Barclay was convinced (UR)

[RICHinCHRIST]

I don’t see sin as its own punishment 'necessarily' in this life.

I didn't mean to give the impression that I meant that sin's punishment is only in this life. I think sin can bring many punishments in this life, but I was not making that point when I said that sin could possibly bring its own punishment.

What I meant was that sin could spark a life-cycle (much like a bacterium could infect a person with cancer which can spread through their body). In that life-cycle, when it is matured, brings forth death. I think this 'death', metaphorically speaking, could continue on into the afterlife and be its own punishment. This is in contrast to the idea of God inflicting a specific punishment from Himself (to relieve His forgiveness issue with His enemies). If God requires me to forgive someone without a requirement that I take my anger out on someone else... why must I assume that God must take His anger out on someone else in order to forgive someone? This is a bizarre view of God's character, it seems to me. The Eastern Orthodox Church (and church fathers) have never seen the character of God in this way (and have the same Scriptures as us). It is the influence of Western Christian tradition and specifically penal substitution that makes us think this way. I'm hypothesizing that perhaps sin is bringing about its own repercussions in the afterlife (God is not involved in that process, but rather uses it to correct (UR), or alternatively to run its course off into annihilation (CI)). I don't think it's necessary to project God as having a selfish vindictive attitude about sin which makes God out to be someone who needs his anger satisfied by having a temper tantrum on someone. I wonder if God "losing his temper" (wrath) in the Bible is just an anthropomorphic way of saying that God is displeased (due to His nature). Was He unaware of what sinners would do? Did it catch Him off-guard? Is He petty enough to have a short fuse? I think it's possible that the infinite, omniscient, and self-sustaining nature of God might be more self-controlled than that. Perhaps 'wrath' in the Bible, or even many of God's dealings in the OT were anthropomorphic imagery... not to be taken to refer to His dealing with finite creatures in the afterlife.

And what is this wrath business about anyway? Did Paul not know that all God's punishments are loving correction? This word wrath (Grk. orge) speaks of vindictive anger. As in "vengeance is mine, I will repay". And Paul spoke of this wrath again and again. John the Baptist and John the Apostle too! The Holy Spirit should have washed their mouths out with soap.

The word orge can refer to "vindictive anger"... but what if it's anthropomorphic? If God doesn't vary like shifting shadows, or like a sundial (James 1:17), why must we think that God really has mood swings dependent on us puny little worms? Could this just be God trying to sympathize with us and reveal to us His opinions, or how He would react if He was a human? If God knew everything in advance, why must we assume these things would even anger God? (that is, if He created time in the beginning already foreseeing the end?) I guess we must side with either Anger without Love/Mercy (torture or punishment for the sake of punishment)... or Anger with Love/Mercy (corrective discipline).. how do you see God?

In Romans 1 (which you quoted), it says that the wrath of God "is revealed" from heaven against all of the sinfulness of man. That's present tense, and seems to be referring to God's "giving up" of people to commit immorality (1:26). He is showing his wrath by letting them fully do what they want without hindrance. That is a punishment in and of itself, and Paul says they received "in themselves' the penalty that was due them (1:27). He does go on to mention that they are storing up punishment for the day of judgment (rom. 2), but must we take this as God letting out His vindictive anger? Perhaps God is angry in a sense (because sin displeases Him and is contrary to His nature), but perhaps God is just letting sin run its punishing course (in this life and the next--if this is the case, then it could still be referred to as God's "wrath" even though it isn't God inflicting a punitive punishment but rather letting the law of cause and effect, which He put in place, take effect). The only question remaining is whether God is willing to use this punishment for a good redemptive end or if He desires to let it destroy the personality He originally intended to exist (even though He ultimately knew that that person would suffer that end anyway-- and after all, he could have killed the person in infancy and brought them into heaven if He foreknew these things! (or He could have not created them at all, since it wouldn't have mattered anyway)

I don't think God created the universe without knowing what sin could do. I believe He knew what the virus would do, even though He did not create it (since it is an alteration of His original intentions, or perhaps a void of them. In other words, sin is like a "black hole" or a "spiritual eraser" of sorts). So, I ask, what scenario would God want to create where He could be the most glorified in the midst of the intrusion of the enemy of sin? If God knew in advance that sin would bring about such a seemingly hopeless end for a majority of His creatures (which He could have well avoided in a number of ways), it leads us to question the character of God. Dave Hunt wrote a book about Calvinism entitled, "What Love is This?" Calvinism's biggest problem is that it distorts the character of God and makes us wonder if we could ever really willingly love a God who has such a distorted view of love Himself. I wonder if the views in opposition to UR, when critically examined, would not lead us to the same conclusions if we honestly assessed their roots and logical ends (in light, particularly, of God's foreknowledge and sovereignty 1) If God knew in advance (or purposely created this scenario!), why did He do it in the first place? 2) If He could have made it easier for man to believe (like He did for the Apostle Paul or any of the other apostles who didn't believe until they saw literal proof that Jesus was risen), then why did He purposefully choose to not reveal Himself more unquestionably but to a select few? If advocates of ET or CI give answers to these questions, I suspect that we might see that they are not far from the character of God revealed in double-predestination doctrine.

