Ezekiel 18-20
Oct. 12th, 2010 09:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
God has decided that the children shouldn't suffer for the sins of their parents any longer, why did he say that they should before? This sort of indecisiveness doesn't seem right in an all-knowing deity.
OK, so let me get this straight, a wicked person will die/suffer for their sins, unless they decide to turn away from their sin and do what is just. So, how long can you spend being sinful before the punishment kicks in, because once you're dead you're not going to be able to turn from your sin and become righteous, surely. And just how righteous do you have to become and how long for in order to correct the wrong God thinks you committed?
I haven't even got that straight and now apparently if you're righteous and then start being wicked then you'll die and your righteous acts are not taken into account, which makes even less sense. So, the moral of the tale seems to be, start out bad and become good, not the other way round. I agree with the house of Israel that this is unjust, and God's answer to that charge is not actually an answer because he just calls them unjust back and assures them he takes no pleasure in the deaths of anyone, wicked or good.
OK, so let me get this straight, a wicked person will die/suffer for their sins, unless they decide to turn away from their sin and do what is just. So, how long can you spend being sinful before the punishment kicks in, because once you're dead you're not going to be able to turn from your sin and become righteous, surely. And just how righteous do you have to become and how long for in order to correct the wrong God thinks you committed?
I haven't even got that straight and now apparently if you're righteous and then start being wicked then you'll die and your righteous acts are not taken into account, which makes even less sense. So, the moral of the tale seems to be, start out bad and become good, not the other way round. I agree with the house of Israel that this is unjust, and God's answer to that charge is not actually an answer because he just calls them unjust back and assures them he takes no pleasure in the deaths of anyone, wicked or good.
Re: What God is offering
Date: 2010-10-21 01:36 am (UTC)--continued from above
I understand your problem with the idea of eternal punishment. I submit that part of the reason for this is that you, like many people, see the people who will be subject to this as "regular folks". They are people, just like you and I, who made the "mistake" of not believing the right way. To that I submit that if we were to look at "regular folks", our lives are filled with sin. Some sins, as humans measure them, are small, and some large, but they are prevalent in our lives and occur every day. You've got thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. out there, and in fact, the sin that you and I commit is no less serious. People can die because of a white lie or shoplifting. If we're lucky, nobody will die because of one of our sins, but we don't know for sure and we do it anyway knowing that it could happen. I'm not saying that we don't try our best and try to do some good, but at the end, we are still sinners, believers and nonbelievers alike, and none of us have the "right" to an eternal reward for our actions.
Let's speculate, for a moment that instead of eternal punishment, God simply ignores those people who don't believe. That at the white throne judgment, when it becomes obvious to everyone that God is real, God separates those who didn't believe and simply doesn't allow them to enter into God's presence. The whole of existence would be beautiful and splendorous for the believers. They would be in the presence of God, and blessings would flow. The nonbelievers would be unable to experience God's presence, stuck in some sort of gray limbo they would be unable to participate in the experiences or blessings that God gives. Would that be any less punishment? Sure, they don't get tossed into a fire, but outside of that, the result would be the same, isolation from God, because isolation from God is the true punishment, and yes, it would last forever because that is what they chose. They didn't want God. They didn't want forgiveness. They didn't want to even consider it, so they chose that isolation. Of course the Scriptures say that there will be a lake of fire and that is absolute, because that is the binary nature of sin. As you wrote when I asked what a reasonable punishment would be, neither you, nor I are God.
You mention God's wrath, and yes, that is part of God's nature and I admitted as much in my post, but it is still true that it comes only after repeated rejection of God. This rejection is a choice. Adam and Eve were exiled from Eden because of their choices, but they were still given long lives and opportunities to reconnect with God. David's son died of illness because of David's choices (including adultery, lying, the murder of Uriah and hypocrisy about it all), but David still had the opportunity to return to a relationship with God. God's wrath is short lived and we have the opportunity to return to a relationship with God as long as we are alive. God also knows when someone is never going to choose that relationship, and when that happens, the consequences are absolute because that is the binary nature of sin.
At the end, whether we like it or not, there's no escaping the fact that the framework was established by God and it is the reality that we have to deal with. We're not discussing whether or not we should create an amendment and have a vote on it, we're simply saying that we don't like the outcome for those who choose not to follow Jesus. I don't like the outcome any more than you do, although I cannot conceive of any reasonable alternative that would somehow be better. I can, however accept it as "just" because of the freedom that people have to make their choices and the fact that they knew the consequences of those choices and still made them.
-- Jeff
Re: What God is offering
Date: 2010-10-23 12:52 am (UTC)I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong about the two punishments. I've been wrong about enough in the past. But I need some clarification. It sure seems like punishment to me, and not that this makes me right, I asked two Christians who told me they believed Christ took our punishment upon Himself. I guess it's the manner of His death and beating that makes me think He was punished. If it was just a sacrifice, couldn't He have just came down from heaven and lived the sinless life and said "Believe in me, and try to do likewise"? His giving up His place in heaven was sure a huge sacrifice. John says that he was the propitiation for our sins, which is a fancy way of saying substitution. Paul uses the same word in Romans. If unbelievers are punished, and believers are not, then it seems that Christ as a substitute would have to have been punished. In Luke 23 Pilate seems to think that Christ was punished and then some.
You said let's not suggest that God is torturing these souls. I'm not so sure He's not. The fact that "they are choosing it themselves" doesn't discount the possibility. If my children know that if they disobey me they will be punished, then when they do disobey me, they choose the punishment themselves. But I dole it out. Consider Job 31. Verse 3 says "Is not calamity for the unrighteous, and disaster for the workers of iniquity?" And in verse 23, "For I was in terror of calamity from God". Nothing happens outside of God's will.
