Penal Substitution.....?

[holdon]

Thanks for the post Cygnus - I never understand why some folks seem to discount the attribute of God's holiness, make it secondary. Angels in heaven cover their eyes in His presence due to that very holiness, choirs of angels spend their entire existance singing Holy, Holy, Holy. Until fairly recently - the love vs holiness wouldn't have been open for discussion - everyone assumed God's holiness as one of His greatest, if not the greatest, attributes.

Without God's love you would be damned for eternity....

And by the way I am not discounting God's holiness at all. I have often claimed that God whose eyes are too pure to contemplate evil, cannot therefore be the ordainer of evil and sin...... contrary to some theologies.

 

[cygnusx1]

Without God's love you would be damned for eternity....

the irony !!!

you are one who believes that even with God's Love ........... millions are damned for eternity!

If Love is higher than Holiness all the angels would be singing Love Love Love ......... and God would cancel the debt of everyones sin , whether they liked it or not! He would save everybody!

If there is no future wrath from God to come ............. what are we saved from ?

 

[cygnusx1]

"Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd,
against the man who stands next to me,"
says the Lord of hosts. (Zechariah 13:7a RSV)

 

[holdon]

the irony !!!

you are one who believes that even with God's Love ........... millions are damned for eternity!

If Love is higher than Holiness all the angels would be singing Love Love Love ......... and God would cancel the debt of everyones sin , whether they liked it or not! He would save everybody!

If there is no future wrath from God to come ............. what are we saved from ?

That's indeed what His revealed will is: "that all be saved and that none perish".

Not that He is only love to some and holy to others....

 

[cygnusx1]

Retribution not Revenge



by R. L. Dabney

But our opponents may now exclaim, that, by proving that God's motive in his punishments is not merely remedial but retributive, we only succeed in making him out a vindictive person, and therefore abhorrent, instead of an object of reverence to right minds. They say that vindicatory punishments are mere revenge, and revenge is sinful and odious. They assert that the concept of retributive sufferings, indicted merely to satisfy moral resentment, is barbaric. Savage and barbarous rulers thought this right, and under the name of justice remorselessly indulged their spite and malice against their enemies. And our opponents claim that, as the light of Christian civilization spreads, this cruel notion is corrected. We must therefore ascertain and settle the truth as to this sentiment of vindicatory justice, as it is ascribed to good men, and especially to the Divine Ruler. Is the desire simple retribution upon guilt malicious revenge, or is it grounded in a reasonable and necessary moral judgment? Is this intrinsic desert of suffering in the sinful agent the counterpart to that intrinsic title to welfare as due to virtuous agents, upon which our opponents insist most strenuously? And is this the simple and primary aim of the wise and righteous Ruler in punishing to requite the ill-desert of the guilty man? We assert the latter set of propositions. We do not disclaim for the Divine Ruler all remedial policy, nor all benevolent motive in the sufferings which he visits upon sin. Doubtless, among the manifold purposes of his wisdom, he does aim to recall transgressors from their sins, and, even in his sterner acts of retributive justice, he has an eye to deterring other men from sin by the spectacle of its woeful consequences. But behind and underneath all these legitimate and benevolent policies is God's fundamental judgment, that sin is to be punished because it deserves to be, because impartial justice requires due penalty, just as it demands reward for virtue.


