Atonement by firstborn888

[firstborn888]

Topic Split from "Penal Substitution & Universalism"

James,

I've always had difficulty with point number 3.

If the debt has been paid but I don't become a believer then I get punished - isn't that paying the debt twice?

Some people see it like Jesus leaving a bag of gold outside my front door such that I have to pick up the bag and take it to my creditor before the debt is paid. Yet the bible never describes that scenario - it always says that the debt has already been paid. That is more like Jesus taking the bag of gold to the house of my creditor and giving it to him.

This has always confused me

The reality of the situation is that nothing is being held against anyone by God. If anyone spends even 5 seconds in God's actual presence they will know this. Well, maybe 10 seconds for hard headed people.

Religion always has a formula you must follow to be made 'right'.

[james.goetz]

The reality of the situation is that nothing is being held against anyone by God. If anyone spends even 5 seconds in God's actual presence they will know this. Well, maybe 10 seconds for hard headed people.

Religion always has a formula you must follow to be made 'right'.

Hi Byron,

I want to make sure I understand you. Are you imply that God would never judge and punish any human for evil actions? And that everybody would understand that if they spent ten seconds in the actual presence of God?

[firstborn888]

The reality of the situation is that nothing is being held against anyone by God. If anyone spends even 5 seconds in God's actual presence they will know this. Well, maybe 10 seconds for hard headed people.

Religion always has a formula you must follow to be made 'right'.

Hi Byron,

I want to make sure I understand you. Are you imply that God would never judge and punish any human for evil actions? And that everybody would understand that if they spent ten seconds in the actual presence of God?

No, I'm not implying it - I'm stating it flat out. The carnal nature is already in it's state of death/anguish and cannot be reformed (it is not and cannot be subject to God's laws) and so the death sentence abides upon the egoic self. Religion seeks to reform the egoic man through reward/punishment. I'm not saying that it is not a useful tool to change behavior on some level, but it has nothing to do with living as one with God. Nothing - as in 'zero'.

Freedom from the blindness of the carnal nature through rebirth is not a reward for being good or for being sorry about being spiritually dead . It is the result of being raised (waking up) from among the dead.

Religion serves to try and keep us with at least one foot in the grave.

Jesus' perfect righteousness is 100% applied to us, that's why we are BLAMELESS in God's presence. "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love". If we continue to live under reward/punishment it is only because we don't see or accept things as they really are and are still living under a false identity and believe we are still expelled from paradise. That explains why some (most?) are not experiencing blamelessness in God's presence in Christ.

That which is born of God cannot sin - you know this.

Now, if you are missing the mark and walking under the curse of spiritual death then yes, it will appear that the 'wrath of God' is abiding on 'you'. But the reality is that you are just continuing to live under a system of death which is already condemned (by God).

Jesus (on the cross) is a picture (symbol) of the Son of Man/Son of God entrapped in a state of death - the crown of thorns = mental anguish, the nails in the hands = evil works, pierced heart = broken relationships, nails in feet = evil 'walk' (lifestyle) ect ect. Resurrection = being raised up from that death.

[Melchizedek]

And isn't it in Ephesians that we're told that alienation from God is in our minds? This is why repentance is necessary; a changing/ renewing of the mind, yes?

[james.goetz]

No, I'm not implying it - I'm stating it flat out.

Hi Byron,

I first compare all views of divine punishment and redemption to all of the relevant teachings in the New Testament (NT). And I'm not sure if you feel that your views [on divine punishment and redemption] are superior to various views of the NT writers or if your views work within doctrinal innerancy. And I suppose this could diverge enough from the original topic to get its own topic.

[firstborn888]

No, I'm not implying it - I'm stating it flat out.

Hi Byron,

I first compare all views of divine punishment and redemption to all of the relevant teachings in the New Testament (NT). And I'm not sure if you feel that your views [on divine punishment and redemption] are superior to various views of the NT writers or if your views work within doctrinal innerancy. And I suppose this could diverge enough from the original topic to get its own topic.

Thanks (as always) for your patient and kind spirit!

Only in the last year or so have I ever tried to articulate my views on this. Christian's I've known and worked with have such a wide range of views as to how God deals with them and others (real world and afterlife) and I must say a lot of the views are very disturbing and way outside of what I know to be God's core character.

I wish I had more time on my hands to develope this but basically most protestant 'faith alone' Christians feel that if they could react in perfect repentance after every sin that God would have no choice but to forgive them (because of 'the atonement') and if they fail to react in perfect repentance after every sin then God has no choice but to punish them (in spite of 'the atonement').

Is this really what having a new nature is about? I don't think so.

Of course when folks try and take all the new testament and balance all that is said the result is the 30 some odd thousand denominations we have today - so - good luck with that . But if that's the procedure you feel God expects then I understand that you (as an individual) must go with it.

I submit that oneness with God is far different from mainline penal substitution interpretations because there is regeneration involved which in essence is a rebirth of the sinless Son of God within us. At the same time I don't deny that we suffer tribulation and anguish when we (as total beings) 'work' evil and I don't deny that the tribulation and anguish comes by God's decree. However, if we can look beyond the surface we'll see the true dynamic of what's happening, that is, God Himself emerging in us, and a perfect love against which is no law or condemnation or blame or punishment whatsoever.

Almost all Christians live in a desperate cycle of pleasing God (and feeling great about it) then failing God (and feeling condemned/punished) and I understand that's all a natural part of the process but at some point I think we must look at the bottom line of what absolute justification is what absolute blamelessness is. We already know what sin and punishment is.

[james.goetz]

Hi Byron,

I'll get to this more on another day. And I've seen a similar problem with some people telling me that they had times in their life when they got saved every Sunday for months on end.

[firstborn888]

And isn't it in Ephesians that we're told that alienation from God is in our minds? This is why repentance is necessary; a changing/ renewing of the mind, yes?

Yes, our soul-ish consciousness is where alignment is needed and also where our perceptions of reality are filtered. The soul/mind is also (generally) very confident as to the correctness of what is perceived and programmed to react in particular ways. Supernatural revelation of God breaks the 'fallen' programming (ie: skewed perceptions).

I loved when someone reacted to the educational ads "The mind is a terrible thing to waste" and shortened it to "The mind is a terrible thing".

[TotalVictory]

The reality of the situation is that nothing is being held against anyone by God.

This is like Sweet Sweet music to my ears Firstborn!!!!
Like cool water from a deep well in a parched desert...

It seems the need for punitive punishment from God is very deeply ingrained in us. As if there is a vast and free floating pool of "guilt" which can be eradicated by killing the Son of God. The fact of Jesus death, and the way He died, does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that it is me who really really IS guilty. NO amount of substitution changes that FACT.
So, it must mean something else....

Again,

The reality of the situation is that nothing is being held against anyone by God!!!

Which fits so perfectly with the character of God as seen by UR...

TotalVictory
Bobx3

[firstborn888]

I've seen a similar problem with some people telling me that they had times in their life when they got saved every Sunday for months on end.

I've seen that too. It's very sad and also evidence of a lack of understanding about the nature of God and rebirth.

What I've run into is folks thinking they get sick because they have offended God or lost their jobs because God was angry with them and punishing them, that sort of thing.

At the root of it all is a belief that we are NOT really 'of God' and are separated from Him and still fighting for approval and acceptance. If we could understand that God and us are fighting a common enemy and that He is 100% for us just as He is 100% for righteousness and 100% for Jesus etc - it's a huge help. In fact - it's God who works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. And the glory then goes to God, even for our obedience.

[JasonPratt]

The reality of the situation is that nothing is being held against anyone by God. If anyone spends even 5 seconds in God's actual presence they will know this. Well, maybe 10 seconds for hard headed people.

I want to make sure I understand you. Are you imply that God would never judge and punish any human for evil actions? And that everybody would understand that if they spent ten seconds in the actual presence of God?

