Checking for sound theology

[_Jordan_]

An irony that occurred to me as I read your post is that, in some sense, I might use the very same argument AGAINST the idea of penal substitution.

Indeed, in a sense you are arguing that God simply justifies the wicked, without actually doing anything about it, other than punishing someone who didn't deserve punishment.

Within our theology, it isn't just some "payment" that God applies to one's ledger account. God actually does justify, and if we cooperate in the process, we are actually made more like Christ.

Of course, we do not earn salvation. I'm NOT saying that. And sometimes, such as the thief on the cross next to Christ, the person dies without time to be changed much (presumably). This is a very small part of the reason that we don't judge the eternal salvation of anyone.

There is a difference between substitutionary atonement and penal substitution. We may speak of substitution being one aspect of atonement without requiring a vengeful God only appeased by suffering and requiring pain as "payment" though.

I did very much appreciate your drawing a connection between not thinking of God's love in the same terms as human love as an example of not thinking of God's wrath in terms of human wrath.

But we are not told directly in Scripture that "God is wrath" while we ARE told that God IS love.

Yes I agree that God isn't "wrath", the same way "he[God] is love". The way way I heard it explained... (

)

...is that unlike Love which I think we would agree is a primary attribute of God, wrath is as a secondary attribute. As in God in his very nature is love, and his actions are done precede from this; his common grace to all people, his mercy to all people, and perhaps most significantly of all, the Person and work of Jesus Christ (John3,16). But his Wrath is a response to sin, and it would be false to say "God is wrath".

I think the appropriate way to phrase it would be, God is Holy and Just. And because of this, he responses in divine wrath (remembering that Gods wrath is not some human emotion, rather a divinely wise response to sin) because of our wickedness.

A talented chef who tasted a bad meal would likewise throw it out/not eat it etc. Does this make the him, "the chef who throws out meals" or is he a "good chef"? What I want to illustrate is that a trained chef, (analogous to a Just God) who responses to a bad meal (analogous to sinful/immoral behaviour) doesn't mean that the latter response is his nature. No, rather because he is just, he responses as he does.

If you watched that video from that last post I think a good argument was used, (although there is no need for "good augmentation" here, nor do I believe this was the foundation to Washers preaching. rather it was to help picture things being said in scripture, (proverbs7,15))

A man who comes home to see another man violently kill his son, after just brutally killing his wife and daughter. The killer is appended by the man, and taken to court. The Judge then stands and says, "I am a loving judge, you are forgiven, go home". What would the man say? "I demand justice! This judge is just as vile as the man who killed my family". Why it that we don't demand the same justice of God whos knowledge and understanding is infinitely more than any human judge?

And this isn't needed, check Isaiah53,5

"He was crushed for our iniquities"

Speaking of Christ, and his propitiatory death, how can this be interpreted any other way? read the whole chapter too, This isn't out of context to what I've said.

I am probably horrible at explaining this in detail on the fly, so I do apologise for that, and I do appreciate this discussion on the topic matter at hand. If you are wanting to understand my veiw of it, I would look at both those videos I linked as I would affirm what was being said and they as pastors could explain it much better than I can. Thank you, God bless

 

[hedrick]

If we are to reject penal substitution for ransom, then we might examine some of our other Western views on related subjects. For example, do you accept the commonly held Protestant view that we bear Adam's sin?

How widespread is that? Calvin believed our nature was corrupted by the fall, but not that we are guilty of Adam's sin.

 

[St_Worm2]

...God simply justifies the wicked, without actually doing anything about it, other than punishing someone who didn't deserve punishment.

Within our theology, it isn't just some "payment" that God applies to one's ledger account. God actually does justify, and if we cooperate in the process, we are actually made more like Christ.

Of course, we do not earn salvation. I'm NOT saying that. And sometimes, such as the thief on the cross next to Christ, the person dies without time to be changed much (presumably). This is a very small part of the reason that we don't judge the eternal salvation of anyone.

Hi Anastasia/Jordan, this continues to be a peaceful discussion about a subject that is often both divisive and, at times, volatile here. So I am LOVE'N this thread

That said, terminology between EO's and Protestants oft times cause problems for us, so I think it important to point out that "justification" to a Protestant is seen as something that God does in a moment's time when He chooses to graciously save us, so there is no "process" involved (John 5:24; Romans 4:5), and certainly no "cooperation" on our parts in justification, save "believing", of course (but even that, the ability to believe .. or come to ,"saving faith" .. being understood to be a "gift" from God as well .. Ephesians 2:8-9).