The position is proved by conclusive facts in the consciousness of all men. Their moral intuition recognizes ill desert as an essential element in evil action. Desert of what? Moral ill-desert is but desert of natural ill. It is an immediate judgment of the reason that voluntary sin deserves penal suffering. Ask any unsophisticated mind why a given penalty is proper, and it will reply, simply because the sinner deserves it. Every person, whether sympathetic and benevolent or harsh and revengeful, when shocked by a crime, feels an instinctive desire that it may receive due retribution. These all think that this is not revenge, but a sentiment of justice. If the criminal escapes judgment, they say that the "gallows has been cheated." So opposite are the two sentiments of retributive justice and revenge, the most compassionate, pure, sympathetic women and ingenuous youths feel this sentiment of justice most keenly, while they would shrink with the greatest reluctance from being obliged to witness the pangs of the wicked. The most righteous and amiable magistrate is at once the most certain to pronounce the righteous judgment against crime, and the most tender and sad in doing it. Such judges are not seldom seen to assert the inexorable claims of the law with tears coming down their faces.
The same position is proved by those principles which direct our penal administration. Not only do legislators and lawyers, but all the people, see these principles to be self-evident. For instance, let us suppose that counsel for a murderer, after a just verdict of death rendered, and after admitting that there were no adequate mitigating circumstances, should move the judge to set aside the verdict simply because the fear and anguish of the condemned man were pitiable. Any righteous judge, learned in the law, would reply that such a motion was entirely improper; that it was tantamount to requiring him to perpetrate injustice and to become a traitor to the state and to his own official oath; and if the counsel grew pertinacious in his claim, he would risk being punished for contempt. Or if the repentance of the condemned man were urged as the ground for setting aside a just verdict, the judge would explain that while this was, of course, the proper feeling for the criminal, it constituted no satisfaction whatever for the penal debt, no just recompense for guilt. The due punishment alone must pay that debt of justice. Or let this plea be urged that this murderer had slain but one man, and had always been a harmless person before, and would certainly become so in future. The judge would say this was nothing to the purpose; that because this peaceful life only satisfied the just demands of the law, it could not be offered as payment for guilt of the murder; for this the only compensation was the due and just punishment. We here see that human law does not believe the medicinal or remedial effect of penalty to be its main end; because it proceeds to exact the punishment just the same whether there is or is not any evidence that the criminal is cured of his moral disease by his own penitence and reformation.


We introduce a still more conclusive argument. Sin is the antithesis of virtue. That moral principle in the reason which makes us desire the reward of righteousness is one and the same with that which makes us crave the due punishment of wickedness; moral approval of virtue and moral indignation against evil are not effluences of two principles in the reason, but of one only. They are differentiated solely by the opposition of the two contrasted objects. The sincere approbation of the good necessitates moral indignation against the evil, because the objects of the two sentiments are opposites. Everybody thinks thus. Nobody would believe that man to be capable of sincere moral admiration for good actions who should declare himself incapable of moral resentment towards vile conduct. Now, then, if we would have a God without moral indignation against sin, we must have one without any moral pleasure in righteousness. If we must have a God capable of disregarding and violating the essential tie between sin and its penalty, we must have him equally capable of disregarding the righteous tie between meritorious obedience and reward. How would our opponents like that result? They are the very men who hold that the good man's title to heaven is grounded on this inviolable bond which, in the judgment of the good God, unites righteousness and reward. If we were to say that God is capable of capriciously rending that bond, they would fill the very heavens with their outcry against the injustice and even blasphemy of such a doctrine. Yet these are the men who insist that God may capriciously rend the exactly parallel bond between guilt and deserved penalty. The magnetic needle presents an illustration exactly. When the little bar of steel is charged with this electric energy its upper end invariably seeks the north pole, and as invariably is repelled from the south pole of the earth. They are not two opposite energies in the north pole of this needle, but one only; it is the same magnetism which causes the north pole to attract and the south pole to repel its upper end, because the magnetic conditions of the earth's two poles are opposite. What should we think of the mariner who should tell us that he had so marvelous a needle that its upper end was always and certainly attracted to the north pole, yet not repelled from the south pole? We would know that he was either ignorant or a liar.


