Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:So,going with what you're saying, does sin against our neighbor require a punishment, or justice that Christ hasn't paid for?
I guess I see all sin as ultimately against God. If all the sin we commit against everybody we've ever sinned against still remains, if not forgiven by each person we've sinned against, then what hope do we have. We would still be in our sin, wouldn't we?

There's no possible way I could ask forgiveness from, let alone even remember, everyone I've ever sinned against. Now that you brought it up, God has forgiven a crapload of my sin.

The issue without Christ is God's righteous wrath. We all stand condemned before God because our sin stands in the way of God accepting us.

This is an issue between us and God. It affects our relationship with God only. Christ came, so that sin was no longer an obstacle. It is His rightesousness that gets added to our account. Our relationship is therefore fixed with God.

However, this does not mean our sin against others doesn't remain -- or that our relationship with others is fixed. God cannot force someone we've wronged to forgive us. Yet, they don't need to forgive us for God to forgive us -- and our relationship with God to be made right.

So you don't need forgiveness from others to be saved. All your sins against God are forgiven, but not all your sin against everyone you've wronged. God may endorse forgiveness, but it's not God's place to forgive your sin against another person -- it doesn't even make sense that He could... only your sin against Him can God forgive.

RickD wrote:There's no possible way I could ask forgiveness from, let alone even remember, everyone I've ever sinned against.

Maybe you should start trying like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeELIONZ6VY

RickD wrote:

No, that's not logical. I agree with the first possibility. One falls away, and is still saved, preserving absolute assurance.
But the second I disagree with. One who was never saved cannot fall away. He cannot fall away from something he never had. So the second logical possibility would be that a person was never saved, and never had assurance(positional). Still preserving absolute assurance, because one who was never saved, never had absolute assurance. If one is not saved, his feelings of assurance are neither here nor there. The unsaved do not have positional absolute assurance. Also, a believer doesn't have to have feelings of assurance, to have positional assurance.

Okay, I think I'm following you.

Let's say that Joe believes and falls away. You say, "I can't judge his salvation." Fine, I agree. You go on to say, "Because I don't know whether or not he really believed." You would say, under a FG argument, that IF he believed, then he is still saved; IF he did not believe, he is not saved. The question at this point is strictly and only whether or not he originally believed.

The difficulty that I have here--and it is likely just being overly sensitive to Calvinist language on my part--is when we talk about whether or not a person "really believed," it seems to introduce a category of faith we might call false-faith or spurious-faith. I argue that if that category is acceptable, then we can't know we are saved, because we can't know which kind of faith we have until it plays itself out in life. But if you are not introducing that category, then there is no problem. To the same point, I would say, "The question is whether or not Joe really believed--the question is WHAT he really believed." Obviously, if Joe SAYS he believed, I'm not going to call him a liar. He believed something. The question is just, what did he believe? If he trusted Christ with his eternal soul, then I have no qualms saying he's saved, even in his rebellion. If, however, discussion reveals that he believed that "believing in Jesus" really meant "being a good person and going to church," then I question if he trusted Christ or not.

But, in EITHER case, I don't see either one of those as having any relationship whatsoever to the fact that he fell away. One who believes the gospel can fall away just as easily as one who believes a false gospel.

So . . . is the difficulty just on my end--an oversensitivity to what I perceive to be Calvinist language with reference to the the P of the tulip?

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kureiuo wrote:
Does He love Hitler inspite of the millions who deserve justice, or does God love the millions and give justice its due?

K, when I read this, I couldn't help but think of Christ. I believe justice was given its due, when Christ completely paid the price that justice demands. There was justice. The punishment that justice demands was paid. And it was paid in full.

on account of our sin against God... not others.

But K, our sin against others IS a sin against God.

Yes, so God forgives our sin against Him.

When we wrong another, we sin against God because we go against His righteousness. So God forgives us for breaking His "code" but what about our sin against the other...

If you cheat on your wife you've offended your wife and God. God forgives your sin against Him, but your sin still remains against her. Only she can forgive your sin against her -- not God.

I disagree pretty strongly with that, K.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - this doesn't say that we are forgiven only of the unrighteousness between us and God. It says that we are forgiven of EVERYTHING.

Also, even if I granted your distinction (and I don't), why should the fact that other humans haven't forgiven me keep me out of heaven? If GOD has forgiven me, and if the barrier between He and me is removed, then why should YOUR unwillingness to forgive me prevent me from being saved? In fact, I often make this point when I preach on forgiveness. Unforgiveness is a sin for precisely this reason. If God has forgiven, what right do you have NOT to forgive? To refuse to forgiven, even someone as vile as Hitler, is to claim that you are more just than God. Moreover, God insists that we let HIM take vengeance. To take it ourselves--even in the for of denying forgiveness--is to put ourselves in God's place, essentially claiming the divine right, to be God Himself. Thus, to fail to forgive is to pass judgement on God. That's why Jesus said that if we do not forgive others, then we ourselves will not be forgiven; plainly, unforgiveness is a sin.*

I should, though, acknowledge that I take this even one step further. I don't think the benefits of the Cross are only applied to those who ask. I think that ALL sin has been atoned for, and that for ALL men. I don't mean that in a potential way. I mean that in an actual way. Hitler's sins have already been atoned for. ALL of them. God's wrath against his sins has been fully satisfied in the Cross. You are aware of the debate over the extent of the atonement. Calvinists are for limited atonement. Must Protestants argue for unlimited atonement. I argue for universal atonement. Christ's work on the Cross was both sufficient AND efficient for all people at all times (1 John 2:2). If you haven't read it, here's a great little article defending that view: What Do We Mean By Propitiation: Does It Only Count If We Accept It?