No, I'm not implying it - I'm stating it flat out.

Passing through; but I'm wondering if you understood what James was asking. Because you went on to affirm several times that God does in fact judge and punish humans for evil. Including in your very next sentence: "the death sentence abides upon the egoic self".

Again, "If we continue to live under reward/punishment" (like, um, God/Jesus keeps telling us about all through the Bible, including the final chapter of RevJohn where Jesus/God is coming quickly to reward every man according to his works... a different but related criticism of mine) this is only because we "believe we are still expelled from paradise." Which implies that at one time we were expelled from paradise. Because of sin, or for some amoral reason on God's part? I can hardly imagine you are saying the latter (and it wouldn't be any kind of comfort if you were!); the former though is judgment and punishment of some kind for sin by someone.

Again, "liv[ing] under a system of death which is already condemned by God" "missing the mark and walking under the curse of spiritual death" (especially in our "egoism") would seem to be more than merely "appear[ing] that the 'wrath of God' is abiding on 'you'". Wouldn't for consistency it be better to say that if we are missing the mark and appearing to walk under the apparent 'curse' of spiritual death, then of course it will appear that the 'wrath of God' is abiding on 'us', but the reality is that we are just continuing to live under a system of death which is only apparently already 'condemned' by God?

I don't disagree with much of the other things you wrote. But I think there are better ways to account for the wrath of God. Insofar as we insist on clinging to our sin, we share in the wrath of God against that sin. The wrath isn't ultimately against us, personally; but it's contingently against us, personally. (Contingent on God's love, which must reject our sins. As God puts it, through Isaiah, it is not that God has wrath against us; there is no wrath in Him. But if we insist on going out against Him with thorns and thistles, then He will burn up those thorns and thistles by going to war against us. But the aim is not to hopelessly destroy us. The final aim is that we shall cling to Him instead of to the thorns and thistles.)

Which may have been what you were trying to say all along.

[firstborn888]

The reality of the situation is that nothing is being held against anyone by God.

This is like Sweet Sweet music to my ears Firstborn!!!!
Like cool water from a deep well in a parched desert...

It seems the need for punitive punishment from God is very deeply ingrained in us.

It was like cool water to me as well

And I was always taught that God was just the opposite - keeping record of every infraction and only forgiving if we came to our senses and cried "sorry!".

God's perfect unconditional love is what leads us to great depths of repentance and humility. It is so humbling to be loved like that (once we are able to understand what is really happening there) and it will make you want to give up everything to be like Him.

[JeffA]

So Byron and Bobx3 would you say that your view is encapsulated in 2 Corinthians 5:19 ?

that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

This verse surely refers to a time before anyone had repented and believed. so by extension then God at this moment isn't counting mens sins against them (believers and non-believers alike).

If so - what is being punished both now or post mortem?

[JasonPratt]

So Byron and Bobx3 would you say that your view is encapsulated in 2 Corinthians 5:19 ?

that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

This verse surely refers to a time before anyone had repented and believed. so by extension then God at this moment isn't counting mens sins against them (believers and non-believers alike).

If so - what is being punished both now or post mortem?

As much as I dearly love that quote, too, and its universalistic surrounding contexts, I also note that back up in verses 9-11 of the same chapter, Paul exhorts: "This is why we are also ambitious, whether at home or away from home [i.e. with the Lord or not, in or out of the body], to be well pleasing to [the Lord]. For all of us must appear in front of the dais of Christ, that each should be repaid toward that which he practices through the body, whether good or bad."

There's that whole "the Lord is coming to pay back those according to their works" theme again. And not just good works either.

[firstborn888]

The reality of the situation is that nothing is being held against anyone by God. If anyone spends even 5 seconds in God's actual presence they will know this. Well, maybe 10 seconds for hard headed people.

No, I'm not implying it - I'm stating it flat out.

Passing through; but I'm wondering if you understood what James was asking. Because you went on to affirm several times that God does in fact judge and punish humans for evil. Including in your very next sentence: "the death sentence abides upon the egoic self".

"If I do that which I don't want to do - it is no longer I who does it but sin which dwells in me". My splitting hairs has to do with separating soul and spirit, joint and marrow, that sort of thing.

Again, "If we continue to live under reward/punishment" (like, um, God/Jesus keeps telling us about all through the Bible, including the final chapter of RevJohn where Jesus/God is coming quickly to reward every man according to his works... a different but related criticism of mine) this is only because we "believe we are still expelled from paradise." Which implies that at one time we were expelled from paradise. Because of sin, or for some amoral reason on God's part? I can hardly imagine you are saying the latter (and it wouldn't be any kind of comfort if you were!); the former though is judgment and punishment of some kind for sin by someone.

Again, "liv[ing] under a system of death which is already condemned by God" "missing the mark and walking under the curse of spiritual death" (especially in our "egoism") would seem to be more than merely "appear[ing] that the 'wrath of God' is abiding on 'you'". Wouldn't for consistency it be better to say that if we are missing the mark and appearing to walk under the apparent 'curse' of spiritual death, then of course it will appear that the 'wrath of God' is abiding on 'us', but the reality is that we are just continuing to live under a system of death which is only apparently already 'condemned' by God?

There is a HUGE difference between: seeing ourselves as separate from God and fighting to rid ourselves of sin lest terrible things happen to us (wrath/judgement) from an external angry Creator and: understanding that the hidden man of the heart - the reborn Christ in us (who actually IS us the real us) is in a process toward experientially achieving spiritual maturity.

If you identify 'yourself' AS the egoic self (which is a lie) then you will live under the first assumption, that you are not forgiven and that God is seething with wrath towards you and ready to whack you .

If you identify 'yourself' as the new man seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, made perfect and complete then you can escape the vicious cycle of reward/punishment (good and evil) into the Christ life (tree of life - oneness with God).

I don't disagree with much of the other things you wrote. But I think there are better ways to account for the wrath of God. Insofar as we insist on clinging to our sin, we share in the wrath of God against that sin. The wrath isn't ultimately against us, personally; but it's contingently against us, personally. (Contingent on God's love, which must reject our sins. As God puts it, through Isaiah, it is not that God has wrath against us; there is no wrath in Him. But if we insist on going out against Him with thorns and thistles, then He will burn up those thorns and thistles by going to war against us. But the aim is not to hopelessly destroy us. The final aim is that we shall cling to Him instead of to the thorns and thistles.)

Which may have been what you were trying to say all along.

You describe an aspect of what I'm saying, but really with the "that we shall cling to Him instead of to the thorns and thistles" we are back to a concept of a "free moral agent" floating around in free-will land and trying to learn to make good and right choices so that things can be right between us and God so that all the wrath and tribulation and anguish will stop being administered to us. I don't think that is the gospel, at all, and in fact denies the foundation rebirth (CREATED in righteousness and true holiness) and of Christ in us.

[james.goetz]

Here is a sum of some of my ideas on what I'll call the effects of the atonement. The New Testament (NT) teaches about a new covenant while faith in Jesus Christ is the condition for the covenant. The NT teaches this in several places such as John 3:16-18:

[16] For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:16-18 TNIV)

Life in the new covenant needs to avoid both condemnation and unbridled sin.

Let's look at 2 Corinthians 7:10 (TNIV), "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death."

New covenant believers might never reach moral perfection in earthly life, and when they sin, they need to repent with godly sorrow that leaves no regret/condemnation.

I also like Romans 5:8-9:

[8] But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. [9] Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! (Romans 5:8-9 TNIV)

There's categorical difference between life inside the new covenant versus life outside the covenant. And as an Evangelical Universalist, I believe that everybody will eventually experience life inside the covenant.