Now, we must believe that God's righteousness is the same in its essential principles with that which he requires of us, and this by two reasons, as even the pagan poet knew, "We are God's offspring." He formed our spirits in his own image and likeness. Again, God is the moral governor of mankind. If the righteousness which he requires of us were not the same in principle with his own, ruler and ruled could not understand each other. But Scripture expressly confirms our position here. As Proverbs 17:15, "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord." Romans 2:9 --11, "God will render indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul that doeth evil.... But glory, honor and peace to every man that seeketh good.... For there is no respect of persons with God." 2 Thessalonians 1:6, 7, "Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us." In each of these scriptures, and in many others of similar import, the retribution of guilt is declared to be the exhibition of the same righteousness (not revenge), with the reward of merit.
Again, the Scriptures ascribe retributive justice to God as his essential attribute, not an optional exercise of his physical power. He is declared to be perfectly righteous, and righteousness in a ruler is defined as the principle which gives to every one his due with unvarying impartiality. "Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne." "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil." "He hateth all workers of iniquity." In Ezekiel 18, he triumphantly asks the sinful Jews: "Are not my ways equal, saith the Lord? (impartial); are not your ways unequal?" He then proceeds to explain this impartiality with the utmost precision, as the expression of that impartiality both in punishing the backsliders and pardoning the penitent. If distributive righteousness is an essential attribute in God, then his immutability necessitates its impartial and universal application to both classes of sinners. The declarative holiness of God necessitates the same regularity. The proper expression of that holiness is the divine action, rather than the divine words. If God rewarded guilt with immunity and welfare, in as many cases as he thus rewards merit, rational creatures could see no evidence at all of his holiness. Were he to vacillate only to the extent of rewarding guilt with welfare in the minority of cases, to that extent he would impair this manifestation of his holiness. The attribute of truth is surely perfect and essential in God. But this also insures the invariable exercise of his punitive justice, for he has not only said, but sworn, that "the wicked shall not go unpunished."


But the Scriptures come still nearer to the issue in debate. They declare expressly in many places that in God's administration sin is unpardonable until satisfaction is made for its guilt. In Numbers 32:23, God says by Moses, "Be sure your sin will find you out." In Romans 1:18, he declares by Paul that "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." In two most solemn and emphatic places (Exodus 34:7; Nahum 1:3), Jehovah declares that he will by no means clear the guilty. The crowning evidence is in the words of the Redeemer himself, in that very sermon on the Mount, which our opponents are so fond of claiming, Matthew 5:17, 18, "Think not I am come to destroy the law and the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle of the law shall not fail until all be fulfilled."
The rite of bloody sacrifice, unquestionably ordained for man, the sinner, by God, proves the same truth. Until the Lamb of God came and took away the guilt of the world, God's requirement of bloody sacrifice was invariable. From Abel down to Zachariah, the father of John, in order that believers might pray, the smoke of the burning victim must ascend from the central altar. The Apostle Paul has summed up the invariable history in the words (Heb. 9:22), "And without shedding of blood is no remission." But this awful rite, the death and burning of an innocent and living creature, could typify but one truth, substitution. Compared with the milder ritual of the new dispensation, bloody sacrifice was more expensive and inconvenient, yet God regularly required it. It is manifest that his object was to keep this great truth, penal substitution, prominent before the minds of sinful men, because, like our opponents, they are so prone to forget it.
But our opponents here advance two cavils which they think are very decisive. They cry: the best civil magistrates sometimes pardon crime without satisfaction, and their moral credit is thereby enhanced with their subjects instead of being lowered. Why may it not be all the more so with the God of love? The reply is very simple. Because those cases of pardon, in which alone human rulers can properly set aside a verdict without penal satisfaction for guilt, are cases which can never possibly occur under God's jurisdiction. They must fall under one of these heads: where either the evidence of guilt has been afterwards found inconclusive, or it is uncertain whether the condemned man acted with criminal intention, or where unforseen circumstances are about to change the operation of the sentence of the law into something more severe or destructive than was justly intended. But these cases arise because all human rulers are fallible; in the administration of an omniscient, infallible God, they never can occur.
But every wise man knows that these are the only cases in which it is safe and right for human magistrates to exercise the pardoning power. Again, it is objected that this God enjoins on us the forgiveness of injuries without retribution as at once the loveliest, the most Godlike Christian grace. Therefore this dogma must be false, which represents God as always unforgiving until his vengeance is satisfied. They brandish before us the Lord's prayer. They proclaim the words of Paul, requiring us to forgive our enemies "even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us."


