.

Ok. Here's my best (30 minute) shot; tear it apart as you may see fit to do. :rolleyes:

  1. God is integrally an Almighty, Eternal, Holy, Just, and Loving Being.

  2. Since God is eternally Holy, He also cannot fail to be Just in any given way within His own being; if God is not eternally Holy, then He is not eternally Just, nor is He even capable of expressing and maintaining eternal Love.

  3. Any relational infraction against God is an infraction against His eternal holiness and His eternal justice, even though it does not directly affect His eternal love for His creation.

  4. Infractions against an eternally Holy God deserve and require the application of eternal justice.

  5. Therefore, God cannot forgive infractions without at the same time upholding His justice. For Him to do so would be for Him to deny His own nature, i.e. deny His very self.

  6. From 5, for mercy and forgiveness to be extended by an eternally Holy and Just God, holiness and justice have to be upheld at the same time as the extension of mercy and forgiveness.

  7. Since eternal justice requires the death of those who cause infraction(s), death has to be attained in order for mercy to be extended.

  8. God, who is Holy, Just, and Loving God, may decide to satisfy His eternal Justice by offering an alternative through an agreed upon covenant by absorbing the eternal justice due those who have caused the infractions(s); this means God has to die in some form or fashion to fulfill the covenant and so as to not deny His own Eternal, Holy and Just nature.

  9. Therefore, Jesus Christ of Nazareth--as the Son of God--IS necessary and effectual in meeting God's requirements in covenant with those who have caused relational infraction(s).

Peace,
2PhiloVoid :cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lily of Valleys

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2017
786
425
Australia
✟68,600.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How many Christians have lived in the history of the world, and how many more will live? Let's put it at five billion. So, according to what you're saying, the punishment for any individual sinner is one five-billionth of a crucifixion and one five-billionth of one and a half days of being dead. Is this correct?
No, any individual sinner would be punished for their own sins, which is death - the eternal separation from God, not a fraction of a crucifixion.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, any individual sinner would be punished for their own sins, which is death - the eternal separation from God, not a fraction of a crucifixion.

So if the punishment for sin is eternal separation from God, then how did Jesus take on our sin if he was not eternally separated from God?
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
This is very sloppy.

Sloppy... is that a technical term? If one of us was "sloppy" it was you, because I asked for a logical syllogism and you gave me a paragraph.

I could go into more detail about the nature of biblical covenants and why the cross makes sense within a covenant framework, but I need to know that you're interested in pursuing this line of discussion.

Do you require more theological assumptions for this framework, or is it reasonable?
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Though sin (as a concept) exists in multiple religions, since we are in Christian Forums, I'll use the Bible to define it:

"Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18).

The Old Testament law includes many things that Christians totally ignore; the New Testament makes no clear, declarative set of laws. So either Christians willfully live in sin, or else your definition is unclear.

Sin had its beginning with Lucifer, probably the most beautiful and powerful of the angels.

Lucifer was not an angel.

Not content with his position, he desired to be higher than God, and that was his downfall, the beginning of sin (Isaiah 14:12-15).

If you read Isaiah 14, it's clearly about a Babylonian king.

Renamed Satan, he brought sin to the human race in the Garden of Eden, where he tempted Adam and Eve with the same enticement, “you shall be like God.”

That was not Satan. It was a talking snake.

Genesis 3 describes Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God and against His command.

You'll have to explain this to me because Adam and Eve presumably did not know right from wrong, so their "rebellion" was not something they understood as wrong.

Since that time, sin has been passed down through all the generations of mankind and we, Adam’s descendants, have inherited sin from him.

So... sin is a gene? Does it evolve?

Romans 5:12 tells us that through Adam sin entered the world, and so death was passed on to all men because “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23)."
Source: What is the definition of sin?

Non sequitur.

Referring back to Romans 5:12 and 6:23 from above, sin entered the world through Adam and passed on to all men (we are all sinners and have a sin nature) for which "the wages of sin is death"... death is the consequence of sin.

