Sin, Guilt, and Salvation VII

Question #1:  

Hi Professor,

It's been a long time since we spoke last. I know you get a lot of emails like this, so I don’t wish to be a nuisance. I will recap my story in case you don't remember me. I want to say I thank God for your page, it has been a frequent place that I look forward to reading time and again.

I felt it necessary to point out the last time we spoke, I was under extreme attack and sounded a bit like a lunatic. I do believe I am quite sane. I last spoke to you about a journey I took, and I'd like to recap some of my failures to assist some of my fellow believers in the trials that one may be faced, and perhaps a few warnings to help avoid some very serious, if not spiritually deadly sins to avoid.

The trip began by me have an honestly naive interaction with some guys that I knew to be freemasons, and the interaction ended up with me going out of my way to seek entrance into a cool fraternity. I looked forward to being a part of something secretive and mysterious. My grandfather was one of my favorite people and I knew he was a part of it. I wanted to feel like I belonged. I wanted to know what my grandfather was into. I knew something seemed a bit strange, but I was very curious.

I cheated and looked at the internet on what would happen if I went into the lodge. I saw things that made me terrified, I thought, oh no, what is this? There was a site that said it was the mark of the beast, and that there was homosexuality, there was witchcraft. All manner of terrifying stuff. I freaked out and called my dad, talked to some friends, we all agreed this must be something very bad. Then I looked at some of the masonic sites and they assured me that these people were quacks making something out of nothing. Then I thought about the humiliation of not going to this thing after all these guys went out of their way to get me in. I was invited to the lodge for an interview, we asked this and that, it was just a formality to make sure I was not a person that would seem to be crazy. The interviewer asked me if I had any questions. I told them I had been searching the internet. They all laughed immediately. I asked them if there was anything bad going on, if there was any witchcraft going on. They laughed harder and assured me that I had nothing to worry about.

I thought about it and decided that I would brave the initiation, and if anything crazy took place I'd leave in the middle. Secretly deed down, I knew this was a bad idea. I stiffened my neck and carried on. I even prayed about it, pleading my case to the Lord that it was not a bad thing. The only real issue was the swearing of oaths, I knew Jesus said not to but I could just ask forgiveness after if I needed to.

I showed up to my initiation and was very nervous, I was sweating and had this very helpless fear overtake me. The initiation happened in a blur, the entire experience was scary and kind of exciting. I finished and it was nothing. I remember the initiation rites repeating that when I “present my apron at the great white throne judgment I could hear the words ‘well done thy good and faithful servant. Enter ye into the joy of thy reward’.

There was a lot of symbolism in the initiation that with further inspection and little discernment, it is easily seen to be purely evil. Swearing off your religion as darkness and moving on to a baptism into a non-superstitious religious belief that all gods are the same. Subjecting Jesus to share the same positions as the common competing religious doctrines we have grown accustom. Though I knew this was wrong, and I knew it was sin, I really didn’t think it was anything quite as serious as I know it to be now.

There is tons of information on the freemasons online, most of it is amazingly accurate. I think its blatant evil is so condemning that it would be hard to imagine a mature Christian doing anything but condemning this practice. I somehow just didn’t see anything but a little willful sin. Which at the time seemed like very little, maybe bad but something I could both control and get out of if I needed to.

I went through the three degrees and really found them to be interesting but meaningless. The entire exercise was frankly a waste of time. I was invited to go further up the ladder and looked into it, but read a little more on the issue and saw they were talking about demonic stuff and decided I'd skip that as it looked pretty evil. I can remember being glad I didn’t go further up because it looked bad. I thought little of it and moved on with life. Spiritually, I was backsliding and still living life of a construction worker on the road. All the trappings of hanging out at bars and living the standard life in the mud puddle.

Years passed by and I thought very little about it. I wore my little mason belt buckle and ring. I had a secret handshake, but it was completely meaningless and even a bit irritating that I received extra respect for swearing a few oaths of allegiance to a bunch of people I didn’t really know.

One day I saw something on the internet about witchcraft and noticed it seemed familiar. My mind raced so l looked at more on the internet about the topic, it suddenly didn’t seem so stupid what was being said about the masons now. It seemed quite accurate and down right scary. I went on to reading, I picked up my bible and tried to comfort myself. The words jumped right out, sin unto death, tasting of the spirit and falling away, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, the Mark of the Beast. Every angle of potential damnation while still on earth stuck out to me and I felt condemned in a way I had never felt before. I felt my mind fill with all sorts of extremely evil blasphemy and I could not think straight. I fell on my knees crying, I started thinking about how long it has been since I prayed, how long it's been since I even thought about spiritual things. I lost my mind that day. Nothing has been the same since that day. It had been wrong long before that day but that day I realized it.

Everything I read after that day was suddenly pointing a finger at me. I can’t tell you how terrifying this is to a person. I had gone too far. I prayed and prayed, cried and cried, all could think about was Esau, and how I had turned into him.

I went to a preacher at the local Church of God that my parents had been attending and tried to hang out there for a while. This went on for a few weeks and I left seeing their doctrine as flawed. I was suddenly a theological expert that knew for sure that I was damned.

Mistake number two was deciding to give up and say, ok, if I am damned, I'll just try to figure out at least what happened. This threw me further down the hole. I started reading luciferian texts and satanic books. The lodge admits to luciferian worship if you dig into the literature. There are tons of masonic Christians that don’t want to believe it but they are either ignorant of freemasonry or ignorant of Christianity. There is no way an educated mason and an educated freemason can live in the same body.

Since this was my case, I started referring to myself online as a luciferian or a satanist. This was another major sin. This stuff is enough to blow out your candle in my thinking. I had a conversation with someone on a satanist chat and she an extremely blasphemous thing about the Power of Christ and I thought it was clever and repeated it. This was another terrible sin. I was on a roll. Could not stop myself from racking up sins to be completely shattered about and repeat to myself in my head every day since.

After years of searching for answers, I went to the doctor, and they said I had OCD and I just needed these pills. It helped but I don’t really think that is going to excuse the sins. I started to move on with life just thinking about it was painful so I tried to push it down when I could.

At some point later, I started thinking about the fact that what if I’m wrong, what if it is still possible to come back. I started trying, and that is when you and I met. I’ve spent quite a bit of time on your site and working through the bible basics with your friend on the online bible academy (link).

I’m still working through some of these issues and wanted, to start a dialog with you again to see if we could talk through some of these things.

The current position I am in is that I am trying to think back to my first love with the Lord. I know he is the only true judge of truth, and the only one who can lead me to God. He is the only reason I desire God, right? I’ve been searching YouTube watching to see if this is what a reprobate mind is. To see if they fit my description.

I guess I am wondering if you believe, or better said, do you see anywhere in the text where it says if you want to come back, that is an indication that you are not completely gone. That the spirit has not left you? It is my concern that you can grieve The Spirit to the point that He would leave. I am hoping there Is biblical proof that The Spirit has not left me with the “fearful expectation of judgement”.

I know it is time to get dusted off for me, I am a believer, I want to do the will of God. Jesus Christ’s sacrifice Is the only to get to heaven. I know he is the only judge I would trust; I choose this day to serve God regardless of the outcome. I also know that God has more grace than I give him credit. Please pray for me, I believe these things can help.

Response #1: 

I do remember you and I have been praying for you – daily.

I am happy to learn that you are now persevering in Bible study. The one thing I would say about this is that the approach which I call "Smorgasbording", seeking solutions on the internet from various sources instead of sticking with known commodities like Ichthys and Bible Academy (I can now also recommend "Bibledocs" at the links), is a really bad idea. From your history related here, I'm surprised you haven't figured that out already on your own. Whatever fear you have, even if it is contrary to the truth, the devil has made sure that you CAN find sites out there to tell you that your fear is justified, even when it isn't.

Let's start with the fact that Jesus Christ is God. I feel the need to emphasize that because of how you've phrased some things here and also because of what I have heard about Masonic teachings (and what I know of satanic strategy). This essential truth of the gospel is taught many places at Ichthys (here's one at the link).

Second, Jesus died for ALL sins on the cross. Therefore there is NO sin which cannot be forgiven, either for salvation in the case of unbelievers or for restoration of fellowship for believers. All you have to do is confess that sin to the Lord (Ps.32:5; 1Jn.1:9). The "unforgivable sin" aka the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the sin of calling the Spirit a liar when He makes the gospel understandable. In other words, the sin of refusing to put one's faith in Jesus Christ. That is the only sin He couldn't die for, namely, the sin of rejecting His sacrifice which saves us. This is a sin only unbelievers can commit (here's a link on that).

Third, you have not taken "the mark of the beast". That visible tattoo is not even presently available to be received, no matter how eager some unbelievers might be to have it, and it won't be possible to be marked in this way until the mid-point of the Tribulation when the false prophet of the beast enforces antichrist's religion worldwide (here's a link on that).

Fourth, all believers have the Holy Spirit. Under the Old Covenant, the Spirit's indwelling was a rare and potentially temporary blessing. Saul lost the Spirit; David prays not to lose it (Ps.51:11); but all believers since very early on in the Church Age are given the Spirit at the point of salvation so that anyone who does not have the Spirit does not belong to Christ at all, i.e., is not a believer (Rom.8:9).

If you believe in Jesus Christ, which you certainly seem to do, then you are a believer, and all believers are saved. Only unbelievers, those who do not accept Christ as their Savior, are not saved:

He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:18 NKJV

If you want assurance of your salvation, if you want peace regarding all of you past mistakes – and we all have baggage – what is needed is consistent spiritual growth. It sounds as if you are making strides in that direction. I recommend a substantial, daily commitment to reading through the materials at Ichthys in a systematic way. Immersing oneself in the truth is the only way to counteract and expel large doses of lies heaped up in one's heart in the past. It is a long process of recovery often, but it can be accelerated the more a person commits to it. You have engage, BELIEVE the truth, and become consistent in applying it too. It may seem as if "nothing much is happening", but just like you forget about that seedling in your back yard, then one day you notice that it has grown into a tree, just so spiritual growth may be virtually imperceptible to the human eye, but it is real none the less – VERY real . . . for those who are indeed consistent with it.

I hope you won't mind me posting this email (anonymously of course). There have been more than a few readers in the past with questions about this cult you are recovering from, and it would very helpful for them to hear some of these things from a first-hand perspective.

Do feel free to write me back – no "nuisance" at all!

In Jesus Christ, "my Lord and my God" (Jn.20:28).

Bob L.

Question #2:  

Of course, I am pleased to be a help in any way.

