A
Anna_Scott
Guest
We are separated from God by sin. That does not mean you are not in Hell right now.
Few Christians would dare to say that God is in Hell. This is not a traditional Christian view.
Anna
- Status
Few Christians would dare to say that God is in Hell. This is not a traditional Christian view.
Anna
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Can you please first define the biblical word propitation.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Who created Hell and who sustains its existence, and for what purpose?
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Does sin separate us from God? Yes or no? Is there any reason we need to be reconciled back to God? If so, why?
God bless
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Of course there is enmity between God and man. We are seperated from God as our Heavenly Father when we are part of the old creation (In Adam). However, God still sustains both the righteous and unrighteous alike. So, unbelievers are seperated from God as their Heavenly Father; therefore, the need for reconcilation. However, God still sustains the unbeliever; therefore, in that sense the unbeliever is not seperated from God (Act 17).
N
NotTooSmart
Guest
From the dictionary
Now…anticipating where might be going with this…
I still do not see why all of this can not be fulfilled simply by God giving Jesus over to man for crucifixion. If not, what did God have to do in addition to this and what exactly did He do to accomplish this?
I don’t see why these are unreasonable questions to ask?
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
You are not asking a stupid question.
On the cross, Christ not only suffered physically; but took upon himself the sins of the world (an incomprehensible burden) and suffered a separation from God. Christ paid the price for our sins.
1 Corinthians Chapter 15: 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
Matthew Chapter 27 (ESV): 45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 47 And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” 48 And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. 49 But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” 50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.
It is my understanding that God cannot be in the presence of sin. That is why Christ asked why God had forsaken Him.
If the Catholic viewpoint is different, I would really be interested in your comments.
God forsaking Christ, when Christ is also God, is an area I find difficult to understand.
So, NotTooSmart, you raised a very good question.
Anna
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Finally. So if sin separates us from God, and there is no way to be forgiven of our sins after death (you do believe that if we die in sin there are no second chances right?..
) is it unreasonable to believe that if we die in sin (separated from God) that this separation would last eternally? Since sin separates us from God and there is no reconciliation/forgiveness of unrepentant sin after death?God bless
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
The Wrath of God in Relation to the Atonement
By Frederick S. Leahy
If we are wrong in our doctrine of God, we are wrong all along the line. We shall be in error in every doctrine of the Faith if we hold an erroneous doctrine of God. So our doctrine of God will relate powerfully to our doctrine of the Atonement. If, for example, we do not believe that God is a God of wrath as well as a God of love, and that his essential holiness means the inevitable punishment of sin, then we shall not believe in the substitutionary and vicarious nature of Christ’s death on the Cross. That is why the doctrine of God’s holy wrath borne by his Son at Calvary is repugnant to the liberal theologian. He has an erroneous view of God.
The Bible makes it clear that the unforgiven sinner stands under God’s curse and that ‘the wrath of God abideth (or rests) on him’ (John 3:36). ‘When it is stated that ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (Gal. 3:13), not only is it implied that we were ‘the children of wrath’ (Eph. 2:3), and under God’s curse, but also it is implied that when Christ was made a curse for us he was the object of divine wrath. On the Cross Christ bore the full penal sanction of the law of God which was our due. Our punishment was transferred to him. The curse which he endured consisted especially in his experience of being forsaken by God. There was an awareness in his human nature of a complete withdrawal of God, and that is the essential element of damnation and eternal death: that is hell.
It was not that the Father hated his Son on the Cross. There was no emotional anger on the Father’s part. He never ceased to love the Son in whom he was well pleased. There was, however, a judicial suffering caused by God. God’s wrath in this context should be seen not as a divine emotion, but as a divine act, a point that is stressed by Shedd in his masterly treatment of the subject. Calvin makes the same point:‘
Yet we do not suggest that God was ever inimical or angry toward him. How could he be angry toward his beloved Son, ‘in whom his heart reposed’? (cf. Matt. 3:17). How could Christ by his intercession appease the Father towards others, if he were himself hateful to God? (Institutes 2:16:11).