Following justification, we call the process of growing in Christlikeness, "sanctification" (which is when our "cooperation" w/God rightly begins), but I believe you guys combine the two do you not? IOW, what you call, "justification", is what we think of as, "justification + sanctification". From an EO perspective, is that correct?

As far as becoming more and more like Christ, that is certainly an ongoing process, but we Protestants believe we are "changed" in an instant (i.e. John 5:24). At least I know I was, PTL. I went from being a non-believer to being a Christian. I 'immediately' stopped living a sinful lifestyle and began to live one that was righteous, because my desires changed (from wanting to please myself 24/7, to wanting to please God 24/7, in fact, with every breath I take ). And I've never looked back (except in horror at what I used to be and how I used to think and act ).

This was/is possible because when God "saved/justified" me, I was indwelt by the HS and given the "mind of Christ" (every true believer is, of course), so that we are given, in a moment, the ability to begin to understand the things of God from His perspective ("spiritual") and the desire/power not to sin (i.e. 1 Corinthians 2:12-16; Acts of the Apostles 1:8). God changes our hearts (Ezekiel 36:26), we are "born again" (John 3:3), and we become completely "new creatures" in His Son (2 Corinthians 5:17) from the moment we first "believe" (John 3:18; John 5:24).

And it is because of this fact, IOW, that God caused these miraculous changes to happen in us in the first place, that we can and do begin to participate in what we refer to as, "sanctification", or growth in Christlikeness, and are finally capable of doing that which He called us to do (good works/holy living) because as Ephesians 2:10b says:

We are His masterpiece, created in Christ Jesus for good works....

That said, while I am no more "Christian" than I was 30 years ago, I do believe that thanks to His sanctifying work in me (Philippians 1:6 .. which I certainly participated in, as well) I've grown greatly in my understanding of the faith and in my trust of/walk with Him. I also believe that I am a better and more useful Christian today than I was 30 years ago, at least I hope I am.

Sorry for the essay It was unintended. I am actually VERY interested in the EO faith and getting to know and understand it better I was, in fact, in an ongoing discussion and comparison .. now a temporarily tabled email discussion/comparison .. with a CF/EO friend about the atonement. We were trying to understand terminology differences and then look at the similarities and differences in things like OS v AS, Grace, and how we are "saved" in general.

Again, sorry about making this so long

Yours and His,
David

"To the one who does not work, but believes in Him
who justifies the wicked, his faith is
credited as righteousness"
Rom 4:5
​

 

[_Jordan_]

Hi Anastasia/Jordan, this continues to be a peaceful discussion about a subject that is often both divisive and, at times, volatile here. So I am LOVE'N this thread

That said, terminology between EO's and Protestants oft times cause problems for us, so I think it important to point out that "justification" to a Protestant is seen as something that God does in a moment's time when He chooses to graciously save us, so there is no "process" involved (John 5:24; Romans 4:5), and certainly no "cooperation" on our parts in justification, save "believing", of course (but even that, the ability to believe .. or come to ,"saving faith" .. being understood to be a "gift" from God as well .. Ephesians 2:8-9).

Following justification, we call the process of growing in Christlikeness, "sanctification" (which is when our "cooperation" w/God rightly begins), but I believe you guys combine the two do you not? IOW, what you call, "justification", is what we think of as, "justification + sanctification". From an EO perspective, is that correct?

As far as becoming more and more like Christ, that is certainly an ongoing process, but we Protestants believe we are "changed" in an instant (i.e. John 5:24). At least I know I was, PTL. I went from being a non-believer to being a Christian. I 'immediately' stopped living a sinful lifestyle and began to live one that was righteous, because my desires changed (from wanting to please myself 24/7, to wanting to please God 24/7, in fact, with every breath I take ). And I've never looked back (except in horror at what I used to be and how I used to think and act ).

This was/is possible because when God "saved/justified" me, I was indwelt by the HS and given the "mind of Christ" (every true believer is, of course), so that we are given, in a moment, the ability to begin to understand the things of God from His perspective ("spiritual") and the desire/power not to sin (i.e. 1 Corinthians 2:12-16; Acts of the Apostles 1:8). God changes our hearts (Ezekiel 36:26), we are "born again" (John 3:3), and we become completely "new creatures" in His Son (2 Corinthians 5:17) from the moment we first "believe".