So the issue isn't one of God's righteous character. His justice was FULLY satisfied in the Cross. NO ONE goes to Hell for their sins. Not even Hitler. They go to Hell because they are dead spiritually, because they are not in the Book of Life (Rev 20:15). If Hitler trusted Christ, his name is in that book. If he didn't trust Christ, he was blotted out of it. If Mother Teresa trusted Christ, her name is in that book. If she didn't, she was blotted out. If you have trusted Christ, your name is in that book. If you don't, then you will be blotted out. It's really that simple.

-------------

* Full disclosure -- forgiveness, however, is not identical to atonement and propitiation. The argument gets more nuanced when the distinctions are considered, but the conclusion is still the same when all is said and done.

Jac wrote:
Let's say that Joe believes and falls away. You say, "I can't judge his salvation." Fine, I agree. You go on to say, "Because I don't know whether or not he really believed." You would say, under a FG argument, that IF he believed, then he is still saved; IF he did not believe, he is not saved. The question at this point is strictly and only whether or not he originally believed.

Jac, by your stating that Joe believes, then he believes. Then Joe falls away. He is still saved. I see it very simply as one of two possibilities. Either Joe believed(saving belief), or he had a false belief(faith and trust in something other that the real Jesus Christ). If Joe trusted in Christ, he is saved. Period. If he falls away from his "abiding" in Christ, then he is still saved. If Joe was never saved, he can't fall away from his "abiding", because he never "abided" in Christ. I'm certainly not saying a believer can fall away from salvation.

The difficulty that I have here--and it is likely just being overly sensitive to Calvinist language on my part--is when we talk about whether or not a person "really believed," it seems to introduce a category of faith we might call false-faith or spurious-faith. I argue that if that category is acceptable, then we can't know we are saved, because we can't know which kind of faith we have until it plays itself out in life.

I'm not sure what Calvinist language you are referring to. I guess I would say "true faith" is true because of whom the faith or trust is in. So, by saying false-faith, I would just see that as a faith in someone or something other than the true Christ. The reason I make the distinction, is because we have a member here who keeps claiming he's a Christian, even though his "faith" is in a different Christ.
Simply, if one trusts in Christ, the true Christ, then one is saved. If one trusts in any other jesus, or anything else other than Christ, then one is not saved.

To the same point, I would say, "The question is whether or not Joe really believed--the question is WHAT he really believed." Obviously, if Joe SAYS he believed, I'm not going to call him a liar. He believed something. The question is just, what did he believe? If he trusted Christ with his eternal soul, then I have no qualms saying he's saved, even in his rebellion. If, however, discussion reveals that he believed that "believing in Jesus" really meant "being a good person and going to church," then I question if he trusted Christ or not.

Exactly. I'm just overly cautious with the way I word things. For example, I've heard many people say, " I used to be a Christian, but now I'm not." That's impossible. If we question this person, we can usually find out that this person really never trusted in Christ. Maybe this person played church, or followed the law as best he could, so to him that meant he was a Christian. OR, this person really did trust Christ at some time, and due to troubles in his life, or false teaching, has fallen away from abiding, or trusting in Christ. That person would then need encouragement, and to be shown that he is still secure in Christ, and can never lose salvation, etc.

But, in EITHER case, I don't see either one of those as having any relationship whatsoever to the fact that he fell away. One who believes the gospel can fall away just as easily as one who believes a false gospel.

Again, as I see "falling away", only a believer can fall away. At least in the specific sense being discussed here. I suppose an unbeliever can fall away from a doctrine, or religion he once held to. But, he's not falling away from trust in Christ, because an unbeliever never trusted.

Jac, when you say a believer "falls away" you are referring to falling away from abiding, correct? I don't think you mean a believer who falls away, falls away because he sins more, or follows the law less. I think I need to understand that I'm seeing "falling away" of a believer, in the same sense you are.

So . . . is the difficulty just on my end--an oversensitivity to what I perceive to be Calvinist language with reference to the the P of the tulip?

I'm not sure. The way I see T-U-L-I-P, is that one can't hold to the P, unless one holds to the T-U-L-I, which precedes P. It's all one system. In TULIP Calvinism, one would believe he would Persevere(P), because all of TULI happened first.

Could you explain what you mean about a possible oversensitivity to Calvinist language? I may be unconsciously using the same language that's Calvinist language you are referring to. Because, while I could only read the P part of TULIP, and I may agree with it. I actually did, when August pointed me to this link:
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/
It took my reading it a few times to see that while I agree with parts of TULIP, I don't agree with TULIP as a system. See here:

Perseverance of the Saints

Perseverance of the Saints is a doctrine which states that the saints (those whom God has saved) will remain in God's hand until they are glorified and brought to abide with him in heaven. Romans 8:28-39 makes it clear that when a person truly has been regenerated by God, he will remain in God's stead. The work of sanctification which God has brought about in his elect will continue until it reaches its fulfillment in eternal life (Phil. 1:6). Christ assures the elect that he will not lose them and that they will be glorified at the "last day" (John 6:39). The Calvinist stands upon the Word of God and trusts in Christ's promise that he will perfectly fulfill the will of the Father in saving all the elect.

I have absolutely no problem agreeing with this P of TULIP. But when I read what it takes to get to the P, I couldn't disagree more. So while it seems the TULIP view of perseverance is the same as mine, it really isn't.

I'm not sure. The way I see T-U-L-I-P, is that one can't hold to the P, unless one holds to the T-U-L-I, which precedes P. It's all one system. In TULIP Calvinism, one would believe he would Persevere(P), because all of TULI happened first.

