Repost from the great crash 0f 08
I have heard this since I was a very young Christian. It seemed somewhat reasonable as it was explained to me by pastors in sermons and by Christians as they explained the seriousness of sin. Their theology goes something like this:
All sin is so bad that even the smallest of sins deserves eternal punishment in hell. It does not matter if it is losing your temper at a lousy referee, not sharing your Icee, or speeding 36 in a 35, every sin deserves eternal torment in Hell. Why? Although it may seem unreasonable to us (as depraved as we are), it is fitting for a perfectly holy God who cannot be in the sight of sin, no matter how insignificant this sin might seem to us. In fact, there is no sin that is insignificant to God. Because He is infinitely holy, beyond our understanding, all sin is infinitely offensive to Him. Therefore, the punishment for all sin must be infinite.
I have to be very careful here since I am going against what has become the popular evangelical way to present the Gospel, but I don’t believe this is true. Not only do I not buy it, I think this, like the idea that all sins are equal in the sight of God, is damaging to the character of God, the significance of the cross, and I believe it trivializes sin. Let me explain.
First off, I don’t know of a passage in the Bible that would suggest such a radical view. It would seem that people make this conclusion this way:
Premise 1: Hell is eternal
Premise 2: All people that go there are there for eternity
Premise 3: Not all people have committed the same number or the same degree of sins
Conclusion: All sin, no matter how small, will send someone to hell for all eternity
The fallacy here is that this syllogism is a non-sequitur (the conclusion does not follow from the premises). Could it be that people are in Hell for all eternity based upon who they are rather than what they have done?
Think about this. Many of us believe that Christ’s atonement was penal substitution. This means that it was a legal trade. God counted the sufferings of Christ and that which transpired on the Cross as payment for our sins, each and every one. Therefore, we believe that Christ took the punishment that we deserved. But there is a problem. We are saying that we deserve eternal Hell for one single sin, no matter how small. I don’t know about you, but I have committed enough sins to give me more than my share of life sentences. I have committed sins of the”insignificant” variety (I speed everyday) and significant variety (no description necessary!). So, if Christ were only to take my penalty and if I deserve thousands upon thousands of eternities in hell, why didn’t Christ spend at least one eternity in Hell? Why is it that he was off the Cross in six hours, payment made in full? Combine my sentence with your sentence. Then combine ours with the cumulative sentences of all believers of all time. Yet Christ only suffers for a short time? How do we explain this?
You may say to me that I cannot imagine the intensity of suffering that Christ endured while he was on the cross. You may say that the mysterious transaction that took place was worse than eternity in Hell. I would give you the first, but I will have to motivate you to reconsider the second. Think about it. Do you really believe that the person who has been in hell for 27 billion years with 27 billion more times infinity would not look to the sufferings of Christ and say, “You know what? Christ’s six hours of suffering was bad. It is indeed legendary. But I would trade what I am going through any day for six hours, no matter how horrifying it would be.” You see, what makes hell so bad is not simply the intensity of suffering, but the duration. Christ did not suffer eternally, so there must be something more to this substitution idea and there must be something more to sin.
I believe that Christ did pay our penalty. I believe that hell is eternal. But I don’t believe that one sin sends people to hell for eternity. Sin is trivialized in our day. Sin is first something that we do, not something that we are. In other words, people think of God sitting on the throne becoming enraged (in a holy sort of way) each time that someone breaks the speed limit. It is only the cross of Christ that makes Him look past the eternally damning sin and forgive us. Don’t think that I am undermining the severity of sin, but I am trying to bring focus to the real problem that has infected humanity since the Garden.
The real problem is that we are at enmity with God. From the moment we are born, we inherit the traits of our father Adam. This infectious disease is called sin. This disease issues forth into a disposition toward God that causes us to begin life with our fist in the air, not recognizing His love for us or authority over us. It is rebellion. While this rebellion does act according to its nature, the problem is in the disposition, not so much the acts. When we sin, we are just acting according to the dictates of our corrupt nature. But the worst of it—the worst sin of all—is that we will never lower our fist to God. We are “by nature, children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and as a leopard cannot change his spots, so we cannot change our rebellious disposition toward our Creator (Jer. 13:23).
This disposition is that of a fierce enemy that cannot do anything but fight against its foe. Paul describes this:
Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
We are of the “flesh,” therefore we commit deeds according to the flesh. Does this mean that the person in this state does no good at all? Well, it depends on what you mean by “good.” Can an enemy of God love his neighbor? Of course. Enemies of God can and do all sorts of acts that the Bible would consider virtuous. But from the standpoint of their relationship with God, they cannot do any good at all (Rom. 3:12). Giving a drink to someone who is thirsty with the left hand while having your right hand in a fist clinched toward heaven does not count as “good” before God. Why? Because we are in rebellion against Him. This is our problem.