God never loved his Son more than when he was suffering for the sins of his people on the Cross. To some this may seem somewhat esoteric and scholastic, but really it is intended to avoid grave misunderstanding about God’s attitude when he caused the sufferings of our Saviour.
It is clear from Scripture that Christ’s atoning death was substitutionary or vicarious and that by it he satisfied the holiness of God and so rendered him propitious or favourably disposed to his people. John Murray says that ‘propitiation presupposes the wrath and displeasure of God and the purpose of propitiation is the removal of this displeasure’ (Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, p. 36). The apostle Paul speaks of ‘Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood’ (Rom. 3:24f.). Many, following C. H. Dodd, replace ‘propitiation’ by ‘expiation’, a much weaker word. The word translated ‘propitiation’ has to do with the averting of divine wrath. Leon Morris comments: ‘If there is “a righteous anger” of God, and the New Testament is clear that there is, then it cannot be ignored in the process of forgiveness’ (The Cross in the New Testament, p. 349). Propitiation, then, a turning away of God’s wrath, lies at the heart of Christ’s redemptive work. Well does John Murray say: ‘Grace indeed reigns but a grace reigning apart from righteousness is not only not actual; it is inconceivable’ (Redemption, p. 20).
When James Denney avers that the Atonement ‘is a homage paid by Christ to the moral order of the world established and upheld by God; a homage essential to the work of reconciliation… .‘ (Doctrine of Reconciliation, p. 235), he betrays a radical flaw in his understanding of substitution. The Atonement was infinitely more than and qualitatively different from a ‘homage’ paid to God’s righteousness. If that is all that is meant by substitution, then the term is being used in a much lowered sense. Christ’s sufferings, on this view, were an example of what sin deserved, an exhibition of God’s displeasure with sin. It is really the old governmental or rectoral theory of Grotius (1583-1645) which sees no enduring of the penalty of the Law and reduces the Cross to little more than a symbol. It is not surprising, then, that Denney openly rejects the doctrine of the Atonement as held by Luther, Calvin and John Owen (Reconciliation, p. 263 and p. 49).
Naturally, the idea of averting the wrath of God by a substitutionary suffering is repugnant to liberal theologians. Carl Henry quotes H. H. Titus:
To many it seems immoral to picture God as . . . one who needs to be appeased by the blood of a victim. We cannot think . . . of atonement as the propitiation of an angry monarch God. We feel a moral revulsion at the thought of sinners in the hands of a wrathful God. . . . Many conceptions which are set forth in terms as blood atonement, expiation, ransom, substitution, satisfaction . . . and the like, have not only lost much of their meaning, but they offend the enlightened moral sense of today. (What is a Mature Morality? pp. 146f; Henry’s Christian Personal Ethics, p. 364f).
part 1
By Frederick S. Leahy
If we are wrong in our doctrine of God, we are wrong all along the line. We shall be in error in every doctrine of the Faith if we hold an erroneous doctrine of God. So our doctrine of God will relate powerfully to our doctrine of the Atonement. If, for example, we do not believe that God is a God of wrath as well as a God of love, and that his essential holiness means the inevitable punishment of sin, then we shall not believe in the substitutionary and vicarious nature of Christ’s death on the Cross. That is why the doctrine of God’s holy wrath borne by his Son at Calvary is repugnant to the liberal theologian. He has an erroneous view of God.
The Bible makes it clear that the unforgiven sinner stands under God’s curse and that ‘the wrath of God abideth (or rests) on him’ (John 3:36). ‘When it is stated that ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (Gal. 3:13), not only is it implied that we were ‘the children of wrath’ (Eph. 2:3), and under God’s curse, but also it is implied that when Christ was made a curse for us he was the object of divine wrath. On the Cross Christ bore the full penal sanction of the law of God which was our due. Our punishment was transferred to him. The curse which he endured consisted especially in his experience of being forsaken by God. There was an awareness in his human nature of a complete withdrawal of God, and that is the essential element of damnation and eternal death: that is hell.
