|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,213
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
9 registered members (TheophilusOne, dedication, daylily, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,639
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13588
06/14/05 10:55 AM
06/14/05 10:55 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom, what you are saying about Christus Victor is partly what modern theologians have said and partly your own opinions, but nothing of this was explained by Irenaeus or any other early writer. The part which the early writers emphasized fits both your view and mine - that’s my point. What differentiates us is what really happened at the cross. And in this, each one of us takes sides with either Anselm or Abelard. The moral influence theory says that, for grace to be really free and unmerited, a loving God must bear the burden of human sin without attaching conditions, such as having to pay off the devil, assuage insults, or exact fines for breaking Divine law. God's unconditional love is so powerfully revealed in the life and death of Jesus that it awakens within sinners a reciprocal response. And this is essentially what you preach. quote:
R: How could God relate to man if sin is repulsive to God? This was wrong.
T: God relates to man by healing him of sin.
It wasn’t only the sinner, because of his sinfulness, that couldn’t approach God without a Mediator, but God, because of His holiness, couldn’t approach the sinner without a Mediator.
quote:
T: Well Christ did it, and He was God. He forgave sinners without punishing them, or their sin. The punishment of sin is death, the second death, and Christ killed no one while on earth, yet He forgave sins.
Yes, because He Himself was going to suffer the punishment for the sins of these people.
quote:
You haven't answered my question, although I've asked it several times, at least thrice. That is, do you agree with me that God is not propitiated by Christ's sacrifice as spoken by Paul in Romans 3? At first you took issue with my representing your position as saying that God's wrath is propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, but now you seem to arguing in favor of it. So you have me confused.
Of course I have already answered your question. First, it must be clear that we are speaking of the Godhead’s being propitiated. Second, it depends on the meaning you give to propitiation. If by propitiation you mean Waggoner’s definition, no, I don’t agree with the concept he presents. If by propitiation you mean that God (the Godhead) is wroth against sin, and that He could not forgive the sinner without at the same time manifesting His wrath against sin, yes, this is my position. To ascribe one attribute to God as superior over another is to create an imbalanced God. God is perfectly balanced in His attributes. He is no more merciful and gracious than He is holy and righteous.
quote:
T: No, I think Ellen G. White was correct. The issues was not simply the law in Galations, but righteousness by faith.
I made that whole summary just to show that the issue of righteousness by faith in 1888 emerged from Galatians 3. ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif)
quote:
T: So you're saying that before 1888 Adventists preached a false Gospel? Under Paul's admonition, they should be accursed? Where is there any teaching in SDAism before 1888 that men are saved by any means other than by faith in Christ? I've often seen non-Adventist make this assertion against SDA's, but I've never seen proof.
Theoretically they believed in righteousness by faith, but not in practice. If they really believed in righteousness by faith, there would have been no opposition to Waggoner’s message. Looking back on the pre-1888 period, Mrs. White herself said that the "doctrine of justification by faith [had] been lost sight of" (Review and Herald, 13 Aug. 1889) and the churches were "dying for the want of teaching on the subject of righteousness by faith in Christ, and on kindred truths" (Gospel Workers, p. 301).
The early Adventists taught that perfect keeping of the Ten Commandment law is the condition of eternal life, which is true, but if you do not at the same time stress that this perfect keeping of the law is Christ's perfect obedience in place of yours (justification) and then covering yours (sanctification), you are preaching legalism.
quote:
You brought up the subject.