The NT teaches about God's wrath against and unbelievers and God's discipline of believers. Both are ultimately discipline leading to salvation while there's a categorical difference between the wrath against unbelievers and the discipline of believers. Also, inside or outside the new covenant, perception of condemnation may come from evil spirits.

[firstborn888]

Here is a sum of some of my ideas on what I'll call the effects of the atonement. The New Testament (NT) teaches about a new covenant while faith in Jesus Christ is the condition for the covenant. The NT teaches this in several places such as John 3:16-18:

[16] For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:16-18 TNIV)

Life in the new covenant needs to avoid both condemnation and unbridled sin.

"needs to avoid" ???
The verse you quoted says whoever believes is not condemned.
Is the spirit man reborn within you (who is the "son of God") going to stop believing in the Son of God? That doesn't make any sense. That which is born of God cannot sin. Please think this through.

Let's look at 2 Corinthians 7:10 (TNIV), "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death."

New covenant believers might never reach moral perfection in earthly life, and when they sin, they need to repent with godly sorrow that leaves no regret/condemnation.

Paul is speaking to babes who have proven they don't understand anything beyond the surface. Just like in Galations "My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you". Try and imagine what Paul would write to you personally if he were inspired to do so. Don't read every letter as if it were to you (it's not - you've been reading someone else's mail" ) So - if it speaks to you then that's where you are at, no problem. This does not mean it is 'absolute truth' .

I also like Romans 5:8-9:

[8] But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. [9] Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! (Romans 5:8-9 TNIV)

Yikes!!! "God's wrath" isn't in the original text!!! (theologians at work here ) Try "saved from 'agitation of the soul' though Him. Orge = anger, the natural disposition, temper, character
- movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion, anger

There's categorical difference between life inside the new covenant versus life outside the covenant. And as an Evangelical Universalist, I believe that everybody will eventually experience life inside the covenant.

The NT teaches about God's wrath against and unbelievers and God's discipline of believers. Both are ultimately discipline leading to salvation while there's a categorical difference between the wrath against unbelievers and the discipline of believers. Also, inside or outside the new covenant, perception of condemnation may come from evil spirits.

Either God is not imputing sin (as Jeff quoted) or He is. I think the case is "perception of condemnation may come from evil spirits".

[firstborn888]

So Byron and Bobx3 would you say that your view is encapsulated in 2 Corinthians 5:19 ?

that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Yes.

[james.goetz]

Hi Byron,

Here is a sum of some of my ideas on what I'll call the effects of the atonement. The New Testament (NT) teaches about a new covenant while faith in Jesus Christ is the condition for the covenant. The NT teaches this in several places such as John 3:16-18:

[16] For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:16-18 TNIV)

Life in the new covenant needs to avoid both condemnation and unbridled sin.

"needs to avoid" ???
The verse you quoted says whoever believes is not condemned.
Is the spirit man reborn within you (who is the "son of God") going to stop believing in the Son of God? That doesn't make any sense. That which is born of God cannot sin. Please think this through.

I've thoroughly thought this through, but I have yet to write a thorough book to explain it. I never said anything close to saying that a reborn spirit man would stop believing in the Son of God. But the Bible clearly teaches that born-again believers still struggle with a sin nature while that sin nature along with evil spirits make us fell that we're condemned along with unbelievers.

Let's look at 2 Corinthians 7:10 (TNIV), "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death."

New covenant believers might never reach moral perfection in earthly life, and when they sin, they need to repent with godly sorrow that leaves no regret/condemnation.

Paul is speaking to babes who have proven they don't understand anything beyond the surface. Just like in Galations "My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you". Try and imagine what Paul would write to you personally if he were inspired to do so. Don't read every letter as if it were to you (it's not - you've been reading someone else's mail" ) So - if it speaks to you then that's where you are at, no problem. This does not mean it is 'absolute truth' .

I'm unsure what you're teaching. Are you saying that some Christians have reached moral perfection before they died?

I also like Romans 5:8-9:

[8] But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. [9] Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! (Romans 5:8-9 TNIV)

Yikes!!! "God's wrath" isn't in the original text!!! (theologians at work here ) Try "saved from 'agitation of the soul' though Him. Orge = anger, the natural disposition, temper, character
- movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion, anger

Why are you saying '"God's wrath" isn't in the original text'? I have no idea what you're referencing.

There's categorical difference between life inside the new covenant versus life outside the covenant. And as an Evangelical Universalist, I believe that everybody will eventually experience life inside the covenant.

The NT teaches about God's wrath against and unbelievers and God's discipline of believers. Both are ultimately discipline leading to salvation while there's a categorical difference between the wrath against unbelievers and the discipline of believers. Also, inside or outside the new covenant, perception of condemnation may come from evil spirits.

Either God is not imputing sin (as Jeff quoted) or He is. I think the case is "perception of condemnation may come from evil spirits".

I have no idea what you mean by God is not imputing sin or God is imputing sin. Anyway, believers who struggle with condemnation struggle with a false perception of condemnation while unbelievers actually stand condemned before God until they genuinely believe.

[firstborn888]

Life in the new covenant needs to avoid both condemnation and unbridled sin.

I've thoroughly thought this through

Jim, you have a gift with practicality (as did Rabbi Shaul) but you are not looking at roots (AKA: causes). Behind all the give and take, the bend and break their are spiritual bottom lines which go beyond "We need to live right - amen?!!" (and everybody agrees with a shout of "amen!"). That is one level of reality which, as I said, is fine if that's where you are at. But at that stage you are not really discerning good and evil or separating the knowledge of good and evil from the tree of life.

"You are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ - who is your life shall appear, then you will also appear with Him in glory".
"for we know that the Messiah, who was raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has mastery over him. When He died, He died once and for all to sin's power. But now He lives, and He lives for God".
"In the same way, you too must continually consider yourselves dead as far as sin is concerned, but living for God through the Messiah Jesus".

Let's look at 2 Corinthians 7:10 (TNIV), "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death."

New covenant believers might never reach moral perfection in earthly life, and when they sin, they need to repent with godly sorrow that leaves no regret/condemnation.

One Corinthian 'believer' was sleeping with his stepmom. Again - to be practical - obviously people like that 'need' to repent - have a change of heart. But a change of heart requires an understanding, not that we need to try and feel sorry and do better - but that we consider ourselves dead as far as sin is concerned not to say "Oh dang - I really screwed up - I need to feel sorry and do better so I won't be condemned and get a spanking and have everybody mad and hurt and lives destroyed and have me displeasing God" etc etc.

I'm unsure what you're teaching. Are you saying that some Christians have reached moral perfection before they died?

"You are dead"

The 'truth' is we are dead and our life is hidden with Christ in God. If you are not able or comfortable with acknowledging that Jesus' perfection is 100% applied to you right now and you are complete in Him then I understand that. Jesus said "BE YE PERFECT" not "one day when you die you will be perfect like me". If we don't believe that we are dead and your life is (right now) hidden with Christ in God then we are living under an illusion of imperfection which can manifest and cause major shipwrecks - no doubt. But our perfection in Christ is still true. Understanding this will cause 'about faces' and 'changes of heart' galore. Godly sorry is that God REVEALS the truth of the matter to our hearts (that we are absolutely 100% forgiven and that He is holding absolutely nothing against us) and that's what allows the supernatural changes needed (ie: so our own hearts will stop condemn us and we will no longer be alienated in our minds)

I also like Romans 5:8-9:

[8] But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. [9] Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! (Romans 5:8-9 TNIV)

Yikes!!! "God's wrath" isn't in the original text!!! (theologians at work here ) Try "saved from 'agitation of the soul' though Him.
quote="james.goetz"] Why are you saying '"God's wrath" isn't in the original text'? I have no idea what you're referencing.