It was not that the Father hated his Son on the Cross. There was no emotional anger on the Father’s part. He never ceased to love the Son in whom he was well pleased. There was, however, a judicial suffering caused by God. God’s wrath in this context should be seen not as a divine emotion, but as a divine act, a point that is stressed by Shedd in his masterly treatment of the subject. Calvin makes the same point:‘
Yet we do not suggest that God was ever inimical or angry toward him. How could he be angry toward his beloved Son, ‘in whom his heart reposed’? (cf. Matt. 3:17). How could Christ by his intercession appease the Father towards others, if he were himself hateful to God? (Institutes 2:16:11).
God never loved his Son more than when he was suffering for the sins of his people on the Cross. To some this may seem somewhat esoteric and scholastic, but really it is intended to avoid grave misunderstanding about God’s attitude when he caused the sufferings of our Saviour.
It is clear from Scripture that Christ’s atoning death was substitutionary or vicarious and that by it he satisfied the holiness of God and so rendered him propitious or favourably disposed to his people. John Murray says that ‘propitiation presupposes the wrath and displeasure of God and the purpose of propitiation is the removal of this displeasure’ (Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, p. 36). The apostle Paul speaks of ‘Christ Jesus: whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood’ (Rom. 3:24f.). Many, following C. H. Dodd, replace ‘propitiation’ by ‘expiation’, a much weaker word. The word translated ‘propitiation’ has to do with the averting of divine wrath. Leon Morris comments: ‘If there is “a righteous anger” of God, and the New Testament is clear that there is, then it cannot be ignored in the process of forgiveness’ (The Cross in the New Testament, p. 349). Propitiation, then, a turning away of God’s wrath, lies at the heart of Christ’s redemptive work. Well does John Murray say: ‘Grace indeed reigns but a grace reigning apart from righteousness is not only not actual; it is inconceivable’ (Redemption, p. 20).
When James Denney avers that the Atonement ‘is a homage paid by Christ to the moral order of the world established and upheld by God; a homage essential to the work of reconciliation… .‘ (Doctrine of Reconciliation, p. 235), he betrays a radical flaw in his understanding of substitution. The Atonement was infinitely more than and qualitatively different from a ‘homage’ paid to God’s righteousness. If that is all that is meant by substitution, then the term is being used in a much lowered sense. Christ’s sufferings, on this view, were an example of what sin deserved, an exhibition of God’s displeasure with sin. It is really the old governmental or rectoral theory of Grotius (1583-1645) which sees no enduring of the penalty of the Law and reduces the Cross to little more than a symbol. It is not surprising, then, that Denney openly rejects the doctrine of the Atonement as held by Luther, Calvin and John Owen (Reconciliation, p. 263 and p. 49).
Naturally, the idea of averting the wrath of God by a substitutionary suffering is repugnant to liberal theologians. Carl Henry quotes H. H. Titus:
To many it seems immoral to picture God as . . . one who needs to be appeased by the blood of a victim. We cannot think . . . of atonement as the propitiation of an angry monarch God. We feel a moral revulsion at the thought of sinners in the hands of a wrathful God. . . . Many conceptions which are set forth in terms as blood atonement, expiation, ransom, substitution, satisfaction . . . and the like, have not only lost much of their meaning, but they offend the enlightened moral sense of today. (What is a Mature Morality? pp. 146f; Henry’s Christian Personal Ethics, p. 364f).
part 1
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Thus man would make God in his own image!