I was recently told by my pastor that I am a modified Calvinist. I said, "Well, if you consider a zero point Calvinist, then sure."
He said, "But you hold to the security of salvation."
"Of course," I said.
"Well, that is a Calvinist doctrine."
I informed him that he had made an error. He assumed that because I arrived at a similar conclusion, that it must be based on the same premise. That is a logical fallacy. The reality of eternal security is a biblical one. Whether Calvin was correct does not make anyone who agrees with him a Calvinist.
I'm sure Hitler would agree that 2+2=4. Hey, we all agree with Hitler.
In his mind he was totally convinced that I was a Calvinist and it was only a matter of time before I accepted the other 4 points. I'm not exaggerating.
Similarly, I believe in the depravity and corruption of man, but I reject the doctrine of Total depravity. For hard core 5PC they literally view TULIP as the God given lens through which to view the Bible. It is scarier than I ever thought it to be.

TULIP is a system, and to reject one point is absurd. The whole model stands and falls together. I'm currently working on a piece that shows the foundations of TULIP are faulty, based on Calvin's view of the sovereignty of God. Once I've finished, and Jac has picked it apart for me, I'll link it on this site.

jlay wrote:
I was recently told by my pastor that I am a modified Calvinist.

Jlay, while it's a problem that your pastor thinks you're a Calvinist, I think the bigger problem is that he's your pastor!

Run! Don't look back! Or you'll be turned to a pillar of salt!

Gman wrote: Wrong assertions? Are you kidding me? Free grace, it's the greatest invention since Swiss cheese... Rape, kill, and destroy your neighbor, and G-d will automatically send His grace to you? Tell that to Satan.. G-d is righteous to judge sin, He HAS too...

Uh yes, wrong assertions. Considering what I've read on Free Grace theology. Right off the get go, you fundementally fail to grasp the depth of grace.

Now, you said that all sins are covered and there is nothing a person can do to keep their salvation. Yet it seems you've just said that if a person slips into agregious sin such as rape or murder, that they either can't have grace to begin with, or will have it removed. Which is it? Was David saved? What about Lot, who, although spoken of as righteous, continually went the wrong direction. Or perhaps Solomon who we know ended up far from God.

Or, maybe you are saying that we are advocating people keep sinning once they are saved. Either way, you are wrong.

I was the one that enlightened you about the commandments in the NT. In fact there are even more commandments in the NT as opposed to the OT. Progressive revelation doesn't mean that you simply flush large chunks of the Bible down the toilet either.. Most of what you find in the OT still needs to be fulfilled such as Acts 1:6-7.

Wow! thanks for the enlightenment. This is fruitful. No, progressive revelation doesn't flush anything. It only dictates what we apply. BTW, That's a strawman, and just an unloving debate tactic.
Absolutely, things still need to be fulfilled. Where did anyone say differently?

Utterly and completely wrong... In fact Christ did not come to destroy the law.. He came to fulfill it, then He said to KEEP the commandments NOT to destroy them.

OK then, where does Paul instruct Gentile believers to follow the Law? Dude, he wrote an entire book telling them just the opposite. Galatians.
You might as well reject the ministry of Paul. Christ earthly ministry was for apostate Israel. He instructed his disciples to NOT go the way of the Gentiles. Is it possible that not everything spoken to Israel in that time is applicable for us today?

Matthew 5:17-19, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Couple of problems here in how you use this verse. Did you know the SOM never mentions faith once. Do you think it's an instruction on how to get saved today? And it says that even those who break them will be called least "IN" the Kingdom. Where are they? Oh, "IN" the Kingdom.

Matthew 5:48, “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

So, are you claiming to be perfect? This is about salvation. Are you claiming you must be perfect to be saved? What are you trying to argue here?

John 7:19 “Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law? Why do you seek to kill Me?”

Purpose for this proof text?

jlay wrote:So, let's just assume for the moment that a person has properly placed their trust in Christ alone for salvation.
-How many of their sins are forgiven, past, present and future?

All of them..

Rape and murder??

jlay wrote:-What is required of them to maintain their salvation? (please be specific.)

Salvation is at the get go, just like the Bible says.

Sure, I just wish you quit saying differently. Your preaching back door, works salvation.

?? Christ's blood covers all sins.. Where are you getting this?

From your comments.

Why is everything with you ask always dependent on salvation? Why can't things be done via faith..?

Because you are redefining faith as something it isn't. Jac already addressed this way back.

I never said works are necessary for salvation.. You did. How do we know they are genuine? It's all in the Bible.

G, you are saying a REAL believer WILL produce works. Therefore, they are necessary for salvation.

Does the Bible say that every believer must be willing to sell all they have?

Of course not. But you have said over and over that works are the evidence of salvation. You obviously believe that you have works. So, I can only assume that your assurance of salvation is based on your behavior.

They are all the same in Christ..

Well, then you are ignoring the obvious distinctions made in the Bible. And you failed to show this contextually from scripture.

We need to stop sinning because because of who we are.. Not of what we will become.

That doesn't answer the question and you know it.

Again, I never said that.. We walk in faith, not by following dangling salvation carrots.. We follow the commandments out of faith.

So faith is following the commandments?

If you feel compelled to do.. That is up to you and G-d. Not me..

What if I'm compelled to challenge you that what you present is a false Gospel, and that all this Messianic activity is of no value?

We do them BECAUSE we are saved.. To be set apart.. Out of faith.

Uh, that's a condition. I'm sorry you can't see it.

Because we have to look at all of scripture.. Not any one single point.

Please elaborate on what you mean by this.