I am referencing the Greek text "pollw oun mallon dikaiwqentev nun en tw aimati autou swqhsomeqa di' autou apo thv orghv". No mention of God's wrath, just that we are saved from wrath (Greek: Orge = anger, the natural disposition, temper, character- movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion, anger)

There's categorical difference between life inside the new covenant versus life outside the covenant. And as an Evangelical Universalist, I believe that everybody will eventually experience life inside the covenant.

Then they will die to the egoic self and no longer identify with the lie and illusion that that is who they are.

Either God is not imputing sin (as Jeff quoted) or He is. I think the case is "perception of condemnation may come from evil spirits".

I have no idea what you mean by God is not imputing sin or God is imputing sin. Anyway, believers who struggle with condemnation struggle with a false perception of condemnation while unbelievers actually stand condemned before God until they genuinely believe.

James, I have a only fourth grade education (no joke - long story). But i did learn to read and when I received the knowledge of salvation (once I knew Jesus had already rescued me) I studied like a maniac. My retention of specific words though is not great and that's why I have to look up things over and over and I still CANNOT remember addresses (chapter and verse) but the concepts of the gospel were written by God into my heart and I (later) found them in scripture as confirmation but I read them differently than most because I see a different layer (mostly root spiritual activity). I'm not claiming to be special, just 'different'.

Since you guys here are so educated I assume you would know what imputed means in the Greek. I don't (and need to get back to work) but I do know that if you believe that God holds nothing against you (not easy!) then you are completely blameless because you are no longer alienated by the lie that God is somehow separate from you. That takes a BUNCH of faith and is a gift from God AND it transforms you because it is SO humbling as we are so helpless in our own strength. I am doing my part to plant seeds of faith concerning this so more people can be free through the knowledge of the good news, ie: We have a savior who saved us. We are saved (made whole). All else is superficial and a lie.

I have heard the traditional view a zillion times, and that's fine it has it's place. Does anything I'm sharing ring a bell with you? Or anyone (please chime in ). If not I will accept that maybe a seed or two will germinate someday. I certainly don't want to waste my time and other's time.

[JasonPratt]

Yikes!!! "God's wrath" isn't in the original text!!! (theologians at work here ) Try "saved from 'agitation of the soul' though Him. Orge = anger, the natural disposition, temper, character
- movement or agitation of the soul, impulse, desire, any violent emotion, anger

Why are you saying '"God's wrath" isn't in the original text'? I have no idea what you're referencing.

There are so few cases of "of God" being found in connection to {orge_} there, that it is virtually certain the phase/term {theou} isn't original to the text. The UBS committee doesn't even bother to comment on the question.

Unlike Rom 1:18 where it is virtually certain that the phrase {orge_ theou} is original to the text.

And Rom 2:5-10, where the "indignation" (orge_) being hoarded up by the hard and unrepentant hearts of at least some of Paul's readers (who believe the homosexual pagans back in chp 1 to be hopelessly condemned only to God's wrath, without regard to their own guilt before God) in the day of "indignation" to come, is the just judgment of God Who will (there's that phrase again!) be paying each one in accord with his acts: to those of faction and indeed stubborn to the truth yet persuaded to injustice, indignation and fury, affliction and distress on every human soul which is effecting evil, both of the Jew first and the Greek. There is no reasonable way to read the middle phrases ("indignation and fury, affliction and distress") except as what God is paying as judgment on those who effect evil. (To continue with the relevant negative-judgment statements in vv.11-12: "For there is no partiality with God; for whoever sinned without law [certainly the Jewish scriptures by context], shall also perish without law; and whoever sinned in law, through law will be judged.")

And again in 3:5-6, "Now, if our injustice is commending God's righteousness, what shall we declare? Not that God, that One bringing on indignation, is injust!--according to a man am I saying. [i.e. quoting someone he is opposing] May it not be being that!! Else how shall God be judging the world?" There would be no point to the comparison if God, in judging the world, was not bringing on His own indignation to "our injustice". Our unjust judging of God (from v.4) is symptomatic of our injustice, as is our indignation; God's indignation, however, is not unjust in His judgment of us in our injustice.

Again in 12:19, Paul exhorts his readers to be at peace with all mankind and not to be avenging ourselves but instead to be standing aside to indignation. (It's clearly a "but", {alla}; not a contextual guess at a "but" from {kai} or {de}.) Standing aside as to no indignation at all? No, "for it is written 'Vengeance is Mine! I will repay!' the Lord is saying."

(This is aside from Rom 9:22, where the point seems to be that God is taking personal responsibility for patiently bearing up vessels of wrath, such as the Jews and Gentiles, constituting Paul's congregation, have been toward one another by virtue of God's plan. Much of the thrust of chapters 1-11 is that Jews and Gentiles shouldn't be dissing one another as enemies of God while they are the righteous faithful ones, but that all who seek God are righteous and faithful, Jew and Gentile alike, and yet all have also fallen short and sinned against God.)

Admittedly, much of Paul's point to all this is that God's wrath, unlike human wrath, is aimed at restoration and reconciliation with the sinners, thus actually is just unlike the unjust wrath of human hate. (A point typically missed by Arm and Calv theologians, unless they dare to apply it to themselves perhaps. Not to those other sinners over there.) Nevertheless, while I don't necessarily disagree with FB's interpretation of the chp 5 reference to indignation, I can understand why "theologians" would "work" on the text here. Every other single place in Romans, talks about God's wrath (except maybe in chp 9 and even there God has to be taking responsibility for the human wrath). But on the other hand, the whole point of God's wrath everywhere else in Romans is to save us from what amounts to our hateful human wrath; so there is some ground for FB's interpretation of chp 5 this way (which doesn't immediately, or arguably in nearby context, refer to God's wrath per se.)


I'll have to gin up a reply to your most recent reply to me, FB, later. 'Work' work to do now.

Incidentally, "imputed" in Greek has nothing to do with "imputed" in English; the latter term may not even appear in Greek. It doesn't appear in Paul. The Pauline term occasionally translated "impute", is only "reckon" or "take into account".

(So for example God reckons or accounts Abraham's faithfulness as righteousness--because it was righteousness, and God fairly judged it as that, despite the fact that the Law had not yet been given. Rom 4:1-3ff, with topical lead-in from chp 3. Paul is here arguing against a Jewish notion that only those who do the Law of the Torah can claim righteousness from God. Abraham was righteous long before the giving of the Torah, and so could do no 'work' in 'keeping the Torah' per se, nor considered the wage of God a debt that was owed to himself for being faithful. Still he was righteous in his faithfulness to God, and God judges him and rewards him accordingly.)

I doubt this will hurt your argument in the least. I just thought you'd like to know.)

[firstborn888]

Incidentally, "imputed" in Greek has nothing to do with "imputed" in English; the latter term may not even appear in Greek. It doesn't appear in Paul. The Pauline term occasionally translated "impute", is only "reckon" or "take into account".

(So for example God reckons or accounts Abraham's faithfulness as righteousness--because it was righteousness, and God fairly judged it as that, despite the fact that the Law had not yet been given. Rom 4:1-3ff, with topical lead-in from chp 3. Paul is here arguing against a Jewish notion that only those who do the Law of the Torah can claim righteousness from God. Abraham was righteous long before the giving of the Torah, and so could do no 'work' in 'keeping the Torah' per se, nor considered the wage of God a debt that was owed to himself for being faithful. Still he was righteous in his faithfulness to God, and God judges him and rewards him accordingly.)

I doubt this will hurt your argument in the least. I just thought you'd like to know.)

Thanks for jumping in Jason. We all have various facets of the diamond that we see. I admit I love seeing progression beyond traditional orthodoxy. Having skimmed Jame's theistic evolution writings and having read your insights and openness to consider progressive revelatory thinking I am very impressed with the spirit and attitudes here.