And it is because of this fact, IOW, that God caused these miraculous changes to happen in us in the first place, that we can and do begin to participate in what we refer to as, "sanctification", or growth in Christlikeness, and are finally capable of doing that which He called us to do (good works/holy living) because as Ephesians 2:10b says:

​

That said, while I am no more "Christian" than I was 30 years ago, I do believe that thanks to His sanctifying work in me (Philippians 1:6 .. which I certainly participated in, as well) I've grown greatly in my understanding of the faith and in my trust of/walk with Him. I also believe that I am a better and more useful Christian today than I was 30 years ago, at least I hope I am.

Sorry for the essay It was unintended. I am actually VERY interested in the EO faith and getting to know and understand it better I was, in fact, in an ongoing discussion and comparison .. now a temporarily tabled email discussion/comparison .. with a CF/EO friend about the atonement. We were trying to understand terminology differences and then look at the similarities and differences in things like OS v AS, Grace, and how we are "saved" in general.

Again, sorry about making this so long

Yours and His,
David

"To the one who does not work, but believes in Him
who justifies the wicked, his faith is
credited as righteousness"
Rom 4:5
​

Hello David/Anastasia. Yes, I very much do appreciate you all for the peaceable and interesting discussions. I would agree with all the terminology you said there. The only thing I would add, not that it is anything drastically new is the satisfaction of believers may be different. All who are truly saved (or better way to put it, justified) will evidence this through sanctification or "good fruit". However I believe the rate or extent to which this happens may be different to each Christian. But yes concerning what you said, I would consider myself to be a protestant, and am too interested to how EO differs. I personally haven't researched a vast amount of denominations enough to know.

 

[St_Worm2]

Yes I agree that God isn't "wrath", the same way "he[God] is love". The way way I heard it explained... (

)

EXCELLENT/concise teaching on "wrath" by my favorite living theologian. Thanks

...unlike Love which I think we would agree is a primary attribute of God, wrath is as a secondary attribute.

God is described by three "nouns" in the NT, God is Light; God is Spirit; God is Love. So He he may be "wrathful", but I agree that it is certainly not right to say, "God is Wrath".

Yours and His,
David

 

[jerry kelso]

I know what the doctrine of Penal atonement is. I just submit that it is not Biblical.

butch5,
Agreed.

 

[Butch5]

I would affirm what st_worm2 is saying. When speaking of Gods wrath we need be very careful as it shouldn't be understood the way we may experience and see "wrath" from fellow humans. To understand divine wrath as how a fallen human, king, or tyrant shows wrath is just not accurate. The same way it would be wrong for us to understand Gods love in the same terms of our own experience of love, which is fallen at times; corrupt, conditional, bias etc. The truth is Gods ways are infinitely more pure and wise than ours (Isaiah 55:9)

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts"

So when speaking of Gods wrath, it's not some unfair, uncontrolled, ravenous action we unfortunately know too well. Rather it's a just response to sin, as you've shown in Romans. 1:18. Those also who suffer Gods wrath in hell will do so justly. I.e exactly what they deserve of it (luke 12,47-48).

So, is it your contention then that we simply cannot know? I'm sorry I don't by that.

So the question that is asked here is, does God punish all sin?(this is essentially what is being argued here when you boil it down). And from the bible the answer seen is yes.(Galatians6:7)(proverbs7,15)(2corinthians5:10)He is extremely patient with people though, wishing that all would repent (2 peter3:9) but this doesn't mean he turns his eye away from injustice. Eventually he does repay all what they've done. What I argue is that all sins are paid for, either by that person, or in the cross of Christ.

As proverbs7,15 states:
"He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous are alike an abomination to the LORD"

If god justifies wicked people without doing anything concerning that persons wickedness, how is he just, by his own standards in prov7,15. The propitiatory death of Christ as clearly stated in romans3,23-26 is the answer to this "dilemma", the sacrificial system in the OT bears witness to this also; Gods holiness and justice. God is just is all his ways. And this is What makes the love of GOD so special! That he was willing to atone and literally bear our sins...Isaiah 53:5:

"But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed"

... so that we could enjoy and glorify him, although we don't deserve it. And he does this in such a way that his justice isn't broken (despite proverbs7,15). Substitutionary Atonement is the only way God could remain just, "and the justifer" romans3,26.

I think this video is very sound on the topic.

Sorry, have to disagree. Paul Washer has the passage from Proverbs out of context. I think the Reformers push this justice issue too far. His example of the judge is fallacious, it's red herring. In his example the judge is judging a criminal who committed a crime against a third party. However, with God there is no third party. Man committed his crime against the judge, not a third party.