What I meant is that it's useless to debate again about the five points you mentioned because they were already extensively discussed in the thread about the covenants.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13589
06/15/05 02:16 AM
06/15/05 02:16 AM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
T: I'm going to answer this in two posts, as we have two different subjects going, which are unrelated, as far as I can tell, or if they are related, I don't remember how. R: Tom, what you are saying about Christus Victor is partly what modern theologians have said and partly your own opinions, but nothing of this was explained by Irenaeus or any other early writer. T: Of course the do. That's where the writiers got the viewpoint from, was from Iraneus and others. I quoted from a person who wrote from the Christus Victor perspective to answer your questions regarding that perspective. I wanted to show what it was about. I can quote from Iraneus and others if you would prefer. R: The part which the early writers emphasized fits both your view and mine - that’s my point. What differentiates us is what really happened at the cross. And in this, each one of us takes sides with either Anselm or Abelard. T: This isn't correct. The Christus Victor perspective is different than both Anselm and Abelard. It emphasizes that Christ's ministry as a whole -- life, death and resurrection -- defeated the powers of evil. You're wanting to conentrate on just the death of Christ, which is something Anslem and Abelard did, but not Christus Victor. What differs between us is not simply what happened on the cross, but what the perspective one should take on Christ's ministry as a whole. I believe the purpose of His ministry was to reveal God, and that He did this in all aspects of His ministry, although the cross was indeed the clearest revelation. R: The moral influence theory says that, for grace to be really free and unmerited, a loving God must bear the burden of human sin without attaching conditions, such as having to pay off the devil, assuage insults, or exact fines for breaking Divine law. God's unconditional love is so powerfully revealed in the life and death of Jesus that it awakens within sinners a reciprocal response. And this is essentially what you preach. T: The moral influence theory states that we are good be being good as Christ was. An essential part of it is the the love of God was revealed at the cross, and I agree with that one part (as I'm sure you do), however it lacks the broad perspective of Christus Victor, which I find in Scripture and the Spirit of Prophesy. That is, Christ's life, death and resurrection revealed the character of God (Iraneus would have used a phrase like "the reign of God" or something like that, I'll have to check, rather than "character of God". That God's character was really the focal point of the battle did not become clear until Ellen G. White, I don't think.) Old Rosangela: How could God relate to man if sin is repulsive to God? This was wrong. Old Tom: God relates to man by healing him of sin. R: It wasn’t only the sinner, because of his sinfulness, that couldn’t approach God without a Mediator, but God, because of His holiness, couldn’t approach the sinner without a Mediator. T: But God did do that! He did exactly that in the person of Jesus Christ. God doesn't need a mediator, man does. Christ is as much God as God the Father is, and this idea that God needs a mediator leads to Catholoicism, where Jesus is so holy, man cannot approach him, so you have Mary, and the saints and all sorts of stepping stones. Old Tom: Well Christ did it, and He was God. He forgave sinners without punishing them, or their sin. The punishment of sin is death, the second death, and Christ killed no one while on earth, yet He forgave sins. R: Yes, because He Himself was going to suffer the punishment for the sins of these people. T: He forgave before He suffered the punishment, and He never referred to the punishment when He forgave. If that were an essential element, you would think He would mention it. Something like, "I forgive you on the basis of my sacrifice" or "Father, forgive them, on the basis of my sacrifice, for they know not what they do." But that doesn't really make sense, does it, since the very thing Christ was asking God to forgive was their putting Him to death. At any rate, you assert that Christ only forgave because He would suffer the punishment of sin. Where does Christ say that? Old Tom: You haven't answered my question, although I've asked it several times, at least thrice. That is, do you agree with me that God is not propitiated by Christ's sacrifice as spoken by Paul in Romans 3? At first you took issue with my representing your position as saying that God's wrath is propitiated by Christ's sacrifice, but now you seem to arguing in favor of it. So you have me confused. R: Of course I have already answered your question. First, it must be clear that we are speaking of the Godhead’s being propitiated. T: That's not what you said at first. I can dig up the thread, maybe, if you want (it's back a ways). At first you were agreeing with me. When I quoted from Waggoner, you agreed with the quote, and thought it odd that I would think you thought differently than the Waggoner quote. R: Second, it depends on the meaning you give to propitiation. If by propitiation you mean Waggoner’s definition, no, I don’t agree with the concept he presents. T: Well you did before. You're entitled to change your mind, however, so that's fine. Perhaps you read it one way at first, and see it another way now. At any rate, thank you for being clear in answering my quesitons. You *disagree* with the concept that Waggoner is presenting (which is what I agree with). R: If by propitiation you mean that God (the Godhead) is wroth against sin, and that He could not forgive the sinner without at the same time manifesting His wrath against sin, yes, this is my position. T: This is exactly what Waggoner labeled as absurd, and to which you at first agreed. R: To ascribe one attribute to God as superior over another is to create an imbalanced God. God is perfectly balanced in His attributes. He is no more merciful and gracious than He is holy and righteous. T: These attributes aren't in conflict. He is merciful and gracious *because* He is holy and rightoues. quote:
And therefore will the LORD wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the LORD is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him. (Isa. 30:18)
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13590
06/15/05 02:34 AM
06/15/05 02:34 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
Tom,
1- Please understand my position. I don’t agree with the concept of propitiation that Waggoner proposes, that is, that God is angry with men, and agree with his assessment that this is absurd. But, if by propitiation it is meant that God is wroth against sin, and that He must punish sin while forgiving the sinner, that is my position.