I will endeavour to remain open to learn at all times but admit I roll my inward eyes a bit when I see the same old orthodoxy being parroted over and over. I really balk at the idea that we must consider the biblical Paul, James, Peter etc. to be some kind of spiritual supermen - I do NOT believe their understandings are anymore inspired than some later writings or even yours or mine. In fact I'm stunned to realize how many think that the canon was something God himself sealed, especially since Jesus spoke nothing of a perfect book to come. I understand that there is a certain safety in building upon a set foundation but also a certain deadness/stagnation in reading the surface 'facts' laid out in scripture and trying to base all our current activities and understandings of what the early church fathers understood it all to mean. Look where that got them for so many centuries!!!

Anyway, thanks again to all here for the conversation

[james.goetz]

Hi Byron,

I appreciate that you quoted many verses that encourage us to live a perfect Christian life. May I ask if you have ever met anybody who lives a perfect Christian life? Are you doing better than the Paul the apostle?

And my purpose of my quotes was to show that if Christians do sin, then they shouldn't feel condemnation but godly sorry, which are two completely different things.

[roofus]

Incidentally, "imputed" in Greek has nothing to do with "imputed" in English; the latter term may not even appear in Greek. It doesn't appear in Paul. The Pauline term occasionally translated "impute", is only "reckon" or "take into account".

(So for example God reckons or accounts Abraham's faithfulness as righteousness--because it was righteousness, and God fairly judged it as that, despite the fact that the Law had not yet been given. Rom 4:1-3ff, with topical lead-in from chp 3. Paul is here arguing against a Jewish notion that only those who do the Law of the Torah can claim righteousness from God. Abraham was righteous long before the giving of the Torah, and so could do no 'work' in 'keeping the Torah' per se, nor considered the wage of God a debt that was owed to himself for being faithful. Still he was righteous in his faithfulness to God, and God judges him and rewards him accordingly.)

I doubt this will hurt your argument in the least. I just thought you'd like to know.)

Thanks for jumping in Jason. We all have various facets of the diamond that we see. I admit I love seeing progression beyond traditional orthodoxy. Having skimmed Jame's theistic evolution writings and having read your insights and openness to consider progressive revelatory thinking I am very impressed with the spirit and attitudes here.

I will endeavour to remain open to learn at all times but admit I roll my inward eyes a bit when I see the same old orthodoxy being parroted over and over. I really balk at the idea that we must consider the biblical Paul, James, Peter etc. to be some kind of spiritual supermen - I do NOT believe their understandings are anymore inspired than some later writings or even yours or mine. In fact I'm stunned to realize how many think that the canon was something God himself sealed, especially since Jesus spoke nothing of a perfect book to come. I understand that there is a certain safety in building upon a set foundation but also a certain deadness/stagnation in reading the surface 'facts' laid out in scripture and trying to base all our current activities and understandings of what the early church fathers understood it all to mean. Look where that got them for so many centuries!!!

Anyway, thanks again to all here for the conversation

Didn't Jesus appoint apostles and give them a special authority?

[firstborn888]

Passing through; but I'm wondering if you understood what James was asking. Because you went on to affirm several times that God does in fact judge and punish humans for evil. Including in your very next sentence: "the death sentence abides upon the egoic self".

Hi Jason,
I realize I leap frogged over Jeff's question directly onto my favorite horse and began blazing down the trail

Anyway Jeff - thanks for sparking this thread with your question and I think your point could be that if PS took care of it (all wrath was poured on Jesus in the rest of mankind's place) then there should have been no more wrath from that time forward which is a great question (and of course a question which theologians have had thousands of years to come up with explanations for) .

[james.goetz]

Anyway Jeff - thanks for sparking this thread with your question and I think your point could be that if PS took care of it (all wrath was poured on Jesus in the rest of mankind's place) then there should have been no more wrath from that time forward which is a great question (and of course a question which theologians have had thousands of years to come up with explanations for) .

Many grammar school students and theologians see no big problem with this because the New Testament clearly teaches that the forgiveness and redemption is covenantal while faith is the condition for the covenant.

[firstborn888]

Hi Byron,

I appreciate that you quoted many verses that encourage us to live a perfect Christian life. May I ask if you have ever met anybody who lives a perfect Christian life? Are you doing better than the Paul the apostle?

And my purpose of my quotes was to show that if Christians do sin, then they shouldn't feel condemnation but godly sorry, which are two completely different things.

Hi James,
What you are saying has it's place but (as always) I am looking to discover the core nature of reality as opposed to the status quo understanding and surface meanings. As practical as it may be, at some point we need to progress in our understanding OR things will not improve here on planet earth.

A gospel that merely 'encourages' perfection is useless.

Regeneration is the heart of the good news. God is literally generated inside of us and He cannot sin. Ephesians 4:24 "and to put on the new self, created to be like God" or another trans "And that you put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness"

What I have seen put forth here and believe to be error (both here and in the Lucifer myth thread) is that all beings are free to learn and make choices to get better and eventually get things right. On a 'biblical inerrancy' site I'm a little taken aback by the apparent lack of understanding about new creatures in Christ, which are of Christ, which are in God (who is sinless). Am I just being too ethereal about these things? Would you mind addressing some of my points about this?

James, everything you are saying makes PERFECT sense and is very practical and can be found in scripture - yet on a deeper level it does contradict many other biblical teachings. Are we willing to dig in a bit?

That which is born of God cannot sin. But if any 'man' sin we have an advocate. Both of our views are right there and if you will take the time to dig in you will see that both our views are 'correct' but can only be so when viewed from vastly different perspectives (one good, Godly and the practical side, the other good Godly and the spiritual side).

*edit* Gosh James, when I re-read my post I realized: it's hard for me too share without coming off as if I think I'm super spiritual or something. I don't like to sound condescending and I do believe we all have our respective strengths and weaknesses. I'm just very focused in a couple of areas (a friend once commented "You're like a river which is a mile deep but only an inch wide" Anyway, thanks for putting up with my anti-orthodoxy even though I do believe my points here are scriptural. We may just be seeing different facets of the same diamond? Looking forward to your responses.

[Melchizedek]

Just thought I'd chime in briefly here to say that I do understand and follow what you're saying, Byron. Probably this is in large part due to the fact that a while back I was reading and listening to a lot of Gary Sigler, who makes many of the same points you do.

[firstborn888]

Didn't Jesus appoint apostles and give them a special authority?

Sorry roofus - didn't mean to ignore your question.

I really am not a good person to ask about that since I don't believe Jesus came to found the religion of Christianity. I do believe that there is a ton of inspiration in the bible though, even though the info in it has been greatly misinterpreted and abused.

[firstborn888]

Just thought I'd chime in briefly here to say that I do understand and follow what you're saying, Byron. Probably this is in large part due to the fact that a while back I was reading and listening to a lot of Gary Sigler, who makes many of the same points you do.

Thanks for chiming in. Sometimes I wonder if I'm speaking in a foreign language here or something

I've heard of Gary and I think I visited his site a couple of times last year. I'm curious enough now to go and read and listen some.

[auggybendoggy]

FB (old buddy),

What I have seen put forth here and believe to be error (both here and in the Lucifer myth thread) is that all beings are free to learn and make choices to get better and eventually get things right.

I would say people are free in a sense to learn. It is not as though God is NOT a teacher. It is not as though Jesus does not say "because you chose freely" and it is not as though it is he who is faithful to COMPLETE the work he BEGAN in us. How he accomplishes this is whats debated.

On a 'biblical inerrancy' site I'm a little taken aback by the apparent lack of understanding about new creatures in Christ, which are of Christ, which are in God (who is sinless). Am I just being too ethereal about these things? Would you mind addressing some of my points about this?

Is it possible to be a new creature and at the same time be transformed by the renewing of our mind? I would assume that these things are only pictoral or metaphorical BUT TRUE, and should not negate one or the other. In other words, it is true we are BEING transformed and it is true we are NEW CREATURES.