[TheEditor]

Greetings,

This thread gave me reason to revisit some thoughts I had written down years ago and thought I would share them. I had been making notes of various Bible characters and God's interaction with them. The following deals with Manasseh, King of Judah.

Manasseh took the throne at twelve years of age. His first order of business was to undo all the works that his father Hezekiah had performed in an effort to restore pure worship. Jeremiah and Ezra detail Manasseh's wickedness in the books of Second Kings and Second Chronicles respectively. Let us examine some.

Manasseh built up the high places. High places, were shrines or sites where idolatry was practiced. They were appointed with all of the things needed for false worship; altars, incense stands, sacred pillars, and graven images. Male and female prostitutes served at many of the high places. (1Ki 14:23, 24; Ho 4:13, 14) Oftentimes the high places were the setting of ceremonial prostitution and child sacrifice.—Isa. 57:5; Jer. 7:31; 19:5.

Mannaseh set up altars to the Baals; made the sacred poles, which were some sort of phallus whether of male or female genitalia is uncertain; He bowed down in worship of all the celestial bodies of heaven and served them. He practiced magic, sorcery, divination and all manner of spiritism. He hired spirit mediums and professional foretellers of events. The Scriptures tell us that he did on a grand scale what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, to offend him. He put the carved image (likely a phallic symbol) in the house of Jehovah where He had placed His holy name. He did worse‚ than the pagan nations that God had driven out before. (2 Kings 21:3-9; 2 Chron. 33:3-9) He also shed innocent blood in great quantity. (2 Kings 21:16) Jewish tradition holds that Manasseh had the prophet Isaiah "sawn asunder". --Heb. 11:37

How many of us know someone so evil? When was the last time your neighbor offered up his children in sacrifice to pagan deities? When was the last time your neighbor erected a large statue of a phallus in his front yard and then bowed down to it and worshiped it in some ceremonial sexual rite?

Yet, the Scriptures tell us that Jehovah acted merciful towards him. How? Sometime during the latter part of his reign, God rose up the Assyrians against Manasseh. They captured him, bound him up with copper fetters and threw him into prison at Babylon. Mercy? Justice, you might say, but mercy? How so?

Manasseh, perhaps more than any other man it could be argued, deserved to die. It was only by Jehovah's mercy that he was allowed to see the error of his way and repent, so as not to incur the wrath of God. This mercy shown to Manasseh was effective upon him because, as the account goes on to record, "As soon as it caused him distress, he humbled himself before Jehovah and softened the face of the God of his forefathers." (2 Chron. 33:10-12) One could reason, 'sure, as soon as things got tough, then he repents'. Yet, it was obviously a sincere repentance since God can read hearts and He restored Manasseh to the kingship. Also, once so restored, Manasseh took efficacious steps to remove the idols, phallic symbols and the like. Do any of us today personally know someone so wicked?

Put yourself in the place of an Israelite living then, say, one who knew what God required in the way of true worship. Would you perhaps be inclined to assume that Manasseh was a lost cause? That he deserved to die and would actually be better off dead? What about today? Why would God show greater mercy to one as willfully wicked as King Manasseh, yet be less inclined to do so today? One interesting side-thought: Whereas Manasseh did remove the many idols, etc. in an effort to restore pure worship, he did leave the 'high places' intact. The people were offering up sacrifices on the high places, though not to the Baals rather, to Jehovah. (2 Chron. 33:17)

Regards, Brenden.

[Ralph]

After reading JR’s latest post dated Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:05 pm, I am compelled to pray that Jesus will bring many people into the life of JR’s mother who will hug her and kiss her and weep with her and tell her over and over that they love her. I am weeping as I write this.

[Ian]

After RichinChrist mentioned the book "What love is this?" I went on Amazon and read some of the reviews. I found the following review very apt and thought I would copy/paste it here as it is, to my mind, a good base position to hold with regards to so many theological issues:
The Mystery Remains Unsolved, May 8, 2003
By
Tobie van der Westhuizen
This review is from: What Love Is This? Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God (Paperback)
I am not sure I agree with Spurgeon that the debate over God's sovereignty and man's free will was, or is `really healthy and ... done us all a vast amount of good.' (p22). When we try and make God into either a Calvinist or an Arminian we come precariously close to blasphemy, which is really the way the current debate is going. Arminians should realize that Calvinism would never have stood the test of time so well, nor would have boasted the likes of Jonathan Edwards, Knox, Witfield, Spurgeon, Loyd Jones, Schaeffer, Packer, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur and many others, if there were not something fundamentally, uniquely and authentically Christian about it. At the same time Calvinists should realize that you cannot blame any sincere Christian for recoiling in horror from statements like `God created the reprobate for the day of judgment' and `God has only a sovereign hatred for the non-elect'.