(What I said I hadn't thought before was that propitiation involved the concept of wrath; but then, thinking about the original meaning of the word in Greek, I saw that this concept was really involved in the meaning of the word; after all, one cannot simply discard the original meaning of the word in Greek, as Waggoner is doing.)
2- What do you think: Is wrath against sin based on an attribute of God or not?
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13591
06/14/05 05:16 PM
06/14/05 05:16 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
R: 1- Please understand my position. I don’t agree with the concept of propitiation that Waggoner proposes, that is, that God is angry with men, and agree with his assessment that this is absurd. But, if by propitiation it is meant that God is wroth against sin, and that He must punish sin while forgiving the sinner, that is my position.
T: What you're proposing doesn't make any sense. Propitiation has to do with making right a relationship. God doesn't have a relationship with sin. God is not set right with sin, or sin with God. It is men which are set right with God. Either God or man is propitiated. Those are the two choices.
The idea of propitiation is, you're mad at me, so I get you a gift. Now you quit being made at me. You've been propitiated by my offering.
R: (What I said I hadn't thought before was that propitiation involved the concept of wrath; but then, thinking about the original meaning of the word in Greek, I saw that this concept was really involved in the meaning of the word; after all, one cannot simply discard the original meaning of the word in Greek, as Waggoner is doing.)
2- What do you think: Is wrath against sin based on an attribute of God or not?
T: Yes it is. It's based on the attribute of love. God loves us; sin is harmful to us; so God hates it.
One could also say it's based on the attribute of righteousness or justice. Sin is based on the principle of selfishness, and God's character is utterly against this principle. God's government is based on the principle of self-sacrificing love, so He is utterly against anything which differs from that principle. Because God is a just God, a righteous God, He hates that which is not right, good, just or righteous. Sin is evil. Therefore God hates it. So one could look at things that way as well.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13592
06/15/05 10:39 AM
06/15/05 10:39 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
1- quote:
T: What you're proposing doesn't make any sense. Propitiation has to do with making right a relationship. God doesn't have a relationship with sin. God is not set right with sin, or sin with God. It is men which are set right with God. Either God or man is propitiated. Those are the two choices.
Sin had interposed between God and man. On the cross Christ removed the barrier sin created, so that the relationship could be made right.
2- quote:
The idea of propitiation is, you're mad at me, so I get you a gift. Now you quit being made at me. You've been propitiated by my offering.