I recommend to anyone, that they read J. Michael Cocoris' paper on John MaCarthur's Lordship Salvation.
Very similar view to Gman. It's a lengthy read, but it really gets to the meat of why this view ultimately fails.
http://www.cocoris.com/Topical%20Pages/ ... %20PDF.pdf

jlay wrote:I recommend to anyone, that they read J. Michael Cocoris' paper on John MaCarthur's Lordship Salvation.
Very similar view to Gman. It's a lengthy read, but it really gets to the meat of why this view ultimately fails.
http://www.cocoris.com/Topical%20Pages/ ... %20PDF.pdf

Just wanted to quickly second this

A third it.

And fourth it.

And . . . well . . . you get the idea. It's REALLY worth the read. Excellent stuff.

Jac3510 wrote:I disagree pretty strongly with that, K.

You'll have to re-read what I wrote, including my last posts as you've read me wrong.

Jac wrote:If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - this doesn't say that we are forgiven only of the unrighteousness between us and God. It says that we are forgiven of EVERYTHING.

You're forgiven of everything that affects your relationship with God.

But it's not God's place to make an exchange of forgiveness on behalf of another person other than Himself. If I've wronged another person, than God may forgive me for breaking His moral law, but my wrong also stands between me and that person. That's all. It seems so obvious to me that its mute. I"m surprised this is such an issue really.

Jac wrote:Also, even if I granted your distinction (and I don't), why should the fact that other humans haven't forgiven me keep me out of heaven?

This is where you've really got me wrong. I reasoned that it doesn't affect our relationship with God -- see my last (well 2nd last post)...

If a person we've wronged doesn't forgive us, then it only affects our relationship with that person.

Jac3510 wrote:I should, though, acknowledge that I take this even one step further. I don't think the benefits of the Cross are only applied to those who ask. I think that ALL sin has been atoned for, and that for ALL men. I don't mean that in a potential way. I mean that in an actual way. Hitler's sins have already been atoned for. ALL of them. God's wrath against his sins has been fully satisfied in the Cross. You are aware of the debate over the extent of the atonement. Calvinists are for limited atonement. Must Protestants argue for unlimited atonement. I argue for universal atonement. Christ's work on the Cross was both sufficient AND efficient for all people at all times (1 John 2:2). If you haven't read it, here's a great little article defending that view: What Do We Mean By Propitiation: Does It Only Count If We Accept It?

And I take it even one step further.

I believe in universal atonement, I go one step further to believe in universal forgiveness -- if you recall our previous discussions.

While I can see minor differences, forgiveness is really not that dissimilar from atonement in function. I'll read your link -- I'm sure I'll agree with much and it'll help highlight the differences a bit more.

Yet, I obviously do not universal salvation. God's forgiveness is only efficient at saving those who receive it -- those who return to God -- trust in Christ. This completes the transaction of forgiveness. But God's forgiven all of us none the less, like the father did the prodigal son before he returned. Yet, the son didn't receive it until he returned.

Kurieuo wrote:You're forgiven of everything that affects your relationship with God.

You're adding to the text. It doesn't say that we are forgiven of everything that affects our relationship with God. It says that we are forgiven of ALL unrighteousness. ALL, K. You don't have to believe, that, of course, but that's what the text says.

But it's not God's place to make an exchange of forgiveness on behalf of another person other than Himself. If I've wronged another person, than God may forgive me for breaking His moral law, but my wrong also stands between me and that person. That's all. It seems so obvious to me that its mute. I"m surprised this is such an issue really.

Not God's place? Really?

Why do you think it is a sin to harm someone else? Because it violates GOD'S law, not anyone else's? Or think about David and Uriah. What did David say after he had the man murdered?

• Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. (Ps 51:4)

ALL sin is against God. There is no exception here.

This is where you've really got me wrong. I reasoned that it doesn't affect our relationship with God -- see my last (well 2nd last post)...

I'd certainly hate to read you wrong. I have done it before. I got that from when you said:

You wrote:Beautiful, I'm not so sure... especially if you're right on Hitler. Since all those millions of Jews who were killed, God is making Himself an enemy by withdrawing justice. So there is a moral dilemma God faces, even within His grace. Does He love Hitler inspite of the millions who deserve justice, or does God love the millions and give justice its due?
...
Hitler could have desired to believe and gave the nod to Christ's promise -- but Hitler's heart was hardened against God -- such that the conditions for an authentic "trust" (pisteuo) could not have arisen. And it's not like Hitler would have been scammed. He would have known his own heart, just like those torturers who are said to have thanked God who doesn't exists that they lived to be able to inflict according to their heart's content lots torturous pain upon the Jews. Such torturers may have believed in Jesus intellectually, or passively trusted in a proposition, yet they could not passively trust in Christ anymore than you or I can trust Satan -- for certain conditions had not been met.

It sounds here like you are arguing that Hitler can't be in heaven because he "deserves" justice. If he were in heaven, then He would effectively be not loving "the millions." Moreover, you seemed to go on to argue that Hitler couldn't have trusted Christ, because that would mean that he wouldn't have or couldn't have committed the atrocities he did.

Anyway, the entire context of this idea of God forgiving others came about, it seems to me, because of the Hitler issue. It bothers you that God's grace would extend to someone who has harmed so many people. Suppose, though, that Hitler had a chance to go and apologize to all six million people plus their families plus all the others who suffered for his actions. Suppose he felt true remorse. Would that make God's grace to him even one bit more or less beautiful? It's a silly question, because it would mean that one can be more or less deserving of God's grace--the hate filled Hitler doesn't deserve grace, but the remorseful Hitler does--or, at least, he deserves it more than the hate filled version. What? Grace by definition can't be deserved!

That's why when you suggest that Mother Teresa somehow deserved grace more than Hitler did, I balk. NO ONE deserves grace. When you say that grace to Teresa is more beautiful than grace to Hitler, I balk, because grace to ANY ungodly, wicked sinner is the same: you either rejoice in its beauty or mourn in its injustice. You can't have it both ways.