Feel free to ask me anything you like, and post any of my story you deem helpful to the cause. I know there must be others out there suffering.

I had an interesting conversation with a young man that was considering freemasonry. My dad referred him to me from his church.

Him : I’m interested and considering joining Freemasonry

Me: Great, be prepared to blatantly and willfully sin against the red letters in your Bible about swearing oaths, call your current religion and deity (whatever it might be) old dark superstition, and literally sacrifice it on an altar.

Additionally, deny Christ three times in a row by agreeing under oath that Jesus is no different than any other deity.

Agree under oath that your works are good enough to get to heaven without the need of Christ if you do enough.

Agree to have your throat slit, your tongue torn out by its roots, you heart plucked out of your chest, and your body severed in twain if you reveal any secrets, or break any of the many other oaths you made .

Him: Sir I think there has been some mistake.

It felt good to lead someone away from this pit. Interestingly, I had another conversation with an old acquaintance that when confronted with a similar explanation of Masonic teaching he shrugged his shoulders and said, he would be ok with it.

As astonishing as the second story may sound, I cannot help but face that I said the same thing to the Spirit of Grace when He tried to keep me out of this snare in the beginning.

I’ve been reading your work with soteriology, under the heading "How To Be Saved". Romans 11:22-23, does this verse mean anyone “fallen away” can discontinue in their unbelief and be “grafted back in” [to Salvation] ? After having been cut off?

Response #2: 

Many thanks for your willingness to share, my friend.

That is an interesting story! From all angles.

Question: is there any difference between the "York rite" and the "Scottish rite" in any of these particulars, if you know?

On your question, I have no doubt that this is not impossible with God. Whether it actually happens has to do with the people involved. That is to say, just as nothing prevents unbelievers from being saved in the first place, yet most will not be – by their own choice – likewise in the case of apostasy, that would be a matter of (a series of very bad) choices (rather than of God foreclosing the opportunity). In my reading of scripture, only death removes any further possibility of being saved. The grafted back in reference is a good one:

And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
Romans 11:23 NKJV

So I'm agnostic about apostates being restored to salvation, not because I think it is impossible (it's clearly not with God), but because I don't know if it ever happens. What I DO know is that there are many believers who have put themselves into the "prodigal son" situation either previously or currently who IMAGINE that they are no longer saved – even though clearly they would not be concerned if they had completely rejected the Lord and totally abandoned their faith in Christ. Guilt is a weapon the devil wields with vigor and great frequency.

In spite of how we feel, everyone who believes in Jesus Christ, the God-man who became a man to die for our sins, is saved . . . even if, like the prodigal son, they went on a "far journey" away from fellowship with Him. That is not good. That is not safe. But it is also not apostasy (see the link).

In Jesus our dear Savior, "my Lord and my God".

Bob L.

Question #3:  

Hi Bob,

I have been chewing on our previous conversations. Peter's denial of Christ would seem to be a very serious example of apostasy since he was the first to say that Jesus was the Christ. My old thought was that if I had stepped one toe into another religion, that is the end.

He did not deny that Christ was the Son Of God, but denied knowing the truth, and swore oaths, and cursing. This is a bigger deal than I originally thought from this story I heard since my childhood. My theology has really hindered me on these points. As you have pointed out, searching the internet is not a great way to lay out one's personal theological framework. If apostasy is a single event, this could be problematic for Peter. Judas seemed to be upset for turning Jesus in but, I don't see how one could believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be and also turn him over to be arrested. That leads me to believe that he never believed. That is hard to wrap my arms around.

Additionally, Paul referred to himself as a Blasphemer. If Paul was a Pharisee, I heard this is a strict life chosen to honor God in the days of the Old Testament. That said, he must have thought he was hunting and murdering Christians to help God, but since Christ's Resurrection, he became a player for the wrong team. That said, it would seem safe to assume his actions were a blasphemy against the saving work of Jesus and The Holy Spirit's ministry. Are these some of the examples of what you mean when you say we have a choice as long as we are alive?

Working through some this in my head, I have painted myself into a corner with the cult interaction. I believe that God sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for me sins, I believe he is the only path to heaven. Jesus is the light of the world. He is the Word of God. God will not break His Word. If the Bible tells me I'm ok, then I'm ok, if it doesn't then I am doomed. I am searching the scriptures and I find the feeling to be up and down. All over the place. I see places all over of people coming back from the edge. I even see in places where God can change his mind.

The Holy Spirit is the One that baptizes us into Christ. This was my fear, the Freemasons claim to baptize its members into the lodge as well. they make a claim to be able have "union with the divine". All I can hope is that I was protected (Blaspheme of the Holy Spirit"). How can we know that The Spirit is with us? The belief in Jesus Christ is the indicator? The discomfort when I read The Bible is initially the scary part for me. Of course, I found all this out later.

The Scottish Rite and the York Rite are separate groups, they require a master mason degree to start climbing their ladder. It is more rituals and more discussion about the first three degrees. Every member of those and many more groups have been through the "blue lodge" like the Shrine Circus. They say that the entire process is climbing the ranks higher but none higher than the 3rd degree. That is why I told you there is no way to be an educated mason and an educated Christian.

I've been searching for the requirements of being saved to add assurance. Please continue to pray for me, that the Lord will solidify my mind and allow me to enter "The Peace That Passes Understanding".

Response #3: 

Anyone who accepts that Jesus is God, who believes that He became a true human being, who trusts in the truth that He died a spiritual death on the cross to pay for all of our sins, and who commits to Him as the only One who can forgive us our sins and deliver us from the grave and condemnation through resurrection given by faith in Him . . . is a believer. And all believers are saved; only unbelievers are not saved (Jn.3:18). Please see "Salvation, God's Free Gift", and for the details: BB 4B: Soteriology.

Many believers do all manner of terrible, awful, sinful, regrettable and regretted things, say them, think them. But that does NOT make them unbelievers. Unbelievers reject the truth in the first paragraph. Apostates are those who once believed these truths but stopped believing them (for various reasons; tribulation of one sort or another or being disappointed in life and blaming God are two major reasons).

"Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away."
Luke 8:13 NIV

"Falling away" here being apostasy (the verb here is from the same root as the word apostasy). The main reason I am agnostic about apostates returning is that it makes little sense to me. "Having tasted" the blessings of salvation, but then rejecting them and turning back to the world in renewed disbelief in the truth are actions that bespeak a very solid choice, a very hardened-heart choice, to reject the Lord – in the manner of the devil. He is not repenting either. Neither did Judas (never a believer). It's one thing for an unbeliever to be involved in all manner of evil – but then have a moment of clarity in which he/she turns around (Paul on the road to Damascus, e.g.); but it is quite another for someone who has seen and known and even accepted the truth, then hardened up enough to reject it entirely so as to revert to the status of an unbeliever, to ever be likely to do the same. I'm not saying it's impossible. With God, nothing is impossible. It's a question of someone limiting themselves like this and then turning back around. In other words, it would be completely "out of character". So if it ever did or does happen, I can guarantee you that it is very, very rare.

The "prodigal son" experience, however, is VERY common. I suppose there are some really "goody two-shoes" types out there who were saved early and who never ever did or said or thought anything very much out of line, who were from the beginning enthusiastic for the truth and never strayed far from the right path. Good for them! That is what we all SHOULD have done. But if there are Christians like that, I'm scratching my head to try and remember if I ever met one – generally NOT after they've given their testimony. And, after all, great believers of the likes of Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, Moses, etc., all had their bad moments. And this is just what we find recorded in scripture. This world is so awful, the devil is so aggressive, the sin nature so importunate, that it is a wonder that ANY of us manage to get to the place in our lives of making true spiritual progress and putting the old bad days behind us. And none of us has managed it without the help of the Holy Spirit.

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Matthew 19:25-26 NIV

I'm close to 100% certain from what you've told me that your experience was along the lines of what many young Christians (and too many older ones) go through, namely, one of, like the prodigal, going off to some "far country" and needing to be brought up short by the Lord before we return. And, like the prodigal, when we DO finally come to our senses, we regret so much what we have done that we doubt we still belong to Him, just as the prodigal did:

 "I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants."
Luke 15:19 NIV

But what did his father say?

". . . this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found."
Luke 15:24 NIV

If a human father would react this way, what about our heavenly Father who loves us with a perfect love (1Jn.4:8-16)? He ordained the plan in which we find ourselves where there are no surprises (for Him) and no mistakes. And He sent His one and only beloved Son into the world to die that we might live.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, while we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
Romans 5:9-10 NIV

Take my advice. Stop "spinning your wheels" over this non-issue. You are a believer. God forgives you. Confess to Him right now, if you have any qualms. And have confidence that He does hear you and does cleanse and forgive you just as it says in His Word.

I will also say that the way to get comfort on issues such as this is NOT by addressing the issue itself . . . over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. No. The way to gain confidence in salvation is through . . . spiritual growth. What is needed is a program of intensive attention to a good source of Bible teaching such as Ichthys. Make that your priority. Take pains to believe what you are taught, to remember it and apply it. If you hit a bone, either in this teaching or in the Bible, something you find hard to accept, set it aside in confidence that one day it will be resolved. Trust the Lord.

Thanks also for the info. What I was wondering is whether or not the horrible list of abominable things one has to say and acknowledge and swear to is the same in all "flavors" of Masonry.

In Jesus our dear Savior,

Bob L.
p.s., Peter is a great example: he denied the Lord three times and yet he is obviously saved, with his name written on one of the gates of New Jerusalem (Rev.21:14). So whether he never lost his faith in spite of his terribly deficient behavior or whether he did lose it and then recovered it, really is a moot point, isn't it? Because either way after repenting he IS saved! So as long as a person is a believer, even after a "Peter experience", then said person is saved, regardless of having said experience. And THAT is what matters, not grinding gears over "was" or "wasn't" in the past. We are alive TODAY and we should be living for the Lord TODAY, regardless of how well or poorly we did yesterday.

Question #4:  

Thanks Doc, for answering both questions. I'm glad to know my worries are unfounded.

Say, you know how I sometimes would have embarrassing tantrums where I got angry at God or even His Grace? Well one time, I'm sorry to admit, I got so angry and prideful over "rapists and the like" being able to be saved (as if my works are any more acceptable to God, who is Justice itself!), that I was...quite seriously considering lying to someone about Revelation or what it says just to seal my fate (we all know what Revelation 22:19 says)...now I know anyone who truly has faith in Christ is saved, but this still makes me doubt if I ever was "for Him" to begin with...can you help here, assurance wise?