If it is true we are already made perfect then are you being transformed? Some people hold that God does not change the old man but kills him and gives life to the new man (new creature, born again). Again, too literal for me. The idea being presented I believe is God is saving you.

Aug

[firstborn888]

FB (old buddy),

What I have seen put forth here and believe to be error (both here and in the Lucifer myth thread) is that all beings are free to learn and make choices to get better and eventually get things right.

I would say people are free in a sense to learn. It is not as though God is NOT a teacher. It is not as though Jesus does not say "because you chose freely" and it is not as though it is he who is faithful to COMPLETE the work he BEGAN in us. How he accomplishes this is whats debated.

On a 'biblical inerrancy' site I'm a little taken aback by the apparent lack of understanding about new creatures in Christ, which are of Christ, which are in God (who is sinless). Am I just being too ethereal about these things? Would you mind addressing some of my points about this?

Is it possible to be a new creature and at the same time be transformed by the renewing of our mind? I would assume that these things are only pictoral or metaphorical BUT TRUE, and should not negate one or the other. In other words, it is true we are BEING transformed and it is true we are NEW CREATURES.

If it is true we are already made perfect then are you being transformed? Some people hold that God does not change the old man but kills him and gives life to the new man (new creature, born again). Again, too literal for me. The idea being presented I believe is God is saving you.

Aug

Hey Aug!
I had the exact thought while posting (about the death and life as presented by me possibly being too literal). I pretty much agree with everything you are saying above, but - the reason I am driving the other side home so hard is that Christians ('naturally') identify with the old man, egoic self, darkened thinking etc. etc. when the Bible clearly states that where the real substance is concerned (unseen spiritual world) that the old things are passed away and ALL things are become new, that we are complete in him, created unto good works, jointly seated with Christ (is there sin where Christ is seated?), we have been made pure as He is pure by the hope within us - the list goes on and on and on.

So, if we would simply REST in the facts (by faith) in what God has done in Christ, and accept them as true then (I believe) it is a huge step toward accurately representing God's core nature in the earth.

Really aug, these verses jumped out at me like lightening (from the beginning) and God placed on me no wrath or anger whatsoever (from the beginning) even though I was as rotten a person as they come (totally self absorbed druggie, lazy, homeless, loser). That perfect love and acceptance is what was so humbling because there was absolutely no doubt that it was 100% unmerited and undeserved.

In all my talk about anti-orthodoxy and not believing that Jesus came to establish a new religion called "Christianity" (I know real believers don't think that either) I want to make it very clear that Jesus is EVERYTHING to me - everything. Also, I have no delusions about the selfish nature of 'my' animated clay but I also see clearly that I don't live in subjection to those 'beggarly elements' AND I understand that it's NOT ME!!! I am crucified with Christ, never the less I live, yet not "I" but Christ lives in me. How much clearer can it be said???

[james.goetz]

Hi Byron,

I appreciate your concern for everybody to understand perfection in Christ.

What you are saying has it's place but (as always) I am looking to discover the core nature of reality as opposed to the status quo understanding and surface meanings. As practical as it may be, at some point we need to progress in our understanding OR things will not improve here on planet earth.

A gospel that merely 'encourages' perfection is useless.

Regeneration is the heart of the good news. God is literally generated inside of us and He cannot sin. Ephesians 4:24 "and to put on the new self, created to be like God" or another trans "And that you put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness"

What I have seen put forth here and believe to be error (both here and in the Lucifer myth thread) is that all beings are free to learn and make choices to get better and eventually get things right. On a 'biblical inerrancy' site I'm a little taken aback by the apparent lack of understanding about new creatures in Christ, which are of Christ, which are in God (who is sinless). Am I just being too ethereal about these things? Would you mind addressing some of my points about this?

Yes, you're being too ethereal about these things while you reject the complexity of the biblical position and frequently misrepresent my responses about biblical positions. I'll address some of your points in this post, as I've done in many other posts.

James, everything you are saying makes PERFECT sense and is very practical and can be found in scripture - yet on a deeper level it does contradict many other biblical teachings. Are we willing to dig in a bit?

I have been digging deeply into the complexities for many years.

That which is born of God cannot sin. But if any 'man' sin we have an advocate. Both of our views are right there and if you will take the time to dig in you will see that both our views are 'correct' but can only be so when viewed from vastly different perspectives (one good, Godly and the practical side, the other good Godly and the spiritual side).

*edit* Gosh James, when I re-read my post I realized: it's hard for me too share without coming off as if I think I'm super spiritual or something. I don't like to sound condescending and I do believe we all have our respective strengths and weaknesses. I'm just very focused in a couple of areas (a friend once commented "You're like a river which is a mile deep but only an inch wide" Anyway, thanks for putting up with my anti-orthodoxy even though I do believe my points here are scriptural. We may just be seeing different facets of the same diamond? Looking forward to your responses.

I always try to look at all sides of the complexities. For example, I deeply appreciate the complexities in 1 John. I don't perfectly understand everything in 1 John while I've made a lot of strides in last 25 years. I see this complexity that God makes us perfectly righteous while we still might sin and need to ask God for forgiveness. And these complex ideas are taught in many other places of scripture, some of which I've referred to in this forum during the last week. And there are many complexities in life that some people insist must be contradictions. For instance, many people insist that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true because they cannot understand how three separate persons can be God while there is only one God. I agree that there different facets of the diamond in 1 John while I have a glimpse of the different facets.

[auggybendoggy]

misrepresent my responses

Perhaps it's misunderstand?

FB,
Agreed, let me state, I've never doubted your devotion. On Tweb reading you was a breath of fresh air. I still hear your heart and still can't help but just love you. However I think James is right concerning the complexities. Scripture is not so simple.

I'm one who believes the scriptures are built more on tensions then on harmonies. So I find that the balance is critical to understand. Yes it his kindness that leads us to repentance but I am one who believes it's his wrath that breaks us of our arrogance. I don't know how pantelists or U-Universalists can explain Hebrews explanation that God punishes his children because they are his children. I have freinds big on Aaron Budjen who argues hebrews does not mean what we think it means (and he's an ECT guy) LOL.

Aug

[james.goetz]

misrepresent my responses

Perhaps it's misunderstand?

Sure, and misunderstanding can be the fault of the communicator, the communicatee, or both.

[firstborn888]

misrepresent my responses

Perhaps it's misunderstand?

Sure, and misunderstanding can be the fault of the communicator, the communicatee, or both.

James,
I know there is a tendency on my part to put extra contrast onto statements others make, that is, if I see a leaning in a certain direction I tend to highlight the destination which I think the leaning is pointing toward in order to make a clear point. I don't mean to be misrepresenting your responses but I'm also sure I have to some extent - by carrying them beyond what you said to where I perceive them going.

If that's what you see me doing as well, it must be frustrating and I apologize. If I'm misdiagnosing what I've done then correct me further, please. Please don't unleash any wrath on me though

[firstborn888]

FB,
Agreed, let me state, I've never doubted your devotion. On Tweb reading you was a breath of fresh air. I still hear your heart and still can't help but just love you. However I think James is right concerning the complexities. Scripture is not so simple.

I'm one who believes the scriptures are built more on tensions then on harmonies. So I find that the balance is critical to understand. Yes it his kindness that leads us to repentance but I am one who believes it's his wrath that breaks us of our arrogance. I don't know how pantelists or U-Universalists can explain Hebrews explanation that God punishes his children because they are his children.

Aug

The feeling is mutual Aug, thanks!

No doubt the scriptures are built on tension. There is a purpose for everything under heaven, but seasons change.