You said that death passed on to all men *because* the wages of sin is death. There is no logical connection here. It is a non sequitur.

In defending the non sequitur pointed out in the OP, you are bringing up another non sequitur.

While in the OT (Old Testament) various animal/grain sacrifices were made to atone (make amends) for sins committed, these only covered the sin and did not truly 'pay for' or 'fully satisfy' the cost (wage) of their sins.

This very notion is the entire point in question for this thread. I'm asking you to explain how blood sacrifice logically or physically produces forgiveness of sins. Whether it's Jesus being executed for blasphemy or an animal having its throat slashed and then its carcass lit on fire, please explain how the seemingly pointless extinguishing of life results in forgiveness.

As far as I understand Christian theology, the accidental death of a lamb would not count as a sacrifice. Presumably, if Jesus had slipped on a banana peel and died then we would all be out of luck. To my knowledge, no effort has ever been made to explain the significance of the ritualistic aspect of death.


Romans 6:23-25 states, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith."

You are just reasserting the point in question.

So, no one can claim they have not sinned (ad defined at the top), regardless of belief or non belief in a deity.

Therefore...?

For the syllogism (which I had to look up the definition): an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).

A syllogism does not have to have two premises.

To meet the requirements as defined:
Premise one: Penalty for sin is death
Premise two: Jesus's death is the only acceptable satisfaction for premise one

That is nowhere near a syllogism.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
NV, instead of posting words that are ready to be refuted, I'd like to ask that you take less than an hour of your time and watch this video. I had a bias when I watched it too but afterwards that changed. :)


Well I gave it 10 minutes and I'm not giving it more. In those 10 minutes nothing relevant to the OP was addressed, and I doubt that two people who are already Christian would spontaneously decide to rationally investigate the core claims of their theology.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The populist interpretation of Penal Substitution, that in order to forgive us God needs blood and so He makes Jesus the cosmic whipping boy to receive the punishment that we deserve is not, in my mind, reasonable. On the contrary, I believe that what it ultimately says about God and His justice is abominable. But then I wouldn't call it mainstream, I call it fringe; simply on the basis that this isn't what the majority of Christians believe, neither historically nor presently--this is not the belief of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and other historic traditions; and its place in Protestant traditions is also, I'd argue, losing a lot of sway--particularly among Mainline Protestants who typically find the older views such as Christus Victor and Traditional Satisfaction far more meaningful and true.

I'm hardly as alone in my thinking as you think. The views I have exist precisely because of my study of Church history and the diversity of views found across numerous denominations and traditions; through discussion with Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and other Christians and attempting to reach a view which I believe is historically orthodox, in line with the teachings of Scripture, the ancient fathers, and the historic consensus of the Christian faith.

-CryptoLutheran

OK, thanks for that. Now, with regards to your first post, you said:

The significance of Christ's death isn't that it was necessary in order for God to pardon our sins; it's that God, in Jesus, assumes the sum total of what it means to be human and unites to Himself all of what that entails--which ultimately means death. Our deliverance from sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus is that, in dying and overcoming death He has triumphed over every power that breeches our communion with God: sin, death, hell, and the devil. In this yes, we are forgiven of all our sins by Christ's death and resurrection, not because God needs a dead body to forgive, but rather that God offers Himself in Jesus to a sinful world which has Him crucified and He, freely, embraces that world in love by enduring shame, humiliation, and death on the cross.

I'm starting to pick up on the dancing that you do. You wanted to separate yourself from creationists, but declined to comment on the fact that you presumably accept some form of the prime mover argument - a notion that is unreasonable, as I explained, and which, by your definition, is creation without the "-ism". And now here you are trying to separate yourself from the belief that Jesus died for our sins, but... in the end... you admit that his death resulted in the forgiveness of our sins. It's just a song and dance, and if you cannot provide me with the logical syllogism that wraps your core beliefs together despite being freely given two major premises, then your entire belief system - even if it's "better" than creationism or penal substitution - is indefensible and illogical. In other words, it is not worthy of belief.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
How exactly do you arrive there based on what I've said?