In case you're confused by the wording of the last email, it was a "I want nothing to do with such a God" type thing, and yes I still can't help but be ashamed because of the whole fiasco, as much I know He forgives me and we should try not to feel such a way.

Response #4: 

It is prudent not to get angry at God. In fact, it's irrational to be angry with Him. He is perfect. In His perfect integrity, nothing He could do would ever not be perfect. He is love itself (1Jn.4:8; 4:16). Nothing He has ever done has ever been anything but done in perfect love. He is working out all things together for the best for everyone who loves Him back (Rom.8:28), even if it doesn't seem that way to us at the time. So we are the ones who are miscalculating whenever we give in to any negative emotion, anger or despair or the like. If we were trusting Him as we should, we would not do so. Of course, none of us is perfect and we all stumble much (Jas.3:2). As we grow, we get better at realizing that all "this" down here is only of any importance whatsoever to the extent that it has to do with Jesus Christ, learning about Him, following Him, and serving Him and our brothers and sisters for His sake. Everything else, while it may be necessary (i.e., eating, sleeping, working, etc.), is only important to the extent that it relates to those things which are of true primary importance.

As to assurance, as with faith and trust above, assurance grows as we grow. The better we know God, the closer we are walking with our Savior, the more clear it becomes in our hearts that what He says is true. So that we only have to see it once in the Bible to know it with certainty. We eventually get to the point where we don't have to keep testing God like Gideon did with the fleece. We get to the point where we accept with peace everything He tells us in His Word . . . at least when we are walking in the Spirit (everyone gets off track from time to time at least a bit; that is why there is confession: 1Jn.1:9).

"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3:18 NKJV

Believers are saved; unbelievers are not saved. Simple as that . . . for those who trust the Lord.

In Him,

Bob L.

Question #5:  

Hey Dr. Luginbill,

Long time no see! You have my prayers and I hope you're doing well. Just a few quick questions I had.

In Philippians 1:18, were these people who were preaching Christ actually preaching the true gospel by faith through grace alone and were people legitimately getting saved in the process? Is that what is meant by the phrase "Christ is preached." Or were these the same "super apostles" Paul called out in Corinthians?

In His grace and Power,

Response #5: 

We don't know anything more about this situation that we are given in the passage. And it is a difficult one to parse. On the one hand, it's hard to see how "brethren in the Lord" could not be believers (Phil.1:14 NKJV); on the other hand, seeking "from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains" (Phil.1:16) is hardly sanctified behavior. I think we have to conclude that these individuals were believers, but belonging to the Judaizing side of things, not accepting Paul's message of grace and equality of the gentiles, at least not entirely, and therefore trying to "straighten out" those "confused" by his message. In doing so, especially in their conversations with non-believers (Jews in particular), this would have required giving the message about Christ. That is the consolation Paul takes from this opposition.

"Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side."
Luke 9:49-50 NKJV

In a nutshell, the theme of the book of Romans is reconciliation and peace between Jewish and gentile believers. Paul makes it clear that being Jewish is not a guarantee of salvation in and of itself and that gentiles are part of the Church; but he also makes it clear that Jews are due a special measure of respect and consideration. If both sides approach the issue of mixing both in the expanding Church, there can be peace and growth. This initial indication in the book of the conflict to which you refer is thus very revealing. Certainly, there were individuals on all places on the spectrum of opposition from unbelievers to good believers who were still not educated to the issue (as indeed it took even the apostles time to get this principle correct), and Paul adopts the most charitable generalization here, no doubt so as not to turn off right from the start those who are willing to be educated by this epistle.

I keep you and your family in my prayers daily, my friend!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #6:  

Thanks! One last question.

In Galatians 1:8-9 the Greek word "anathema" is often rendered as "accursed" in many translations. My 84/85 NIV (whichever) reads "Let him be eternally condemned." Is that a good translation and the exact meaning of "anathema?" Telling someone to be accursed is the same as saying "let them be damned to Hell" basically?

In Christ,

Response #6: 

It's a good question. Actually, the word occurs six times in the NT. Here are the refs (in YLT because that is the only version which always transliterates the word rather than translating it):

. . . who having come near to the chief priests and to the elders said, 'With an anathema we did anathematize ourselves – to taste nothing till we have killed Paul;'
Acts 23:14 YLT

For I was wishing, I myself, to be anathema from the Christ – for my brethren, my kindred, according to the flesh.
Romans 9:3 YLT

Wherefore, I give you to understand that no one, in the Spirit of God speaking, saith Jesus is anathema, and no one is able to say Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit.
1st Corinthians 12:3 YLT

If any one doth not love the Lord Jesus Christ – let him be anathema! The Lord hath come!
1st Corinthians 16:22 YLT

But even if we or a messenger out of heaven may proclaim good news to you different from what we did proclaim to you – anathema let him be! As we have said before, and now say again, If any one to you may proclaim good news different from what ye did receive – anathema let him be!
Galatians 1:8-9 YLT

This word is never (that I am aware) used for curse-related issues in Classical Greek. In CG it means something dedicated, like a votive offering. As such, this is the word that the LXX version used to translate Hebrew cherem (חֵרֶם), something dedicated to destruction (cf. Lev.27:28-29; Deut.7:26; Josh.6:17; 7:12). So on that parallel, in Jewish Greek usage it comes to mean something or someone "accursed" – which under the Law would require being destroyed, burned, otherwise "cut out and cut off" from the body politic of Israel. So anathema is not a good thing. But in the examples in the NT, the actually "cutting off" is only hypothetical. In Acts, those individuals are still fasting unless they broke their word, and who was there who would kill them for failing to kill Paul? No doubt nothing happened to them. As Unbelievers, they would have no relationship to the Lord in the first place. If they died that way, they were as accursed as all other unbelievers.

In Romans, Paul is engaging in rhetoric, giving us his honest feeling that he would rather be damned if it were possible thereby to save his unbelieving fellow Jews. But neither part of that equation was possible and neither happened (in the main; of course we have hopes that some unbelievers responded to his ministry even if "hardness" is the main situation for "this generation" before our Lord's return).

In 1st Corinthians 12:3 we have another impossible hypothetical where it's impossible to curse the Lord in the Holy Spirit (reasonable enough), mentioned by Paul in order to prove that all blessing must be empowered by the Spirit (what Paul is demonstrating).

In 1st Corinthians 16:22, Paul is drawing the line – you have to love the Lord to be a believer and all believers love the Lord – in order to shake all marginal listeners awake. Of course no believer is cursed.

Finally, in the passage you ask about, Paul is indeed calling for God's cursing on any and all who are perverting the gospel. If they are unbelievers, then they are already abiding under the curse common to all humanity and will end up in the lake of fire absent repentance. If they are marginal believers (we discussed this possibility with the Philippians passage), then Paul invites them to "go the whole way" – which again is a good rhetorical strategy to 1) induce those spreading lies to come to their senses and realize that they are endangering their salvation (if, as I say, there were any who fell into that category; doubtful), and 2) induce the Galatians to come to their senses and recognize what sort of people they were following and whither they were being led:

“Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”
Matthew 15:14 NKJV

So, no, there is no technical necessity for the word to mean what NIV interprets it to be. And even if so, none of the passages involve a situation where either 1) the person has the power to make this happen or is invoking such power; or 2) where there is not the possibility that the object of the curse might not suffer this (i.e., if they repent). I would say that "accursed" is a good translation, because equally in English there is no definitive expectation that if someone says "Let them be accursed" that 1) they will be (does the person cursing have this power? Paul might have, but we don't), or that 2) this produces an irreversible result. God wants all to be saved (1Tim.2:4) and all who commit to Christ are saved (Jn.3:18).

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #7:  

Quick question. I take the warning of Matthew 5:22-24 to refer to unbelievers and/or believers headed for/in danger or apostasy. But how do we interpret the phrase "will be in danger of the fire of Hell?" I've seen different translations say different things. One says "in danger of the fiery hell." Another, "Is guilty enough to go into the fiery Hell." So which is the better translation? Is this verse in the present or future progressive tense? The one translation makes it sound as if the person is in a poor spiritual condition (a believer) who will be in danger of loss of salvation if he continues in such bad behavior that leads to apostasy. However, the other translation makes it sound as if the guilty person is worthy of it right then and there (they would immediately be in Hell if they were to die right there on the spot hypothetically speaking for arguments sake). How do we interpret this phrase in verse twenty-two? We both know that salvation isn't lost over committing one sin. David murdered and committed adultery, yet we know he was still saved and repented afterward.

In His name,

Response #7: 

"But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire."
Matthew 5:22 NKJV

1) The verse says literally "the Gehenna of fire" (Gehenna being the unclean place in the Kidron valley of Jerusalem where they burned garbage etc., and was thus metaphorical for Torments, a place of fiery darkness).

2) In terms of grammar we have a future more vivid condition (the relative clause being the equivalent of a protasis); this is just like the English FMV and means "If X happens, Y will be the result".

3) In terms of the interpretation, we ARE damned for a single sin . . . if we weren't saved by the blood of Christ. That is our Lord's point here and in many other similar places, challenging the assumptions of the self-righteous who assumed that since they were "following the Law" as they redefined it they were worthy of salvation; in fact of course the purpose of the Law is to demonstrate human sinfulness and the need for a Savior (Rom.3:20; 7:7).

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #8:  

Ok, so it would be correct to say that verse twenty-two refers to unbelievers and believers "on skids" (as you once put it) headed for apostasy? Just wanted to make sure I'm understanding everything here. I guess this is what I was actually getting at (although I didn't ask it directly). This passage has always vexed me.

Regarding the grammar, something is still not clear to me. You mentioned elsewhere that both unbelievers and believers (on skids) are meant (unless I misunderstood). I'm just trying to understand here. How is it that we can have both believers and unbelievers from this passage? If said person (let's say an unbeliever) does this (x happens), they confirm their unbelief through their behavior and they are guilty enough for Hell and the Lake of Fire (Y results). But if someone who is still a believer commits this sin, does that mean they will be headed for the Lake of Fire if they persist in their present course? As in, they are still saved at present but won't be for too much longer? Like, if someone is immediately guilty enough to go to Hell, how could this passage also have a backsliding believer in mind? Or maybe I misunderstood something?

Should we take the word "brother" in verse twenty-two to mean "a brother in Christ" or one's neighbor, regardless of their spiritual status?