Going from the tension of the chaos in Gen. 1 through the tension of the 'fall' to the tension of the great flood to the law and the resulting judgements and to the cross and then the Gahenna judgement - YIKES! Yes, tension, disharmony, wrath, love, redemption, losing redemption (by trodding underfoot the blood of the covenant).Yes, it's been a fun chaotic ride - but alas, seasons change.

I guess it's time to grow up now. To see the end result of all the suffering, all the wrath ("all thy waves and thy billows have passed over me") and all the love (and more wrath).

Ps. 103:9 "He will not always chide"
1. (Qal)
1. to strive 1a
2. physically 1a
3. with words
1. to conduct a case or suit (legal), sue
2. to make complaint
3. to quarrel
4. (Hiphil) to contend against

So - this is my complaint against orthodoxy: Christianity is living is a state of tension believed to be unbreakable. That is - until something breaks it (like armageddon or the great white throne judgement or (in some universalist's eyes) maybe a few billion years of hell.

The reason I left the church is because modern Christianity is quickly becoming little more than a one big doomsday cult. "The muslims are going to come and kill us all. Obama in the antichrist. A great falling away is coming. God's vials of wrath are coming because of people's lack of faith" on and on and on it goes....

Well guess what - God's wrath IS coming, but (like you said aug) it's not what some (most?) suppose it is. It is not a wrath to destroy people, or even to punish people, it's a wrath against root causes of evil. The night is far spent - the day is at hand.

Paul admitted he "saw through a glass darkly". He spoke of a "face to face" to come. Knowing as we are known. He also spoke of things he saw which were "things unlawful to utter" (it wasn't time yet).

[Bob Wilson]

FB,

I initiated the other thread on atonement (challenging P.S.), and for what it's worth, here one guy's perception. Your initial posts on the nature and existence of God's "wrath," and your assertion that, "flatout, God never judges anyone for evil," sounded to me like an avoidance of some Biblical themes. But, as you amplified and clarified nuances in the Bible's tensions, I see that you want to affirm a non-condemning God who is graciously devoted to our secure redemption, and I perceive that you are actually magnifying a theme which I also think is grand.

I suspect one watershed here for universalists who see our solid hope as graciously assured, is interpreting warning passages about negative or 'wrathful' consequences, as an expression of a loving, pedagogical , and restorative "discipline," rather than as "retribution" or satisfaction.

Grace be with you (and it will),
Bobx1

[james.goetz]

James,
I know there is a tendency on my part to put extra contrast onto statements others make, that is, if I see a leaning in a certain direction I tend to highlight the destination which I think the leaning is pointing toward in order to make a clear point. I don't mean to be misrepresenting your responses but I'm also sure I have to some extent - by carrying them beyond what you said to where I perceive them going.

If that's what you see me doing as well, it must be frustrating and I apologize. If I'm misdiagnosing what I've done then correct me further, please. Please don't unleash any wrath on me though

Hi Byron,

I'm concerned that you say, "Please don't unleash any wrath on me though " If I've done that or will do that, then that would be against what I wrote in the rules for the board. I assure you that this board doesn't tolerate outbursts of wrath in posts from members including adminstrators.

Perhaps part of the issue is I've little time, which sometimes decreases the amount of tact in my writing. Sometimes a mere revision is the difference between tactless and tact. I apologize for any time that I've been short when I needed to spend more time with response.

I also plan to reply to some of your next post in this thread, but I've about two other posts ahead of that.

[TotalVictory]

First off, I must answer JeffA’s question

So Byron and Bobx3 would you say that your view is encapsulated in 2 Corinthians 5:19 ?

that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

And I’m sure it’s little surprise that, like Byron, I answer yes as well.

But what I’ve been trying to do for a few days is step back and wonder why it is that sincere bible loving/believing worshipers of Christ their saviour (insert here all the wonderful things generally believed about a loving God, Jesus His Son, Redemption, Salvation, etc etc) can differ so much on what seems to be a simple straightforward concept; Penal Substitution as basis for Atonement with God. Quite amazing when I stop to think about it.

So here’s a few thoughts…

It seems to me that in this conversation -- and the conversation of Atonement and how God reconciles and saves us -- there are two great truths, facts - if you will, which seem to be in constant tension with each other.

Fact #1 -- God loves us with a depth we can only imagine; depths which we will explore, together in worship, for eternity. This love knows He will eventually win us over, and that our self imposed separations from Him are therefore temporary. His love then is legitimately seen as not only not holding anything against us, but as willing to do anything to accomplish it’s purpose.

Fact #2 -- God hates sin with an incredible passion; it offends Him, angers Him, generates “wrath” in Him and simply cannot “stand” in His presence. Sin is therefore unimaginably serious; I’m guessing that even sinners themselves will grow, over time, to see just how awful their plight really was. So desperate that ONLY the force of God’s love can overcome it. (But overcome it does!!)

So when I find (not hard -- because they are everywhere!) those who revere Penal Substitution models of Atonement, I try to remind myself that they hold this position because of how clearly they see Fact #2; and somehow Jesus paying the penalty confirms for them both that God takes sin seriously AND that will stop at nothing to save us -- Fact #1.

So they are quite comforted by Penal Substitution understandings. They are not bothered one bit by the observation that sin simply cannot be “substituted” for; nor the fact that punishing sin solves nothing apart from an inner transformation of the sinner; nor the fact that transfer of punishment is simply not an allowable procedure under any know system of law; nor the fact that this model appears to make God’s forgiveness contingent on some outside force; nor the fact that there is simply nothing “just” about killing an innocent man; nor the fact that mere penalty payment means nothing -- unless accompanied by Christ's resurrection. Penal Substitution models clearly excel (or so it seems) at taking sin “seriously”.

On the other hand, perhaps the most frequent complaint about those who reject Penal Substitution understandings of the Cross is that they don’t take sin seriously enough; maybe even thus “pander” to sin; that they are soft, and sentimental, and maybe even weak; that they have taken the vast love of God and let themselves forget how serious sin really is; that there is a “tough side” to God’s love which -- to be “just” of course! -- demands payment of penalty. And so on. In other words, Penal Sub deniers are seen to have an overemphasis on Fact #1 at the expense of Fact #2.

So back and forth it goes. (I see signs this topic is heating up across Christianity…)

When we talk about righteousness being “imparted” to us, and that we must live “perfect” lives when we are in Christ, I see that as equally metaphoric as the metaphor of Penal Substitution. What it means is that, for all intents and purposes, God WILL TREAT US AS IF we are pure and clean and fully imparted with Christ’s righteousness. Which is to say He holds nothing against us. Penal Substitution understandings are just another way of making another mindset comfortable with God and help them KNOW that He holds nothing against them.

Basically then, when I hear a passionate defense of Penal Sub models, or an equally impassioned denial of those models, I can think of each proponent as emphasizing either fact #1 or fact #2. Why I REALLY LOVE the idea of Universal Reconciliation is that both facts seem of equal importance -- as it should be.

(Not sure if that makes total sense but….)

TotalVictory
Bobx3

[Bob Wilson]

Bobx3,

Great observations! Of course, as one who thinks a non-P.S. approach takes victory over our sin most seriously (as well as God's unvarying love), there's always more room to discuss how to best combine #1 and #2.

But I love your effort to see beyond the differing language of formulations and recognize the root issues and affirmations. I have no doubt that in practice, a P.S. believer can have deeper grasp of these profound realities of sin and God's love than I, even when I think that this formulation is logically problematic for me. And I too find U.R. offers the best way to maintain a strong view and balance between the themes in tension.

Bobx1

[james.goetz]

Hi Byron,

As I read your last post in this thread (Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:35 am), I sympathize with some of your feelings about the church. And I appreciate your rejection of Unconditional Futurism. However, I see no existential evidence that any living person including yourself is beyond the tensions taught in the New Testament.

