The whole thing got me to thinking about a related issue. How can we be sure that another person is truly converted? Or even more interesting, how can we be sure that we are converted?
I think the fifth point of Calvinism (preservation of the saints) is sometimes misunderstood. The misunderstanding usually comes in confusing ontology and epistemology. Ontology has to do with being and what is. Epistemology has to do with our state of knowledge or beliefs. The fifth point of Calvinism does not address the epistemological issue of salvation; rather, it addresses the ontological issue of salvation. In Calvinism, God ultimate decides who will be saved. Since the decision is up to him, our salvation is assured. God cannot fail. He saves whoever he intends to save. If somebody is elected to salvation by God, then that person will be saved.
But how do we know whether we or somebody else is one of the elect? That’s the epistemological question, and the fifth point doesn’t address that. According to Jesus, nobody can come to him unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). So you might say that anybody who comes to Jesus was drawn by the Father, and if they were drawn by the Father, then they must be one of the elect. Anybody, then, who really professes to be a Christian, really believes it and all, is one of the elect.
But there are a couple of problems with that. First, there’s the parable of the farmer who sews seeds on different kinds of ground. Some people embraced the gospel with enthusiasm at first, but they later fall away. Obviously, those people were never elect or they wouldn’t have fallen away. We see this in our own experience, too. Some people can profess to be Christians for many years before later rejecting it. What are we to make of that? If they eventually reject Christianity, then they could never have been elect in the first place.
Second, Jesus said that not everybody who calls him Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. These people will be surprised on the judgment day when Jesus says, “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:21-23). So there are a lot of people who think they are elect, but they really aren’t. How do you know you’re not one of them?
Is it even possible to know? I think it is. 1 John 5:13 says, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” It must be possible, then, to have epistemological assurance of our salvation. How is it possible, though?
If John wrote to them so that they might know, then we can look at what he wrote. Let’s just look at a few things he says:
1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.And the rest of the book just elaborates on these same points. Basically, we can know we are God’s children by whether we truly love God or not, and John says, “This is love for God, that we keep his commands” (1 John 5:3). Keeping his commandments, then, is how we know we are his children.
1 John 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
1 John 4:20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.
The rest of the New Testament seems to agree with this point. In the Matthew passage I mentioned earlier, Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter” (Matthew 7:21).
And this is another point of confusion between epistemology and ontology. These passages about the necessity of holy living for salvation are not ontological; they are epistemological. That is, doing good isn’t what causes us to be saved. Rather, it’s how we know we are saved.
Take, for example, Peter says, “Be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall” (2 Peter 1:10). The “things” he’s talking about are mentioned in the previous verses. He’s talking about having goodness, kindness, brotherly love, godliness, etc. Practicing those things is how we become sure of our election.
Likewise, Paul said, “So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:12-13). God works in his elect to cause them to want to do his will. The fact that we have this desire to please him shows that we are his elect. That’s why we should work out or live out our salvation, not just sit back and assume we’re good to go.
28 comments:
Well, Jeff, I think our desire to do good does give us assurance of salvation, but I don't think we can arrive at 100% certainty.
First, we can't be anymore sure of our salvation than we are of the truth of Christianity. That's because we can't have salvation if Christianity isn't true.
Second, sanctification is a process. People don't convert from total heathens to perfect saints over night. It's a process. Some people are farther along than others.
Third, none of us attain moral perfection in this lifetime, which raises the question, "How good to you have to be to be sure of your salvation?" However far you fall short, your doubt will inevitably correspond to it. The more righteous you manage to be, the more grounds you have for assurance, but you can never be 100% sure, because you can never be 100% righteous.
So basically, I think our desire to good gives us assurance of our salvation in proportion to our desire and the manner in which we live, but it isn't fool proof.
Of course I should add that I haven't given this subject a WHOLE lot of thought, so I could be all wrong.
Jeff, although I'm sympathetic to that view, I just don't think absolute certainty is what people usually mean by "knowing." I wrote about that in one of my "Conversations with Angie."