This I propose is the only sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity.
It is important to understand that hell not is filled with people who are crying out for God’s mercy, constantly hoping for a second chance. People are in hell because they have the same disposition toward God that they had while they were walking the earth. They do not suddenly, upon entrance into Hell, change their nature and become sanctified. They still hate God. People are in hell for all eternity, not because they floated a stop sign, but because their fists are still clinched toward God. They are not calling on His mercy. They are not pleading for a second chance. They are in hell for all eternity because that is where they would rather be. It is their nature. As C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.”
Christ, on the other hand, was the second Adam. He did not identify with the first either in disposition or choice. He gained the right to be called the second Adam who would represent His people (Rom. 5:12ff). He is not spending eternity in Hell because he was never infected with the sinful nature which caused him to be at enmity with God. His fist was never clinched toward the heavens.
Will one white-lie send someone to Hell for all eternity? No! To say otherwise trivializes sin and makes God an overly sensitive cosmic torture monger. Sin does send people to Hell. People will be punished for their sins accordingly. But the sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity is the sin of perpetual rebellion.
462 replies to ""One White Lie Will Send You to Hell For All Eternity" . . . and other stupid statments"
Here is the link to the other thread on this site. It contains quite a few quotes and some links to other materials on this subject. There are quotes here from John Calvin that say God ordained the fall of man. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/05/john-calvinlove-him-or-hate-him/
Cheryl, I’m baffled. Why are you talking about Piper?
As I said, Piper does believe that. As I said, I don’t. As I said, Calvin does. As I said, “I don’t see what that has to do with this conversation, though; it doesn’t contradict what I said.”
Why are we talking about Piper?
-Wm
I’m talking about Piper because he seems to be, at least to many Calvinists today, their “poster boy”–he is highly respected, looked up to and referred to repeatedly. Therefore, it would seem that he is at least a somewhat fair representation of the general beliefs of Calvinism. And that is what I thought we were discussing, the general beliefs of Calvinism. Not just your particular take on it. Does that help?
#John,
Back on track–can you tell us what changed your mind about the one white lie issue?
Sorry I missed this earlier! The answer is very simple: the context is speaking of the covenant promises made to the Israelites in the Land, and the immanent judgment of invasion that God promised through Ezekiel. God has two messages: first, He wants it known that there’s a threat of physical death from this punishment, both general and specific (you can get killed by being in the wrong place because you weren’t warned, OR you could get killed because the judgment “had your name on it); and second, He wants it known that the specific threat of physical death can be avoided by turning from your sins and doing righteousness — but contrariwise, if you think you’re doing great now, keep in mind that if you do violate the covenant the punishment for doing so will fall on you.
When we generalize this passage (which we should), it applies not to eternal salvation, but to national judgment. If it DID apply to eternal salvation, then a single white lie WOULD send you to hell; there could truly be no assurance of salvation.
-Wm
So, then “The wages of sin is death” must only mean phyisical death??
After all in Ezekiel 33 he is speaking of such things as “you shall die in your iniquity”.
Sorry, I can’t buy your interpretation.
“When we generalize this passage (which we should), it applies not to eternal salvation, but to national judgment. If it DID apply to eternal salvation, then a single white lie WOULD send you to hell; there could truly be no assurance of salvation”
Umm, isn’t that why we need Jesus salvation?
My argument is against the interpretation that says something like this: “God so loved the world that…” means “God loved everyone in the world very, very much, and therefore…”
That’s not what the verse means; it’s not present at all in the Greek, but is just an accidental double-meaning of the English word “so”. A less ambiguous translation is in the NET Bible: “For this is the way God loved the world…”
Now, that’s what “so” means. What does “world” mean? It’s true that it could conceivably mean “everyone in the world”, but it could also mean simply “the created order” or “this globe”. When you keep reading things become clearer, though: John 3:17 says “…that the world through Him should be saved.” This is an unconditional sentence; what God did in John 3:16 to love “the world” results in unconditionally saving “the world” in John 3:17. This means that if “the world” means “every person in the world”, John 3:17 must mean that everyone is going to be saved. And this doesn’t fit well with the condition in John 3:16.
-Wm
William,
Could I ask you to do me a favor? You are going way back in the comments and pulling out quotes here lately. Would you mind putting comment #s with them so that I, or others, could refer back to them easily without having to hunt back through this huge manuscript we have managed to write here? I find it is not always easy to answer your new comments when I’m not sure I remember precisely what the argument was in the original one. I think it might save us all a bit of confusion.
What does Jesus’ salvation do for us? Does it stop us from sinning? If not, and if your reading of Eze 33 is correct, it’s not enough: any return to sin will instantly condemn you to death.