The things you said are there for all onlookers to see. If you try to edit them, your words are preserved in my quotes of you and your edit timestamps will be plainly visible.

One can't be morally good if what they're doing is actually wrong(sin), whether they realize it or not. And yes, it would take an objectively good source, beyond the sinner to recognize this and correct it.



False, see above.

You're free to define sin however you like in this thread, so long as your definition can be used by me to accurately determine what is or isn't sin. If you want to change your definition now, go ahead - just don't deny what you've said.

It's OK to say, "I said X but now I want to change that to Y." What you can't do is say, "I never said X."

The God I know suffers as a result of injustice and may allow temporary suffering to serve a greater good, look no further than Jesus to see this and yes, God suffered in Jesus because of the injustice that Jesus was enduring. I do not know the entirety of the circumstance around the scripture you're referring to and whether or not the suffering God inflicted was justified to bring about a better outcome for David and the infant. I refuse to believe that God would inflict suffering for no good reason because it goes against everything I know about God's character.

2 Samuel 12. God tortures a baby to teach David a lesson. I guess that's the "better outcome" for David but I fail to see the better outcome for the infant. If the "better outcome" for the baby is that he is in heaven now, presumably because he died before reaching the "age of reason," then abortion and infanticide belong in your category of "objective good."

Incidentally, Numbers 5 gives details on how to perform a ritualistic, magical abortion. But it's not pro-choice because the woman has no choice in the matter.

Also, the conquered Jews fantasized about smashing Babylonian infants against rocks. This is recorded in Psalms, a book of worship.

In summary, Christians cannot contend that abortion and infanticide are intrinsically wrong.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,343
26,789
Pacific Northwest
✟728,267.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
OK, thanks for that. Now, with regards to your first post, you said:

I'm starting to pick up on the dancing that you do. You wanted to separate yourself from creationists, but declined to comment on the fact that you presumably accept some form of the prime mover argument - a notion that is unreasonable, as I explained, and which, by your definition, is creation without the "-ism". And now here you are trying to separate yourself from the belief that Jesus died for our sins, but... in the end... you admit that his death resulted in the forgiveness of our sins. It's just a song and dance, and if you cannot provide me with the logical syllogism that wraps your core beliefs together despite being freely given two major premises, then your entire belief system - even if it's "better" than creationism or penal substitution - is indefensible and illogical. In other words, it is not worthy of belief.

I do believe Jesus died for our sins. What I don't believe is Penal Substitution. We've been over this, and last time I tried to explain it to you you made it fairly clear that you weren't interested in understanding the fact that there are numerous theories of atonement--numerous of ways of understanding how Christ's death and resurrection reconciles us to God, how Jesus died for sins--not just Penal Substitution.

If you have changed your mind on that, then I'll point you again to where I did before, this Wikipedia article is as good as any as a starting point, there's even a side bar with links to other pages for more fuller information on the different theories.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I do believe Jesus died for our sins. What I don't believe is Penal Substitution. We've been over this, and last time I tried to explain it to you you made it fairly clear that you weren't interested in understanding the fact that there are numerous theories of atonement--numerous of ways of understanding how Christ's death and resurrection reconciles us to God, how Jesus died for sins--not just Penal Substitution.

If you have changed your mind on that, then I'll point you again to where I did before, this Wikipedia article is as good as any as a starting point, there's even a side bar with links to other pages for more fuller information on the different theories.

-CryptoLutheran

The existence of this thread indicates that I'm interested in the logical or physical mechanics of atonement. I'm asking for the logical syllogism, which is a perfectly reasonable request given the fact that theologians have been hard at work for the last 2000 years. After three pages, only Robert76 in post 27 and 2Philovoid in post 43 even gave an attempt.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ok. Here's my best (30 minute) shot; tear it apart as you may see fit to do. :rolleyes:

  1. God is integrally an Almighty, Eternal, Holy, Just, and Loving Being.

  2. Since God is eternally Holy, He also cannot fail to be Just in any given way within His own being; if God is not eternally Holy, then He is not eternally Just, nor is He even capable of expressing and maintaining eternal Love.