Response #8: 

There are a great many things in the beatitudes, the "sermon on the mount", which can be "vexing" unless on has the proper dispensational perspective, not to toss out what the Lord says (as hyper-dispensationalism often wants to do), but to understand the context. Our Lord was speaking to a Jewish audience under the Law to whom the Messiah, their King, had now come. Under His administration, everything would be perfect and His subjects were expected to comport themselves accordingly. Part of the approach also is that since this is the Law perspective – rightly understood and not as the Pharisees and later legalists preached it – the true purpose of the Law has to be taken into account: it is meant to lead us to Christ by convicting us all of sin (Rom.3:23; Gal.3:24; etc.). No one hearing Matthew 5:22 who is the least bit honest with him/herself will think that they are innocent of the charges here. We've all said things we regret. Conclusion? We are all damned . . . absent faith in the Messiah, the One who was standing before these people, challenging their false sense of security from "following the Law" as it was being erroneously interpreted.

Re: "You mentioned elsewhere that both unbelievers and believers (on skids) are meant (unless I misunderstood)." Doesn't sound like something I would have said unless I am misunderstanding what you mean. Do you mean, headed towards apostasy or the sin unto death by involvement in gross sin et al.?

As to the rest of your email, again, these are Jewish individuals who were all supposed to be believers as part of God's special nation, but few of them were. Thus they are addressed as those who are under this covenant to which they are supposed to be perfectly responding. So it's not a question of believers or unbelievers. A believer TODAY reading this should think, "I'm not perfect; praise God I've been cleansed of my sins by the blood of Christ!"; whereas an unbeliever should think, "I need a Savior!" And anyone, believer or unbeliever, relying on the Law, should conclude, "It is impossible to follow the Law for salvation then!" All good conclusions.

How goes the face to face Bible study?

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #9:  

The part I'm referring to is when Jesus mentions that whoever says, "you fool" will be guilty enough or in danger of the fire of Hell.

Re: "Doesn't sound like something I would have said", perhaps you could clarify for me what you meant below (the parts I have bolded) (not sure if I understood it or not)? In response to question #6 https://ichthys.com/mail-Gospel-QuestionsIII.htm.

"To start with, let me reassure you that the only way to get into hell is through "self-selection" by means of rejecting Jesus Christ. All who put their faith in Him and hold fast to Him to the end are saved. Our Lord's point on that score here is that the behavior criticized here is indicative of a very sorry spiritual state (at the very least), so that whether the person is an unbeliever or a believer on skids, damnation is a very real possibility – because of no faith or loss of faith respectively."

To try and clarify what I'm asking, I agree with the above. I would tell someone that the manner in which this person says "you fool" is descriptive of the spiritual state you described right above (only unbelievers will go to Hell etc.). Believers don't lose their salvation because of one sin. Of course, we all deserve that punishment, so I understand that. And I also realize that all believers (including myself) are guilty of having committed the sin of hate within their hearts multiple times throughout their lives since none of us is perfect (that goes for mental adultery and everything else as well). Yet, thank goodness, we never lost our salvation because of our faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ (we can't be perfect and work our way to heaven). Occasional stumbling is not the same as giving oneself over to a life of sin since no one born of God goes on sinning (1 John 5:18) and whoever hates his brother (the inner sin Jesus seems to be condemning in our verse) has no eternal life abiding in them (1 John 3:15).

However, what I'm asking is, if a believer "on skids" says "you fool" with the hateful motivation Jesus condemns in this verse, how is it that they can still be a believer when the grammar of the passage suggests that if X happens, Y will be the result? How could this backsliding believer have had any faith at all since that is the case? This is why I asked about the grammar and some of my other questions earlier above (i.e. do we take the word brother as fellow neighbor or brother in Christ, etc.)? This is also why I asked whether the phrase "is guilty enough to go to the fiery hell" or "is (or will) be in danger of the fiery hell" was the correct translation. As in, a backsliding believer like this is endangering himself (present tense) as long as he keeps doing this.

Hopefully all the above helps to clear everything up?

Re: "How goes the face to face Bible study?" It's a bit too early to tell. This past week everyone else was in a meeting so they decided to have the Bible study at someone's house (this is the Saturday morning group). I was the only one who showed up (we are going through different chapters in Psalms) but tried to make the most of it with the young woman who was there. It isn't really much of a Bible study (everyone just sits there and says what they think the verses mean which I'm no fan of), but it has given me an opportunity to speak a good bit, so I can't complain about that. Shared Ichthys and my website with a few people, as well as some friends of mine who I already knew.

Also plugging into a young adults Sunday morning group. Likewise, too early to tell whether I'll stay for that one long term (today was only my second week going). Went to about 3-4 other churches prior but crossed those off my list. These two churches are the only ones that seem like I may have some hope of doing something (even though they still aren't very good by our standards). Other than those two, I have no other options (even after searching online for hours on end for a couple weeks). I searched far and wide within my area (40 minutes to one hour away maximum), North, South, East, West, and everywhere in between. Its so bad Dr. Luginbill! I'm not surprised, but gee wiz (lol, you knew that of course). I did the same thing down in ___ with little luck. So if nothing works out, I can at least say I tried. I only have so much time, so I'm trying to keep activities limited to allow me to study and write. I may go out with some of the folks in these two groups, but its gonna have to be minimal and something that allows me to talk to people (like going on a hike or going out to eat together). No frisbee (too much activity) or ball games (too loud). I only have so much time and the Tribulation is close.

__ keeps asking me about what groups I'm attending but I can't explain to him why I'm going simply because he wouldn't understand. My whole family just seems to think physical assembly is magic (you need to go to church!), when in reality there is very little substance in almost all of these physical churches. Been praying for my family every day but I suppose the Tribulation is just gonna have to wake them up. Not to gossip, but ___ still think there is some major difference between a "preacher" and a "teacher" (as if they are two different gifts and callings) when, of course, they are the same thing."This guy can teach but he can't preach," they say. "We need a preacher, not a teacher!" Nothing else I can do but continue to pray for them. Christianity has been so sad for so many years but that's most of church history for you. Thankfully, we don't have much longer to wait.

Response #9: 

I read the link and I agree with myself (shocking!), but I think the whole response needs to be digested. I end with saying:

"The point is that while the "fool" and "rhaka" examples of Matthew 5:22 serve to illustrate that no one can be righteous and all are sinners, nevertheless it is still better to stay as far away from anything questionable as we can (since we are nowhere near as good at threading this needle as our Lord was). Like John, there are ways to make the point without resorting to epithets, and in my judgment for most of us at most times that is the best policy."

I was addressing the response to someone who was internalizing the passage and so I felt the best thing to do was to explain how it didn't really apply to this person and why it didn't. I could have gone on for a page or two and explained the passage in its context as I did with you, but that might have confused him/her rather than helping. You, however, are an in-waiting pastor-teacher and need to know the precise interpretation of the passage (my response to you in the main) rather than how it should be applied by some believer reading it today without that understanding (my response to this person in the main). So I do agree with your paragraph when explain the theology behind sin and salvation . . . of course.

As to the grammar, this is exactly what I was trying to explain in my previous email. Again, this is not about believers or unbelievers. ALL would be condemned for this or for ANY sin . . . absent the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But our Lord, for reasons He explained and we have discussed elsewhere, did not say things like, "Look, I'm the Messiah and I'm about to pay for your sins; to be saved, you need to believe in Me and not count on following the Law to be saved or the fact that you're Jewish". That all would have been true but not well-received by anyone at the time. This is the same reason why He always used parables.

Thanks for the very illuminating report. I'm sorry – but as you guessed not at all surprised – by what you have discovered. I am praying for this or some face-to-face situation to work out for you. You have a great deal to offer. The problem is, as with your family, most Laodiceans today are not interested. This is one reason super-churches are thriving. If you're going to settle for experiences, you might as well find the best experience out there.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #10:  

Ok, I think I get what you're saying now- tell me if I have this straight. Is the below explanation what our passage is saying?

I was thinking about this earlier today and wondered whether it had the similar purpose as Jesus telling people to cut off their hand or gouge out their eye if either caused them to stumble. The fact is, no one would ever do that. Someone could think, "you've got to be kidding me!" Nobody has likely ever done this, and that's the point- there is absolutely nothing we can do to save ourselves and enter God's kingdom absent faith in Jesus Christ. No work of the flesh can save anyone because only God's grace will do. Jesus used the whole hand analogy as an indirect way to show us our utter helplessness to do a thing for ourselves (all people whether believers or unbelievers in general). It was His way of telling people to stop relying on the works of the Law and to start trusting in Him. He was not direct (as you mentioned) because (like the Parables) the people would have interfered with His ministry because the majority would have opposed instead of embraced Him (of course, they only embraced Him because of the miracles and not in true faith as we know).

Assuming I've got all this right and that is the main thrust of these verses, do you think there is even a need to mention how sin can contribute to apostasy? Like, we both agree that that is true (you mentioned you agree with that in your last email, of course), but since that isn't the point, do you think the above explanation would suffice without having to mention everything I've said in my previous emails? I would imagine I would only have to mention it (as it was in your case) if someone asked me specifically about that. But I would still need to point out to them that isn't the point of the passage.

A few more questions on the sermon on the mount and that's all I have.

1. Moses allowed the people to divorce (to give a certificate of divorce) because their hearts were hard. That brought a thought to mind- would a good parallel example to that be Israel's desire for a king (Saul in that case)? In other words, God was supposed to be their King, but Israel was stubborn and wouldn't have it. Therefore, God gave them what they wanted since they wouldn't listen (it is not you they have rejected but me He said). Is the reason behind that passage the same reason Moses allowed people to divorce?

2. What is the whole point/meaning of Matthew 5:33-37 (oaths)? I get some of it but it isn't entirely clear to me.

3. In Matthew 5:40-41, Jesus said to go the extra mile with someone and give a cloak to someone who took a tunic. Is Jesus being serious about that or sarcastic? Like, how many of us would actually do this today?

4. Finally, and totally unrelated to everything above, I wanted to ask you- since the word anger for God is used as an anthropomorphism, would that mean there is no such thing as "righteous anger" for human beings? As in, all anger is a sin?

Response #10:

Yes, I think that's the point of the one-eye / one hand passage as well.

On "do you think it's necessary to mention apostasy" et al., that all depends on to whom and in what venue you're interacting with the passage. Every passage has a particular meaning; but there are plenty of appropriate applications for most. If someone who is worried about falling away brought this passage up with me, I might indeed bring that and the sin unto death up, depending on the situation.

1. I think it's true that hardness is part of the reason behind all regulations, the Law in general. After all, if God's people were eager to learn His ways and act in love, well, there's no law against love since love is "the fulfillment of the Law" (Rom.13:10). But for those who have to be hedged in to keep from destroying themselves and others, scripture says "Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions . . ." (Gal.3:19a NIV).

