God's mercy and justice

[Guest]

todd wrote:

God wants us to look upon Christ's suffering and allow it to replace that suffering we are experiencing in our own hearts due to our own sin.

this is one of your statements that sounds good, but in real life doesnt seem to hold water. when a Christian sins, and asks forgiveness, we are not supposed to dwell on the sin. we are not to be tormented in our conscience. in fact, i doubt that many true christians who have a good understanding of the gospel are tormented by their conscience. most of us confess our sin, and move on. and its not really because we are looking to Christ's suffering on the cross as and "exchange" for our guilty conscience; rather its simply from the understanding that if i confess, then God is faithful and just to forgive me. our sins are removed- "they're on the ocean floor" (to quote a popular worship tune).

in other words, if I happen to sin, I dont say to myself: "I must now look to the cross and remember that Jesus suffered, so that i wont feel guilty about the sin i just committed." no, i simply confess, know that i am forgiven, and move on. now, of course, the reason i know i am forgiven is because i believe that Jesus died FOR my sins. that's the basis for the forgiveness. and that is different from saying that jesus suffered so that his suffering could be EXCHANGED for my guilty feelings. technically, if i have confessed, i shouldnt have any guilty feelings.

TK

[Guest]

todd wrote:

God wants us to look upon Christ's suffering and allow it to replace that suffering we are experiencing in our own hearts due to our own sin.

this is one of your statements that sounds good, but in real life doesnt seem to hold water. when a Christian sins, and asks forgiveness, we are not supposed to dwell on the sin. we are not to be tormented in our conscience. in fact, i doubt that many true christians who have a good understanding of the gospel are tormented by their conscience. most of us confess our sin, and move on.

TK,

I don't disagree with anything you have said here. My main point was referring to the act of initial conversion. Someone who is not a Christian is still carrying a burden of guilt through an accumulation of "sin debt" throughout their lifetime. When they are converted their conscience is made clean (if they truly believe).

For the Christian, who is practicing their faith, Christ is continually cleansing our conscience much as you described. (1 John 1:9)

Todd

[Guest]

To accuse Him of breaking one of His own commandments and murdering His own Son seems very unlikely to me.

Although I don't think that God murdered anyone, what do you do with Isaiah 53? What's your interpretation? (if you could show how you interpret it the way you do that would be good). It seems obvious from that passage that the Father had a very active role in what transpired.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief...

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied...

Who is the "He"???

Derek,

Since you have asked me this question several times I feel compelled to answer it....although I thought I already gave a sufficient answer.

God sent his Son into the world fully knowing (from the beginning) that the sinfulness of man would lead to the execution of Jesus. Since God knew that this would take place - even though God was not the perpetrator - the fact that He allowed it to happen yields sufficient cause for the wording in Isaiah.

God is "pleased" and "satisfied" with the reconciliation that occurs as a result of Christ's suffering. God takes no pleasure in the suffering itself.

Todd

[Guest]

emmet wrote back on page 2 or so:

And here Hicks articulates a demonstration of righteousness that is demonstrably unrighteous. The ungodly are unrighteous, and no manner of legal fiction will alter that fact, but Hicks does not blush to make God a liar. It's like Abraham Lincoln said: How many legs does a dog have, if you call its tail a leg? The answer is four. It doesn't matter what you call it: a tail is not a leg.

The problem with the world is not that God needs to get over human sinfulness - it's that humans need to get over their sinfulness, through repentance and becoming new creatures.

It's not necessarily a legal "fiction" if God declares that it is legal truth.

I will offer an analogy, although it may be imperfect. The law of the US says that when a person is injured due to the negligence of another, the injured party is entitled to damages in the form of money. Why? well, when someone is injured they are presumed to have sustained a "loss." this is easy to determine when it comes to medical bills and lost wages, but a little dicier when applied to "pain and suffering." How can cash "atone" for pain and suffering? it cant! (other than the fact that people seem to get better after they receive a settlement, which is a whole other story). one has nothing to do with the other. But the law of the land says that it does. however, the cash does not "heal" the person. so in a sense this is a legal fiction.