Greek dictionaries give the meaning of the word as propitiatory or expiatory gift, that is, a gift with the objective of appeasing wrath. There are two things to be noted here. First, if the meaning of the word really implies the element of wrath, it does not make sense to say that this refers to man’s wrath, neither have I ever seen any writer defend this viewpoint. The Bible speaks of man’s enmity and rebellion against God, but not of man’s wrath against God. Besides, hilasterion was used to designate the ark’s covering, and again there is no relationship between the ark’s covering and man’s wrath. So, if there is an idea of wrath implied here, it must refer to God’s wrath. The second thing to be taken into consideration is that the pagan meaning of a word cannot be compared to the biblical usage. In the pagan usage a gift is offered to turn the god’s wrath into mercy (wrath and mercy are mutable); in the biblical usage God’s wrath and mercy are immutable and God provides a means of being coherent, by manifesting both His wrath and His mercy.
3- OK, God hates sin. Therefore, God must manifest His wrath against sin. Could we say that God loves us more than He hates sin? No, we couldn’t, for God hates sin as much as He loves us. Now, if we sin, what happens?
a) God must forgive us because He loves us; and
b) God must manifest His wrath against sin because He hates sin.
If God doesn’t do (a) He will cease to be God. But if He doesn’t do (b), He will also cease to be God. So, how can He forgive us without at the same time manifesting His wrath against sin?
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13593
06/15/05 07:26 PM
06/15/05 07:26 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom: What you're proposing doesn't make any sense. Propitiation has to do with making right a relationship. God doesn't have a relationship with sin. God is not set right with sin, or sin with God. It is men which are set right with God. Either God or man is propitiated. Those are the two choices. R: Sin had interposed between God and man. On the cross Christ removed the barrier sin created, so that the relationship could be made right. T: Yes. The barrier is expressed here: quote:
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. (Col. 1:19-21)
The barrier is in our own mind, and that barrier is removed by the blood of His cross. When we believe the Good News about Christ, we are healed.
It is *we* who are propitiated by Christ's blood -- not God, and not sin, but us.
R: 2-
Old Tom:The idea of propitiation is, you're mad at me, so I get you a gift. Now you quit being made at me. You've been propitiated by my offering.
R: Greek dictionaries give the meaning of the word as propitiatory or expiatory gift, that is, a gift with the objective of appeasing wrath. There are two things to be noted here. First, if the meaning of the word really implies the element of wrath, it does not make sense to say that this refers to man’s wrath, neither have I ever seen any writer defend this viewpoint. The Bible speaks of man’s enmity and rebellion against God, but not of man’s wrath against God.
T: I'm seen several authors who have defended this point of view, and you are assuming your conclusion regarding wrath. If you assume that it is not God who is being propitiated, but man, it follows naturally that the wrath involved is man's wrath. Even if you take the view that the wrath is God's wrath against sin, the solution remains the same, which is to fix man, in whom alone is the problem. Man is fixed by fixing his mind, in which sin resides, and in which he is an enemy of God.
R: Besides, hilasterion was used to designate the ark’s covering, and again there is no relationship between the ark’s covering and man’s wrath. So, if there is an idea of wrath implied here, it must refer to God’s wrath. The second thing to be taken into consideration is that the pagan meaning of a word cannot be compared to the biblical usage. In the pagan usage a gift is offered to turn the god’s wrath into mercy (wrath and mercy are mutable); in the biblical usage God’s wrath and mercy are immutable and God provides a means of being coherent, by manifesting both His wrath and His mercy.
T: Words are words. There's some exceptions to this, but in general the Bible writers used words as they are normally used, the same as Ellen White wrote in normal everday English, not some sanatized prophetess version of it. Of course we would want to consider carefully how a given word is used by an author, and compare Scripture with Scripture, but there is no reason to assume a priori that any given word is being used in some unusual way not in accordance with the everyday use of language.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying God's mercy and wrath are immutable. They clearly are, unless you are speaking of God's attribute of character rather than His exercizing of mercy and wrath -- which usage would be in contradiction to the example you gave, which was referencing an exercizing of the mercy or wrath, not an attribute of character. God's wrath is exercized only upon those who refuse to respond to His grace. Also God constantly points out the His mercy is availabe for those who desire it. He has compassion on whom He will, as Romans puts it.