Steve, although I don't think there's many things at all we can know with absolute certainty without even the possibility of being wrong, I do think there's plenty we can be reasonably assured of. I think being elect is one of them. Assurance comes in degrees, and those who live more godly lives have more grounds for assurance than those who don't. Assurance, in my opinion, serves no other purpose than psychological comfort, which is no small thing. In the Calvinist view, this assurance does not lead to pride. Calvinists believe in what they call "unconditional election," which means that God's election is not based on any merit whatsoever on our part. In fact, Calvinists say that apart from God's regenerating power, we would never be able to embrace Christ at all, so even our choice to accept the gospel is no credit to us. God would've been just to send us to hell, but it is only by his grace that we are saved. This tends to foster an attitude of humility rather than pride.
Steve,
If you want my basic disagreement with this worldview, is that I think people choose God, and not the other way around.
Personally I think this is a false dichotomy. I agree that people choose God, but there's a reason they choose God. They choose God because God draws them. Basically they choose God because God first chose them. At some point in their lives, God regenerates them, giving them the desire and inclination to choose God, and they act on that desire.
In John Cotton's A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace he makes a distinction between the non-elect, the elect who are not yet regenerated, and the elect who are regenerated. If somebody is elect, but not yet regenerated, then it's impossible to distinguish them from the non-elect. That's why we'd never go around saying that people are non-elect. There's always the possibility that they will convert. Of course we can speculate about that possibility, but we really can't know for sure that somebody is not elect. So in the case of Mary Magdeline and the thief on the cross prior to their regeneration, we'd just have to suspend judgment. That's why we witness to everybody and not just who we think are the elect. We don't know who will believe and who won't.
from my perspective,sometimes religious people look down on others from their ivory towers of piety, believing they are special and everyone else is periphery humanity.
That's a character flaw in those individuals, not a problem with Calvinist doctrine. At worst, that character flaw is based on a misunderstanding of Calvinist doctrine. Or I guess it could be that the religious people you're referring to aren't Calvinists.
I thought the whole point of Jesus' message was to make us equal before God... thats what was so socially disruptive to the Roman empire about that.
In a sense, he did. The elect are chosen from every strata of society, from every tribe, tongue, nation, gender, or whatever. This was contrary to a lot of beliefs in those times--the inferiority of women, the uncleanliness of gentiles, etc. But the Bible is clear that the elect are every bit as deserving of hell as everybody else. We have ALL rebelled against God.
According to Romans 9 and Ephesians 1, the reason God chose some and not others is to the praise of his glory. Everybody has a purpose, and that purpose is to bring glory to God, wether elect or not. The elect bring glory to God by demonstrating his grace. The non-elect bring glory to God by demonstrating his wrath.
Steve,
The Christian scheme is very common sensical. People who commit crimes deserve punishment. God is the ultimate judge of the universe. If he isn't just, then there ultimately is no justice.
People who go to hell go there because they deserve it. God punishes wrongdoers. He doesn't owe salvation to anybody. We all deserve to suffer his wrath. So God isn't unjust just because he fails to draw everybody. And those he fails to draw aren't excused just because they weren't drawn.
The purpose here isn't to scare people into believing. The purpose is to give a real warning. Wouldn't you think it was silly of me to object to the civil law by saying, "The government's just trying to scare us into obedience by having punishments for crimes"? Fear never caused anybody to believe anyway. Fear is a result of believing, not a cause of believing. I've never met anybody who didn't believe in hell who was also afraid of hell.
Steve, I don't think I'm guilty of sophistry. You're just mischaracterizing my position. There's nothing counter-intuitive about my position. My position is that everybody is guilty of rebellion against God. We all break his law. That means we all deserve punishment. This is true of everybody whether they are elect or not. To say that people go to hell simply because they were born to go to hell ignores this point. It makes it look like there's no guilt involved, and that God arbitrarily punishes people who don't deserve it. That isn't the case at all.
In the analogy of the kid, first of all, it ignores any faultiness in the kid. Your analogy doesn't even address the question of the child's guilt. It's irrelevent in your analogy, but it's very relevent in the Calivinst position.
But on the other hand, I totally agree with you that in the face of definite destruction, the prudent thing is for the child to submit. If we have reason to believe that God really does punish wrongdoers, then we have every reason to repent. What's wrong with that? Why would you object to that? If hell is a real threat, shouldn't we avoid it? If God punishes wrongdoers, should he keep that a secret from us? Wouldn't we shout on the day of judgment, "That's not fair! You didn't warn us about this!"?