The reason Jesus’ salvation truly saves eternally is that it changes us. The reason the unsaved go to hell isn’t because the last thing they did was tell a white lie; the reason is that they do not desire God, but rather hate him.
Thus, it’s not the white lie that sends the unsaved to hell; it’s their sinful, dead heart. To go back to Ezekiel, it’s their stone heart, not replaced by the heart of flesh granted by the New Covenant.
-Wm
He is indeed respected; I myself respect him. But on this specific point, both he and Calvin diverge from mainstream Calvinism (ha!) as it’s defined in all of the Reformed confessions.
The reason is as I’ve stated: his conclusions aren’t present in the Bible.
Now, I was making a point to which you responded by implying that Piper believed that people get sent to hell because of God’s decree. But this is not an accurate representation of Piper’s beliefs. People get sent to hell because of their sinful hearts, not because of God’s decree. Claiming that it’s because of God’s decree is exactly the same sort of error as if you claimed that being sent to hell is a result of God creating them. Creation and decree are both necessary, but they’re not the proximate nor sufficient cause for them going to hell.
-Wm
William,
Romans 5:18 says, “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.”
If one uses your interpretation of John 3:16 ff on this Romans verse, it becomes completely nonsensical and loses the meaning and comparision Paul had for it.
Nobody is going to argue that one man’s–Adam’s– transgression brought condemnation to all men, but you will certainly argue that Jesus death (or His love) didn’t bring justification or salvation to all men. Yet that is precisely what Paul says here happened. And I see no way to get around it by your argument.
So it seems to me that the logical way to interpret this is something more along the lines of, “God loved the world to save the world and Jesus act of righteousness brings justification to all men means the POSSIBILITY of salvation and justification for all men–if they will accept it.” In fact, I just read a couple of commentaries that interpreted it that way–Matthew Henry’s and David Guzik’s.
William,
You said, “Now, I was making a point to which you responded by implying that Piper believed that people get sent to hell because of God’s decree. But this is not an accurate representation of Piper’s beliefs. People get sent to hell because of their sinful hearts, not because of God’s decree. Claiming that it’s because of God’s decree is exactly the same sort of error as if you claimed that being sent to hell is a result of God creating them. Creation and decree are both necessary, but they’re not the proximate nor sufficient cause for them going to hell.”
But Piper says God is the one that decrees people to be rebellious.
So….He decrees their rebellion, their sin and sends them to hell for it. Is not that being sent to hell by God’s decree?? To say other wise is simply a juggling act of words to make God seem free of decreeing people to hell it would seem to me.
William,
You know what seems really odd about all of this? You Calvinists insist that you had nothing at all to do with your salvation–that God brought you sovereignly to Himself by irresistable grace. That He changed you so that you couldn’t help but respond. Therefore all of the glory is His and none of it is yours.
On the other hand—you insist, or at least some like Piper do–that God decreed who would be sinful and rebellious. Then you say that they can’t change or do anything else because those are their core desires given by God.
HOWEVER, in the case of the rebellious, you insist that they are only getting what they deserve because they are sinful and it is not God that has decreed that they go to hell.
If you can’t resist His grace that will draw you to Him- it has nothing to do with you that you choose to come–then how in the world come does it have everything to do with the sinner and he is getting sent to hell because of his sin–but it is not God’s decree that sent him there?
With one it is all God’s decree, with the other it is his own sin and his own fault. But God has, in the Calvinist mind, made them both to be exactly as they are.
Sounds like an incredible double standard to me.
Cheryl: good point about the post numbers. I read through Google Reader, so I don’t see them; but I can and should dig them up when I reply.
In response to the rest of post 244:
He definitely loves the whole world. John 3:16 says so. The question is whether He loves each and every one in the world the same way He loves His saints. I contend that He does not; you contend that He does. So far our argument is clear.
Indeed.
First, I have to admit that this verse, on its face, is very strong; if the propitiation applies to the sins of everyone in the world, it’s a death blow to the idea of Limited Atonement, and means that either your ideas are right, or Universalism is true.
But there’s a few problems.
First, note that the words “those of” are not present in the original Greek. The verse might be meaning that Christ died for the sins of the whole world; but what it’s saying is that Christ died for the whole world. When we say that Christ died for sins, we speak of the sins of individuals; but when we say he died for the whole world, we are talking about the cosmic redemption for which the entire creation groans.
Second, what of the context? 1 John is an eminently practical epistle; he’s writing to assure us about our salvation, not merely to explain the nature of God. So how does this fit into the surrounding argument? John is saying that Christ’s sacrifice forgives all our sins, and there’s nothing it can’t cover. I think this verse means that Christ didn’t just pay for all our sins, He paid for the redemption of the entire cosmos. Therefore, we should confess our sins and accept forgiveness gladly, without trying to hide the sins or pretend they didn’t happen or don’t matter.