The Penal model of the atonement has so many problems that it can't possibly be right. It says that Jesus paid the price for our sins. That price was paid to God. The Scripture tell us that God would forgive sins, not require payment for them. Washer asserts, wrongly, that if God is just He cannot forgive sins. Why? Says who? Washer? Remember in real life the offense was committed against the judge not a third party. Surely God can forgive a sin committed against Him.

Jesus told His disciples that they were to forgive sins committed against them so that they would be like their Father in Heaven. Yet, according to this argument God demands justice. If that were the case then Christians too should demand justice when sinned against. Yet, that's the opposite of what Jesus told them. If they are to be like their father in Heaven they are to forgive.

Another problem with the Penal model is that payment and forgiveness are mutually exclusive. There are two ways to reconcile a debt. One is to pay it and the other is to forgive it. That's it. If a debt is paid then it is not forgiven. If it is forgiven then it is not paid. You can't have a debt that is both paid and forgiven. So, sins are either paid for or they are forgiven, you can't have both. I could go on an on about the problems with the penal model but this should be enough for a start.

 

[hedrick]

That said, terminology between EO's and Protestants oft times cause problems for us, so I think it important to point out that "justification" to a Protestant is seen as something that God does in a moment's time when He chooses to graciously save us, so there is no "process" involved (John 5:24; Romans 4:5), and certainly no "cooperation" on our parts in justification, save "believing", of course (but even that, the ability to believe .. or come to ,"saving faith" .. being understood to be a "gift" from God as well .. Ephesians 2:8-9).

Following justification, we call the process of growing in Christlikeness, "sanctification" (which is when our "cooperation" w/God rightly begins), but I believe you guys combine the two do you not? IOW, what you call, "justification", is what we think of as, "justification + sanctification". From an EO perspective, is that correct?

I agree with the main point, that Catholics (and I guess EO) use the term justification differently from Protestants. The Catholic justification certainly includes what Protestants call sanctification.

However I don’t think justification needs to be understood as an event that occurs at a single point in time (at least a moment of time in our lives -- you could perhaps claim that everyone was justified when Christ died and was raised). Indeed that may be a fairly recent evangelical reinterpretation. I believe the original concept is that justification is more a status before God, our status as God’s children, based on his acceptance of us.

For Calvin, at least, both justification and sanctification are based upon faith, which is a result of God’s decision to save us.

I think there’s a tendency for soteriology to reflect the writer’s own experience. Some people experience a dramatic, one-time change. They tend to emphasize the establishment of faith as a one-time event. In Arminian theologies, it’s thought of primarily as our decision. However others grow up as Christians, and may never experience a single decision. Thus other theologies see the primary decision as God’s made before we were even born, and yet other theologies (with some support from Paul) see our establishment as Christians in baptism.

But whether it results from a dramatic decision, or whether we experience ourselves as having been called by God from before we were in a position to make decisions, I think all Protestant theologies see justification as something that we can rely upon. Sin may cause us problems, but it doesn’t make us cease to be Christ’s people. Non-Reformed theologies do think we can reject salvation. But this is a (normally) permanent loss of faith, like apostasy, and not something that results from even serious sin or normal doubts and periods of darkness. Short of a real abandonment of the faith, justification rests on what Christ has done, not on us, so it’s something we can depend upon, while we grow, and sometimes fall back, on a day to day basis.

I’m not as familiar with EO theology, but my impression is that even if you equate Catholic justification with Protestant justification + sanctification, there’s still a difference. If I understand Catholic theology correctly, mortal sin breaks our relationship with God in a way that the Protestant concept of justification does not allow.

 

[Heber Book List]

I am confused by all the theological views regarding sin (whatever you imagine that to include). Surely scripture tells us that every sin we know that we have committed, once truly repented of, is forgiven and not brought to mind by God again. Ezekiel 18 says each of us is responsible for our own, personal sin and that no on else can repent on our behalf - it is our own responsibility. We are not responsible for the sins of our families or ancestors, either, as Jesus makes very clear in Ezekiel 18.