And why wouldn't you object to the civil government on the same grounds? The civil law spells out punishments for crimes. Why don't we criticize the government for this and say, "Oh, you're just trying to force people to bow to the government's will by threatening people with punishment"? What's the difference?
Steve, the definition of faultiness is having your heart wrong and doing wrong from your heart. Or, in other words, having bad motives, and acting on them. Whether God knows what people will do or not is irrelevent to whether they are guilty or not. Being elect doesn't mean being good. We're all guilty. The elect are those among the guilty that God chose to save in spite of their guilt.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I get the impression that you think that not being elect is the thing God is punishing people for. I agree that whether we are elect or not is not our choice, and since it's not our choice, it isn't something we're morally accountable for. So the non-elect are not being punished just because they are not elected. Rather, they are being punished for their sins--those wrongful things they did choose to do.
But the childs guilt is a byproduct of BELIEVING Christianity to begin with.
I probably just misunderstood your analogy. How does believing Christianity cause a child to be guilty?
But if the child doesn't KNOW he's guilty of anything (a nonbeliever) then the choice between heaven and hell is essentially a fear based argument.
This, I don't understand. Why would a person fear hell unless they knew they were guilty?
A person does not have to be a believer before they can know right from wrong. We are all morally accountable, because we all do know right from wrong whether we're Christians or not.
I have the feeling that there's a lot you're saying that I'm not understanding, so I apologize if I'm missing your points.
Steve, I don’t see why you think it is unjust for God not to save everybody. If everybody has done wrong, then everybody deserves to be punished. If everybody deserves to be punished, then God would be perfectly just in punishing everybody. If God would be perfectly just in punishing everybody, then how can he be unjust for punishing anybody? And why is it unfair for God to punish people when he doesn’t owe salvation to anybody?
If anything, God is unfair for saving anybody, not for condemning anybody. Everybody who goes to hell deserves it. Nobody who goes to heaven deserves it.
Now let me go back over some of the things you listed. First, you said: “Fear-induced belief is no different than information obtained through torture - its unreliable because you'll say and do anything to avoid pain and destruction. Its not genuine." If it’s not genuine, then it’s not really a belief, is it? Information obtained through torture is unreliable precisely because the person will say anything, whether they believe it or not, to avoid pain. Fear may get somebody to claim to believe, but it can’t cause a person to believe. Fear can only cause a person to convert if they already believe in the object of their fear. Only if they truly believe that there is a God who punishes wrong-doers will a person have fear. And that is essentially how I answered you in the first place.
But then you brought up the child analogy. Now unless the child actually believed his mother was in danger, what fear would he have?
I don’t see how your question about the choice between heaven and hell is relevant, but I’ll respond to that anyway. A choice is nothing more than acting on an inclination. We always choose according to our strongest motivation. In fact, any act that is not based on some reason, motive, or inclination isn’t a choice at all, because it’s not an intentional act. It’s just a muscle spasm or knee jerk reaction. If a motive is necessary for choice, then motives cannot be inconsistent with choice. Giving somebody a strong motive to pick one option over the other, then, cannot be inconsistent with them choosing one option over the other.
Next, you said you can’t bring guilt into the child analogy, because the child doesn’t believe yet. If the child story is at all analogous to an unbeliever faced with Christianity, then their guilt is relevant. Whether they believe in Christianity or not, they are still accountable for their sins. Anybody who knows the difference between right and wrong is morally accountable.
You went on to say, “Fear of the consequences of not believing the man, or not believing the Christian, motivate the person to believe.” I confess that this makes no sense to me. If fear is what motivates a person to believe, then fear must comes before the belief, right? But if fear comes before the belief, then what is the fear based on? Aren’t all fears based on some belief? Unless the person has some belief already then there’s nothing to fear.
If I understand you right, your whole point is that a person believes in Christianity because they fear hell. But if they fear hell, aren’t they buying into the Christian worldview already? Unless they already believe there’s a God who punishes sinners by sending them to hell, what are they afraid of?
Sam/Steve,
On the issue of fear as a cause/effect of belief, I think this clarification can be made that could solve some misunderstanding.
First, Steve said,
Fear of the consequences of not believing the man, or not believing the Christian, motivate the person to believe.
Sam said,
Fear can only cause a person to convert if they already believe in the object of their fear. Only if they truly believe that there is a God who punishes wrong-doers will a person have fear.