Out of their own mouths we easily refute them. For Paul teaches, in this their textus palmaries, that God does not forgive his enemies after the fashion they claim, but for Christ's sake. Which is to say that God's forgiveness of his enemies is grounded in Christ's satisfaction for their guilt, and it implies that those enemies of God who reject Christ's satisfaction are not forgiven by God. The forgiveness required of us is to be after the pattern of God's forgiveness (as he, etc.). Now, how does God forgive his enemies? Upon condition of repentance and faith; not otherwise. And Christ, in teaching Peter, shows that our forgiveness is not required to go beyond God's. If thy brother "trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." (Luke 17:4.) But what if the offender says, "I do not repent." Christ answers (in another place), don't seek revenge, but let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. But the weakness and folly of this cavil is best revealed by this question: In what relation do we stand to our trespassers in this forgiveness of injuries? In the relation of fellows, equals, sinners toward God like them, and fallible creatures. In what relation does God stand to his trespassers? In that of sovereign owner, and also in that of infallible chief-justice and magistrate. That makes all the difference. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." The visiting of due retribution upon guilt is the exclusive prerogative of God; because his sovereignty, his power, his purity, his infallible wisdom and justice qualify him for that task. And therefore we who are disqualified are not to meddle with it. Is it not fatuous to infer that because God says we are unfit, and therefore must not meddle with his prerogative, therefore he must not exercise it himself? Even the poorest human magistrate sees this difference perfectly. Let us suppose that a thief duly convicted should reason with him to set aside a just verdict in this way: "Squire, you are a charitable Christian; last year when I and my family were in distress your charity gave me relief. This verdict puts us in distress again; the same charity should again release us." We presume the plainest squire would know how to say: "Thou fool, then I was acting toward thee as a private person and neighbor. I took what was mine own to succor thy distress; now I sit in the judgment seat; I represent the delegated rights of the law, of eternal justice and of God; these are not my own to give away in charity. I am sacredly sworn to uphold them. Would it be charity in me to commit theft and perjury to extend succor to you in this present distress, where you deserve none?"


Our opponents are fond of charging that this our doctrine of God's distributive justice is harsh, barbaric, bloody; that ours is "the theology of the shambles." Our just retort is, theirs is the theology of dishonesty. None could declare more loudly than they that for a ruler to rob an obedient subject of the reward pledged to his merit would be false, dishonest, unprincipled. We have proved along with the Scripture that the bond which connects just retribution with guilt is morally the same. Do they insist upon inventing a dishonest divine ruler? The Psalmist says, that they who invent an imaginary god "are like unto him." So are they which "worship him." Were we as severe, we might justly say to our readers, You had better not entrust your social rights, even to people who worship a god not governed by principle.

We now reach a point where we place our opponents in a fatal dilemma. They say there cannot be any substitutionary punishment of guilt, that it would be an immoral legal action. Very well; then they and all their adherents are self-condemned to an inevitable and everlasting hell! For they certainly are sinners; and God's doctrine is that in his final judgment all sin is unpardonable Sinners may be pardoned but the guilt never. For this, satisfaction must be made, if not through a substitute, then by the sinner himself. If, then, substitution is absurd and unrighteous, then we testify solemnly to these gentlemen that the sole result of their boasted philosophy will be, as surely as God is God, to seal them all, self-condemned, to perdition.

http://www.mbrem.com/jesus_Christ/dab-ch5.htm

 

[plum]

after skimming that article, i think it helps speak to some of my questions earlier. thanks for posting it

 

[heymikey80]

That's indeed what His revealed will is: "that all be saved and that none perish".

Not that He is only love to some and holy to others....

Really? Looking in the sentence God's words were written in:

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 2 Pt 3:9
​

 

[heymikey80]

First, note that my objection to Penal Substitutionary Atonement rests in the Penal portion of the theory. I have no problem with substitutionary atonement when properly understood.

Yes, I noticed that point in post #6, Philip.