We are also told, in scripture, that whilst it is our responsibility to repent of all known sin, all unknown / unrealised sin is to be repented of once we come to realise that we have committed a sin. So, thus far for true believers, known sin = true repentance = permanent forgiveness = no entry in the Books of life for each repented of sin. But, if this is true, as rather simply stated in the previous sentence, and that grace is available, as some believe, on tap to wipe out every sin for which we have already repented, what is the point of Jesus' life, death and resurrection? Why does he have to die for repented sin? Remembering that Jesus is the author of all Scripture that says that every sin of which we truly repent, is forgiven, by God, where does any further benefit accrue if our repented sin is wiped out the moment we repent, and does not appear in the Books of Life and will never be held against us? It just doesn't add up. There must be something else, because this idea of how grace works, seems to devalue Jesus' time on earth, because we already knew, before he died, that sin repented of is forgiven - he told people that while he was still alive! Is it not more correct to say that Jesus came to teach us what we should already have known at that point - how we can be reconciled to God, and live without sin controlling us?

But what of unknown / unrealised sin? What if, when we get to heaven, and the Books of Life are opened, to reveal that there is a whole list of unknown or unrealised sin, and we find ourselves consigned to hell? Have any of us thought of this? Well, rest assured, this is what grace is all about. When we face our Maker and the Book of our Life is opened, against all those unknown / unrealised sins, we can plead Jesus' name, if we are true believers. We can claim his grace to cover all those unknown sins, and God will graciously allow us to be with him to eternity. I believe it is too late to get to the point of the Books of Life and then repent of our known sins. This is where real grace, bought at a price of 30 pieces of silver, comes into play for all believers - our truly unknown / unrealised sins are forgiven by the blood of Lamb, by the power of the Cross and by Jesus' resurrection, but our known sins are to be truly repented of whilst we are alive, and so will not be shown in the Books of Life.

 

[keltoi]

I am confused by all the theological views regarding sin (whatever you imagine that to include). Surely scriptures tells us that every sin we know that we have committed, once truly repented of, is forgiven and not brought to mind by God again. Ezekiel 18 says each of us are responsible for our own, personal, sin and that no one can else can repent on our behalf - it is our own responsibility. We are not responsible for the sins of our families or ancestors, either, as Jesus makes very clear in Ezekiel 18.

We are also told, in scripture, that whilst it is our responsibility to repent of all known sin, all unknown / unrealised sin is to be repented of once we come to realise that we have committed a sin. So, thus far for true believers, known sin = true repentance = permanent forgiveness = no entry in the Books of life for each repented of sin. But, if this is true, as rather simply stated in the previous sentence, that grace is available, as some believe, on tap to wipe out every sin for which we have already repented, what is the point of Jesus' life, death and resurrection? Why does he have to die for repented sin? Remembering that Jesus is the author of all Scripture that says that every sin of which we truly repent, is forgiven, by God, where does any further benefit accrue if our repented sin is wiped out the moment we repent, and does not appear in the Books of Life and will never be held against us? It just doesn't add up. There must be something else, because this idea of how grace works, seems to devalue Jesus' time on earth, because we already knew, before he died, that sin repented of is forgiven - he told people that while he was still alive! Isn't not more correct to say that Jesus came to teach us what we should already have known at that point - how we can be reconciled to God, and live without sin controlling us?

But what of unknown / unrealised sin? What if, when we get to heaven, and the Books of Life are opened, to reveal that there is a whole list off unknown or unrealised sin, and we find ourselves consigned to hell? Have any of us thought of this? Well, rest assured, this is what grace is all about. When we face our Maker and the Book of our Life is opened, against all those unknown / unrealised sins, we can plead Jesus' name, if we are true believers. We can claim his grace to cover all those unknown sins, and God will graciously allow us to be with him to eternity. I believe it is too late to get to the point of the Books of Life and then repent of our known sins. This is where real grace comes into play for all believers - our truly unknown / unrealised sins are forgiven by the blood of Lamb, by the power of the Cross and by Jesus' resurrection and our known sins are truly repented of whilst we are alive.

I feel there is still a responsibility to acknowledge there are things that we have done that we don't recognise as sin. It is like kids at work if someone says jimmy did this to me and you talk to jimmy and he says now he didn't but 10 minutes later he comes and says sorry I did do it but I didn't realise bobby felt upset about it. We sometimes do things that we don't think are a problem but upon reflection we realise it probably was.

 

[mark46]

I feel there is still a responsibility to acknowledge there are things that we have done that we don't recognise as sin. It is like kids at work if someone says jimmy did this to me and you talk to jimmy and he says now he didn't but 10 minutes later he comes and says sorry I did do it but I didn't realise bobby felt upset about it. We sometimes do things that we don't think are a problem but upon reflection we realise it probably was.

We tend to define sin as something we have done that is wrong, rather than the biblical definition of missing the mark in something that we have done or have failed to do. Also, as you posted, there are many sins that I commit that I am not aware of, every day. Yes, reflection and prayer help us see these sins.