Steve is talking about fear as a means to motivate someone to believe with more force (i.e. to act on their beliefs). Sam is talking about how one can never have fear before he has some belief already. Both of these views are correct.
People don't necessarily buy life insurance because they think they will die unexpectedly. However, they believe in the possibility that they might die unexpectedly. The fear of that possibility drives them to buy life insurance, but it doesn't mean that they truly believe that they will need it anytime soon.
So, when a Christian tells a nonbeliever, "if you don't repent for your sins, you will go to hell!", then Sam's right, if the nonbeliever has no beliefs then it should carry no effect. However, if the nonbeliever has any inkling of belief towards Christianity as having a possibility of being true, then it will have an effect, namely increasing the possible consequences of choosing to not believe.
How exactly does God choose who to save? I think that's the crux here.
If it is arbitrary, then I can see where Steve is coming from. The elect are just plain lucky for being chosen. Some may even laugh at the non-elect for being so unlucky, but that's just a side-effect, not an inherent flaw. But this arbitrariness does seem unfair, doesn't it? Surely if someone is excused, they should be excused for something, not on a whim. Otherwise you could have the most immoral creatures go to heaven while any non-Christian saint perish in hell, just because the dice didn't roll in their favour and they never had a chance to repent.
If it is not arbitrary, then those criteria which God chooses to save people is very important to know, if possible. I suppose in this case it would be just for God to save some and not others.
This reminds me of a test I took one time. We all took our seats and then the teacher handed out all the papers. As we started writing, the teacher realized that half the class did not have papers. It turned out his secretary hadn't photocopied enough tests that morning. So he decided that he would think of some way to make the situation fair for everyone, for the people who wrote the test that day and the people who by chance did not receive the test, and could write the test at a later date. Note the teacher did not say, "Well, it looks like the students who didn't get a test today are lucky, so oh well, no adjustments necessary for those who had to write today." He felt it was necessary to make the situation fair to everyone, even though it was by chance that some students got out of writing a test that day.
I concede that this scenario is not perfectly representative of the scenarios that have been discussed, because all students involved were not at fault (we were all innocent).
However, consider this. Suppose I and ten other students arrive late for the test. We're standing at the back of the class, and the teacher walks up to us and says, "sorry, I only have five tests left." Then he randomly picks out 5 students and lets them write the test, while me and the other 6 people are left in an unfortunate position. I would admit that this would be a just scenario. We were all late, and so we all deserved to not write the test since it was not guaranteed that there were any tests remaining. Luckily, though, there were 5 papers left and 5 lucky, but late, students got to write it. While I and the others would be disappointed, we'd admit it was fair because none of us really deserved to write it but those students were just plain lucky.
However, this situation is not completely analagous to the calvinist position either! The difference is that presumably there are not a limited amount of tests (or seats, let's say). It is only just if only a certain number of people can get into heaven. If this is the case, then I concede that all is just. But if there is enough room in heaven for everyone, then God does seem unfair to let only some in. Suppose in the last scenario the teacher didn't have 5 papers but he had 20 papers remaining. If he let 5 of the late students write it but then said, "sorry, folks, that's all I'm letting in," then I would try to get this guy fired because that was totally unfair. Either don't let any of us write it, or let all of us write it, but don't just pick a few people and leave some others out!
Jeff,
There ARE things He can do justly, while we cannot.
First, could you give some examples of things that God can do which are just for him but not for us?
And what things can neither God nor us do justly?
Second, even if I grant that there are some things which seem unjust to us but just to God, that still does not establish that Calvinistic election is one of those things. It could very well be that Calvinistic election is one of those other things which would still be unjust to both God and us.
Jeff,
How do we know that God is all-good?
Namely, where does our definition of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good come from?
Jeff,
If it's true that we arrive at the fact that God is all-good by scripture, then to conclude that the Doctrine of Election is therefore just is circular, precisely because the doctrine is itself included in scripture.
That is, if Calvinistic election does not seem just, and Calvinistic election is in the Bible, then there is no way to conclude from the Bible that God is all-good. In fact, the opponents of Calvinism are trying to employ a reductio ad absurdum argument against Calvinism using this very fact.
So, I don't think the argument that God must be all-good therefore so is the Doctrine of Election can refutate any of the arguments against Calvinism which use the concept of justice.