Since the Bible considers grace beautiful, I think I'll opt for that route. Anything less just sounds . . . well . . . I'm sure you can imagine.

And I take it even one step further.

I believe in universal atonement, I go one step further to believe in universal forgiveness -- if you recall our previous discussions.

While I can see minor differences, forgiveness is really not that dissimilar from atonement in function. I'll read your link -- I'm sure I'll agree with much and it'll help highlight the differences a bit more.

Yet, I obviously do not universal salvation. God's forgiveness is only efficient at saving those who receive it -- those who return to God -- trust in Christ. This completes the transaction of forgiveness. But God's forgiven all of us none the less, like the father did the prodigal son before he returned. Yet, the son didn't receive it until he returned.

I obviously don't believe in universal salvation either. I'll have to refresh myself on your views of universal forgiveness. I only vaguely remember it. I'm somewhat confused as to how you can say that you believe in universal salvation and then limit it to those who return to God. It would seem that it is not universal after all. When I say universal atonement, I mean that EVERYONE receives the benefits of the atonement, no questions asked. They don't have to return to God to receive it. They can do whatever they want or not do whatever they want. Whatever they have done has been atoned for. Period. It's completely unconditioned. No, it sounds like you believe in forgiveness that is universally sufficient, but only efficient for those who receive it. I am saying that atonement is universally EFFICIENT. It is unconditioned. Everyone's sins, even Hitler's, are atoned for.

Jac3510 wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:To be clearer still, I'm not asking if you can know whether or not such a person was really ever a believer. I am asking if one who has truly trusted Christ can at some point subsequent to receiving eternal life fall completely away into heinous sin and heresy, denying the gospel, and ultimately die in that state

You didn't ask me but my answer would be: yes! Such a person will inherit eternal life.

Never mind me. Wait for RickD's answer, and answer him.

FL

LOL, well you didn't give me a reason to grill you, FL!

Welcome to the FG club. It's not all that fun here. Most people tend to not like us very much . . .

Well, I knew someone who would fit your description of absolutely falling away from the faith. I even wrote about him in these forums somewhere. In any event, such people are rare, I'm sure, but they make an excellent witness for the rest of us goody-two-shoes types who may begin to feel proud of our ''goodness''.

FL

Jac3510 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You're forgiven of everything that affects your relationship with God.

You're adding to the text. It doesn't say that we are forgiven of everything that affects our relationship with God. It says that we are forgiven of ALL unrighteousness. ALL, K. You don't have to believe, that, of course, but that's what the text says.

I embrace that God is all-forgiving in Christ, just like God is all-powerful. I'm not adding any more to the text, than someone who says God can do everything and then denies God being able to create a square circle.

Just like it may not be an actual possibility for God to create a world wherein everyone freely chooses Him, it isn't possible for God to actually remove ALL our sin by forcing someone else to forgive us of our sin against them.

God is all-forgiving as much as He can logically be, just like God is all-powerful as much as He can logically be. This is a logical restraint.

Let me try use an example...

• If I steal from my neighbour, and as a consequence my neighbour gets into a fight with my wife who was unaware that I stole. I confess to my wife privately that I stole, and apologise. She says, "don't worry you're forgiven." I respond to her, "thanks, now I don't need to apologise to my neighbour."

What's wrong with this picture. Is my wife forgiving me of my sin against my neighbour, or only the trouble I caused her? Is it my wife's place to forgive my wrong to my neighbour?

Jac3510 wrote:

K wrote:But it's not God's place to make an exchange of forgiveness on behalf of another person other than Himself. If I've wronged another person, than God may forgive me for breaking His moral law, but my wrong also stands between me and that person. That's all. It seems so obvious to me that its mute. I"m surprised this is such an issue really.

Not God's place? Really?

Why do you think it is a sin to harm someone else? Because it violates GOD'S law, not anyone else's? Or think about David and Uriah. What did David say after he had the man murdered?

I've gone into this already. God can forgive us for violating His law, but it's up to our neighbour wronged to forgive our sin between us and them.

I am becoming more and more shocked that what I'm saying here isn't plainly and logically obvious.

We may as well just discount from the Lord's prayer: "Forgive us as we forgive those who trespass against us". For if ALL unrighteousness has been forgiven, then what can we forgive if Christ has already forgiven it?

Jac wrote:

This is where you've really got me wrong. I reasoned that it doesn't affect our relationship with God -- see my last (well 2nd last post)...

I'd certainly hate to read you wrong. I have done it before. I got that from when you said:

Let me cut you off there, because now you're moving the discussion. Which is fine, but let's deal with what I was responding to.

You said: "Also, even if I granted your distinction (and I don't), why should the fact that other humans haven't forgiven me keep me out of heaven?"

I never argued the underlined portion. In fact, I reasoned that whether or not someone else forgives us for our wrong against them doesn't matter to our being saved. It only soteriologically matters that God forgives us.

Jac wrote:

K wrote:Beautiful, I'm not so sure... especially if you're right on Hitler. Since all those millions of Jews who were killed, God is making Himself an enemy by withdrawing justice. So there is a moral dilemma God faces, even within His grace. Does He love Hitler inspite of the millions who deserve justice, or does God love the millions and give justice its due?
...
Hitler could have desired to believe and gave the nod to Christ's promise -- but Hitler's heart was hardened against God -- such that the conditions for an authentic "trust" (pisteuo) could not have arisen. And it's not like Hitler would have been scammed. He would have known his own heart, just like those torturers who are said to have thanked God who doesn't exists that they lived to be able to inflict according to their heart's content lots torturous pain upon the Jews. Such torturers may have believed in Jesus intellectually, or passively trusted in a proposition, yet they could not passively trust in Christ anymore than you or I can trust Satan -- for certain conditions had not been met.