If you favor the translation "mercy seat" for "hilasterion" then the whole idea of propitiation may be a moot point. I found this on a discussion of "hilasterion"
quote:
Philo thought of the mercy seat as "symbolon tes hileo tou theou dunameos," "a symbol of the gracious power of God" (Mos. 2.96; cf. Fug. 100). Perhaps this shows that Philo traced the term hilasterion etymologically not to hilaskesthai (to propitiate or expiate) but to hileos, "gracious" or "merciful." http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/20000221/001666.html
This idea certainly fits in with the context; in the immediate context, in the context of the chapter, and of the book, where Paul makes the argument that God's rightouesness is demonstrated by Jesus Christ and reconciles those who have faith in Christ.
R: 3- OK, God hates sin. Therefore, God must manifest His wrath against sin. Could we say that God loves us more than He hates sin? No, we couldn’t, for God hates sin as much as He loves us.
T: These are just assumptions. There's no logical reasong that God must manifest His wrath against sin because He hates it. Neither is there any reason to assert that God hates sin as much as He loves us. I'm not arguing that what you wrote is false (although I think the second assertion is absurd -- of course God loves us more than He hates sin; He loves us so much He gave His Son on our behalf -- He didn't give us His Son because He hates sin), but that there's no logical basis for the assertions. You wrote "therefore" where no logical conclusion exists. The fact is that God's hatred against sin is constant, but He does not constantly exercize wrath against it.
R: Now, if we sin, what happens?
a) God must forgive us because He loves us; and
b) God must manifest His wrath against sin because He hates sin.
If God doesn’t do (a) He will cease to be God. But if He doesn’t do (b), He will also cease to be God. So, how can He forgive us without at the same time manifesting His wrath against sin?
T: When we sin:
1) God must save us from it, or it will kill us.
2) God must *not* manifest His wrath against it, or we will die.
If God doesn't do (1), we will cease to be. If He does the converse of (2), we will also cease to be. God will continue being God in any case. God doesn't *have* to forgive, but we need His forgiveness to live. It is our existence which is conditional, not God's. And the enemy is sin, not God or His wrath.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13594
06/15/05 08:51 PM
06/15/05 08:51 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
It is *we* who are propitiated by Christ's blood -- not God, and not sin, but us.
Isaiah 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear.
quote:
T: Words are words. There's some exceptions to this, but in general the Bible writers used words as they are normally used, the same as Ellen White wrote in normal everday English, not some sanatized prophetess version of it. Of course we would want to consider carefully how a given word is used by an author, and compare Scripture with Scripture, but there is no reason to assume a priori that any given word is being used in some unusual way not in accordance with the everyday use of language.
Tom, then you must believe that the word hades designates the part of the underworld where the souls of the dead are burning, and that the word tartaros designates the part of the underworld where the demons are bound, for this was the original meaning of these words. Believe it or not, these concepts are defended by many Christians.
quote:
God will continue being God in any case.
Since God is unchangeable, His character and attributes are unchangeable. God loves His creatures and hates sin. Saying that God does not always have to manifest His wrath against sin makes so much sense as saying that God does not always have to manifest His love toward His creatures. He has to do this because of His own nature, not because of any external factor. If God does not have to manifest His wrath against sin, then His manifestation of this wrath (either at the cross or at the last day) is completely arbitrary.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13595
06/15/05 11:30 PM
06/15/05 11:30 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom:It is *we* who are propitiated by Christ's blood -- not God, and not sin, but us. R: Isaiah 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear. T: In context the verses say: quote:
1 Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: 2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. 3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. 4 None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. (Isa 59:1-3)
The separation is caused by iniquity. The only solution is faith in Christ. Faith comes by hearing the Good News.
It is the revelation of Christ which sets us right with God. Apart from God we can do nothing but sin. It's not that God won't heal us, but if we refuse to respond to Him, what can He do? Will He force us against our will?