[firstborn888]

Please don't unleash any wrath on me though

Hi Byron,

I'm concerned that you say, "Please don't unleash any wrath on me though " If I've done that or will do that, then that would be against what I wrote in the rules for the board. I assure you that this board doesn't tolerate outbursts of wrath in posts from members including adminstrators.

Just joking around with the "w" word because of the subject matter. You've only been gracious.

[firstborn888]

Hi Byron,

As I read your last post in this thread (Sat Jun 27, 2009 7:35 am), I sympathize with some of your feelings about the church. And I appreciate your rejection of Unconditional Futurism. However, I see no existential evidence that any living person including yourself is beyond the tensions taught in the New Testament.

That's my point James, the widely held belief is that nothing has changed existentially in almost 2000 years (and that nothing WILL change existentially until the destruction of the earth). A system of orthodoxy like this serves to cause and maintain a state of stagnation. If a certain slant is put on the NT (such as the unconditional futurism you mentioned) then the door is closed to anything new, especially things which are (seemingly) contrary. Sometimes the entire house needs to collapse for the door to open.

New worlds are framed by words and ideas. When someone brushes up against eternity and gets a clearer glimpse they are transformed by those thoughts and ideas and will tell what the have seen and heard.

The orthodox Jews THOUGHT Jesus was speaking completely contrary to the Torah, yet He was fulfilling it. In hindsight we see a long term plan (with Paul's help) but yet put yourself in the ancient Rabbi's shoes - even among the best of them very few had even a little clue as what was about to unfold or what the kingdom of God was really about (Nicodemus being a case in point).

Even though what I am saying may seem to go against the NT - it is actually the next stage of fulfillment. It's all there - but just as the OT hid it's pearls so there are mysteries emerging from the NT as well.

[firstborn888]

FB,

I initiated the other thread on atonement (challenging P.S.), and for what it's worth, here one guy's perception. Your initial posts on the nature and existence of God's "wrath," and your assertion that, "flatout, God never judges anyone for evil," sounded to me like an avoidance of some Biblical themes. But, as you amplified and clarified nuances in the Bible's tensions, I see that you want to affirm a non-condemning God who is graciously devoted to our secure redemption, and I perceive that you are actually magnifying a theme which I also think is grand.

I suspect one watershed here for universalists who see our solid hope as graciously assured, is interpreting warning passages about negative or 'wrathful' consequences, as an expression of a loving, pedagogical , and restorative "discipline," rather than as "retribution" or satisfaction.

Grace be with you (and it will),
Bobx1

I would like to get into specifics of what people here believe about wrath and punishment.

In my experience I have heard many views. Earthquakes, plagues, disease are among what some feel God does to punish. Great fires, riots, wars would also be among the things I've heard presented as being (currently - in this 'age of grace') manifestation of God's wrath.

The trick here is to make the judgements big and impersonal and elusive - then it's easy to attribute them to God.

Try thinking of it in more practical terms for a minute:

God and a sinner end up in the same room together. What happens?

[auggybendoggy]

I would like to get into specifics of what people here believe about wrath and punishment.

We should start a new thread on that topic.

[james.goetz]

That's my point James, the widely held belief is that nothing has changed existentially in almost 2000 years (and that nothing WILL change existentially until the destruction of the earth). A system of orthodoxy like this serves to cause and maintain a state of stagnation. If a certain slant is put on the NT (such as the unconditional futurism you mentioned) then the door is closed to anything new, especially things which are (seemingly) contrary. Sometimes the entire house needs to collapse for the door to open.

New worlds are framed by words and ideas. When someone brushes up against eternity and gets a clearer glimpse they are transformed by those thoughts and ideas and will tell what the have seen and heard.

The orthodox Jews THOUGHT Jesus was speaking completely contrary to the Torah, yet He was fulfilling it. In hindsight we see a long term plan (with Paul's help) but yet put yourself in the ancient Rabbi's shoes - even among the best of them very few had even a little clue as what was about to unfold or what the kingdom of God was really about (Nicodemus being a case in point).

Even though what I am saying may seem to go against the NT - it is actually the next stage of fulfillment. It's all there - but just as the OT hid it's pearls so there are mysteries emerging from the NT as well.

Hi Byron,

I admit your talented at pointing out some foolish extremes in the church in this present age while you teach about the complete fulfillment of the Messianic Age. That's great. But you also neglect to teach about the battle we're in today. A lack of balance can cause more of the disappointment and condemnation that you're trying avoid. Teaching about the complete fulfillment of the Messianic Age has its place while we need to wise as serpents in this present age.

[firstborn888]

That's my point James, the widely held belief is that nothing has changed existentially in almost 2000 years (and that nothing WILL change existentially until the destruction of the earth). A system of orthodoxy like this serves to cause and maintain a state of stagnation. If a certain slant is put on the NT (such as the unconditional futurism you mentioned) then the door is closed to anything new, especially things which are (seemingly) contrary. Sometimes the entire house needs to collapse for the door to open.

Hi Byron,

I admit your talented at pointing out some foolish extremes in the church in this present age while you teach about the complete fulfillment of the Messianic Age. That's great. But you also neglect to teach about the battle we're in today.

Just the opposite - I'm wanting to discover and show where the battle lines really are. Remember - I was a 'church guy' for over 30 years so I am as stunned as anyone by my present behavior

All I can say is the times they are a changin'. I am full of the wrath of God against abuse and oppression. Portions of the church are doing a great job but at the same time - some of the worst oppression of all is caused by the misrepresentation of God's nature and the superstition propagated by religious systems.

I'm anxious to start the thread about what some of you guys think God is doing to people. Should be interesting.

As a man - I will admit to wishing God would blow up ALL the bad guys in Iran right now.

[Melchizedek]

Again Byron, I have a keen appreciation for where you're at, because I'm in much the same place myself. I still attend a conventional church, but only because I can see they are trying desperately to break out of the mold, and If (when?) they succeed, I want to be part of that success partly because the people there are very dear to me. It's such a mixture still, though. I hear the pastor saying in one breath that we need to abandon tradition because it's unbiblical, yet in the next breath will 'defend' tradition in some unbiblical way. It's maddening. It's so ingrained that even people who are aware of the problem often can't see it.
I could be off base here, but I see it as the scriptural analogy of attempting to put new wine in old wineskins. Attempting to do so (as far as I can see) can only result in the rupture of the old wineskin system, and the "spilling" of the new wine. I think it is perhaps wiser in the long run to put the new wine into new wineskins at the start, rather than trying to make things fit into the old broken system. We desperately need to repent from dead works. As I see it, the institution just gets in the way.

[firstborn888]

Again Byron, I have a keen appreciation for where you're at, because I'm in much the same place myself. I still attend a conventional church, but only because I can see they are trying desperately to break out of the mold, and If (when?) they succeed, I want to be part of that success partly because the people there are very dear to me. It's such a mixture still, though. I hear the pastor saying in one breath that we need to abandon tradition because it's unbiblical, yet in the next breath will 'defend' tradition in some unbiblical way. It's maddening. It's so ingrained that even people who are aware of the problem often can't see it......
...........as I see it, the institution just gets in the way.

It was tough for me to leave. There really are some great folks at my old place as well - many have been close friends even before I arrived there over 20 years ago (and they are still my friends but I miss seeing 'em weekly ).

What hurts the most is my old fellowship is among the best of the best - very high integrity, avoids politics and gossip and such like the plague, very progressive (door to door outreaches, outdoor concerts and services in local neighborhoods, practical helps as in food bank, active prison ministry) - but still... it's drying up a bit (attendance wise). It's like - if you're not part of some big national trendy thing and don't care to hangout with the 'heavy hitters' and big names you don't get the participation. Other local fellowships that are low on integrity, money hungry, even majorly scandalous but have big shots coming in and such are overflowing - go figure....