2. Seems pretty clear from this passage that oaths are a bad idea. But people love to take them and under the Law people did take them, so the Law regulated that too (analogous to slavery and polygamy, bad things that need regulations if allowed at all).

3. Re: "how many of us would actually do this today", no one, I would guess. The real question is, "should we?" Verse 39 of turning the other cheek and 42 on giving are part of this. I would certainly not make it rule to say "yes we should do all of these things without any consideration of the circumstances". It's good not to get upset with minor affronts and it's good not to retaliate in those situations. But if we're being attacked by a robber, the passage doesn't apply (cf. Lk.22:35-36). Again, this passage describes how it ought to be in Israel at that time with the Messiah being offered to those who would reject Him, and how it will be when He returns. In between, while the essential truth of these things we affirm – better not to retaliate and leave it to the perfect government of the Messiah instead (and He does even now rule over all, after all) – I would never give this, as I said, to anyone listening to my teaching as a blanket rule of behavior. Here's how I would characterize in general (i.e., not making any doctrinally proscriptive statements here) my advice on actual application:  It depends on the person(s) we are dealing with who is doing this or making such requests: 1) a brother who is out of line (lean towards the literal words of the passage but not without discretion and not without limits); 2) a person who is not a friend or a brother but is not dangerous (judgment call depending on the totality of the circumstances); 3) a criminal or dangerous person with no governmental authority or claim to be a friend or brother (passages don't then apply).

4. No, since we are not God. We are human and we do have emotions and that is why God comports Himself to us as He does and explains His actions as He does – so that we may understand. Phinehas striking the Israelite man and Moabite woman with a spear in "righteous indignation" turned out to be a good thing (Num.25:6-11); Moses striking the Rock in what may have seemed the same thing but was not turned out to be a big mistake (Num.20:8-12). So any time anyone wants to excuse any action on the basis of "righteous indignation", it would be a really good idea to think twice first (at least twice), because actual, sinful anger is at least 100 times more common.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #11:  

Thanks! Congratulations on completing Hebrews chapter five by the way! I'll get to that series once I finish the basics (two left- Ecclesiology and Bibliology).

Regarding point #2, slavery and polygamy weren't necessarily sinful in Old Testament times were they? Would it be more accurate to say they just weren't the best applications/choices? I assume that is what you mean by "bad things" but just wanted to be sure before I left off. Likewise, even though Jesus taught against it, we wouldn't be necessarily right to say taking an oath would be sinful? I take it that the point is "They are a bad idea and best avoided at all costs" (for multiple reasons).

Didn't Phineas do what he did out of zeal, since the Lord mentions him being zealous later on (Numbers 25:11)? Likewise, Jesus cleansed the temple out of zeal, not anger right? My understanding is that there is a difference between the two. How can a person be driven by anger to do something righteous without sinning? I mean, like, James 1:19-20 says that man's anger doesn't produce God's righteousness. Wouldn't that mean human anger (assuming it is true human anger) is always a sin? Because I've heard one of our brothers say that the "face reddening" and "steam coming out of one's ears" aspects aren't true anger but potential signs that it is coming unless the person in question calms down. Does that make any sense?

Response #11: 

"Bad things" are "things that are bad", not necessarily sinful. You could eat a pint of ice cream for dessert for lunch and dinner every day for a year. I couldn't say it was a sin necessarily, but I'd bet it wouldn't do your health any good. Oath taking is bad. Our Lord says not to do it. Isn't taking an oath essentially saying, "I don't trust the Lord to answer my prayers otherwise but if I take an oath maybe I'll get what I want"? So re: "I take it that the point is "They are a bad idea and best avoided at all costs" (for multiple reasons)", yes, that's the point.

In terms of zeal versus "righteous indignation", the latter phrase doesn't occur in scripture. It's one we use to distinguish between sinful and (rarely) non-sinful anger (as when our Lord was rightly upset with those who were hard of heart). But if someone is zealous and pins a man and a woman to the ground with a spear, it strikes me (no pun intended) that there is little difference between the emotions he is exhibiting there and "righteous indignation". Being emotionally motivated often comes to no good. The Bible doesn't split up emotional states necessarily the same way contemporary psychology does, so I'd resist examining our experiences of what we see and then applying that to scripture. I would rather go the other way around. In other words, zeal and anger are not necessarily different; both can be bad, either can (occasionally) be good. The Lord is often described as being angry, and we know that in His case it is definitely good. In Numbers 25:11, the Lord describes His own motivation also as "zeal" but we see earlier in the chapter (vv.3-4) that it is also "anger".

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #12:  

Thanks for all your answers and for sticking with me through all this!

On the issue of anger again-several of us discussed this many months ago. [omitted]

In His grace and power,

Response #12: 

I've written about anger in the past (to include the anthropomorphism of God's "anger"); here are some links:

In your Anger, do not Sin: Ephesians 4:26 and the Sin Nature

Controlling Anger

Anger and Madness

Anger, Anthropopathism, Eternity and Divine Motives

I swore in My Anger (fr. Hebrews chapter three)

The Battlefield Within III: Anger and Forgiveness

This may be one of those areas where there "a difference without a [significant] distinction". The number of times even godly believers are motivated by anger and it is "OK" are unquestionably in the great minority of instances when we experience that emotion – how much less the rest of the world? So I don't think there's really much profit in trying to nail things down beyond that. If a believer is angered by things that he/she is right to be upset about, that is fine as far as it goes, but losing control over that anger even when justified is a very human thing to do (the case of Moses striking the Rock a second time), so humility in the face of this reality rather than giving it the "go" sign would seem to me to be the right thing for us to do and, as pastors, to teach. So I would not say that we can't get angry without sinning, but it is very true that when we do get angry we need to keep it under tight control, especially at first, lest it blur our judgment. If we are angry at the prospect of the terrorists being about to kill our families, that might be just the boost we need to take them out before they are able to do so, but letting it linger after the crisis passes instead of moving forward in a rational way is likely to be detrimental to making good decisions necessary to preserve us and them going forward.

That is to say, we can't necessarily control getting angry, but we can control how we act / react when we feel this emotion. Acting on it is usually sinful, just in the normal course of things, but not in every single case (and even here it needs to be kept within proper limits or we may be flirting with disaster).

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #13:  

Hi Bob,

I'd like to come back to this discussion of propitiation/expiation/atonement vs. redemption a bit. I read the sections about these things in BB4A, and put it on the backburner for a while after feeling a bit better about things, but __ has been asking me questions recently about sin, forgiveness, and hell, and since I had nearly the exact same general questions several months back, I haven't been terribly helpful in being convincing, I'm afraid. So I'd like to understand better myself, so I can help better. (Well, and I'd just like to understand better for myself too, of course).

You may get duplicate-ish questions so apologies in advance if we overlap on things. I encouraged our friend to stick with it and keep on asking if they still don't feel like they have gotten to the bottom of it, and we both agreed past a certain point it is healthy and proper for them to ask you directly, not just through me.

1. Humans (all humans, even unbelievers) are no longer positionally under judgement for personal sins... right?

__ has been asking about "what" unbelievers are being judged for in hell (as in, are personal sins involved at all or not, or is it just unbelief involved). Some quotes from Ichthys that seem to make it very clear that personal sins are not at all involved vis-a-vis hell/judgement/punishment:

It should be emphasized here that whatever use is made at this judgment in the analysis of a particular individual's life of the personal sins he or she has committed, while these are most definitely a part of the record and will no doubt be introduced to demonstrate patterns of behavior, they are not the basis for condemnation.

The answer to your question received a detailed treatment in the recently released part 6 of Coming Tribulation (see the link: "The Last Judgment"). The basic answer is that unbelievers are not judged or punished for their sins with the exception of one sin for which Jesus could not die, namely, the rejection of Himself.

So unbelievers are neither condemned nor punished for their personal sins; they are condemned for their rejection of the Savior and punished in their blasphemous presumption in choosing a life and a world and an eternity without God by being given precisely that. In other words, they receive precisely what they chose and what they desired -- eternity without God – and they would do so again and again if they had a thousand life-times to reconsider. Such is the hardness of the unbelieving heart.

But a quote __ has been asking about is this one from CT6:

"The fire itself, besides being literal, is also a symbol of the judgment under which all human beings find themselves for their sinful conduct (Jn.3:18; 16:5-11; 1Jn.3:14 – and no one has ever been completely without sin save Jesus Christ; cf. Rom.3:9; 3:23; 5:8). We are given to see this intimate connection between divine judgment and the fire which fills the lake of damnation in both Isaiah's and Daniel's accounts of antichrist's final end."

I believe the confusion is something like this: if Jesus faced the judgement for all human sin on the cross, then how can we say that human beings are under judgement for their sins?

Where ___'s thoughts go with this, I think, is wondering if unbelievers must then still "have on their ledgers" their personal sins, even given universal atonement. Something along the lines that even if Christ paid, if they don't accept the payment, then their sins are still on their record/they are fully responsible for them. (That's wrong, correct?)

Could you explain the wording here? Is it that aside from Christ's propitiation for human sin upon the cross, humans would be under certain judgement (but humans---even unbelievers---are not in reality, since Christ did atone for the sins of all humans upon the cross)? And this is God's blessed Mercy?

But the Bible does talk about God judging sin and wickedness. For example, Romans 1:18:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness

But that is not "paying for" the sin? And that's the difference between this and the cross?

2. On the shared idea of a price being paid

I think where I often get lost in propitiation vs. redemption is that both concepts involve a price being paid, and no matter how hard I try to keep it all straight, if I look away for even just a moment, my brow wrinkles as I have to again consider and reconsider why it is that if Jesus paid for all, not all are redeemed. That while the price was paid for all, not all are forgiven their sins. Or are they? (See below, next question)

I think I get somewhat hung up on the metaphors employed by scripture for these things:

• Legal language of justification and legal penalty/payment

• Language of buying out of slavery (to sin)

Let's take the legal angle. We know according to God's justice, a penalty must be paid for sin. In human law courts, if someone pays the legal penalty for another, that means the violation of the law is, from that point, completely dealt with, right? If there is a ledger, the ledger has been wiped clean after the penalty is fully paid.

And in buying us out of slavery, well, if that payment was the cross as well, and the payment on the cross was for all people, why are not all bought out of slavery to sin? Is it a different payment...? But that doesn't sound right.