God so loved the world that He gave His Son. God needs no healing, no help, no propitiation, no nothing. It is we who are in need of everything, and out of mercy God has given us what we need, which is Christ.
Old Tom: Words are words. There's some exceptions to this, but in general the Bible writers used words as they are normally used, the same as Ellen White wrote in normal everday English, not some sanatized prophetess version of it. Of course we would want to consider carefully how a given word is used by an author, and compare Scripture with Scripture, but there is no reason to assume a priori that any given word is being used in some unusual way not in accordance with the everyday use of language.
R: Tom, then you must believe that the word hades designates the part of the underworld where the souls of the dead are burning, and that the word tartaros designates the part of the underworld where the demons are bound, for this was the original meaning of these words. Believe it or not, these concepts are defended by many Christians.
T: Did you notice the "in general" in my quote? I hope so. What you've written here in no way follows from what I wrote. Inspired writers use words in general (Note, "in general") the same way non-inspired writers do. If they didn't, communication would be impossible.
Old Tom:God will continue being God in any case.
R: Since God is unchangeable, His character and attributes are unchangeable. God loves His creatures and hates sin. Saying that God does not always have to manifest His wrath against sin makes so much sense as saying that God does not always have to manifest His love toward His creatures.
T: It's obvious that God doesn't always manifest His wrath against sin. God became flesh and lived among us. Was Jesus always manifesting His wrath against sin?
R: He has to do this because of His own nature, not because of any external factor. If God does not have to manifest His wrath against sin, then His manifestation of this wrath (either at the cross or at the last day) is completely arbitrary.
T: God manifests His wrath only when His Spirit has been so resisted that no other appeals would accomplish anything but cause needless pain to His children.
quote:
We cannot know how much we owe to Christ for the peace and protection which we enjoy. It is the restraining power of God that prevents mankind from passing fully under the control of Satan. The disobedient and unthankful have great reason for gratitude for God's mercy and long-suffering in holding in check the cruel, malignant power of the evil one. But when men pass the limits of divine forbearance, that restraint is removed. God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown. Every ray of light rejected, every warning despised or unheeded, every passion indulged, every transgression of the law of God, is a seed sown which yields its unfailing harvest. The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is at last withdrawn from the sinner, and then there is left no power to control the evil passions of the soul, and no protection from the malice and enmity of Satan. The destruction of Jerusalem is a fearful and solemn warning to all who are trifling with the offers of divine grace and resisting the pleadings of divine mercy. Never was there given a more decisive testimony to God's hatred of sin and to the certain punishment that will fall upon the guilty. (GC 36)
This explains the principle. God's wrath, which is His giving the wicked over to the results of their choice, is only manifested "at last" after the Spirit has been "persistently resisted."
Again, it's obvious from the life of Christ that God does not always manifest His wrath against sin. God forgives whenever possible. Wrath is only a last resort when every option has failed. Even with Satan we see the same principle at work. Satan sinned against God, rebelling and lying, for a long time. Yet God bore with Him patiently, convincing him of his error, so that many times Satan was ready to admit his error. But he refused to do so, and eventually he hardened his heart to such an extent, it was no longer possible for him to be restored.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13596
06/16/05 10:35 AM
06/16/05 10:35 AM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
quote:
Inspired writers use words in general (Note, "in general") the same way non-inspired writers do. If they didn't, communication would be impossible.
What I’m saying is that we must be careful how we interpret specific religious terms imported from paganism.
quote:
T: God manifests His wrath only when His Spirit has been so resisted that no other appeals would accomplish anything but cause needless pain to His children.