This thread has covered much ground. Can your narrow your request to a couple of specific questions?

Is your view that Jesus Christ did not undergo a penalty for our salvation? Or is your view that God did not desire the penalty to fall on Jesus Christ? Or is your view something else? What's the essential complaint about the sacrifice of Christ being a penalty for our sin?

As for your points 1,2,3,4 in post 6 I don't have any compulsion to accept any of these views either. Yet I believe Jesus Christ paid a penalty through His Crucifixion.

To 1., I believe God is bound by an internal rule of justice which is more than humans can fathom in its entirety. Ethics has never been comprehended by humanity, much less all of moral thinking.

To 2., I believe God is free to do as He pleases, but that includes overcoming adversities He sets for Himself to redeem.

To 3., I don't accept the problem of sin solely as a problem of forensic guilt. But I do see ontological change in the sinner; I do see Spiritual life in the sinner where there once was none. What I don't see is comprehensive, pervasive change in the sinner in this creation, and I haven't been told by Scripture to look for it (e.g. end of 1 John 1, second half of Romans 7).

To 4., clearly no one who accepts God's declaration "righteous" instead of perception would accept perception as reality.

I would agree wholeheartedly that Jesus Christ's work on our behalf is not limited to penal substitution. To me the question is whether in its essential form penal substitution is a valid representation of what's in Scripture. I appreciate "Christus Victor" more than you may know. But I also know it's Christ in the process of victory in me. The victory is assured. The capital of sin is taken. But I think the victory isn't complete in all of me.

 

[Philip]

Feel free to do it via PM if you wish. I don't frequest this thread as much as I could.

Will do so.

 

[plum]

thanks!

 

[Philip]

But, back to the penal substitutionary atonement - how do folks reconcile Isaiah 53:4-6? To me - Isaiah clearly states that God strikes Jesus the Christ, that the punishment we deserve fell on Christ. I may not have the book knowledge that many of the foks here do, but this passage clearly speaks to God's intent - that Christ was to take the punishment due

This discussion will take much space, so I am going to spin it of into another thread.

 

[depthdeception]

But, back to the penal substitutionary atonement - how do folks reconcile Isaiah 53:4-6? To me - Isaiah clearly states that God strikes Jesus the Christ, that the punishment we deserve fell on Christ. I may not have the book knowledge that many of the foks here do, but this passage clearly speaks to God's intent - that Christ was to take the punishment due us.

The answer comes on multiple levels:

First, and most importantly, the Isaiac text pre-dates the revelation of Christ. While the NT writers appealed to the Isaiac passages in showing that Christ fulfilled "prophecy," it was the teaching and deeds of Jesus that fed meaning into the OT prophecies, not the other way around.

Secondly, as far as I am aware, the NT writers never quote the verses about punishment. In fact, they quote nearly the whole of chapter 53 of Isaiah, and yet the "punishment" motif is conspicuously absent from their selected quotations. To understand this, one must understand the hermeneutical methods of the NT writers. They did not treat the contexts of the passages they quoted in the same way as we, as post-textual/critical students, would. The virgin birth "prophecy" is a perfect example. According to modern hermeneutical methods, the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah has absolutely nothing to do with the Messiah, and the most honest reading seems to indicate that the passage is talking about Isaiah's son, or that it was the son of a maiden that was known to both Isaiah and the king. Nonetheless, the NT writers, in reflecting upon the revelation of Christ and his teaching and deeds, read Christ back into these passages, transforming their meanings from what they would be in their natural contexts. In fact, nearly all of the "fulfilled prophecies" of Christ bear this mark . Therefore, simply because the context of Isaiah 53 says one thing, does not mean that the NT writers meant for the entier context of Isaiah 53 to come to bear upon the passages that they quote.

