I only interpreted Christ words. He told us that if we forgive we will be forgiven and that we are judged by the same criteria that we judge others. If Jesus set it up that way why would you think that because I believe Jesus that I think I’m like the Most High? If you build straw men it is easy to tear them down. If you deal with the text it makes much more sense.



So how does Christ punish the sinner? According to you all Christ would have to do is leave the sinner alone. I agree! There is no necessity for God to cast anyone into an ocean of fire to eliminate sin and unrepentant sinners. If God has to do something to destroy sin then sin is not lethal, but an alternate life style that God doesn’t approve of.



I don’t think that the unrepentant sinners in the end will die from a broken heart because God leaves them. They can't wait to get out of His presence. I think they will turn on each other in desperation and anger. They will destroy themselves proving that God was right when He said that the wages of sin is death.


If God the Father judges no man then are you saying that it is Christ who pronounces judgment and decides what our punishment is?

If so then Christ’s words that I quoted take on a very special significance. He said that we judge ourselves by the way we judge others and that we are forgiven if we forgive others. In another place He said that light came into the world and that the light was the light of the world, but some men preferred darkness. Didn’t Jesus teach that we judge ourselves by the way we accept or reject Jesus’ revelation of the Father?

Jesus said in John 17:3 that to know God was eternal life and it is clear from the scriptures that the purpose of Christ’s mission on earth was to reveal the Father so that men would see His love and be reconciled to Him. So wouldn’t a rejection of Christ’s revelation of the Father determine our judgment? And wouldn’t God’s presence withdrawing from those who rejected Jesus be their punishment?

scott

Arnold, there's more to what Jesus taught!:



also



It's true Jesus taught the Father will not judge us, but He *also* taught that He will not judge us. Our judgment is not an arbitrary thing that God, or Jesus, does to us because of His sovereignty, but we pronounce judgment against ourselves according to how we have responded to Jesus' words, which is simply the truth.

To put is simply, sin is deadly, and we need to respond to the love of God reveled by Jesus Christ to be healed from its deadly effects. These are the words of Christ, words of truth, which He spoke. He revealed the Father. This was His whole mission, the revelation of the Father, given that we might be set right with God. If we open our hearts and respond, we will be saved (healed). If we refuse, we will be lost, not because God arbitrarily pronounces something against us, or does something bad to us, but because by rejecting His salvation (healing) which comes by way of responding to the revelation of God's character (the whole purpose of His mission) we shut ourselves off from the grace of God which alone can save us.

Amen Tom!

And how about this famous quote from Jesus: "God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world, through Him, might be saved."
1) God doesn't judge us or condemn us.
2) God left all judgment to the Son.
3) Jesus doesn't judge us.
4) Jesus' words judge us by the way we either accept or reject Him.

It sounds to me that we better be pretty sure we know what it means to believe Jesus' gospel. Jesus' words are very important for our salvation and since we have established that His main purpose in coming was to reveal the Father I would say we better accept His revelation of the Father.

It is sad that many still choose the Papal/Calvinist view of the atonement rather than what Jesus taught was the purpose of His coming and dying.

scott


scott

sorry, I must have double posted!

I'm sorry, but in my mind, you are making it way to complex and complicated. It seems so simple and clear to me....the Bible gives the definition of the 2nd Death and tells us clearly what kind of people will die that death. It honestly seems blasphemous to me, to say that Christ died the 2nd Death.

1.Is it blasphemous to say that Christ was made to be sin for us? Isn't that a much stronger statement than saying that Christ tasted death for us? Or that He suffered the death that was ours?

2.Scripture tells us He was "numbered among the transgressors." He died a shameful death, the death of one accursed of God, even the death of the cross. This also sounded like blasphemy to those who heard it. It was the "scandal" of the cross.

3.It's true that Christ didn't "die" the second death, which is a death without resurrection, but He "tasted" it, He "suffered" it.

From the SOP, the last few chapters of the chapter "It Is Finished" (page 764) deal with this. These paragraphs makes no sense if Christ's death was not connected with the destruction of the wicked. None at all. Why would she be talking about the destruction of the wicked in a chapter which is dealing with the meaning of Christ's death if Christ's death did not explain their destruction?

4.Where's the complication? Christ "suffered the death that was ours that we might live the life that was His." This seems simple. The idea is that if Christ had not suffered the death He did, we would have instead. What death would we have suffered? It has to be some death we don't ordinarily suffer, or else the sentence doesn't make any sense. What death can that be?

And you say that Jesus "did it at the cross and all during His life"? Jesus was separated from God at the cross and all during His life?

If you put your hand in a magnesium fire, who demands or makes sure that you get burned? Nobody has to demand or make sure of it. Regardless, your hand will get burned. Why? Because that's the way things are. And it will happen that way whether or not you believe it or agree with it.

In the final analysis, the death of the sinner depends on God's actions. If God separates from the sinner, he dies because of lack of life. If God comes into the presence of the sinner, he dies because God is a consuming fire to sin. That's just the way it is.

The bottom line is that God and sin cannot coexist. But sin and death always go together, just like God and life always go together. One must choose which one he wants to cling to.

I agree with several of your main points, Arnold. Especially the "that's the way things are" idea. I have a few questions, however.



Agreed up to here.



What one believes is a part of the way things are. That is, what happens to one includes what they believe. It's part of what makes things that are "the way they are" that way. E.g., the exclusion of the wicked from heaven is voluntary with themselves. They choose not to be there. Why? Because of what they believe.



I agree with the "that's the way it is" part, but it seems to me your conclusion as to who the death depends on is not correct.



This brings out that the death of the wicked is *not* dependent upon God's actions, but dependent upon the actions of the wicked. She makes this point half a dozen times in these paragraphs. This is why God is innocent of the charges Satan brought upon God. If God had "left" Satan and his followers to reap the full result of their sin, it would not have appeared that this was what? The "inevitable result of sin." It would have appeared, instead, that this was something which was a result of God's actions as opposed to their own. The death of Christ revealed the truth about sin and God. Sin causes death, not God.



This is true. But given that it is the wicked, and not God, who choose what they cling to, why would the death of the wicked depend upon God's actions? If death is the inevitable result of sin, and they choose sin, doesn't it follow that they are choosing death? God's actions are simply to allow the wicked to have what they have chosen.

Tammy,

I think you better check with Al on this one. To reject the penal paradigm is not a light thing.