Certainly this aspect of the Cross has been caricatured and misrepresented as when it is suggested that Christ had to placate an angry God in order to change him into a loving God. A recognition of the love of God is crucial at this point. ‘God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us’ (Rom. ‘5:8). The Cross of Christ is the supreme demonstration of the love of God. God ‘spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all . . .’ (Rom. 8:32). The costliness of the sacrifice matches the greatness of the love. There is no conflict between God’s wrath and God’s compassion; they exist simultaneously. There is this difference, however; God’s wrath against sin is inevitable, whereas his mercy is optional and depends entirely on his sovereign pleasure. As a holy God he must punish sin; but he is not obliged to propitiate his own wrath.
In mercy he determined to do this and he has done so by the Cross of Jesus Christ. There is no conflict, then, between God’s holy wrath and God’s holy love. John Murray puts it neatly: ‘It is one thing to say that the wrathful God is made loving. That would be entirely false. It is another thing to say that the wrathful God is loving. That is profoundly true’ (ibid p. 37). ‘Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (1 John 4:10). Thus the apostle Paul, with the Cross in view, could say: ‘We shall be saved from wrath through him’ (Rom. ‘5:9). We are saved from the wrath to come, the wrath that will be ‘dispensed to the ungodly at the day of judgment’ (Redemption, Murray).
reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/fre_leahy/fre_leahy.Wrath.Atonement.html
part 2
Certainly this aspect of the Cross has been caricatured and misrepresented as when it is suggested that Christ had to placate an angry God in order to change him into a loving God. A recognition of the love of God is crucial at this point. ‘God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us’ (Rom. ‘5:8). The Cross of Christ is the supreme demonstration of the love of God. God ‘spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all . . .’ (Rom. 8:32). The costliness of the sacrifice matches the greatness of the love. There is no conflict between God’s wrath and God’s compassion; they exist simultaneously. There is this difference, however; God’s wrath against sin is inevitable, whereas his mercy is optional and depends entirely on his sovereign pleasure. As a holy God he must punish sin; but he is not obliged to propitiate his own wrath.
In mercy he determined to do this and he has done so by the Cross of Jesus Christ. There is no conflict, then, between God’s holy wrath and God’s holy love. John Murray puts it neatly: ‘It is one thing to say that the wrathful God is made loving. That would be entirely false. It is another thing to say that the wrathful God is loving. That is profoundly true’ (ibid p. 37). ‘Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (1 John 4:10). Thus the apostle Paul, with the Cross in view, could say: ‘We shall be saved from wrath through him’ (Rom. ‘5:9). We are saved from the wrath to come, the wrath that will be ‘dispensed to the ungodly at the day of judgment’ (Redemption, Murray).
reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/fre_leahy/fre_leahy.Wrath.Atonement.html
part 2
F
FightingFat
Guest
It makes no sense to say God gets angry, since God doesn’t change. It’s a metaphor we use, that’s all, something that helps us understand what we have done, through sin, i.e. caused immeasurable offence to God.
N
NotTooSmart
Guest
2nd adam
All of that is nice.
But I don’t find in any of this an answer to my stupid question.
This one sentence got my interest:
I hear in all of this a discussion about the wrath of God. I have no problem with the wrath of God. But it sort of begs the question “Just how does a holy, just, and righteous God express wrath.”
God says “Be angry, but do not sin”. That means that there is anger (wrath) that is not sin. But there also is anger that is sin. I believe that God being righteous, can and does expresses His anger in that mode that is not sin. Also, God being righteous, can not express his anger in that mode that is sin.
On earth I believe torture to be a sin. So whatever the wrath of God is like, I do not believe that it expresses itself in heaven in a form that would be sin on earth. Why would heaven operate under a lesser moral standard than earth. That makes absolutely no sense.
Now in all of this, I still do not know clearly exactly what hell is like (good grief I do not know clearly what heaven is like). I am sure that nobody really wants to go to hell… But understanding the character of God does set certain boundaries at least in my way of thinking as to what hell can not be like.
All of that is nice.
But I don’t find in any of this an answer to my stupid question.