Third, the OT cultus of worship must be taken into account in the rendering of Isaiah 53. In this cultus of sacrifice, the sacrifice was not seen as being "punished" in the place of the offering sinner. Rather, the death of the sacrifice was meant to be an identification with the sinner of the immense consequences of sinfulness. In fact, the height of the day of Atonement was not expressed in the slaughter of animals, but rather in the sending of the scapegoat. In this way, the sin of the community was seen to be expunged by physically removing it from the presence of the community of the people of God. Overall, in the OT cultus of worship and sacrifice, the concept of "punishment" is conspicuosly absent. Therefore, this reality must inform one's rendering of "punishment" language found elsewhere, especially in writings such as Isaiah that are written from within this very context.

Finally, the broader context of Isaiah must be considered. While this one passage may present the motif of punishement (however it may be interpreted), the greater message of Isaiah is that God desires for God's people to be shaped into a community of mercy, justice and God's shalom. The Isaiac writers who utilize this word "punishment" in chapter 53 are also the same writers who note that God has "no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats." (1:10). This motif runs throughout the prophetic literature, culminating in the proclamation of God in Hosea that, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." (6:6). In this way, it is very clearly revealed that atonement is based not upon some causal action of blood-letting, but rather a reorientation of the heart, mind and will to the will of God.

 

[Flicker]

Amen !!!

my thought exactly!

what is the PENALTY for sin?????

There is no divine penalty for the violation of the divine law. The operation of divine punishment upon the human is always calculated to transfigure the human. Of course, the human has to cooperate synergistically to leave their sin and be transfigured.

 

[depthdeception]

There is no divine penalty for the violation of the divine law. The operation of divine punishment upon the human is always calculated to transfigure the human. Of course, the human has to cooperate synergistically to leave their sin and be transfigured.

Gasp! You said the "S" word!

 

[Philip]

Is your view that Jesus Christ did not undergo a penalty for our salvation? Or is your view that God did not desire the penalty to fall on Jesus Christ? Or is your view something else? What's the essential complaint about the sacrifice of Christ being a penalty for our sin?

There is no penalty for sin, at least not a judicial or forensic one. There are certainly consequences of sin. We do suffer under those, and so did Christ.

As for your points 1,2,3,4 in post 6 I don't have any compulsion to accept any of these views either. Yet I believe Jesus Christ paid a penalty through His Crucifixion.

Fair enough. Perhaps you can expand on what you mean by 'Christ paid a penalty through His Crucifixion.' Such as, to whom was the penalty paid and why did it have to be paid?

To 1., I believe God is bound by an internal rule of justice which is more than humans can fathom in its entirety. Ethics has never been comprehended by humanity, much less all of moral thinking.

What do you mean by 'an internal rule of justice'? Further, if it is more than we can understand, how can possibly conclude that this rule of justice requires a penelty.

To 2., I believe God is free to do as He pleases, but that includes overcoming adversities He sets for Himself to redeem.

Okay, but redemption need not carry an idea of penalty.

To 3., I don't accept the problem of sin solely as a problem of forensic guilt. But I do see ontological change in the sinner; I do see Spiritual life in the sinner where there once was none.

Okay.

What I don't see is comprehensive, pervasive change in the sinner in this creation, and I haven't been told by Scripture to look for it (e.g. end of 1 John 1, second half of Romans 7).

I am not sure what you mean by this.

To 4., clearly no one who accepts God's declaration "righteous" instead of perception would accept perception as reality.

This is not clear to me. I have been told many times in this forum and others that despite God's declaration we are still not righteous.

 

[Philip]

Gasp! You said the "S" word!

Speaking of the 'S' word, I can across this commentary on Ephesians 1:4 yesterday:

His meaning is somewhat of this sort. Through whom He hath blessed us, through Him He hath also chosen us. And He, then, it is that shall bestow upon us all those rewards hereafter. He is the very Judge that shall say, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” And again, “I will that where I am they will also be with Me.” And this is a point which he is anxious to prove in almost all his Epistles, that ours is no novel system, but that it had thus been figured from the very first, that it is not the result of any change of purpose, but had been in fact a divine dispensation and fore-ordained. And this is a mark of great solicitude for us.