  3. Any relational infraction against God is an infraction against His eternal holiness and His eternal justice, even though it does not directly affect His eternal love for His creation.

  4. Infractions against an eternally Holy God deserve and require the application of eternal justice.

  5. Therefore, God cannot forgive infractions without at the same time upholding His justice. For Him to do so would be for Him to deny His own nature, i.e. deny His very self.

  6. From 5, for mercy and forgiveness to be extended by an eternally Holy and Just God, holiness and justice have to be upheld at the same time as the extension of mercy and forgiveness.

  7. Since eternal justice requires the death of those who cause infraction(s), death has to be attained in order for mercy to be extended.

  8. God, who is Holy, Just, and Loving God, may decide to satisfy His eternal Justice by offering an alternative through an agreed upon covenant by absorbing the eternal justice due those who have caused the infractions(s); this means God has to die in some form or fashion to fulfill the covenant and so as to not deny His own Eternal, Holy and Just nature.

  9. Therefore, Jesus Christ of Nazareth--as the Son of God--IS necessary and effectual in meeting God's requirements in covenant with those who have caused relational infraction(s).

Peace,
2PhiloVoid :cool:

Wow... an actual attempt!

But could you please define "holiness" and "holy" so I can properly "tear your argument to shreds"? Also, can you define "eternal justice"? Premise 7 appears to contain a non sequitur for any definition I use as a placeholder.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Sloppy... is that a technical term? If one of us was "sloppy" it was you, because I asked for a logical syllogism and you gave me a paragraph.

You asked if additional premises were needed to be assumed and I mentioned 2 premises that are needed. Then I explained these premises.

Do you require more theological assumptions for this framework, or is it reasonable?

Assuming a covenant framework is a theological assumption.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
If you want a syllogism with the covenant framework assumed then it might look like this:
  1. God established a covenant relationship with man.
  2. The curse of covenant violation is death; the blessing of covenant faithfulness is eternal life.
  3. Adam, our covenant mediator, violated the covenant and merited death for himself and his progeny.
  4. Furthermore, every son of Adam has personally violated the covenant and merited death.
  5. Therefore, all people are legally liable to death before their creator and have lost all of their rights in relation to him. He owes them nothing except for cosmic eviction.
That syllogism proves our being under the covenant curse based upon a covenant framework. Mankind is in a pickle. Once the above is established we can then demonstrate the efficacy of the cross:
  1. God, in mercy, has provided a new Adam (new covenant representative) for all who would cling to him.
  2. This "new Adam" is Jesus Christ.
  3. Jesus, by his suffering unto death, bore the curse of the covenant for his people and there is no longer any curse for them.
  4. Jesus, by his perfect obedience to God's law, fulfilled the covenant obligations for his people and opened up the floodgates of God's blessing for them (eternal life).
  5. Therefore, Jesus' representation is necessary and sufficient for propitiating the wrath of God and for meriting an eternal inheritance for all those who would cling to him.
The cross is included in Jesus' representation as a centerpiece, but his representation also includes his incarnation, his entire life of obedience, his resurrection, and his ascension into heaven and his pleading for us there at the right hand of the Father.

So there is certainly a logic to the cross, but one must assume a covenantal framework (which includes the representational and mediatorial relationship between God and man).
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You asked if additional premises were needed to be assumed and I mentioned 2 premises that are needed. Then I explained these premises.

The premises that you added relate to a covenant, which, as I explained, may be still be honored by Party A even if Party B defaults. Your only rebuttal is that Biblical covenants are different somehow, but you did not explain why. I see no reason why God cannot just forgive us, regardless of what we've done on our end of the covenant. Thus the crucifixion has nothing to do with forgiveness.

Assuming a covenant framework is a theological assumption.