This one sentence got my interest:
And that is how I answered the poll at the beginning of this thread.
I hear in all of this a discussion about the wrath of God. I have no problem with the wrath of God. But it sort of begs the question “Just how does a holy, just, and righteous God express wrath.”
God says “Be angry, but do not sin”. That means that there is anger (wrath) that is not sin. But there also is anger that is sin. I believe that God being righteous, can and does expresses His anger in that mode that is not sin. Also, God being righteous, can not express his anger in that mode that is sin.
On earth I believe torture to be a sin. So whatever the wrath of God is like, I do not believe that it expresses itself in heaven in a form that would be sin on earth. Why would heaven operate under a lesser moral standard than earth. That makes absolutely no sense.
Now in all of this, I still do not know clearly exactly what hell is like (good grief I do not know clearly what heaven is like). I am sure that nobody really wants to go to hell… But understanding the character of God does set certain boundaries at least in my way of thinking as to what hell can not be like.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Revelation 14:10-11
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Psalm 139:8
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
Amos 9:2
Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:
Isaiah 59:2 and Proverbs 15:29 tell us that God is far from the sinner. This does however not mean that He is not omnipresent. He just does not make Himself known by delivering His blessings.
God is present in all of His creation and that includes hell. His blessings however are not present in hell.
While God is not present in hell to bless, He is present in hell to punish…
Ezra 8:22
…The hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek him; but his power and his wrath is against all them that forsake him.
When we are talking about salvation we are talking about being saved from the rightful wrath that is to come…
Romans 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Nahum 1:2
God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Rev 14:10-11 is not a proof text that we are never separated from God or that God is in Hell.
This is not Hell, but Sheol, which is the grave.
Psalm 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
J
Janet1983
Guest
No?
shrug
Well I’ll go on in my belief that God is omnipresent then and omnipotent and that He is not only glorified through the beauty and splendor of heaven, but also through the terror of hell…
Everybody will one day glorify God, one way or the other…
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Janet,
If you are basing your beliefs on Scripture (correct me, if you are not); why would you continue in a belief that has no Biblical basis? I ask this in the most charitable way.
Maybe you are following the wrong people. The writings of Jonathan Edwards are offensive on so many levels. It is easy to be seduced by charismatic writers and orators. I’ve lived through that myself.
Even your signature contains a quote from Jonathan Edwards about Hell. Is that your inspiration?
Please pray about this.
Anna
H
Holly3278
Guest
I believe that Hell is both eternal torment and eternal separation from God.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Because it has a biblical basis…
By the way, according to scripture there is even a visibility between heaven and hell, but there is no way to cross for us because there is a great gulf between them…
Luke 16:23-26
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Revelation 14:10-11
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
(The lexical definition of the word commonly translated presence from Rev. 14:10: enopion, in the face of (literally or figuratively):-before, in the presence (sight) of, to.)
If we say that God is not present in hell we claim that He is not omnipresent and not omniscient and thereby not omnipotent.
Hell is a place, a part of creation. God is omnipresent in all of His creation and so He is also present in hell. God is infinite… He has no limits and hell is not out of bounds for God.
God is definitely omnipresent:
Psalm 139:8
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
Jeremiah 23:23-24
23 Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?
24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.
Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
Isaiah 40:12
Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?
Revelation 6:16
And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
There is absolutely no place we could go without God already being there.
We cannot hide from God and we cannot flee from God.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
I agree that we cannot hide from God. I said that in my last post.
Still, no Scripture you have given, says that God is or ever will be in Hell.
You might want to try a more accurate Bible translation. Some translations use Hell for Sheol, which is a word for grave; and use Hell for Gehenna, which was a place outside Jerusalem where garbage and refuse was burned.
Luke 16:23-26 is clearly allegorical. I don’t have the energy to go into detail tonight.
Anna
J
Janet1983
Guest
Well I’ll just stick to my KJV and be happy with it…
- Status