It sounds here like you are arguing that Hitler can't be in heaven because he "deserves" justice. If he were in heaven, then He would effectively be not loving "the millions." Moreover, you seemed to go on to argue that Hitler couldn't have trusted Christ, because that would mean that he wouldn't have or couldn't have committed the atrocities he did.

Anyway, the entire context of this idea of God forgiving others came about, it seems to me, because of the Hitler issue. It bothers you that God's grace would extend to someone who has harmed so many people.

Cutting you off here again. If you re-read me, I don't just leave it at Hitler.

It bothers me that God forgives any of us -- that God would extend such grace.

I have a low perspective of humanity. We destroy the world, we kill and hurt each other, we're selfish, humans always play games, try to step other people into the ground... it doesn't surprise me that so many Atheists in the world become so focused on the negativity in the world so as to have a venomous hate for God.

It bothers me that God would forgive us rather than just wipe us all out. He should have gone that one step further with Noah.

But what bothers me doesn't matter, because God didn't. God loves us all including Hitler.

Yet, the moral dilemma God is faced with still stands...

Jac wrote:Suppose, though, that Hitler had a chance to go and apologize to all six million people plus their families plus all the others who suffered for his actions. Suppose he felt true remorse. Would that make God's grace to him even one bit more or less beautiful? It's a silly question, because it would mean that one can be more or less deserving of God's grace--the hate filled Hitler doesn't deserve grace, but the remorseful Hitler does--or, at least, he deserves it more than the hate filled version. What? Grace by definition can't be deserved!

Then Hitler's saved. And I still find God's grace less beautiful than God's wrath.

As you say, who can fathom God's grace? Seriously, think about it. You think about it. Many don't. Many can't. I can't. You need to live an experience to really fathom it. For example...

Say some evil person raped, sexually tortured, and ripped about your little girl piece by piece -- as often happens in a world away from our own comfortable ones in the US or Australia... you then look at that evil person in the eye preaching how beautiful God's grace is that he is forgiven. If this was my little girl, quite frankly, I find it much more beautiful and glorious that God's wrath should be upon such an evil person. I just don't care for them.

Likewise, I know I'm not perfect. Nor is Teresa. So be it to myself and her. Such is more glorious to me, more honourable, that we reap what we sow. Yet, for some reason, God sees things different. And I think I'm simply being more honest, perhaps less deluded than yourself and others who call God's grace beautiful... I won't mix my words, perhaps you're all off in an airy-fairy land of religious language that sounds nice but isn't grasped. You claim to fathom what is apparently unfathomable.

I really can't fathom it, but whether I can or not doesn't take away from the reality of God's grace or that God considers it more beautiful.

Jac wrote:That's why when you suggest that Mother Teresa somehow deserved grace more than Hitler did, I balk. NO ONE deserves grace. When you say that grace to Teresa is more beautiful than grace to Hitler, I balk, because grace to ANY ungodly, wicked sinner is the same: you either rejoice in its beauty or mourn in its injustice. You can't have it both ways.

You're equivocating what I think with what God thinks. What I think doesn't matter to what God thinks.

I think Mother Teresa deserves God's grace more than Hitler, because I see her as a much better person. Yet, "deserve" has no bearing on "grace" so what's it matter what I think?

To me, and I think most can morally see Teresa was better than Hitler, even if she would be dead in her sin without God's grace.

Since the Bible considers grace beautiful, I think I'll opt for that route. Anything less just sounds . . . well . . . I'm sure you can imagine.

Obviously, God thinks grace the better option. But He is God and can fathom it a heckova lot more than me.

So I accept it is beautiful because God thinks it is, even if I believe God's wrath would have been more beautiful.

Jac wrote:

And I take it even one step further.

I believe in universal atonement, I go one step further to believe in universal forgiveness -- if you recall our previous discussions.

While I can see minor differences, forgiveness is really not that dissimilar from atonement in function. I'll read your link -- I'm sure I'll agree with much and it'll help highlight the differences a bit more.

Yet, I obviously do not universal salvation. God's forgiveness is only efficient at saving those who receive it -- those who return to God -- trust in Christ. This completes the transaction of forgiveness. But God's forgiven all of us none the less, like the father did the prodigal son before he returned. Yet, the son didn't receive it until he returned.

I obviously don't believe in universal salvation either. I'll have to refresh myself on your views of universal forgiveness. I only vaguely remember it. I'm somewhat confused as to how you can say that you believe in universal salvation and then limit it to those who return to God.

The word underlined in bold should be "forgiveness". I believe in universal forgiveness, not universal salvation.

If the two for you are the same, then I make a distinction.

Jac wrote:It would seem that it is not universal after all. When I say universal atonement, I mean that EVERYONE receives the benefits of the atonement, no questions asked. They don't have to return to God to receive it. They can do whatever they want or not do whatever they want. Whatever they have done has been atoned for. Period. It's completely unconditioned. No, it sounds like you believe in forgiveness that is universally sufficient, but only efficient for those who receive it. I am saying that atonement is universally EFFICIENT. It is unconditioned. Everyone's sins, even Hitler's, are atoned for.

Wondering, what are "the benefits of the atonement"? If asked this, I would have responded forgiveness.

I don't claim to entirely understand the terminologies as many who discuss these things would. I understand them in my own way, so I suppose I need some clarity to ensure we're talking about the same things.

It seems when you say Hitler's sins are atoned for, I'd say Hitler's sins are forgiven. This for me is the substance of Christ's atoning sacrifice. So where you have one, you have the other.