And you're welcome to that assumption, but if you want to alter the definition of "covenant" by insisting that the offended party is obligated to disavow his obligations under the covenant then I insist that you use a different word.

Furthermore, this alteration of the word "covenant" would only imply that God must use some other avenue in order to give us eternal life. There's nothing stopping him from saying, "The new covenant is that all men who breathe air will receive eternal life."
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
40
California
✟156,979.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If you want a syllogism with the covenant framework assumed then it might look like this:
  1. God established a covenant relationship with man.
  2. The curse of covenant violation is death; the blessing of covenant faithfulness is eternal life.
  3. Adam, our covenant mediator, violated the covenant and merited death for himself and his progeny.
  4. Furthermore, every son of Adam has personally violated the covenant and merited death.
  5. Therefore, all people are legally liable to death before their creator and have lost all of their rights in relation to him. He owes them nothing except for cosmic eviction.
That syllogism proves our being under the covenant curse based upon a covenant framework. Mankind is in a pickle. Once the above is established we can then demonstrate the efficacy of the cross:
  1. God, in mercy, has provided a new Adam (new covenant representative) for all who would cling to him.
  2. This "new Adam" is Jesus Christ.
  3. Jesus, by his suffering unto death, bore the curse of the covenant for his people and there is no longer any curse for them.
  4. Jesus, by his perfect obedience to God's law, fulfilled the covenant obligations for his people and opened up the floodgates of God's blessing for them (eternal life).
  5. Therefore, Jesus' representation is necessary and sufficient for propitiating the wrath of God and for meriting an eternal inheritance for all those who would cling to him.
The cross is included in Jesus' representation as a centerpiece, but his representation also includes his incarnation, his entire life of obedience, his resurrection, and his ascension into heaven and his pleading for us there at the right hand of the Father.

So there is certainly a logic to the cross, but one must assume a covenantal framework (which includes the representational and mediatorial relationship between God and man).

Thank you. I will evaluate this later when I have time.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
The premises that you added relate to a covenant, which, as I explained, may be still be honored by Party A even if Party B defaults. Your only rebuttal is that Biblical covenants are different somehow, but you did not explain why. I see no reason why God cannot just forgive us, regardless of what we've done on our end of the covenant. Thus the crucifixion has nothing to do with forgiveness.

We may entertain the notion, for a moment, that God could allow his creatures to persist in sinful rebellion. It would be analogous to a parent continuing to provide for a wayward and rebellious child from a distance. The child wants nothing to do with the parent and refuses to submit to the parent's authority, but the parent continues to pay all the kid's bills.

But in the case of God it would be that he decides to continue to maintain our lives, allow our hearts to beat, supply us with oxygen, give us his land to live on, cause the earth to produce crops for us, cause the animals that we eat to continue to bear offspring, and support us in everything that we do. Even though we refuse to submit to his authority or even acknowledge his existence or give thanks to him for the countless ways that he upholds our lives.

God may do this if he so desires. But he is by no means obliged to do this and he has told us that he will not do this. He will kick all of his delinquent tenants off of his land and he has every right to do so. This should cause us to fear God and not to ask questions like "why can't God just forgive me?"

But amazingly God does desire to forgive us. More than this, he desires to reconcile us to himself in eternal love and friendship. Of course, he will not share his glory with another and he will not stop being God and so we must, if we are to be reconciled, submit to his authority. So God is not only willing to forgive us but he also has determined to make a full end of sin.

Yet God is just and he will justly punish all sin, like he said that he would. God will not simply forget about the sin of his people and punish the sin of others. How would that be fair? Could a human judge be partial by condemning criminals that he doesn't like and pardoning those whom he likes and still be considered just? No. All sin must be punished or none at all. So the sin of God's people is punished in their mediator Jesus Christ.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
@Nihilist Virus When you speak of forgiveness of sins here, does this entail reconciliation? To put it another way, are you wondering why God cannot simply forgive and let us persist in rebellion? Or do you understand forgiveness to also include our repentance and submission to his will and vow to obey him (reconciliation)?
 
Upvote 0