As to the reason for my problem with eternal punishment, yours was a fair assumption. It was also wrong. It's not that I see people as regular folks, but that I see it as logically inconsistent. You wrote:
Let's speculate, for a moment that instead of eternal punishment, God simply ignores those people who don't believe. That at the white throne judgment, when it becomes obvious to everyone that God is real, God separates those who didn't believe and simply doesn't allow them to enter into God's presence. The whole of existence would be beautiful and splendorous for the believers. They would be in the presence of God, and blessings would flow. The nonbelievers would be unable to experience God's presence, stuck in some sort of gray limbo they would be unable to participate in the experiences or blessings that God gives. Would that be any less punishment? Sure, they don't get tossed into a fire, but outside of that, the result would be the same, isolation from God, because isolation from God is the true punishment, and yes, it would last forever because that is what they chose.
My thought is that if God is a consuming fire, then it is possible for unbelievers to be wiped out entirely, with nothing left behind. No spirit lingering in a "gray limbo". Completely erased. So, that would be less punishment.
Looking forward to your thoughts,
Darryl
Re: What God is offering
Date: 2010-10-28 12:35 am (UTC)Sorry for the delay in responding.
The suffering that Jesus went through was not punishment for sins. It was as much as anything the natural consequence of the free choices of his tormentors. Crucifixion, scourging, etc. were very painful and ugly processes. The people who were doing this had accused Jesus of blasphemy and they wanted to harm him. He knew that it was going to happen, and yet submitted himself to it. This was part of his willing sacrifice for us. There was simply no way, with the culture of the times, for him to make the sacrifice without some pain, but it wasn't God punishing him for our sins.
I've heard the same argument from some Christians that Jesus was punished. The scriptures don't really support that line of reasoning. Scripturally, our sins are forgiven. 1 John 1:7-9 says (paraphrased) that the blood of Jesus (his sacrifice) purifies us from all sin. If we confess our sins, God being faithful and just will forgive us. It is absolutely just for us to not be punished if our sins are forgiven, and similarly it is absolutely just for Jesus not to be punished if our sins are forgiven because being forgiven means that the sins are wiped out as if they never occurred.
You asked if it were a sacrifice, couldn't Jesus have lived and not died on the cross (giving up Heaven would be sacrifice enough). Unfortunately no, for several reasons.
First, Jesus was Jewish and he spoke mostly to Jews (although his message was for everyone). One of Jesus' purposes was to fulfill/complete/finish the old covenant. By Jesus' actions, he rendered the old covenant obsolete, but part of the old covenant dealt with a blood sacrifice for sins. This symbolic sacrifice (up until Jesus) was replaced with the true sacrifice of a sinless (perfect, without flaw or blemish) person giving up his life for us. This is a true act of love, to give up one's life for another (See John 15:13), and this shows how much Jesus loved us, that he was willing to give up his physical life for us to be free from sin.
Second, Jesus fulfilled the prophecies about the Messiah. In fact, it would be impossible for anyone today to do so for a variety of reasons. One of those prophecies is that he would indeed be killed and one who would oppose God would be given dominion for a while (see Daniel 9 among others).
Third, the people, who had free will, wanted him dead. Yes, God allows us free will even though we choose to go against God. The free will of the Jews would have left two choices for Jesus: 1) Use Godly power to avoid the people's will -- this would effectively be eliminating free will and would be controlling the people 2) Submit to the people -- although painful, this would result in accomplishing the first two reasons above as well as maintaining God's commitment to free will.
Fourth, defeat of death. Jesus did indeed die, but his resurrection and subsequent appearance to hundreds of people as proof of his resurrection, showed that death could not overcome God. Christians know that death is not the end, but that the promise of resurrection at the end times will be fulfilled, just as it was with Jesus. Without the resurrection, Jesus was just a good man, the resurrection showed that he was much more than that, but the resurrection doesn't come without death.
-- continued --
Re: What God is offering
Date: 2010-10-28 12:35 am (UTC)Propitiation doesn't mean substitution. Propitiation means appeasement, conciliation or placation. John is saying that Jesus' sacrifice appeased the wrath of God so that our sins no longer carried the penalty.
In Luke 23, Pilate, spoke as a person, and yes, Pilate didn't like seeing Jesus tortured by people in this way, but punishment from God? Pilate didn't speak about that.
My point about people choosing their own punishment is to say that God isn't hanging out wanting to punish people. God's character shows repeatedly in The Bible that God wants people to not be punished, and God gives repeated chances to people to avoid the punishment. Further, they are cast into the lake of fire and are burned by it, God isn't standing there, cackling and pressing them into the flames. I submit that God will likely ignore those who are in the lake of fire.
So your solution would be for God to destroy the souls of the sinners. They would cease to exist. As such their punishment would be short (effectively nonexistent) for their sins. As you wrote before, sin requires punishment (and I modified this by saying unforgiven sin requires punishment). So where is the punishment?
The real punishment that God has chosen is for sinners to be separated from God. The lake of fire is just a location, but lacking God's presence would be the bad part.
I'm afraid that I can't assuage your feelings about what will happen to those who refuse the gift of salvation. I accept the punishment that they face (since I really have no say in it), and I acknowledge that in the end, it is God's decision, not mine. Instead, I focus on helping people understand that they can choose a path that won't lead to punishment. The gift is available to everyone "Then [they] shall know the truth, and the truth shall set [them] free" John 8:32
-- Jeff