What is meant by, “He chose us in Him?” By means of the faith which is in Him, Christ, he means, happily ordered this for us before we were born; nay more, before the foundation of the world. And beautiful is that word “foundation,” as though he were pointing to the world as cast down from some vast height. Yea, vast indeed and ineffable is the height of God, so far removed not in place but in incommunicableness of nature; so wide the distance between creation and Creator! A word which heretics may be ashamed to hear.

But wherefore hath He chosen us? “That we should be holy and without a blemish before Him.” That you may not then, when you hear that “He hath chosen us,” imagine that faith alone is sufficient, he proceeds to add life and conduct. To this end, saith he, hath He chosen us, and on this condition, “that we should be holy and without blemish.” And so formerly he chose the Jews. On what terms? “This nation, saith he, hath He chosen from the rest of the nations.” Now if men in their choices choose what is best, much more doth God. And indeed the fact of their being chosen is at once a token of the loving kindness of God, and of their moral goodness. For by all means would he have chosen those who were approved. He hath Himself rendered us holy, but then we must continue holy. A holy man is he who is a partaker of faith; a blameless man is he who leads an irreproachable life. It is not however simply holiness and irreproachableness that He requires, but that we should appear such “before Him.” For there are holy and blameless characters, who yet are esteemed as such only by men, those who are like whited sepulchres, and like such as wear sheep’s clothing. It is not such, however, He requires, but such as the Prophet speaks of; “And according to the cleanness of my hands.” What cleanness? That which is so “in His eyesight.” He requires that holiness on which the eye of God may look.

Having thus spoken of the good works of these, he again recurs to His grace. “In love,” saith he, “having predestinated us.” Because this comes not of any pains, nor of any good works of ours, but of love; and yet not of love alone, but of our virtue also. For if indeed of love alone, it would follow that all must be saved; whereas again were it the result of our virtue alone, then were His coming needless, and the whole dispensation. But it is the result neither of His love alone, nor yet of our virtue, but of both. “He chose us,” saith the Apostle; and He that chooseth, knoweth what it is that He chooseth. “In love,” he adds, “having foreordained us;” for virtue would never have saved any one, had there not been love. For tell me, what would Paul have profited, how would he have exhibited what he has exhibited, if God had not both called him from the beginning, and, in that He loved him, drawn him to Himself? But besides, His vouchsafing us so great privileges, was the effect of His love, not of our virtue. Because our being rendered virtuous, and believing, and coming nigh unto Him, even this again was the work of Him that called us Himself, and yet, notwithstanding, it is ours also. But that on our coming nigh unto Him, He should vouchsafe us so high privileges, as to bring us at once from a state of enmity, to the adoption of children, this is indeed the work of a really transcendent love.

+St John Chrysostom, First Homely on Ephesians, c. AD 390​

 

[cygnusx1]

There is no penalty for sin, at least not a judicial or forensic one. There are certainly consequences of sin. We do suffer under those, and so did Christ.

why do we suffer due to sin ? what is it about sin that results in anyone suffering ?

and here we have a denial of God as a Judge , or is He still a Judge who acts without justice ........ an injudicial Judge....... who has nothing to say about sin .

and those consequences of sin are they good or bad ?

Is it not true that you are attempting to naturalise the consequesnces of sin in order to keep the negative aspects (as you see them) of sin independant of Jehovah?

as if to say sin is followed by suffering and death , these are nothing to do with God , but are the "natural consequences of sin" ........


you say there is no penalty for sin ............ God said "the soul that sins shall surely die" that seems much more like a judicial sentence given by God than any attempt at granting natural consequences sovereignty!


and God's Law , given by God proclaims a curse on anyone who fails to keep it in it's entirety!
Again that is not a natural consequence acting independantly of Jehovah (there are no such powers)
but proceeds from the mouth of God .

 

[Philip]

why do we suffer due to sin ? what is it about sin that results in anyone suffering ?

Sin is separation from God and His life-giving energies. How can that not result in suffering?

and here we have a denial of God as a Judge , or is He still a Judge who acts without justice ........ an injudicial Judge....... who has nothing to say about sin .