I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

 

[Heber Book List]

We tend to define sin as something we have done that is wrong, rather than the biblical definition of missing the mark in something that we have done or have failed to do. Also, as you posted, there are many sins that I commit that I am not aware of, every day. Yes, reflection and prayer help us see these sins.

I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Yes, I covered the question of unknown / unrealised sin in my post, above. That is the essence of grace being available to us.

 

[jerry kelso]

We tend to define sin as something we have done that is wrong, rather than the biblical definition of missing the mark in something that we have done or have failed to do. Also, as you posted, there are many sins that I commit that I am not aware of, every day. Yes, reflection and prayer help us see these sins.

I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

mark46,

1. I understand there are mistakes and we are not perfect in our knowledge. I understand knowingly sin and sins of omission and recognizing when they come to our knowledge of asking forgiveness for them as in the old testament. I believe there may be sins that will not necessarily damn you to hell, maybe just your works of how we build upon the foundation of the church that will be wood, hay or stubble or gold and silver etc.

2. Their are definitely sins that are obviously death penalty sins. Galatians 5:19-21.
Galatians 5:19-21 show the works of the flesh that those christians who commit them will not enter into the Kingdom of God. We know forgiveness is provided for these sins. These verses cover much ground.
Things we do wrong vs. missing the mark. In the context of doing something wrong we are missing the mark whether knowingly or not.

3. John said, all unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. Being righteous is living right so the opposite of right is wrong. Now if the context is about right living of man's context without God which is different than right living with God as a christian is another story.

4. Because all unrighteousness is sin and 1 John 3:4 says whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law the bible definition of sin can be what we do wrong just as much missing the mark because one missing the mark would be doing the opposite of right which is wrong.

5. The action of sinning can be considered as sin because unrighteousness is opposite or against the right which would be wrong.

6. If unrighteousness is sin then we need to most likely define unrighteousness. So committing or going through with actions of and to sin, because there are many sins, unrighteousness would be anything perceived in the mind that is against God and his character and acted upon through the motions of the body or the flesh that unveils itself in breaking the law of God. Food for thought. Jerry kelso

 

[St_Worm2]

Catholic justification certainly includes what Protestants call sanctification. However I don’t think justification needs to be understood as an event that occurs at a single point in time (at least a moment of time in our lives -- you could perhaps claim that everyone was justified when Christ died and was raised).

And if I was a univeralist, that's exactly what I'd do

I agree that many do not have the ability to point to the day and time that they became Christians (they being the "lucky" ones in the sense that, normally, such have never lived excessively worldly lives apart from the church). Nevertheless, technically, "justification" does speak of a moment in time (whether we ourselves are aware of the precise moment our not) when God "declares" us just and we are "born again" and made into "new creatures" in Christ.

Indeed that may be a fairly recent evangelical reinterpretation. I believe the original concept is that justification is more a status before God, our status as God’s children, based on his acceptance of us.

"Status before God" is a good way of saying we are "justified" before Him I believe some refer to it as our "position" in Christ which does not change (as opposed to our "condition" in Him which can).

For Calvin, at least, both justification and sanctification are based upon faith, which is a result of God’s decision to save us.

Right As my former Calvin signature quote stated: "Justification is by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone". Believing/Saving faith is definitely part of God declaring us "justified".

Non-Reformed theologies do think we can reject salvation. But this is a (normally) permanent loss of faith, like apostasy, and not something that results from even serious sin or normal doubts and periods of darkness.

I would have to check, but I believe the RCC and the EOC .. I will check with my friends .. believe that "mortal" sin causes the loss of one's salvation. Hebrews 6 is often referenced as the main evidence that salvation can be lost, but as you just pointed out, if someone loses their salvation, Hebrews 6 is also quite clear that such a person is NEVER going to get it back. So on the one hand Hebrews 6 teaches what they need it to say, that someone can lose their salvation, but it also teaches far more than they want it to say on the other hand, doesn't it

edit: I checked and the EOC does not differentiate between "mortal" and "venial" sins as they teach that 'all' sins are said to "miss the mark".

I’m not as familiar with EO theology, but my impression is that even if you equate Catholic justification with Protestant justification + sanctification, there’s still a difference. If I understand Catholic theology correctly, mortal sin breaks our relationship with God in a way that the Protestant concept of justification does not allow.

And I believe you are correct about both of those points, but like you, I am far less familiar (right now) with the EOC than I am with the RCC (who has so clearly defined exactly what they believe in publications like the CCC).