This has to do with the moment when God manifests His wrath, not with the reason why God manifests His wrath. Does God manifest His wrath against sin because of sin itself or because of man? I believe that God manifests His wrath against sin because of sin, and this has nothing to do with man’s response to the work of the Holy Spirit. Because of His mercy for man, God postponed the manifestation of His wrath against sin, but He will manifest His wrath against all the sins which were committed, from the first one in heaven to the last one on earth. And this has nothing to do with man or his response to the gospel, but with His own nature and the nature of sin. So it does not make sense to say that God will manifest His wrath only for the sins of the wicked and not for the sins of the righteous.
|
|
|
Re: Destruction of the wicked
#13597
06/16/05 08:22 PM
06/16/05 08:22 PM
|
OP
Active Member 2012
14500+ Member
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,795
Lawrence, Kansas
|
|
Old Tom:Inspired writers use words in general (Note, "in general") the same way non-inspired writers do. If they didn't, communication would be impossible. R: What I’m saying is that we must be careful how we interpret specific religious terms imported from paganism. T: What I wrote was that in general inspired writers use words the same way everybody does. You took exception to this. I don't know why. It's obviously true. Regarding the specific word we were discussing, I wrote: quote:
If you favor the translation "mercy seat" for "hilasterion" then the whole idea of propitiation may be a moot point. I found this on a discussion of "hilasterion"
Philo thought of the mercy seat as "symbolon tes hileo tou theou dunameos," "a symbol of the gracious power of God" (Mos. 2.96; cf. Fug. 100). Perhaps this shows that Philo traced the term hilasterion etymologically not to hilaskesthai (to propitiate or expiate) but to hileos, "gracious" or "merciful." http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/corpus-paul/20000221/001666.html
This idea certainly fits in with the context; in the immediate context, in the context of the chapter, and of the book, where Paul makes the argument that God's rightouesness is demonstrated by Jesus Christ and reconciles those who have faith in Christ.
If you'd like to comment on this, I'd be interested.
Old Tom: God manifests His wrath only when His Spirit has been so resisted that no other appeals would accomplish anything but cause needless pain to His children.
R: This has to do with the moment when God manifests His wrath, not with the reason why God manifests His wrath.
T: You wrote:
quote:
Saying that God does not always have to manifest His wrath against sin makes so much sense as saying that God does not always have to manifest His love toward His creatures.
This is not discussing reason, but time. It talks about God "always" manisfesting love (which is true) and God "always" manifesting wrath (which isn't true).
R: Does God manifest His wrath against sin because of sin itself or because of man? I believe that God manifests His wrath against sin because of sin, and this has nothing to do with man’s response to the work of the Holy Spirit.
T: God gives man up to the result of his choice. God "delivers Him up". As He does this, He cries out, "How can I let you go?" He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. It is His strange act. He would save them if He could, but they have unfitted themselves by a lifetime of resistance to the Holy Spirit, to the point that they form characters so out of harmony with God that He becomes to them a consuming fire. The light of the glory of God, which gives life to the righteous, slays the wicked.
R: Because of His mercy for man, God postponed the manifestation of His wrath against sin, but He will manifest His wrath against all the sins which were committed, from the first one in heaven to the last one on earth. And this has nothing to do with man or his response to the gospel, but with His own nature and the nature of sin.
T: If man responds to the gospel, then man is healed of sin, and there is no need to give man up to the results of his sin. Rather than the light of God's glory destroying him, it comforts him -- it gives him life. The result of sin will not occur where there's no sin. Get rid of the sin, and you get rid of the problem.
quote:
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8).
R: So it does not make sense to say that God will manifest His wrath only for the sins of the wicked and not for the sins of the righteous.
T: God manifest His wrath against sin for all sin, regardless of who committed it, in Christ. Christ was delivered up for us all. In legal language, there is no sin which can be committed for which Christ has not made satisfaction.
Away from the legal language, sin causes death, as the following makes clear:
quote:
The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36.
God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. (DA 764)
If one will allow oneself to be healed from sin, then one need not die. As the bite of sin was healed in those who looked to the bronze serpent and live, so those who look to He to whom the bronze serpent pointed are healed and live.
Sin brings death, as Christ brings life. Not arbitrarily, but due to their respective essence.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