Incorrect. I have not denied that God will judge us. I have never said that God 'has nothing to say about sin'. I have affirmed many times in this thread that God does take action against our sins. He offers mercy. He heals and helps those who will receive it. For those who refuse to repent, He brings an end to their sinning.

and those consequences of sin are they good or bad ?

Where is the eye-rolling smilie when you need it?

Is it not true that you are attempting to naturalise the consequesnces of sin in order to keep the negative aspects (as you see them) of sin independant of Jehovah?

I am not trying to change anything. I am stating how things are.

as if to say sin is followed by suffering and death , these are nothing to do with God , but are the "natural consequences of sin" ........

It certainly has something to do with God since sin is separation from God. However, read what Scriptures tell us:

Genesis 2:16-17
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."​

If you eat, you will die. Sounds like a natural consequence to me. God did not state 'If you eat, I will kill you.'

you say there is no penalty for sin ............ God said "the soul that sins shall surely die" that seems much more like a judicial sentence given by God

'The man who falls off the top of the Empire State building shall surely die.' Does that sound like a judicial sentence or a natural fact?

than any attempt at granting natural consequences sovereignty!

Acknowledging the natural consequences of sin no more grants those consequences sovereignty than acknowledging that a drop ball will fall is granting gravity sovereignity.

and God's Law , given by God proclaims a curse on anyone who fails to keep it in it's entirety!
Again that is not a natural consequence acting independantly of Jehovah (there are no such powers)
but proceeds from the mouth of God .

Do you care to point out a specific verse so that we may discuss it in context?

 

[cygnusx1]

we are seperated from God due to sin ...... this is not an accident , this is not by some natuarl force like gravity ..... this is a penalty sent by God onto our fallen race ..... "the soul that sins shall surely die"

Adam was dead (spiritualy) the day he ate the forbidden fruit ..... just as God had said he would be.

That is not a blessing , to be seperated from God is a curse , the curse is lifted through our Saviour.

 

[nobdysfool]

Sin is separation from God and His life-giving energies. How can that not result in suffering?

Did God say to Adam, "if you eat of the tree that is in the midst of the Garden, you shall surely be separated from Me and My life-giving energies"? NO!

He said "You shall surely die'?

Why do you deny this?

Incorrect. I have not denied that God will judge us. I have never said that God 'has nothing to say about sin'. I have affirmed many times in this thread that God does take action against our sins. He offers mercy. He heals and helps those who will receive it. For those who refuse to repent, He brings an end to their sinning..

Cute little euphemism for death. But it doesn't tell the whole story. They will be judged for their sins. They will be ultimately consigned to the Lake of Fire for their sins. They will be tormented forever for their sins.

It certainly has something to do with God since sin is separation from God.

Sin is disobedience to God which results in separation and death.

However, read what Scriptures tell us:

Genesis 2:16-17
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."​

If you eat, you will die. Sounds like a natural consequence to me. God did not state 'If you eat, I will kill you.'

Who stated the consequences for disobedience? Was it not God? And did He not follow it up with curses upon not only Adam and Eve, but also the ground and satan himself? Sin is much more than man choosing to separate himself from God, as you seem to want to redefine it. it is disobedience to God, an offense to God.

'The man who falls off the top of the Empire State building shall surely die.' Does that sound like a judicial sentence or a natural fact?

False comparison. We are not talking about violating natural laws, but disobeying a direct command of God.

Acknowledging the natural consequences of sin no more grants those consequences sovereignty than acknowledging that a drop ball will fall is granting gravity sovereignity.

Gravity is sovereign over you whether you want it to be or not. Sovereignty is not the issue. The issue is that God gave Adam one command, and Adam disobeyed it. The naturlal consequence of that was not just separation from God and death, but also the Wrath of God. God has made it clear, "the soul that sins shall die". Also that the wrath of God is kindled against all unrighteousness and sin, as well as those who commit sin. That is most certainly judicial and forensic in nature. To try to explain it any other way is ludicrous.