So what do you define the substance of atonement--what is it that Hitler has from the atonement? Isn't it forgiveness, or is it just some potentiality?

Kurieuo wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You're forgiven of everything that affects your relationship with God.

You're adding to the text. It doesn't say that we are forgiven of everything that affects our relationship with God. It says that we are forgiven of ALL unrighteousness. ALL, K. You don't have to believe, that, of course, but that's what the text says.

I embrace that God is all-forgiving in Christ, just like God is all-powerful. I'm not adding any more to the text, than someone who says God can do everything and then denies God being able to create a square circle.

Just like it may not be an actual possibility for God to create a world wherein everyone freely chooses Him, it isn't possible for God to actually remove ALL our sin by forcing someone else to forgive us of our sin against them.

God is all-forgiving as much as He can logically be, just like God is all-powerful as much as He can logically be. This is a logical restraint.

Let me try use an example...

• If I steal from my neighbour, and as a consequence my neighbour gets into a fight with my wife who was unaware that I stole. I confess to my wife privately that I stole, and apologise. She says, "don't worry you're forgiven." I respond to her, "thanks, now I don't need to apologise to my neighbour."

What's wrong with this picture. Is my wife forgiving me of my sin against my neighbour, or only the trouble I caused her? Is it my wife's place to forgive my wrong to my neighbour?

Jac3510 wrote:

K wrote:But it's not God's place to make an exchange of forgiveness on behalf of another person other than Himself. If I've wronged another person, than God may forgive me for breaking His moral law, but my wrong also stands between me and that person. That's all. It seems so obvious to me that its mute. I"m surprised this is such an issue really.

Not God's place? Really?

Why do you think it is a sin to harm someone else? Because it violates GOD'S law, not anyone else's? Or think about David and Uriah. What did David say after he had the man murdered?

I've gone into this already. God can forgive us for violating His law, but it's up to our neighbour wronged to forgive our sin between us and them.

I am becoming more and more shocked that what I'm saying here isn't plainly and logically obvious.

We may as well just discount from the Lord's prayer: "Forgive us as we forgive those who trespass against us". For if ALL unrighteousness has been forgiven, then what can we forgive if Christ has already forgiven it?

Two things:

1. We don't forgive each other of SIN. Sin is breaking God's law. I can't forgive you of breaking God's law. What I can do is not hold it against you--that is the forgiveness between two people.
2. David makes it clear that, strictly speaking, all sin is against God and God alone.

So, again, John is plain: when we confess, we are FORGIVEN of ALL unrighteousness. There is no logical contradiction here. In fact, the reason that humans are OBLIGATED to forgive one another (that is, it is sin NOT to forgive) is that we cannot hold against someone what God Himself does not hold against us.

Jac wrote:

This is where you've really got me wrong. I reasoned that it doesn't affect our relationship with God -- see my last (well 2nd last post)...

I'd certainly hate to read you wrong. I have done it before. I got that from when you said:

Let me cut you off there, because now you're moving the discussion. Which is fine, but let's deal with what I was responding to.

You said: "Also, even if I granted your distinction (and I don't), why should the fact that other humans haven't forgiven me keep me out of heaven?"

I never argued the underlined portion. In fact, I reasoned that whether or not someone else forgives us for our wrong against them doesn't matter to our being saved. It only soteriologically matters that God forgives us.

I don't know why you cut me off there -- that's what I was responding to, the part below.

Jac wrote:

K wrote:Beautiful, I'm not so sure... especially if you're right on Hitler. Since all those millions of Jews who were killed, God is making Himself an enemy by withdrawing justice. So there is a moral dilemma God faces, even within His grace. Does He love Hitler inspite of the millions who deserve justice, or does God love the millions and give justice its due?
...
Hitler could have desired to believe and gave the nod to Christ's promise -- but Hitler's heart was hardened against God -- such that the conditions for an authentic "trust" (pisteuo) could not have arisen. And it's not like Hitler would have been scammed. He would have known his own heart, just like those torturers who are said to have thanked God who doesn't exists that they lived to be able to inflict according to their heart's content lots torturous pain upon the Jews. Such torturers may have believed in Jesus intellectually, or passively trusted in a proposition, yet they could not passively trust in Christ anymore than you or I can trust Satan -- for certain conditions had not been met.

It sounds here like you are arguing that Hitler can't be in heaven because he "deserves" justice. If he were in heaven, then He would effectively be not loving "the millions." Moreover, you seemed to go on to argue that Hitler couldn't have trusted Christ, because that would mean that he wouldn't have or couldn't have committed the atrocities he did.

Anyway, the entire context of this idea of God forgiving others came about, it seems to me, because of the Hitler issue. It bothers you that God's grace would extend to someone who has harmed so many people.

Cutting you off here again. If you re-read me, I don't just leave it at Hitler.

It bothers me that God forgives any of us -- that God would extend such grace.

I have a low perspective of humanity. We destroy the world, we kill and hurt each other, we're selfish, humans always play games, try to step other people into the ground... it doesn't surprise me that so many Atheists in the world become so focused on the negativity in the world so as to have a venomous hate for God.

It bothers me that God would forgive us rather than just wipe us all out. He should have gone that one step further with Noah.

But what bothers me doesn't matter, because God didn't. God loves us all including Hitler.

Yet, the moral dilemma God is faced with still stands...

But as you say, it bothers you more for God to forgive bad sinners that for Him to forgive not so bad sinners. That whole notion is absurd to me. Add to the fact that we are talking about the grace of salvation, and not just forgiveness, and it becomes more absurd.