Again, these are merely possible interpretations, not certain ones; but they fit very well with what John’s trying to say, while your interpretation simply doesn’t belong in the context.
In just a few words: this verse makes it clear that God acts as Savior in different ways for all men as He does for those who don’t believe. That rejects the idea that He Loves both the same.
Re: post 250:
My main problem wasn’t the number; it was that the verse references were posted instead of interacting with my analysis of Eph 2. Why should I spend my time analyzing five more verses, when my first one was apparently completely ignored? I still don’t know whether my analysis was right, wrong, convincing, or just pointless.
True — more importantly, I’m learning a lot by studying these things myself. It’s easy to cut and paste, but I learn nothing that way. I get real criticism, too, from people who can hate my errors without hating me.
Actually, I now see why you’re disagreeing with me. That’s not what I wanted to communicate. The phrase “God is love” clearly and deeply shows that God’s nature is Love (your analysis was spot-on). But there it stops. The phrase does NOT say that God loves all of His creatures in the same way; and there are other verses that specifically say that He doesn’t love them all in the same way.
-Wm
William,
“In just a few words: this verse makes it clear that God acts as Savior in different ways for all men as He does for those who don’t believe. That rejects the idea that He Loves both the same.”
That is how you interpret it. Others interpret it to mean simply that He is the Savior of all but it is specifically applied to those that believe. That doesn’t mean that He loves them differently.
“When we say that Christ died for sins, we speak of the sins of individuals; but when we say he died for the whole world, we are talking about the cosmic redemption for which the entire creation groans.”
If that is is the case, doesn’t it also have to be the case in John 3:16-18? You mentioned it as a possiblity. However if you read verse 17 and 18 together, it becomes very clear that he is speaking of individual salvation and condemnation. Not the salvation of the cosmos. So I don’t think that works either.
And very frankly, I just can’t see that your argument about context rules out my interpretation of it at all. Just because he is trying to give people assurance, doesn’t mean that he can’t be saying that he died for the sins of all men. In fact, what a better way to give people assurance than to state that His death was for all! Saying his death is for a very few, is to me, one of the greatest ways in the world to stir up questions in a persons mind. How are they ever to know if it was for them???
From post 306:
Ezekiel is talking specifically about people dying because a man with a sword ran past the watchman and stabbed them. That’s physical death.
“The wages of sin is death” is in a completely different passage, in a different book, by a different author, to a different culture, in the New Testament; the following context (“but the gift of God is eternal life”) unmistakably shows that it’s speaking of eternal destiny.
Ezekiel can’t be broadened into a metaphor about spiritual death; as I explained, to do that forces it to contradict other passages of the Bible, by making a single sin even in a saved person result in spiritual death.
So you’re not at liberty to simply “not buy” my interpretation. If you’ve got a better one, by all means provide it — but do so taking the context into account.
-Wm
Post 312:
But you can’t possibly do that. Rom 5:18 doesn’t mention the world; it speaks of “all men”. Furthermore, Rom 5:18 isn’t in the context of John 3:16ff, and so isn’t constrained in the same way.
Rom 5:18 is worthy of its own analysis (but what Bible verse isn’t!), but it’s not an argument against my analysis of John 3:16, because the passages contain no common text.
That’s because I haven’t argued it yet — as Proverbs 18:17 says, “the first to state his case seems right, until his opponent begins to cross-examine him.” I’ll argue it — I guess — after you’ve dealt with John 3:16.
I think the text reasonably (although not completely) rules that out; John 3:17 isn’t a conditional (that’s not clear in the English, but the verb “saved” in Greek is a simple tense, not subjunctive). John 3:17 says that Jesus came to save the world, not that He came to maybe save the world.
I do accept that other verses can lead one to harmonize the text in that way, and that’s perfectly within the pale of orthodoxy. But it’s not part of the text itself.
-Wm
William,
Regarding your last comment. I have always read and heard Ezekiel 33 to mean not only physical death, but spiritual death as well, particularly in the charge given to Ezekiel. I just read four commentaries on that chapter, and they all accepted the same interpretation. One other one I read spoke of both physical and spiritual death being meant here, but with some qualification.
Obviously this is just one more Scripture passage that we see in totally differnet ways.
William,
Okay, I think I see your point regarding the Romans 5 verse. Scratch that argument!
Re post 320:
Actually, you’re right. The watchman story at the start of Ezek 33 applies to almost everything, including financial loss; it’s a very general metaphor, because it’s based on a very simple ethical principle. Here it’s being specifically applied to the threat of death during an invasion brought on by God as judgment for prolonged disobedience.