I hope I'm making sense. It gets very fuzzy in my head when we talk of the payment of the cross/the blood of Christ in both these areas, yet one applies to all humans, but the other only applies to believers. ??? As I say, I think it because the things are in fact different, but use similar language of "payment".

3. On language of "forgiveness of sins", and to whom we ought to apply it

Under what state is it proper to say that a human being is "forgiven of their sins" (except for unbelief)?

• Even for unbelievers, Jesus Christ paid for their sins

• But that doesn't mean they are forgiven their sins, right? Those are different logical statements? Or are they in fact the same?

I just get a bit confused here.

Matthew 12:31-32 says this:

31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Is the forgiveness for "every sin and blasphemy" mentioned here only applicable to believers, or does it apply to all humans? It's future tense here ("will be forgiven"), but then again, the cross/the Father's acceptance of the payment had not yet positionally occurred yet.

Thanks in advance for any help in these matters.

In Him,

Response #13: 

First off, you may have already seen the email I posted yesterday on this very subject. I tried to explain the difference between theological statements about these issues, questions people may have, and what scripture says (along with the danger of elevating theological conclusions above those scriptures).

I agree completely with everything you have written in the first bit. The one quibble would be when you say, "with the exception of one sin for which Jesus could not die, namely, the rejection of Himself". Now let me say that I realize that I have put things exactly this way many times, but our friend seems to have an issue with this being a sin and sins being judged. Scripture doesn't actually call this rejection of Christ a "sin" anywhere I can find. And in any case, it is misguided, in my view, very Augustinian, to be getting into this in terms of accountancy. Scripture never does that. Sin is violating God's will; we are relieved of all of that through the blood of Christ – everyone, that is, who is willing to turn back to God. Everyone else is judged for their failure to do so, "according to what they have done". Now I can well imagine that the guilt of the sin of all unbelievers' sins has been forgiven through the cross but that what they did still makes it clear that they needed what they rejected. So I'm not willing to go beyond what the scriptures actually say about the last judgment "according to works". Christ died for their sins. The Father wants them to be saved. They refused. The judgment will make all this clear. That is enough for me, and I'm not sure what purpose it serves to try to peel back the onion here when scripture doesn't do so. That, as mentioned, is what happens in theology all too often, and how we get to the point of arguing about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

On "ledger": redemption is where sin is forgiven. But only believer are redeemed. So while Christ paid for all sins, only the sins of believers are forgiven (link).

In whom (i.e., Christ) we possess our ransoming [from sin] (i.e., “redemption”) through His blood, the forgiveness of our transgressions according to the riches of His grace.
Ephesians 1:7

The combination of these things, i.e., universal atonement but redemption of believers only, may seem contradictory and confusing to some (and many theologies mess this up), but it is what scripture teaches.

I think that is "nub" of the issue. Do feel free to write me back about this.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #14:  

Hi Bob,

I'm afraid things still aren't particularly clear for me.

1) What are you agreeing with in what I wrote exactly? There were some questions in there

Recopying the questions bit and splitting it out some---could you maybe try to address these things more point by point?

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

1.1) A quote our friend has been asking about is this one from CT6 (emphasis mine):

The fire itself, besides being literal, is also a symbol of the judgment under which all human beings find themselves for their sinful conduct (Jn.3:18; 16:5-11; 1Jn.3:14 – and no one has ever been completely without sin save Jesus Christ; cf. Rom.3:9; 3:23; 5:8). We are given to see this intimate connection between divine judgment and the fire which fills the lake of damnation in both Isaiah's and Daniel's accounts of antichrist's final end.

If Jesus faced the judgement for all human sin on the cross, then how can we say that human beings are under judgement for their personal sins? What does that mean then, exactly?

1.2) Where our friend's thoughts go with this, I think, is wondering if unbelievers must then still "have on their ledgers" their personal sins, even given universal atonement. Something along the lines that even if Christ paid, if they don't accept the payment, then their sins are still on their record/they are fully responsible for them. (Is this right or wrong? Seems wrong to me)

Could you explain the wording here? Is it that aside from Christ's propitiation for human sin upon the cross, humans would be under certain judgement for their personal sins (but humans---even unbelievers---are not in reality, since Christ did atone for the sins of all humans upon the cross)? And this is God's blessed Mercy?

1.3) But the Bible does talk about God judging sin and wickedness. For example, Romans 1:18:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness

But that "revealing of wrath" is not "paying for" the sin? And that's the difference between this and the cross?

Is it proper for us to say that these people in Romans 1 are in fact under judgement for their sins, but not paying for them in experiencing this judgement? (This doesn't sound right to me. Instead, I've always understood it to be that Jesus alone was judged for sin, otherwise you get double jeopardy).

If Jesus paid for the sins (such that there is no longer any penalty for them), then... how can personal sins still be involved at all? Seems to me like that is the very definition of them being paid for.

2) On calling unbelief a sin

You wrote: "Scripture doesn't actually call this rejection of Christ a "sin" anywhere I can find."

What about Mark 3:29?

"But he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"

I'm not saying this means much of anything (since obviously unbelief is different from other things paid for upon the cross, however one wishes to talk about the matter), but is there some reason the above verse doesn't count?

3) What does it mean to have sin paid for but not forgiven?

Is there any easy way to explain how payment/atonement for sin is different than God forgiving the sin? What do each of those things mean vis-a-vis the concept of payment being made/penalty being wiped away? I'm just having a hard time understanding why these things are different.

Can you think of any analogies that might help explain?

Like, I don't know what to say other than I'm just struggling to understand this particular case:

	"Under judgement for personal sins"	"Personal sins are forgiven"
Sins have not been paid for, no redemption (if Christ had not gone to the cross at all)	TRUE	FALSE
Sins have been paid for, no redemption (unbeliever)	???	FALSE
Sins have been paid for, redemption (believer)	FALSE	TRUE

4) More on the legal analogy

Let's say person X has violated the law, and owes penalty A. Person Y has paid penalty A in place of person X. A judge is able to say whether or not the penalty has been paid.

What does this mean, as it relates to Christ's payment for us? If person X is a sinful human being, person Y is Christ, and the judge is the Father, then:

4.1) Did person Y give the payment for penalty A to the judge, or just do what was necessary to offer payment, should person X choose to accept it? Meaning the payment is only "given to the judge" if the person chooses to accept the payment? (This would logically imply that in the eyes of the judge, penalty A has still not been paid for person X if person X refuses to accept the payment of person Y, even despite what person Y already did). (This doesn't seem right to me, so I expect the answer to this is no).

4.2) Does person X owe penalty A any more, in the eyes of the judge? (This doesn't seem right to me, so I expect the answer to this is no).

4.3) What does payment/atonement mean here, with respect to person X, person Y, and the judge?

4.4) What does forgiveness mean here, with respect to person X, person Y, and the judge?

Thanks for bearing with me.

Yours in Christ,

Response #14: 

1.1) Jesus died for all sins. He was judged for them all. But until a person is redeemed, they are still under judgment, condemned for lack of faith. E.g.,

"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 3:18 NKJV

1.2) Jesus paid the full price for all sins; but unbelievers do not benefit from that saving work until they put their faith in Him.

1.3) As said in the first quote, "the judgment under which all human beings find themselves for their sinful conduct"; this is an indication of their "not being saved" and a stimulus to be saved (at least it should be). Christ paid for all sins, but we believers are disciplined when we sin. Christ paid for all sins, but that doesn't mean that here in time unbelievers are not called to account for their wickedness. Christ paid for all sins, but unbelievers are not given the benefit of the forgiveness the Father longs to give them, until they accept Jesus and His work (redemption is for believers). Christ paid for all sins, and this has eternal repercussions . . . for believers who have availed themselves of that benefit. Christ paid for all sins, so unbelievers will not be judged for theirs, but that doesn't mean that they will not be judged or that their behavior will not be used to demonstrate their insufficiency to be saved on their own merits at the Great White Throne.

2) I was reading kriseos (judgment), but hamartematos (sin) is probably correct (Aleph has the latter; Ephraemi rescriptus the former). Anything done in rebellion against the will of God is a sin, so it's acceptable to call it that in any case. As I've often said, "the only sin for which Christ could not die was the sin of rejecting Himself", because only by accepting Him and His work can a person be saved. Or, put in a biblical way, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved!"

3) We believers still sin; so we still need forgiveness, even though Christ died for all of our sins and paid for them all. We are forgiven when we confess Him; we are forgiven later when we confess. We've had "the bath"; then we need to have our feet washed from time to time. Unbelievers have never been bathed in the first place . . . although the bath has been drawn and is waiting for them, they refuse to get in. So how can they appear before the Lord clean?

4) This gives me a headache and so I'm unlikely to answer it according to the terms given and not fall into some misunderstanding one way of the other. What I can say: Receiving the benefit of what Christ did for us is dependent upon saving faith. I don't like to put it all in legal terms because only unbelievers fall under the legal / Law negatives in scripture.

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life."
John 5:24 NKJV

"He who believes in Him is not condemned."
John 3:18a NKJV

Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
Romans 5:18 NKJV

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:1a NKJV

Yes, of course, believers are "judged" too, all the time; and we will all be "judged" in the end, but for reward, not for condemnation. The fact that we have passed from death to life makes all the difference in the world. We are "in Christ" and "just" in Him. Amen?

Thank you for bearing with me!

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #15:  

Hi Bob,

1.1) But what I'm asking isn't whether they are condemned/under judgement generally, but whether they are condemned/under judgement for their personal sins. Unbelievers are condemned/under judgement for their unbelief, as John 3:18 says. But what about their personal sins? On the one hand, you say this:

... Christ paid for all sins, so unbelievers will not be judged for theirs

And on the other hand, you say this:

The fire itself, besides being literal, is also a symbol of the judgment under which all human beings find themselves for their sinful conduct

I still don't understand how these two statements fit together. I'm not really sure how to ask more clearly, so perhaps I'll just leave things at that. Is what I am confused about clear?

For what it is worth, everything would make sense to me if the second quote said this instead:

The fire itself, besides being literal, is also a symbol of the judgment under which all human beings find themselves for their unbelief

1.2) I really don't know how to ask this one more clearly either. Are unbelievers still considered to be guilty for their personal sins, even given universal atonement, since they do not believe in Christ---yes or no?

My understanding has been that the answer to the above yes or no question is no, but then we must take care to add that unbelievers, despite not being considered guilty with respect to their personal sins that have now been paid for (by Jesus, on the cross), are considered guilty of unbelief, which is the basis for their just condemnation. But it is unbelief not personal sins that they are judged/condemned for.