Jac wrote:Suppose, though, that Hitler had a chance to go and apologize to all six million people plus their families plus all the others who suffered for his actions. Suppose he felt true remorse. Would that make God's grace to him even one bit more or less beautiful? It's a silly question, because it would mean that one can be more or less deserving of God's grace--the hate filled Hitler doesn't deserve grace, but the remorseful Hitler does--or, at least, he deserves it more than the hate filled version. What? Grace by definition can't be deserved!

Then Hitler's saved. And I still find God's grace less beautiful than God's wrath.

As you say, who can fathom God's grace? Seriously, think about it. You think about it. Many don't. Many can't. I can't. You need to live an experience to really fathom it. For example...

Say some evil person raped, sexually tortured, and ripped about your little girl piece by piece -- as often happens in a world away from our own comfortable ones in the US or Australia... you then look at that evil person in the eye preaching how beautiful God's grace is that he is forgiven. If this was my little girl, quite frankly, I find it much more beautiful and glorious that God's wrath should be upon such an evil person. I just don't care for them.

Likewise, I know I'm not perfect. Nor is Teresa. So be it to myself and her. Such is more glorious to me, more honourable, that we reap what we sow. Yet, for some reason, God sees things different. And I think I'm simply being more honest, perhaps less deluded than yourself and others who call God's grace beautiful... I won't mix my words, perhaps you're all off in an airy-fairy land of religious language that sounds nice but isn't grasped. You claim to fathom what is apparently unfathomable.

I really can't fathom it, but whether I can or not doesn't take away from the reality of God's grace or that God considers it more beautiful.

Just because I can't fathom its full depth doesn't mean I don't see it as beautiful. And yes, if God forbid something like that did happen to my daughter, I would find it breathtakingly beautiful to find out that person trusted Christ and was in heaven. Why, pray tell, would I want them to suffer an eternal torment in Hell? If God takes no pleasure in their death, then why should I?

You seem really caught up on the vengeance thing. Maybe I'm wrong, but that it show it sounds. Accuse me of being in a fairy land if you like. I'm just looking at the world the way the Bible says God does.

Jac wrote:That's why when you suggest that Mother Teresa somehow deserved grace more than Hitler did, I balk. NO ONE deserves grace. When you say that grace to Teresa is more beautiful than grace to Hitler, I balk, because grace to ANY ungodly, wicked sinner is the same: you either rejoice in its beauty or mourn in its injustice. You can't have it both ways.

You're equivocating what I think with what God thinks. What I think doesn't matter to what God thinks.

I think Mother Teresa deserves God's grace more than Hitler, because I see her as a much better person. Yet, "deserve" has no bearing on "grace" so what's it matter what I think?

To me, and I think most can morally see Teresa was better than Hitler, even if she would be dead in her sin without God's grace.

Since the Bible considers grace beautiful, I think I'll opt for that route. Anything less just sounds . . . well . . . I'm sure you can imagine.

Obviously, God thinks grace the better option. But He is God and can fathom it a heckova lot more than me.

So I accept it is beautiful because God thinks it is, even if I believe God's wrath would have been more beautiful.

Jac wrote:

And I take it even one step further.

I believe in universal atonement, I go one step further to believe in universal forgiveness -- if you recall our previous discussions.

While I can see minor differences, forgiveness is really not that dissimilar from atonement in function. I'll read your link -- I'm sure I'll agree with much and it'll help highlight the differences a bit more.

Yet, I obviously do not universal salvation. God's forgiveness is only efficient at saving those who receive it -- those who return to God -- trust in Christ. This completes the transaction of forgiveness. But God's forgiven all of us none the less, like the father did the prodigal son before he returned. Yet, the son didn't receive it until he returned.

I obviously don't believe in universal salvation either. I'll have to refresh myself on your views of universal forgiveness. I only vaguely remember it. I'm somewhat confused as to how you can say that you believe in universal salvation and then limit it to those who return to God.

The word underlined in bold should be "forgiveness". I believe in universal forgiveness, not universal salvation.

If the two for you are the same, then I make a distinction.

Jac wrote:It would seem that it is not universal after all. When I say universal atonement, I mean that EVERYONE receives the benefits of the atonement, no questions asked. They don't have to return to God to receive it. They can do whatever they want or not do whatever they want. Whatever they have done has been atoned for. Period. It's completely unconditioned. No, it sounds like you believe in forgiveness that is universally sufficient, but only efficient for those who receive it. I am saying that atonement is universally EFFICIENT. It is unconditioned. Everyone's sins, even Hitler's, are atoned for.

Wondering, what are "the benefits of the atonement"? If asked this, I would have responded forgiveness.

I don't claim to entirely understand the terminologies as many who discuss these things would. I understand them in my own way, so I suppose I need some clarity to ensure we're talking about the same things.

It seems when you say Hitler's sins are atoned for, I'd say Hitler's sins are forgiven. This for me is the substance of Christ's atoning sacrifice. So where you have one, you have the other.

So what do you define the substance of atonement--what is it that Hitler has from the atonement? Isn't it forgiveness, or is it just some potentiality?

[/quote]
Yes, that was a typo. I meant to say universal forgiveness.

And forgiveness and atonement are not the same thing. God can forgive BECAUSE He has atoned. Atonement just means to cover up the sin. Atonement means that God's righteous requirements for judgment are met. Forgiveness means that, not only are you not under wrath, but that He doesn't even hold your sin against you in any way -- the door to fellowship with Him is open.

Sin breaks our fellowship with God, even as believers. As such, we need to confess our sin to maintain our FELLOWSHIP with God (not salvation). All of Hitler's sins are atoned for. God isn't mad at Hitler over His sins. Had Hitler trusted in Christ, He would have had full fellowship with God and needed nothing more than to acknowledge what He did was wrong to keep in that fellowship day to day. That has nothing to do with eternal salvation and everything to do with our daily walk with Christ.