Thanks Hedrick

Yours and His,
David

 

[Butch5]

I am confused by all the theological views regarding sin (whatever you imagine that to include). Surely scripture tells us that every sin we know that we have committed, once truly repented of, is forgiven and not brought to mind by God again. Ezekiel 18 says each of us is responsible for our own, personal sin and that no on else can repent on our behalf - it is our own responsibility. We are not responsible for the sins of our families or ancestors, either, as Jesus makes very clear in Ezekiel 18.

We are also told, in scripture, that whilst it is our responsibility to repent of all known sin, all unknown / unrealised sin is to be repented of once we come to realise that we have committed a sin. So, thus far for true believers, known sin = true repentance = permanent forgiveness = no entry in the Books of life for each repented of sin. But, if this is true, as rather simply stated in the previous sentence, and that grace is available, as some believe, on tap to wipe out every sin for which we have already repented, what is the point of Jesus' life, death and resurrection? Why does he have to die for repented sin? Remembering that Jesus is the author of all Scripture that says that every sin of which we truly repent, is forgiven, by God, where does any further benefit accrue if our repented sin is wiped out the moment we repent, and does not appear in the Books of Life and will never be held against us? It just doesn't add up. There must be something else, because this idea of how grace works, seems to devalue Jesus' time on earth, because we already knew, before he died, that sin repented of is forgiven - he told people that while he was still alive! Is it not more correct to say that Jesus came to teach us what we should already have known at that point - how we can be reconciled to God, and live without sin controlling us?

But what of unknown / unrealised sin? What if, when we get to heaven, and the Books of Life are opened, to reveal that there is a whole list of unknown or unrealised sin, and we find ourselves consigned to hell? Have any of us thought of this? Well, rest assured, this is what grace is all about. When we face our Maker and the Book of our Life is opened, against all those unknown / unrealised sins, we can plead Jesus' name, if we are true believers. We can claim his grace to cover all those unknown sins, and God will graciously allow us to be with him to eternity. I believe it is too late to get to the point of the Books of Life and then repent of our known sins. This is where real grace, bought at a price of 30 pieces of silver, comes into play for all believers - our truly unknown / unrealised sins are forgiven by the blood of Lamb, by the power of the Cross and by Jesus' resurrection, but our known sins are to be truly repented of whilst we are alive, and so will not be shown in the Books of Life.

Heber,

This why I lean towards the Ransom theory of the atonement and reject Penal atonement. Under the Penal model Jesus made a payment to God for our sins. So, Jesus paid for our sins. However, what we find in the Bible is that God will forgive sins. I'm not aware of anything that says He requires payment for sins. However, if we take the Penal model and accept that Jesus paid for our sins we have problem. The apostle John said,

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 Jn. 2:2 KJV)

The question is, whose sins are paid for? If we say that Jesus only paid for the sins of believers we are getting into the Calvinistic doctrine of Limited Atonement . If we say everyone's sins are paid for then we are getting into. Universalism. The apostle John said that Christ is the propitiation for everyone's sins. Those who hold the Penal model struggle with this passage. However, under the Ransom theory there is no problem at all. Under the Ransom theory Jesus was Ransom and bought back mankind. Once mankind was bought back God can give mankind the option to follow Christ or not. Under this model Jesus truly is the propitiation for all people and yet you don't run into universalism as you do under the Penal model.

 

[hedrick]

Nevertheless, technically, "justification" does speak of a moment in time (whether we ourselves are aware of the precise moment our not) when God "declares" us just and we are "born again" and made into "new creatures" in Christ

I’m not convinced that this is true. Looking through the use of justify / justification in Romans there's a kind of order. But is it temporal order of discrete events or logical order?

The most consistent connection is that he justifies the one with faith: multiple references in 3, 4, 5

5:18 Christ’s act of righteousness leads to justification

8:30: predestination leads to calling, leads to justification, leads to glorification

Galatians speaks mostly of faith.

Indeed I’m not so convinced that Paul distinguishes between declaring someone as accepted and recognizing that they are accepted. In the discussion of Abraham, it often looks like faith is the sign of someone who is accepted. N T Wright, of course, thinks that this is always true. I don’t agree. But I don’t think the reference is to a specific act of declaration, but rather to the basis on which we are justified. That does not require a crisp distinction between declaration and recognition.

But none of this looks like specific acts to me. There’s no real mention of a specific act of coming to faith. And of course Christ’s act, and calling, are both things that happen before we live.