Steve,
And supposidly, its our fault that we're not among the elect.
You seem to be having the same misunderstanding you started out with. The non-elect aren't blamed or punished for being non-elect. You're right that they didn't choose to be non-elect. What they are blamed and punished for is their sins. They did choose to commit sins.
So if the "elect" dont deserve heaven more than me, why do they get to go? And if the "elect" deserve to go to hell as much as the rest of us, then why dont they go there?
Because of God's grace. That's what it means to be saved by grace. It means our salvation is due to nothing in ourselves. It is totally undeserved.
Steve, the only way you can be certain that you're not saved is if you know already that you're never going to follow God's plan. The reason anybody should follow God's plan is to ensure that they are saved.
Steve, you can only devote your life to Christ if you are chosen. That's why devoting your life to Christ ensures that you're saved.
Devoting your life to Christ isn't what causes you to be saved. Jesus dying for your sins and regenerating you is what causes you to be saved. Devoting your life to Christ is what lets you know that Jesus died for your sins and regenerated you.
Jeff,
We actually have two issues here:
Issue 1:
The Bible can only be inerrant if Calvinism is inerrant. So P1 is inside C1. I'll only concede the point if you can show that inerrancy can be determined without touching the same scriptures that purportedly contain Calvinism. Otherwise, the argument that God can do things which are unjust to us but just to him (i.e. since God is all-good) doesn't work.
Issue 2:
Let's suppose you meet the challenge above and show that the Bible is indeed inerrant without using scriptures which are also used for proving Calvinism.
Then opponents of Calvinism can now use a reductio ad absurdum argument like below:
Suppose the Bible contains Calvinism. And suppose the Bible is 100% true. Then Calvinism is 100% true. But then Calvinism contradicts another part of the Bible which is also supposed to be 100% true - God's all-good nature! Then, either the Bible is not 100% true, God is not all-good, or the Bible does not contain Calvinism. But of course the Bible is true, and indeed God is all-good. Therefore, the Bible does not contain Calvinism.
In this case, I admit that the opponent has to do more work to prove the contradiction (i.e. show that it is impossible for God to do just things which seem unjust to us) -- the opponent has to show that Calvinistic election is NOT one of those things which are just for God but not for us.
But even if he stopped right here, I think he might have a good probabilistic argument on his hands, which could weigh in when he tries to disprove P3.
Jeff,
I'm going to withdraw the first issue because I realize now that it was based on a misunderstanding on proving inerrancy. Basically, I thought that inerrancy was proven by evaluating every portion of the Bible separately (where Calvinist scripture would be included). But now I see that it can be proven by using just a few verses, e.g. 2 Timothy 16-17, which has a scope which can encompass large portions of the Bible in one sweep.
So I guess the focus should be back on issue 2, which was actually the original issue.
Namely, I made an argument against Unconditional Election using the idea of justice, then you countered by saying it is possible that what is unjust to us is just to God, then I said yes, but it was also possible that Unconditional Election was not one of those things, and that's where we left off.
So I guess the question is, which is it?
Actually, this morning I thought of an argument that could aid the Calvinist side:
First, you have to admit that God has the sovereign right to take away life while we do not -- even if it does not seem just for God to do it. Taking life is one of those things which are just for God but not for us.
But let's think about this. What does it mean to 'take away life?' When someone "dies", does it mean they cease to exist? If we kill someone, do we cause them to cease to exist? No. We can only kill the body, not the soul. Therefore, what God actually has the right to do in this case and what we are forbidden to do is take physical life. Therefore, taking physical life is one of those things which are just for God but not for us.
If this is so, then consider the Doctrine of Election. What exactly does the Doctrine of Election say? Through His choice of who becomes Elect, the Doctrine states that God has the authority to give peoples everlasting life or everlasting death: that is, God has the right to give spiritual life and to take away spiritual life -- where spiritual life refers to eternal salvation and taking it away refers to eternal damnation. And just like taking physical life, it may sometimes seem unjust for God to do it.
Therefore, taking 'spiritual' life is quite analagous to taking 'physical' life. As God can give and take away physical life without being unjust, God should be able to give and take away spiritual life without being unjust either. Therefore, the Doctrine of Election is not contradictory to God's omnibenevolence.