However, the idea that God sent an innocent person (jesus) to die for someone who is guilty, and that the guilty party is thereby declared "not guilty" is only a legal fiction if that is NOT what actually happens! In other words, if I am literally forgiven of my sins because I place my faith in Jesus, and that He died for my sins, then it is not a fiction.

TK

[Guest]

Hi Todd,

you wrote:

Christopher,

Yes, I do. But I am human. I prefer to believe that our God has such a great understanding of our frailties that He would only look upon him with pure love and desire reconciliation.

"....not willing that any would perish, but that all would come to repentance." (2 Pet 3:9)

I don't disagree that God has compassion and desires reconciliation of all men. But to say that sin against others is not also a direct offense to Him seems to go against what scripture reveals.

For example:

Matt 25:45-46
'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46 "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
NKJV

Acts 9:4-5
"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
NKJV

I would still hold that all sin is a direct offense to God (not just the human recipient) because it is in direct disobedience to the "weightier" (and I dare say universal) matters of His law (Justice, Mercy, Faithfulness) that are written into one's conscience.

[Guest]

I don't disagree that God has compassion and desires reconciliation of all men. But to say that sin against others is not also a direct offense to Him seems to go against what scripture reveals.

For example:

Matt 25:45-46
'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' 46 "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
NKJV

Acts 9:4-5
"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
NKJV

I would still hold that all sin is a direct offense to God (not just the human recipient) because it is in direct disobedience to the "weightier" (and I dare say universal) matters of His law (Justice, Mercy, Faithfulness) that are written into one's conscience.

Christopher,

Those scriptures support your position well. However, I think that the explanation that I gave in my "example" earlier addresses this issue that a sin against man is also a sin against God. Here again is part of that post.

Let's say that I am rude to my neighbor. This is sin. Two things happen. First, I have damaged my relationship with my neighbor and made him sad or upset. This can be considered a "sin debt" with my neighbor. It can be "paid back" if I act quickly and offer a sincere apology, but even then only part of the damage is repaired. The second thing that happens is that I offend my own conscience. I feel guilty. It can be said that a conscience is God at work in our heart. So to "offend" my conscience is akin to "offending" God.

To get the full explanation of what I am trying to convey it would be necessary to reread that post.

Todd

[Guest]

Here is a quote from Caleb F. Heppner that sounds a lot like what I was saying in my first post in this thread.

Robert Brinsmead, an Australian theologian, explains this concept in terms of God’s justice.
“God’s justice,” he writes, “ is based on God being true to what he promised in his gracious covenant. If God is to be just, then he must be true to his commitment to help and to save wretched, undeserving people. This biblical idea of justice, first presented in the Old Testament, is beautiful and powerful in its simplicity. Nevertheless, Western theology insists that justice must somehow be related to what a person deserves. In order to preserve this supposed justice of God, Western theology has had to resort to legal manipulation in an act of atonement in which God is forced to respect the principle of distributive justice.” 16

Justice which is distributive (i.e. giving to everyone what is due) and which is the opposite of mercy, inevitably becomes equated with God’s act of punishing people for their sins. If forgiveness is extended to them, it is only because other punishment fell on Jesus as the substitutionary victim. What fell on Christ is called “justice” (according to the traditional interpretation of Romans 3:25,26), while the pardon granted the believer is called “mercy.” This is the classical Latin theory of the atonement. It reinforces the idea that God’s justice is primarily punitive.

When Paul writes about the good news of a justice which bypasses the law altogether, a justice which is grounded in a promise given before the law,17 he is faithful to the teaching of Jesus. When Jesus preached about the good news of the kingdom, Jesus spoke about a divine justice that refuses to conform to the canons of legal justice. His parables teach us that love and grace do the surprising, “foolish” and daring things—such as the employer who rewards latecomers with a full day’s pay18 and the father who welcomes the prodigal as if he were a hero.19

The full text can be read here.

http://www.thepaulpage.com/Atonement.htm

Thanks to Mort Coyle for posting this link.