The second half of Ezek 33, which includes the verses you were citing, can’t be applied to spiritual death; it’s specific to the sort of punishments God was preparing for Israel at the time.
-Wm
Hi William,
Actually the second half of Ezekiel is precisely the part that all of the commentaries I mentioned interpreted as spiritual death just as I did.
Remember this is the Old Testament where people were told they would live or die both physically and spiritually if they didn’t keep the law. New Testament reference–the first few verses of Romans 10. The catch was, of course, that they couldn’t keep it–just like we can’t. And so–“the just shall live by faith.”
Cheryl, the Jews didn’t interpret the law that way; the Law didn’t include any mention of life after death, and some Jews in Jesus’ time didn’t believe in it because they accepted only the books of the Law as Scriptures (the Saducees). The promises of fulfillment after death, whether Abraham’s fulfillment (promised only through his children) or Job’s (“yet in my flesh shall I see God”) weren’t tied to fulfillment of the Law, but to faithfulness to God as shown by trusting and obeying Him.
I’m also not happy with the following statement from you:
You’re saying that we _have_ to interpret Ezek 33 in a misleading and incorrect way? Why can’t we interpret in a way that leads to correct conclusions? Keep in mind that the law required perfect conformance; repentance and sacrifice only helped with accidental infractions, not deliberate ones. The correct way to live forever with God, NT and OT, was to have faith in His promises.
It’s odd to be encouraged to interpret a passage in a way that the author couldn’t have possibly done, and that would be unmistakably heretical (Pelagian) now (because it pretends that eternal salvation can be gained by good works plus regular repentance alone).
-Wm
William,
Well, all the more I have to say on that particular subject is that it is certainly not original with me. And while the emphasis in Romans is certainly on salvation through faith and not through works even in the old testament, Romans 10:5, in a context of speaking of eternal salvation makes this comment: “For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.” So Paul certainly applied it in this way. So it is can’t be correct that the Jews didn’t interpret it that way–at least one did!
Sorry, I should of added another Scripture to what I said above. It is: “For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”
However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.” Galatians 3:10-12
This seems to me to confirm what I said in my first comments on this subject: He that does the law will live by it. Only problem is, we can’t do the law, we don’t abide in it and therefore are cursed. Therefore we need Jesus and faith in Him.
By the way, that verse refers back to Lev. 18:5 which says, “‘So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the LORD.”
And again, Paul spoke of spiritual life when referring to this verse.
Cheryl, well-studied; thank you for providing so much related materiel.
But it seems to me that there’s a major and a minor problem.
The minor problem: using the Law to save oneself from spiritual death requires lifelong perfection (according to Paul), whereas Ezekiel 33 allows a person to be so imperfect as to be worthy of death, and then to repent and do right. The sacrifices that cleanse from sin under the law can only cleanse of unintentional sin — deliberate sin remains.
The major problem: reading Ezekiel 33 as promising life after death means full-blown Pelagianism. If it’s valid, you don’t need faith or Jesus, only regular repentance from your sins and turning to the good works established in the Law. And remember, this is God Himself speaking, not a mere apostle. Ezekiel is presumably quoting God exactly.
On the other hand, reading it as promising only that God will relent on the punishment He was having Ezekiel threaten at that time not only fits in the context, it also fits into the explicit threats written into the Law. NONE of the blessings and curses there mentioned the afterlife; all had to do with the prosperity of the community and one’s own life or death. This is not saying that the afterlife was never part of the Jewish religion. God revealed much later that had been hidden or obscure before; in the late books of the Old Testament one can see an understanding being built that Christ would fully complete with His argument that “God is the God of the living,” to prove that Abraham is fully alive and in God’s presence. But this was not part of God’s revelation until later in the OT.
(I don’t know what Ezekiel believed. I believe he trusted in God and was justified; but I don’t know what he believed about the afterlife.)
-Wm
Re Post 294
Tanksley writes, “This is exactly how Calvinists explain predestination. God doesn’t send people to hell because of his decree; He sends them to hell because of their sins.”
But people are sinners because of God’s decree. So argued Calvin (see quotes in various above posts), and current Calvinists. Furthermore, for those who believe in inherited guilt, every person (but Adam and Eve) is going to hell from the moment sperm meets egg. So yes, people are going to hell because of God’s decree.
regards,
#John
One does not go to hell because of anything that God does.
One goes to hell because THEY have cut themselves off from God’s grace.
When you walk away from your parents, you have decided to do that and have therefore cut yourself off from the inheritance.
The scriptures tell us that “God desires that all men come to Him.”