Clearly we are dealing with a great and mysterious truth that refuses to subject itself to the logic of the space-time capsule. To systematically work ourselves into a dark background containing predetermined lists of names, and to emerge with a clinical system of thought cut loose from God's saving acts in Jesus Christ, expressed in hypotheses such as limited atonement and double predestination, is every step of the way as bad as the folly of decisional regeneration by which God is reduced to the status of the cosmic butler, and salvation to a sovereign choice of man. Both these routes lead to nonsense, and all efforts to choose for one at the expense of the other equally so. Brunner has said it well in his comments on the debate: `Which is more important - light or vision? Stupid question! Vision and light belong together.'

The book is a noble effort by Dave Hunt to disarm Calvinism and its 5 points, and probably a useful perspective for those who wish to understand more about the debate. Of course, you dare not touch it unless you have read an equal amount of pages from the other side. I would recommend Pink's The Sovereignty of God, Sproul's Willing to Believe, and Piper's 5th chapter in The Pleasures of God, called The Pleasure of God in Election, which will bring you to roundabout 413 pages for Hunt's 415. (In the name of objectivity, remember.)

Once you've done that, and before you finally choose whose side you are on, take some time and meditate on 1 Cor 1:10-17, and 3:1-9. If, after this, you can still bear to call yourself a Calvinist or Arminian, go ahead and do so. If, however, you are convicted by the Word of God, take those truths that have warmed your heart whilst reading the books mentioned above, embrace them, but keep yourself from constructing a logically cohesive system in the name of someone other than Christ, and refrain from using them as additional fodder for your ecclesiastical cannon.


Barclay`s view is not discussed there of course, but I think the same applies.

[steve7150]

What do you think of what Paul said "the devil blinds the minds of unbelievers" (2nd Cor 4.4) and also the fact that the devil is rendered powerless right before unbelievers are sent into the lake of fire?



I think they were willingly blinded. Paul says they were without excuse:

Romans 1:18-19
New King James Version (NKJV)

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19. because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
What do you think of what Paul said "the devil blinds the minds of unbelievers" (2nd Cor 4.4) and also the fact that the devil is rendered powerless right before unbelievers are sent into the lake of fire?



I think they were willingly blinded. Paul says they were without excuse:

Romans 1:18-19
New King James Version (NKJV)

18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19. because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.











Willingly blinded? Paul did'nt say they were willingly blinded although he easily could have and the verse you quoted sounds like Paul is referring to those who the law was given to, a very small sampling of mankind indeed. Certainly many people do suppress the truth but many are also deceived by the darkness in this world and that's why i think free will is only apparent free will.

[jriccitelli]

I do like your posts Brenden and Rich, and thank you Steve7 for reading my post, and for your prayers Ralph and others.
Love certainly is redeeming and restorative, yet still Punishment does not 'have' to be Restorative as ‘love’ can be shown without 'having' to be restorative. My argument is that Jesus' suffering was not restorative to Jesus, His death was our 'punishment', and that it was ‘real wrath’ upon Him, the wrath on Jesus was not restorative.
I am opposed to UR because it declares for certain everyone will repent, and reduces the Cross to an example rather than a Holy sacrifice, which demands a response from mankind, and the bible stresses 'now' 'today' is the time to repent, or the 'real' wrath of God will be on mans own head.

So I will focus on Steve7 today, Homer is correct, but since I noticed you’ve been using this same argument since 2006, I will add to Homers response of 2 Corinthians 4:3-4;
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

They don’t believe the truth because they believe the lie.(I.e. If ‘I believe Joseph Smith is a prophet of God’ it will blind me to the truth of the Gospel. Many Jews could not accept Jesus due to ‘self’ righteousness, which is a lie)

"But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away… "(2 Corinthians 3:14-16)
It doesn’t read ‘the veil is taken away ‘before’ the person turns to the Lord’, or so that he can turn (Calvinism), rather it says “whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.”

This doesn’t have to be so mystical, it says here that their minds were ‘hardened’ so it seems the peoples ‘unbelief’ and ‘rejection’ of Gods repeated warnings and judgments ‘hardens’ them, as Gods ‘warnings’ hardened Pharaoh’s heart. (See; why I’m not a Calvinist)
(Jesus said to those who have ears, why do you not hear me?)