2) On the statement "Jesus paid the full price for all sins; unbelievers do not benefit from that saving work until they put their faith in Him"

So Christ's atonement for sin does nothing for unbelievers? I'm not trying to be combative, but I just don't understand how that can possibly be true. It seems to me that that can't be what you mean, so I must just be misinterpreting it somehow?

As I have understood things, out of God's great Mercy, unbelievers are not judged for personal sins, how they would justly deserve if Christ had not otherwise paid for them upon the cross. Meaning unbelievers do "benefit" from Christ's universal atonement, even if they do not receive the "full benefit" of it through faith (that is, redemption, justification, glorification, etc.).

They are not saved and will not end up in heaven. But they did receive the benefit of no longer being judged or condemned for their personal sins, which is more Mercy than Justice would itself demand. Instead, they are on the hook for unbelief alone.

Am I missing something?

I feel like some of this ought to be obvious (given how core it is to understanding the consequences and effects of Christ's saving work, and our faith), but alas... it is proving more confusing to me than many other things that one would probably consider more abstract and intricate in the details.

Yours in Christ,

Response #15: 

1) Your suggestion makes things more clear. So I've followed it and changed the passage to read "unbelief" because otherwise I can see how it might be misleading (thanks).

Sin is a major issue in time. Believers who are forgiven still need forgiveness. Unbelievers who will not be judged for their sins at the GWT do not therefore avoid consequences for sin here on earth, and the consciousness of sin is a major contributor to unbelievers coming to understand their need for a Savior who alone could take away that sin (absent which they cannot be saved). But it's always best to be as clear as possible (agreed).

Guilt is another issue. We're all guilty. That is why we continually ask for forgiveness. A person can be guilty of a crime and still be shown leniency. Being "subject to eternal condemnation on the basis of sins committed" is what has been removed by the cross.

2) Re: "So Christ's atonement for sin does nothing for unbelievers?" I never said that. Christ's complete atonement for sin is good news, THE "good news", because now the door is open for life eternal . . . for those willing to exit the "slave market of sin" and accept the redemption God the Father is freely offering. But the offer of salvation still has to be taken.

This is along the lines of those who said to Paul, "So there's no benefit to being Jewish (i.e., if unsaved)?" To which he replied, "Much in every way!" (Rom.3:2). However, "their unbelief" does not render "the faithfulness of God without effect" (Rom.3:3). It's great to be Jewish and there are many advantages to being so, but there is no salvation without faith even so. Similarly, it's wonderful news that all sin has been paid for, but there is no salvation without faith even so. The main advantage Paul cites for being Jewish is that they "were entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom.3:2), so that the Word has always been close to them. For unbelievers generally, the main advantage of the atonement is that there is now nothing which prohibits salvation through simple faith, not "on credit", but complete and immediate. But they still have to accept it.

Re: "But they did receive the benefit of no longer being judged or condemned for their personal sins"; while I would agree with this, I note that the Bible doesn't put it that way and for good reason, namely, because unbelievers are indeed "under condemnation" since they are not yet saved.

"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
John 3:18-21 NKJV

In this passage, it is clear that the behavior of unbelievers is being censured, even though that behavior is not the basis for their condemnation: their lack of faith is. But their sinful behavior is a testimony to their lack of faith. Or as our Lord says later on in the gospel . . .

"And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me."
John 16:8-9a NKJV

So sin is a demonstration of due condemnation (positional now and experiential at the GWT absent repentance), even though said condemnation when carried out for unbelievers will not be on the basis of personal sin per se but on the basis of rejecting Christ's sacrifice for that personal sin. Which is why the positive of no longer being under condemnation is only promised to believers . . .

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:1a NKJV

. . . because absent the cross and faith in Christ there most definitely is condemnation . . . for unbelievers (under sentence now; carried out at the GWT absent repentance). Believers have passed "from death to life" (1Jn.3:14), and that passage is open to all, but it only appropriated through faith in Jesus Christ.

Re: "I feel like some of this ought to be obvious": Maybe it's just a question of me needing to be a little more clear in how I put things. Appreciate you bearing with me!

Hope this clarifies things a bit, but, as always, do feel free to write back, my friend.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #16:  

Hi Bob,

I'm excited, as I'm finally posting videos to YouTube from the Saturday Zoom Bible study wherein we've been doing BB1: Theology. We're like 11 lessons in so far, and I finally finished some programming scripts to automate things, so that I can do each video in a much shorter amount of time (like one a day, instead of one a week). That programming stuff had been the hold-up, and it's nice to see things actually come together after all the delays. (Right now the videos aren't public yet, but I'll email you to let you know once the series is public).

When discussing how God is just, we had a question come up. We talked about it on the video, but today I was writing up a section summarizing some of what we'd talked about a bit more formally. I've copied the section here:

“How is it just for unbelievers to face infinite, eternal punishment for finite sins?”

This question’s wording presupposes something that is simply not true: that unbelievers face eternal punishment in hell for sins they commit in this life.

As we go over in the video, hell exists not to punish unbelievers for their sins—as if they could somehow pay for or atone for them—but only because of unbelief (“blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”). That hell is not punishment for sins but the consequence of unbelief—of wanting to spend eternity apart from God—is a rather fundamental point about the nature of hell, but is nonetheless widely misunderstood.

Jesus paid for all human sin upon the cross, and, moreover, imperfect human beings are not even worthy sacrifices. That is, we could not pay for our sin even if we wanted to; we are not qualified since we are tainted and marred by sin. Only Christ—the true, blameless Lamb of God—can take away the sins of the world with His blood, and He already did so upon the cross some 2,000 years ago.

If God punished unbelievers for their sins in hell after Christ already took the judgement for said sins, the sins would be judged twice (“double jeopardy”)—obviously incompatible with justice. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that falsely believing that human beings are punished for their sins in hell is no less than a rejection of the efficacy of Jesus’ payment for all human sin upon the cross (or perhaps the Father’s acceptance of Jesus’ work). If you believe in unlimited atonement and penal substitutionary atonement (both true things that are clearly taught in scripture), then the purpose (telos) of hell cannot be the punishment of human sins. It is simply theologically unworkable.

To pull us back to the present question:

The grace of the cross is positively scandalous:
That God would judge His own Son for human sin,
Even for the most gross and reprehensible sins of humanity.

That unbelievers refuse to accept Christ’s payment for them is tragic:
That God’s love will go unreciprocated,
Despite Him laying down His life for their salvation.

But that unbelievers accuse God of injustice is ironic:
That they scorn the God that loves them so much,
Who has already saved them from their punishment,
By taking it upon His own shoulders.

When unbelievers say it is not just for them to face infinite, eternal punishment for finite sins, they miss the fact that God already judged Jesus for all their sins upon the cross, and that people in hell are not there to punish them for their sins, but because they chose unbelief and separation from God. God has, out of His unfathomable grace, spared them the true consequences of their sins—Jesus bore these consequences instead, even for the most vile and unrepentant of unbelievers. Nevertheless, He will let all those creatures who choose of their own will to live apart from Him to have their wish. And an eternity apart from God—Who is everything good—will be utterly miserable.

The point is that hell is not miserable on account of punishment for sins committed, but miserable on account of separation from God.

Sidenote:

All of this should make it clear why the idea of “levels of hell” (cf. the “Nine Circles of Hell” in Dante’s Inferno) is so problematic theologically.

Because all people in hell are there for the same reason (unbelief)—not to punish them for their sins—there can be no levels of hell.

That people find this unpalatable (“What do you mean Hitler will be no worse off in hell than my ’nice’ unbelieving neighbor?!”) does not make it any less true. As I have said before, the cross is truly scandalous grace—and what is even more scandalous is that God gives a real offer of salvation to every single human being who has ever lived… even those who—in our opinion—actually deserve a healthy dose of eternal suffering (e.g., those who rape and murder children). That is how far God has gone in offering a genuine choice to all mankind.

For people who still balk at this teaching (viewing it as too lenient upon the truly evil), consider Paul. If God made Paul (who—prior to his conversion in Acts 9—was a fierce persecutor of the Early Church) the Apostle to the Gentiles, then when you find fault with God for showing grace to sinners who you think are too evil, are you saying God made a mistake with Paul?

-----------------------------------------
It seems right to me, but I've also been checking some passages to make sure of what I'm saying. For example:

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Matthew 25:46, NIV11

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.
John 3:36, NIV11

43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two hands and go into hell, into the unquenchable fire. 45 If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where ‘their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.’
Mark 9:43-48, Berean Standard Bible

I make quite the point of emphasizing how hell isn't punishment for sins (lying, stealing, pride, etc.), but is simply the consequence of unbelief.

Yet it is also described as "punishment" in the Bible (as in Matthew 25:46). I suppose this is getting at the fact that it will be a horrible existence to be eternally separate from God, but the point remains that this is not punishment for sins committed in life (as if there is some sort of correspondence), correct?

Do you see anything in the excerpt above that you think is worded in such a way it might give wrong impressions or lead astray?

I have been pondering if saying something like "hell isn't punishment for sin" might be a bit misleading inasmuch as unbelief itself is a sin, is it not? Or am I overthinking that, since my wording is plenty clear taken as a whole?

Your friend in Jesus,

Response #16: 

This is good stuff! Also, very exciting about the videos!

On punishment, biblical descriptions of hell are awful. Literally. They should fill anyone who contemplates them with awe . . . and motivate them to take appropriate action. That's the meaning of kolasis <kolazo in Matthew 25:46, namely, not punishment so much as penalty, a check (for those taking note), not a retribution. The purpose of the horrors of hell is to motivate people to stay out – just as the purpose of corporal punishment is to motivate a child not to do whatever it is (rather than retribution). Jesus paid the penalty, but there are consequences for those who spurn that great act of grace and with temerity ignore the clear penalty that is otherwise hanging over their heads.

So instead of saying "hell isn't punishment for sin", I would prefer saying something like "hell is the penalty for rejecting Jesus Christ".

How's the job going?

In Him,

Bob L.

Question #17:  

Hi Bob,

We are winding down for the year at work. Just a couple weeks left, and then I'm off for some travel over the holidays to visit family.

1) The basic question

I may tweak the wording some re: penalty vs. punishment, but I suppose the root check is that the penalty of hell is a result of rejecting Jesus Christ and only rejecting Jesus Christ. With all other sin dealt with on the cross all that time ago, and having, in a manner of speaking, absolutely nothing to do at all with the lake of fire or why people end up there.

Is that correct?