Here are many posts with a great many Bible passages that explain how wrongheaded Calvinisn is when it comes to this topic:
http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/search/label/Calvinism
William,
I can understand your points in your last post. However, they still leave some questions to me and one big problem. If disobedience to the law didn’t bring spiritual death but only phyiscal death–if none of the blessings or curses there referred to anything beyond physical death, how come disobedience to the first law in Genesis 3 brought about spiritual death? And it is the same Hebrew word used for death there as in Ezekiel, by the way. Or do you believe that when Adam and Eve sinned it only brought about physical death?
Or was it only an initial disobedience to God’s law in the garden that brought about spiritual death and after that only physical death? But you seem to be indicating that spiritual death was not being referred to in the OT at all until much later.
But still you say in other places that it is our sin that results in God sending us to hell.
I am confused!
At least we seem to be somewhat back on track of the original post after a great long detour. At least temporarily….
Again, this is superlapsarian, the minority view (shared by Calvin and Piper, so I can’t refute it; but it’s not in the Bible).
I can accept that people are sinners because of God’s curse after the fall; in that way you can blame it on God, if you want. I don’t; I think sin is man’s fault, even the Original Sin/Total Depravity that infects us from conception.
My schedule has changed; I’m not going to be able to be as talky as I was. I’m going to keep working on my blog, but much less here.
-Wm
I’m probably not going to be able to to be as “talky” either. I was kind of taking a bit of down time last week, recouping from a particularly intense and rather insane summer. But I need to get back at things around here again.
In Calvinisim, people are sinners because of God’s decree, regardless of whether that decree is considered to be supra or infralapsarian. The supra and infra labels have to do with the particularity or individuality of the sinners and with the so-called double predestination, and is irrelevant to the issue of sinfulness, either of Adam or the rest of the human race.
WmT. I’ll see you at your blog. I’ve just been very busy.
regards,
#John
There are many theories that suggest that we have had certain sins, either from before birth, or later on. Some of which (even all of which some say?) can be removed; though it is not certain which ones.
Yet in any case, most theologies allow that though some sins may be “washed away” by this or that special sacrament, grace, etc …. still, it is possible to sin enough, that we end up in Hell, not Heaven.
Could just one little “white” lie do it? Maybe.
Some cynics even say that Christianity itself is a “white lie”; it promises that if we are good, we will get miracles. But it knows that miracles are not real; it is just making false promises to keep the people tame and quiet.
But in any case, regarding “white” lies in general? The Bible itself tells us that those who “white”wash signs of sin in our religious leaders, for example, who tell white lies about that … are evil deceivers.
In fact, many lies that we think are “white,” are black in the end. Suppose for example, my wife asks me if I like her new – and awful – hat. And to spare her feelings, her “heart,” I tell her it is a wonderful hat. So she wears it to a job interview … and flunks it, because the interviewer got a bad impression of her … due to her ugly hat.
Many lies that we think are “white,” are often very black. Even much blacker than that.
Therefore, we should reconsider the many lies that we think are “white”; many are rather black. In fact, no doubt, many of them appear minor … but are serious enough that they can send us to Hell.
And for a scriptural reference? Regarding “white” lies? It is best to remember what the Bible said, about those who “white”wash sins.
[…] sin merely an action, or is it an attitude? C. Michael Patton expands on that here, but I’d like to chime in some biblical evidence for sin being not just an action but a state […]
Post 315: an excellently stated objection.
Interesting point. I grant this as stated.
Close; we’re ALL rebellious and God-denying (according to us Calvinists, we all agree here). And I want you to be careful to note that the reason we can’t change is because we don’t want to, not specifically because of God’s command. God never commanded us to not change.
Pretty much. Now, to be fair to your objection, this is where I have to make my answer. It’s fair for you to object that the cause of damnation is not “only” their sin; it’s ultimately God’s decree. That’s fair. But the just cause is directly their sin. God’s decree is a more remote cause than God’s creation, and we both agree that God’s creation is a very indirect cause of sin.
God’s decree is (intentionally) why you exist, why heaven exists, why hell exists. In that sense, God’s decree is why you are sent to hell — but God doesn’t send you to hell because of His decree. God sends you to hell because you’re the sort of being for which hell is appropriate.
Whoops! With neither one is it “all God’s decree”. With the saved it’s all God’s acting (and they are saved from their sins); with the unsaved God chooses not to act, and they perish in their sins.
Both start the same: sinful.
-Wm
Your objection isn’t clear to me. In Calvinism, some people hold that all humans were decreed to be sinners from eternity — i.e. God planned the Fall; Piper believes this. Others do not hold that God planned the Fall (but He did permit it). I don’t take sides, because I don’t find enough info in the Bible. Both sides have logic to them.
And they have very much to do with sinfulness. If the infralapsarians are correct, the Fall could conceivably have been avoided, which might affect “the issue of sinfulness.” The elect would then be saved by God in a different way.
As I said, I find this all to be too speculative.