Todd

[_kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Homer,

Very tardy response here....

Emmet wrote: Quote: It is not necessary to view these statements as referring to immutable penalties; rather, they may be seen as warnings about the natural order of things. Sin naturally yields death - not as mere punishment, but as the result of withdrawing from life.

As for your second quotation, then: when one repents from sin, one has a new paymaster - and new wages, which are life.

And if your first quotation were an immutable law, then what room does that leave for substitution? For it states "you will surely die."


When Adam sinned, a death sentence was invoked on Adam and his posterity. As a result, all mankind faces suffering and death. Additionally, as a result of our own sins, we all face a second death, "the lake of fire".

If this is so, then Jesus as a descendant of Adam had a death sentence upon him as well.

But of course this is not so. "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Jesus, by His death and resurrection, has overcome the result of Adam's sin. All will be resurrected to life, but then the second death awaits. Through faith in Christ, in what He accomplished, we can escape the second death.

So if we have undergone the first death, serving the (putative) death sentence, then after resurrection what have we to be saved from? Our sentence has been served - and not by Jesus.

Our works procure nothing but serve as proof we are part of "The Vine". "Apart from Me, you can do nothing."

Funny how our works can be so powerful as to damn us, but so effete as to "procure nothing" to our benefit.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[edited once to provide the book & verse reference]

[_kaufmannphillips]

Hi, TK,

Again, a very tardy response here....

kaufmannphillips: And here Hicks articulates a demonstration of righteousness that is demonstrably unrighteous. The ungodly are unrighteous, and no manner of legal fiction will alter that fact, but Hicks does not blush to make God a liar. It's like Abraham Lincoln said: How many legs does a dog have, if you call its tail a leg? The answer is four. It doesn't matter what you call it: a tail is not a leg.

The problem with the world is not that God needs to get over human sinfulness - it's that humans need to get over their sinfulness, through repentance and becoming new creatures.


TK: It's not necessarily a legal "fiction" if God declares that it is legal truth.

I will offer an analogy, although it may be imperfect. The law of the US says that when a person is injured due to the negligence of another, the injured party is entitled to damages in the form of money. Why? well, when someone is injured they are presumed to have sustained a "loss." this is easy to determine when it comes to medical bills and lost wages, but a little dicier when applied to "pain and suffering." How can cash "atone" for pain and suffering? it cant! (other than the fact that people seem to get better after they receive a settlement, which is a whole other story). one has nothing to do with the other. But the law of the land says that it does. however, the cash does not "heal" the person. so in a sense this is a legal fiction.

However, the idea that God sent an innocent person (jesus) to die for someone who is guilty, and that the guilty party is thereby declared "not guilty" is only a legal fiction if that is NOT what actually happens! In other words, if I am literally forgiven of my sins because I place my faith in Jesus, and that He died for my sins, then it is not a fiction.

"It's not necessarily a legal "fiction" if God declares that it is legal truth."

It is a legal fiction if it is not an actual truth.

Being declared "guilty" or "not guilty" is a secondary problem; the primary problem is whether or not a person actually is righteous. And for status of guilt to be truthfully declared, it must correspond to actuality, not fiction: "The soul that sins - it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezekiel 18:20). Any declaration of a person to be what they actually are not is fictitious.


In the case of your analogy, the pain and suffering have been acknowledged by the court, but they have not been solved by cash payment. If they could be solved, then there would be no call for payment, but rather for the solution.

In the case of divine justice, legal fiction does not solve the problem of sin - and sin is a problem that can and must be solved. Indeed, sin will be resolved in actuality, either through the discontinuance of the sin or the discontinuance of the sinner.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

In the case of divine justice, legal fiction does not solve the problem of sin - and sin is a problem that can and must be solved. Indeed, sin will be resolved in actuality, either through the discontinuance of the sin or the discontinuance of the sinner.

Emmet,

I'm curious about this statement. When you say, "the discontinuance of the sinner," by what means are you referring? Is it (1) physical death, (2) annihilation of the soul after physical death, or (3) something else? Or did I misunderstand you altogether?

Todd