2) Another way of asking things

We know that everyone starts out being written into the book of life (despite humans being sinful/possessing sin natures), because of Jesus' payment for human sin upon the cross. We would then say that what causes people to be blotted out from the book of life is not sin (which was completely dealt with upon the cross), but solely unbelief?

Is that correct?

3) Is calling unbelief sin doctrinally confused? Do we view it as something that was not/could not be paid for upon the cross? How ought we talk about it?

What sort of terminology should we use for unbelief generally? That is, do we call it "a sin" (...but of a different sort than others?), or try to figure out some other way of discussing it? Because clearly all people are not saved (i.e., universalism) "because Jesus paid for the sin of everyone's unbelief on the cross" ("since unbelief is sin, and Jesus paid for all sin on the cross...") or anything like that. Cf. Matthew 12:31-32 and Hebrews 10:29. That line of thinking is obviously wrong.

It's not so much that I'm confused about how these things work in a general sense, as that I'm trying to figure out the best way to talk about them so as to not cause misunderstandings. If I'm still not making sense in what I'm asking, what if someone said this:

• Jesus did not pay for the sin of unbelief upon the cross

• So people are punished in hell for the sin of unbelief/they are sent to hell as punishment for unbelief

Is that at all a proper way of discussing the matter? I was rather studious in my write-up to avoid the idea of human beings facing punishment in hell in the sense of somehow paying for sin at all --- and that would seem to include unbelief if we treat it as a sin. The idea being that humans aren't qualified to pay for sin period.

I'm just not so sure wording things this way is correct --- that Jesus paid for sin on the cross except unbelief? Is that a necessary thing to mention when we talk about atonement?

One commonly hears wording like "we can't lay hold of our redemption and be justified before God until we believe." It seems to me like many people take this to mean that until we believe we have on our ledger all of our sins. But isn't that incorrect? Is it not true that even the ledgers of unbelievers are clean before God (due to Jesus dying for their sins upon the cross), except for that all-important black mark of unbelief?

That is, in a soteriological sense, the order could be:

• Children automatically saved = written into the book of life → Age of accountability → Belief → N/A (book of life does not change)

Or

• Children automatically saved = written into the book of life → Age of accountability → Unbelief → Blotted from the book of life due to unbelief (book of life changes)

but not

• All people start out blotted from the book of life →  Age of accountability → Belief → Added to the book of life due to belief (book of life changes)

Or

• All people start out blotted from the book of life →  Age of accountability → Unbelief → N/A  (book of life does not change)

In this way we'd say that sin is neither here nor there when it comes to whether we are written into the book of life (again: because Jesus paid for the sins of all upon the cross, even unbelievers) = whether we have eternal life rather than facing the lake of fire, but instead the only thing that has anything to do with why people end up there is unbelief.

...But are people "punished for the sin of unbelief" in the lake of fire?

It took a whole section of Basics to explain these matters.

4) "We don't have the forgiveness for our sins until we believe"

I should also ask more explicitly, perhaps, about this matter.

Where I was going with the book of life thing before I got sidetracked and ended up not finishing was really more a question like this:

When people make statements like "we don't have the forgiveness for our sins until we believe", is that doctrinally accurate? In the sense that even though Jesus paid for all human sin on the cross, it isn't "applied to our individual records" until we personally believe?

This overlaps with (3) I suppose, just worded different.

Sorry if all this seems basic on the one hand, or talking in circles on the other.

Yours in Christ,

Response #17: 

To tackle this last one first, this is the issue of redemption (link), and that is where it is covered at Ichthys. Christ has died for the sins of all, but we do not receive our redemption from them until we believe. Forgiveness is part of that in that we receive the benefit of forgiveness bought by the blood of Christ when we believe and not before.

Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”
Luke 7:48-50 NKJV

But whoever does not possess these [virtues of vv.5-7] is nearsighted or even blind, having forgotten the cleansing of his previous sins.
2nd Peter 1:9

The price has been paid but no benefit is realized absent faith in Christ (that is the way I would put it).

On the other issues:

1) That's right. Rejecting Jesus Christ is the only sin/act of rebellion from God's will for which our Savior could not die, ipso facto.

2) That is correct. Final rejection of Jesus Christ (or death without accepting Him) is the cause for blotting the name out of the book.

3) Sin is of course an English word. Theology has a tendency to want to hyper-categorize in ways scripture does not and also to fail to recognize distinctions the Bible does make because they don't fit into neat little categories. So, re: "Is calling unbelief sin doctrinally confused?", I would say that it all depends upon what is meant by "sin". If we say it is a violation of God's will, then I don't have a problem with it. If a person is thinking of it as a "thing" like a poker chip which needs to be collected and accounted for, there might be a problem; but that's not the way it works, in my view, not biblically. Which is why I probably wouldn't ever say anything like "Jesus did not pay for the sin of unbelief upon the cross". Jesus died for all of our sins. Rejecting Him is rejecting His work for us and giving up the redemption which God the Father has for all. It's a choice, a wrong choice, a violation of God's will which puts a person beyond the pale of receiving grace and forgiveness. So it's a different sort of thing because we are forgiven our sins by accepting the truth of Jesus Christ, but unbelief / rejection of Him is denying that very truth whose acceptance is the only way to be saved. It all makes good sense to me, but it may defy an actuarial description since the commission of sins that can be forgiven by faith in Christ are different from the act of rejecting Him and His work which is the only way to be delivered from sin and death.

Re: things like, "we can't lay hold of our redemption and be justified before God until we believe." We would never get anywhere if we were concerned about trying to fix the theological constructions of people who don't really know what they are talking about. We are redeemed and justified when we believe in Jesus Christ. Scripture does affirm that (not the quote). Things that may seem logical are not always correct and very often not helpful. Better to stay with that the Bible actually does say and what can be positively derived from it in my view.

All sin has been paid for, but we still need to be forgiven when we commit sin as believers. Just as our awareness of sin is important as believers, so awareness of imperfection is important for unbelievers as part of the gospel: if they have the impression that God doesn't care about sin, why would they think they need to be saved? So scripture never puts things that way. God's mercy is evident at the cross. Jesus died for all of our sins. We received blanket forgiveness when we were saved and specific forgiveness when we confess. It's not a matter of ledgers or accounting. It's a matter of God's grace accessed by faith for all who are willing, and recognition of death and sinfulness are important motivators which ought to get anyone's attention: "I won't live forever and I am aware of my shortcomings so as to be guilty before God". Humility of that sort is fundamental before being willing to accept Jesus Christ as Savior.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #18:  

Hello Dr. Luginbill,

When I awoke this morning, I began to think that I would like to develop a "A one sentence phrase which would explain the word salvation". So shown below is what I wrote:

A one sentence phrase proclaiming Salvation

Our Heavenly Father sent His One and only Son who was born as a human being, to bring salvation[Jesus Christ] and righteousness[the quality of being morally right or justified from sin, in the eyes of God], to those who have wholeheartedly surrendered to God because of the atonement,[the payment that Jesus[salvation, deliverance] paid on the cross for all mankind, by “The Christ”, His anointed One, who suffered and gave up His life, freely and willingly, to redeem[buy back the righteousness that Adam lost in the Garden of Eden], and deliver from sins penalty[that is, eternal separation from God], applied to those who truly believe in the Gospel[Good News] and are born-again[spiritually born from above] by the Holy Spirit[through the miracle of regeneration], who willingly give their lives by surrendering their wills to God, in obedience to His Word, through the Grace[the reception of God’s favor, which no one deserves or can earn by their works], by the gift of faith from God because of His mercy[we don’t receive what we deserve, the eternal punishment in hell], for His love reaches out to all mankind, “for many are called, but few[who receive and believe in the supreme sacrifice of the Lamb of God, and obey His Word] are chosen”, who receive back the Robe of Righteousness which was lost by Adam in the garden, and who have perfect peace in Him, who has given us eternal life from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth, to Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His shed blood, and He has made us to be a kingdom of priests to His God and Father, to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever, for this is what awaits all those who have put their faith in Him and follow Him faithfully to the end, Amen.

I would greatly appreciate any comments about this sentence, and if I need to make any corrections, and would want your advice on this idea. My purpose was, to be able to describe salvation in just one sentence, so that even those who are not saved, or those who are saved can really understand what it is all about.

I know that there is much more that could be said, but my purpose was to just give as much as possible in one sentence about the subject of salvation.

Thanks always for your good advice.

Blessings to you and congrats on 25 years of ICHTHYS internet site.

Your friend,

Response #18: 

Quite a sentence! And I thought I wrote long ones. Here's one that also works:

"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved!"
Acts 16:31

One other thing to remember: the Spirit is the Evangelist in chief. He uses the truth we give to others and makes it real in their hearts. If our presentation is lacking, He has no problem using what is true within it to bring anyone willing to salvation. But even if our presentation is perfect and amazing, it wouldn't matter without the Spirit – and it doesn't matter if the person is unwilling.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #19:  

You know Doc...Calvinism makes me sick to my stomach. It perverts and twists the nature of God so much its no wonder many are driven from joining the Faith because of it. I mean, if God decides only to allow salvation for some, and you're damned no matter how much you seek Him and His truth, how is that fair? If babies can be sent to Hell because "they're born with sin, regardless of if they understand it or not", how is that just?

I could go on, but why would anyone want to be part of that?

Response #19: 

As to "why would anyone want to be part of that?" re: Calvinism, well, just look how many Hindus and Muslims and Roman Catholics there are, e.g. Some things are much worse, yet the devil still finds many takers.

Here's a link to the most comprehensive file dealing with salvation which addresses all of the issues you broach: BB 4B: Soteriology. For a much shorter take: "Salvation, God's Free Gift".

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Question #20:  

Hi Bob,

I just realised something...The people who ultimately choose the 'god' of this world (Satan) actually will spend eternity with him in the Lake of Fire...Whereas the rest of us who love and choose the real God will spend the rest of eternity with Him in total bliss and real happiness!!
AMEN!!

Something to keep in mind when the horrors of this world grinds one down!

In Jesus,

Response #20:

Very nice! As our Lord said of Judas,

"The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”
Matthew 26:24 NKJV

It occurs to me that this is true of ALL unbelievers. Hell is hell and it is the same terrible experience for all (pace Dante). In terms of "spending eternity", I don't know exactly what that experience will be like for the unsaved nor do I wish to dwell on it, but I seriously doubt if anyone will be having conversations or playing cards, e.g. Blessedly, this is something that we who belong to Jesus Christ don't need to worry about. Instead, we know that we WILL be "spending time" with the One who saved us and with each other in New Jerusalem forever – and nothing could be better.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

Ichthys Home