-Wm
(post 317):
I agree and admit that’s a possible interpretation of that verse, and I got a little overexcited in my explanation. What I was saying was intended to be an answer to your bringing up the verse as an objection to Calvinism. Calvinists can handle that verse; it’s not a prooftext for or against Calvinism, since it can be consistently and usefully read either way.
No. John 3:16-18 doesn’t say Christ died for the whole world; it says that God loves the whole world. Again, two different verses in different contexts.
Yes, the way in which God loves the cosmos is shown by Him saving individual humans. But this verse is still directing God’s love towards the cosmos, not toward all humans.
What kind of assurance is it to know that most people He died for would never be saved? What good is it, then, to have all the verses echoing the Apostolic proclamation that Christ died for our sins — if it didn’t help most people?
Nothing easier — because Paul, James, and John all said that God works in the lives of His people in ways that He doesn’t work in the unsaved. You can tell you’re saved if you’ve believed in Christ (incarnation, death, resurrection); if you love the brethren; if you love God; if you obey Christ’s commandments; and if you confess when you mess up. If you don’t do those things perfectly, you shouldn’t have assurance of salvation — and if that doesn’t worry you, you should have assurance of damnation.
But you can’t get personal assurance by believing that Christ died for all people, and I don’t think the Apostles anywhere hint that it’s possible to get assurance from that.
-Wm
Hi William,
I have several thoughts here.
First you said, “You can tell you’re saved if you’ve believed in Christ (incarnation, death, resurrection); if you love the brethren; if you love God; if you obey Christ’s commandments; and if you confess when you mess up. If you don’t do those things perfectly, you shouldn’t have assurance of salvation — and if that doesn’t worry you, you should have assurance of damnation.”
I am not at all sure I follow you here. Do you mean we actually do become PERFECT in the areas you mentioned? Please explain because I am not sure I understand what you are saying.
Then you commented: ‘In Calvinism, some people hold that all humans were decreed to be sinners from eternity — i.e. God planned the Fall; Piper believes this. Others do not hold that God planned the Fall (but He did permit it). I don’t take sides, because I don’t find enough info in the Bible. Both sides have logic to them.”
Doesn’t that contradict what you said in # 332 above and elsewhere?
And I am sorry, but it just makes no sense to someone who is not a Calvinist to say that people don’t go to hell because of God’s decree but because they justly deserve it because of their sinfulness. When God has decreed that they be sinful and they can do nothing about it and He won’t–the ultimate cause is logically God’s decree.
And I said, “With one it is all God’s decree, with the other it is his own sin and his own fault.”
And you answered, “Whoops! With neither one is it “all God’s decree”. With the saved it’s all God’s acting (and they are saved from their sins); with the unsaved God chooses not to act, and they perish in their sins.”
Regarding the saved in your comment, is it not again God’s decree before the creation of the earth that these ones would be the elect and that He would therefore act to save them? That is the whole Calvinist point is it not–that some are chosen to be saved before the world began? If God hadn’t elected them, He would of not acted to save them.
If I may interject regarding being perfect: we have been given the Spirit of Self-Control (also called self-discipline, or even self-improvement) because we need to work at some things. Jesus told us to be perfect in matters of charity and love, etc., yet John admonishes us that we still sin and are far from spiritually perfect while on earth. Your comment that we cannot be assured of salvation unless our works are perfect is putting the cart before the horse.
William,
Regarding John 3:16-18. I think you missed my point entirely. God loved the world so much that He sent His Son so that the WORLD might be saved and not condemned. However, when you read verse 18, it is clear that the ones being saved and not condenmed are individual people that believe in the Son. The cosmos can not believe in the Son and so be saved and not condemned! Therefore, how can the term “world” refer to the cosmos and not all the men in the world? That would make no sence in context at all.
William,
“And I want you to be careful to note that the reason we can’t change is because we don’t want to, not specifically because of God’s command. God never commanded us to not change.”
Nope, He never commanded us not to change. In fact He commands all men everywhere to repent. But how can man do that or for that matter, want to do it, when God has already decreed what kind of person his is going to be, i.e. sinful and rebellious?
A quote from Piper again, “Paul has portrayed God as absolutely sovereign. He decides who will believe and undeservingly be saved and who will rebel and deservingly perish. ” From here: http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?371
So at least Piper’s brand of Calvinism allows people no choice at all–it is by God’s decree. He decides who will rebel but then still says they will deserving perish. They may deserve it–but what choice did they have? God’s sovereign decree made them so!
Just a quick reply — this is the worst self-editing I’ve ever done, I think. That came out completely wrong, because I started writing one thing, went back and changed part of it, and didn’t proofread properly.
Sorry.
There were two different points being made there, and they got mixed to make one completely wrong point.