I’ve always felt that Calvin’s ordo salutis is best through of as a matter of logical dependency, and not separate events in time. Just how things play out in our lives differs from person to person.

Even the famous John 3:3, on which evangelical theology tends to hang its hat, doesn’t look like it’s necessarily a specific event. Nicodemus, of course, misunderstands it as that. But that’s a typical example of Jesus’ hearers (of course usually it's his disciples) misunderstanding. There’s no reason we can’t be God’s children — which it what it means to be born from above — our whole lives. Even the person who has a Damascus road experience, I would maintain, was chosen by God as his child from before he was born. To the extent that there’s any specific act in that passage, it’s baptism.

 

[Heber Book List]

Heber,

This why I lean towards the Ransom theory of the atonement and reject Penal atonement. Under the Penal model Jesus made a payment to God for our sins. So, Jesus paid for our sins. However, what we find in the Bible is that God will forgive sins. I'm not aware of anything that says He requires payment for sins. However, if we take the Penal model and accept that Jesus paid for our sins we have problem. The apostle John said,

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 Jn. 2:2 KJV)

The question is, whose sins are paid for? If we say that Jesus only paid for the sins of believers we are getting into the Calvinistic doctrine of Limited Atonement . If we say everyone's sins are paid for then we are getting into. Universalism. The apostle John said that Christ is the propitiation for everyone's sins. Those who hold the Penal model struggle with this passage. However, under the Ransom theory there is no problem at all. Under the Ransom theory Jesus was Ransom and bought back mankind. Once mankind was bought back God can give mankind the option to follow Christ or not. Under this model Jesus truly is the propitiation for all people and yet you don't run into universalism as you do under the Penal model.

Those who truly repent of their known sins are forgiven - that is what Scripture says. Now, it follows, necessarily, that if you truly repent you must know to whom you are offering your repentance, otherwise it is just for show and has no effect on your eternal life. That is not universalism or prevenient grace, it is taking Jesus at his word. For sins we do not know, or realise we have committed, then we can plead our belief and trust in Jesus to have grace remove those sins from our Book of Life.

At the end of the day, we choose to sin (except, obviously, the truly unknown sins). As we choose to sin, we can also choose to not sin, and choose to repent, or not. Both choices are ours. This is why grace doesn't cover those known sins - we have the choice to sin, or not, so why should God just wipe out the things we knowingly do? That just doesn't make sense, to me, or to Scripture.

When reading Scripture, particularly the latter testament, we need to discern who is being addressed and about whom are the comments made. If we do not we make a lot of classic mistakes, especially with Paul's writings. The quote from John is making it clear that forgiveness is available not just to the Jews, to whom he was writing, but also to 'the nations' - the rest of the world, the non Jews, for want of a better way of explaining it, today. So that fits in with what I have posted - forgiveness is for the whole world, potentially, provided we truly repent to God for our known sins.

 

[Adventtruth]

I’m not convinced that this is true. Looking through the use of justify / justification in Romans there's a kind of order. But is it temporal order of discrete events or logical order?

The most consistent connection is that he justifies the one with faith: multiple references in 3, 4, 5

5:18 Christ’s act of righteousness leads to justification

8:30: predestination leads to calling, leads to justification, leads to glorification

Galatians speaks mostly of faith.

Indeed I’m not so convinced that Paul distinguishes between declaring someone as accepted and recognizing that they are accepted. In the discussion of Abraham, it often looks like faith is the sign of someone who is accepted. N T Wright, of course, thinks that this is always true. I don’t agree. But I don’t think the reference is to a specific act of declaration, but rather to the basis on which we are justified. That does not require a crisp distinction between declaration and recognition.

But none of this looks like specific acts to me. There’s no real mention of a specific act of coming to faith. And of course Christ’s act, and calling, are both things that happen before we live.

I’ve always felt that Calvin’s ordo salutis is best through of as a matter of logical dependency, and not separate events in time. Just how things play out in our lives differs from person to person.

Even the famous John 3:3, on which evangelical theology tends to hang its hat, doesn’t look like it’s necessarily a specific event. Nicodemus, of course, misunderstands it as that. But that’s a typical example of Jesus’ hearers (of course usually it's his disciples) misunderstanding. There’s no reason we can’t be God’s children — which it what it means to be born from above — our whole lives. Even the person who has a Damascus road experience, I would maintain, was chosen by God as his child from before he was born. To the extent that there’s any specific act in that passage, it’s baptism.

But don't you think God calls every one? I do! But all that are called aren't born from above. God is the potter....and some are vessels fit for distruction.