Satan blinds them with lies, they believe the lie rather than the truth. It’s not necessarily as mystical as it sounds, you believe a lie and you are in a sense blind to the truth. I talk to many Mormons who ‘want’ to believe Mormonism is true, they are not Jews (Although they think they are), their spiritual blindness is a result of their ‘will’ to ‘want’ to believe a lie. They might place family, jobs, pride, etc. as more important than truth.

Satan makes up lies, lies to accuse us and confuse us. That is predominantly what Satan does. These lies blind us to truth, but we don’t ‘have’ to believe the lies. We can love the truth, we 'can' 'choose' to pay attention;
“…that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10)

And what was Satan’s first lie to man, "You surely will not die!
I fear that believing the lie will blind us to Gods clear word “you will surely die”.
This seems to be why believing Universalism blinds us to Gods clear warnings of Death and terror, rather than seeing Gods Word as clear, and thus we nullify every warning in the bible.
Gods word is Literal, and in places symbolic of ‘something’ that ‘is’ very ‘real’.

“He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God”
(John 1:12)

[jriccitelli]

If you receive Him you receive the Truth, if you receive the truth, it’s the same as hearing and seeing, if you heed his Words He gives you more;
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are oppressed,19 To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord."… 21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4:18-21)
Did Jesus not do all the things above; was the recovery of sight only to a 'few' people back then?
Who ever will come to Him, those He will heal of the blindness that keeps them in darkness and oppression. That is your apparent 'free' will to do so.

"Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.12 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.14 "In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, 'You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; You will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;15 For the heart of this people has become dull, With their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes, Otherwise they would see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I would heal them.'16 "But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear…18 "Hear then the parable of the sower.19 "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road" (Matthew 13:11-18)

Everyone has ears, so Jesus gives more to those who ‘listen’, those who are good soil, who are ‘ready’ to ‘receive’ the word with gladness. I think they don’t understand because they are not ‘paying attention’, and they do not agree with Him having their own opinions, just as it is in many conversations and exchanges of thought.
Their heart has become dull (13:15), as in ‘unresponsive’, and note ‘And they have closed their eyes’ (15), it’s not as mystical as it is a problem of their ‘will’.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.25"Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. (John 5:24-25)

"You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.39"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.41 "I do not receive glory from men;42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves.43 "I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him.44 "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? (John 5:38)

God responds to those who show signs of putting aside their ‘own’ prejudices and ideas so that they can ‘truly’ hear His Word. It seems many Jews were not believing Moses Words, words they could of ‘seen’ had they just lay down their false notions and looked at Moses words without the misguiding of the Priests, rabbis, and their ‘own’ hearts.

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.47 "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (5:46)

What did Moses write? Moses wrote very clear and straight forward.
Prophetic? Sure. In Parables? No. Symbolic? Rarely, and when symbolism is used it is generally a type or comparison to something of ‘very similar’ in concept or nature; A shepherd is like a shepherd, God is like a rock, His teaching drops as the rain, but besides Moses ‘song’ I don’t see Moses using hardly any symbolism in his speech.
Moses is very literal; Death means death, destroy means destroy, love is love, anger is anger, etc.
So, what did Moses write?

"Then the LORD spoke to Moses, "Go down, warn the people, so that they do not break through to the LORD to gaze, and many of them perish.22"Also let the priests who come near to the LORD consecrate themselves, or else the LORD will break out against them."23 Moses said to the LORD, "The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai, for You warned us, saying, 'Set bounds about the mountain and consecrate it.'"24 Then the LORD said to him, "Go down and come up again, you and Aaron with you; but do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to the LORD, or He will break forth upon them." (Exodus 19:21-24)
"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Exodus 20:5-6)

"… He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;10 but repays those who hate Him to their faces, to destroy them; He will not delay with him who hates Him, He will repay him to his face.11"Therefore, you shall keep the commandment and the statutes and the judgments which I am commanding you today, to do them. (Deut 7:9-11)

And what is His command? That we believe, believe His Word, and the Word was God.
Do you believe what Moses wrote? Or do we just say it is 'symbolic', anthromorphic.
And what about the Prophets? Death is symbolic of death, Wrath is symbolic of wrath, that I can believe.
Otherwise eternal life is symbolic, of what, eternal life? I hope so.

[Paidion]

Brenden, thanks so much for your post concerning Manasseh, and how, after his doing all that evil, Yahweh (Jehovah) was able to lead him to repentance and to restore him. The history of wicked Manasseh demonstrates God's power, and what He is able to do without forcing the free will of man.

[TK]

Ian-

thanks for posting that review.

I have been reading a lot of Oswald Chambers lately (you can get his complete works on amazon pretty cheap) and it sounds like something he might write.

TK

[TK]

I am wondering-- if this thread gets to 100 pages will anyone have changed their view?

If anyone does-- please fess up!

Not that this is not all very interesting-- it is indeed.

TK