First, we should be perfect in all those areas; we should want to be perfect, and we should be working to improve to perfection in all those ways.
Second, we won’t be perfect, but we should want to “walk in the light”; to confess when we fail, and to improve.
If we don’t experience any of this, we shouldn’t feel assured of our salvation. As James says, if we don’t see evidence of the works of faith, we shouldn’t claim to have faith. BUT, once we’ve seen the evidence, we can be assured that Christ will never let us go; that nothing can separate us from the love of God; and so on.
My point is that assurance is gained not by believing that it’s possible for Christ to save anyone who wants salvation bad enough (how could you know whether you wanted it bad enough), but rather by the two facts that God works in the lives of those He saves, AND God never, never lets go of those He saves, even in the dry times. (That’s not a Calvinist belief — although some Arminians deny Perseverance, of course, in which case they have no assurance of salvation at all.)
-Wm
Thanks for the clarification, William! I can’t believe the things I miss sometimes in my proof reading of my comments either.
Arminians do have assurance of salvation, whereas Calvinists not only do not have assurance of salvation, but cannot.
How do the Calvinists deal with the many examples of people who do say the sinners’ prayer, do believe, do grow in the faith, but then stop believing completely and live worse than before? They never were elected.
Even Augustine admitted that no one can know if they have the gift of perseverence until death, because only God knows who is elect. This side of death one can never know if one is elect (this gave the puritans coniptions/ got their knickers in knots).
So, a Calvinist could be merrily going to church, thinking he/she is elect, but isn’t, and then at some future point will leave the whole thing behind.
All Arminians have to do is what Christ said: “follow me”. If you’re following Christ you’re still “saved” regardless of sins. God forgives 70 times 7 (i.e., unlimited).
Re post 342: Great point, cherylu.
regards,
#John
#John 1453,
These two short articles say pretty much what you have said regarding Calvinism, a bit different on Arminianism, though:
http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/search/label/Arminianism
The Fall
It makes no sense for a Calvinist to say that God “permits” the fall given that God ordains everything, even the number of hairs on each individuals head.
God can only permit something if Adam and Eve were prime movers, that is, the initiators of their own actions without being doomed in any way to a specific choice because of preexisting factors (e.g., the prior state of the material universe, the laws of that materials, and “desires” or whatever one includes as the prior non-material state).
WmT, what do you mean by “permit”?
All are doomed sinners by God’s foreordination
The difference between supra/infralapsarianism is whether God specfically knew the individuals who would be sent to hell. Regardless of the Calvinist view, everyone is destined to go to hell unless elected. God chooses and ordains the destiny.
regards,
#John
This fairly short sermon explains why we cannot choose God:
http://lightofthemaster.com/Sermons/Entries/2008/3/4__The_Holy_Spirit.html
Post 346:
John, that’s disappointing. There’s absolutely no reason why what you said applies to Calvinism more than Arminianism. Both have to wonder why people leave the faith even though Christ said that nothing can pluck us out of His hand, and Paul said that nothing can separate us. John answers those questions: “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us.” This is exactly the “Calvinistic” answer (“they never were elect”) to the riddle that you mock as useless (it’s not Calvinistic, of course; anyone who affirms Perseverance will also affirm it).
Now, it’s not a practical solution to the question of security; but the question of security has to be met by first understanding the stability of our salvation. If there exists anything that can steal our salvation, it’s not secure; even if that something can steal it by persuading us to stop working so hard. Second, we have to understand the effect of salvation; salvation isn’t ONLY a change in our eternal destiny, but rather a change in our heart. We can see that change, and we can confirm it by our daily life. I like how the NET Bible puts in in 2 Peter 1:3-11. Here we see that the starting point is the rich provision of God, including faith; then we work to add to that daily the results of faith. If we’re doing that, we can see the effects of our salvation — as Peter puts it, confirm our election and calling — every day, and there’s never a cause to stumble in doubt (note that the NET is incorrect to say “stumble into sin” in verse 10; the words “into sin” are not present in the Greek). If we’re not doing those things, Peter doesn’t say we’re not saved; he says we’re blind and unable to recall that we were saved (talk about a loss of assurance!).
Paul touches on this topic in Phil 2:12-13, where we’re urged to bring the effects of salvation out from inside us (the mind of Christ) to outside, keeping in mind that both the desire to do these good deeds and the work of doing them is the result only of God’s work.
The main point: salvation lasts forever, but also has real effects in the real world. Our assurance comes from seeing those effects and acknowledging that they are the result of God working within us — and that His work is permanent.
This reasoning holds for all Christians — Calvinists, Arminians, and others — except those who deny Perseverance. Those have no assurance whatsoever, since by definition they could lose their salvation tomorrow.
-Wm