Steve,
Whether God first chooses you or you choose God first, everything should appear the same in your perspective.
Even if God chooses you, you have no knowledge of his decision. It's only after you become a Christian that you realize that He chose you.
So if you decide to sit back and don't do anything (say, for your whole life), then it will mean you were not chosen, so there's nothing to "play out." But if you do decide to be a Christian, the moment you do you would be able to conclude with reasonable certainty that God had actually chosen you beforehand, so you were an Elect all along.
At the beginning we all have the right to go to heaven, because we haven't committed any sins. But the instant we commit our first sin, we consequently lose our right to go to heaven. That is, going to heaven is actually a privilege, not a right. And we lost it. So by our choice to sin, we no longer possess a right to heaven, and we are on our way to hell. We no longer have a right to choose to be saved or not, as we already made it by sinning.
God, however, does have the right to choose, since He is the gatekeeper of heaven and the ultimate arbitrator of justice. So if He chooses to save a person from their fate, He is the only one who possesses the right to do so.
So, you're right, God does choose whether or not we are saved, and we do not, but that's because we made that decision already long ago. God is actually giving certain people a second chance to heaven, and it's up to Him who He wants to give it to.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you have no original sin. Even if that's so, surely everybody has sinned or will sin at least once in their lifetime. So the argument still works regardless.
Steve,
My argument was just a response to your implicit charge that there's something unjust about us not being able to decide whether we are Christians (you wrote: "but i wouldn't be deciding to be christian... GOD would be deciding Im christian.")
So your remarks about God's power are irrelevant. That has nothing to do with my case, namely that there is nothing particularly unjust going on with God being the one choosing our salvation.
Plus, your objection seems to be a bit odd. I thought that the problem you had originally was that it was our lack of control (and God's control) in deciding whether we go to heaven or hell that was most disturbing. So if it is true that God is the one who is lacking some control, shouldn't that be a good thing?
Nevertheless, I don't think the case is that God is lacking control. God doesn't have to save anyone in the first place. He could justly let us go where we deserve (hell). So God actually has complete control, as he has no obligation to anyone to do anything.
Steve,
I'm assuming you meant to say, "If it requires us to sin in order to not go to heaven, we choose whether or not we go to hell."
If that's the case, then it looks like from the rest of your comment that you understand Unconditional Election better now.
Right now I think you agree that the following scenario is fair: We freely sin, so we deserve to go to hell (we send ourselves to hell). God can just let things go as they are, and He'd be just to do so, but He doesn't. Instead, by God's grace, God chooses to pardon certain people of His choosing (the Elect) and let them enter Heaven (a second chance).
Right, so that's where we are at the moment.
I believe Calvinistic Election is isomorphic to that situation in every way except one, that we did not say anything about original sin, which is what you say you have reservations about.
I think another doctrine of Calvinism - Total Depravity - is tied into this.
I may be off on this, but I think original sin means that because of Adam and Eve, humans begin life corruped - i.e. prone to sin. I think Total Depravity says that this corruption is so large that it is impossible not to sin. Therefore, every person will inevitably go to hell for this.
But if original sin means that we literally inherit the sins of our ancestors (up to Adam and Eve), then that means we are born guilty, whereas in the previous case we are born innocent but will inevitably become guilty.
How either case affects our scenario (which only considers personal sin) I am not able to say at the moment.
I think we're on the same page. What you just said is pretty similar to what I said in my first comment about how the issue hinges on whether or not God's choice of Elect is arbitrary. Intuitively it doesn't seem right. Hence the rebuttal that it doesn't have to seem right (God sees things differently). But hearing that doesn't necessarily make you feel that much better, does it?
weird.
Why does God have to use Jesus? Couldn't he have used a sheep?
And if the punishment for sin is eternal damnation, why is Jesus not in hell?
Dale, the answer I hear most often is that Jesus was able to save us because he is God. Sheep that were sacrificed could not take away sins forever. Those sacrifices had to be repeated on an annual basis.
Jesus, being God, is infinitely more valuable than a sheep. That's why he was able to die for sins once for all--a sacrifice never to be repeated. Hebrews talks about this some.
And Jesus did not need to go to hell for eternity because of his infinite value. The death of Jesus was enough payment for sin.
Of course the Bible doesn't explicitly spell out this explanation, but it seems to be the most popular one.
Post a Comment