Am I going to hell?

Zombrex · 02-07-2013 11:17AM

santing wrote: »

That's called love at God's side and freewill on mankind's ... He loves you so much that there is no obstacle anywhere to be saved ... and He loves you so much that He is not forcing you to be saved, He respects your decision.

I don't think you followed the question.

If Jesus took the punishment for all sin, then what do I need saving from? There is no more punishment, Jesus already took the punishment for all man kind. There is nothing to choose.

Or is it that Jesus only paid the punishment for some, those that want him to pay for them?

In which case what was the point in not paying for everyone?

santing · 02-07-2013 11:41AM

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't think you followed the question.

If Jesus took the punishment for all sin, then what do I need saving from? There is no more punishment, Jesus already took the punishment for all man kind. There is nothing to choose.

Or is it that Jesus only paid the punishment for some, those that want him to pay for them?

In which case what was the point in not paying for everyone?

Hi Zombrex,
I did follow the question, but it might need more explanation .... The righteousness and holy nature of God sees two problems (at least) with us. One is our actions - sins - that require punishment, the other one is our nature - we are sinners. As a sinner I don't even like God's presence, I can't stand in the presence of a Holy God without feeling seriously out of place. And God cannot tolerate sinners in his presence. The death of our Lord Jesus established two things. One the payment for sins - and his death was sufficient. Secondly through the death of the Lord Jesus He offers us a new nature, which requires us to be "born again." With this new nature we are capable (and long for) fellowship with God. Without this new nature we cannot stand in His presence. To sum it up with the words of John 3:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (Joh 3:36)

tommy2bad · 02-07-2013 11:57AM

So redemption was conditional? Not sure that's orthodox christian thinking!
Just dump the PSA model and accept that it's wrong or more acuratly wrong if it's the only model that apply.

Zombrex · 02-07-2013 12:07PM

santing wrote: »

Hi Zombrex,
I did follow the question, but it might need more explanation .... The righteousness and holy nature of God sees two problems (at least) with us. One is our actions - sins - that require punishment, the other one is our nature - we are sinners. As a sinner I don't even like God's presence, I can't stand in the presence of a Holy God without feeling seriously out of place. And God cannot tolerate sinners in his presence. The death of our Lord Jesus established two things. One the payment for sins - and his death was sufficient. Secondly through the death of the Lord Jesus He offers us a new nature, which requires us to be "born again." With this new nature we are capable (and long for) fellowship with God. Without this new nature we cannot stand in His presence. To sum it up with the words of John 3:

Two points.

Firstly what you say above would imply though that I do not receive punishment for my sin, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for me, but I still wind up in hell simply because I do not wish to be in heaven with God. That would seem an odd and some what unjust decision on God's part, to sent someone like myself to hell (a place of punishment) simply for not wishing to be in heaven with God. Jesus has already taken my punishment but I still wind up in a place of punishment. Would something like limbo or reincarnation or some alternative not seem more sensible? Sending someone to a place of punishment for a reason other than punishment seems, well, not very just.

Secondly, the quote from John implies that in fact Jesus does not take the punishment for everyone, that if you do not believe in Jesus you still face God's full punishment and wrath (which means Jesus did not take my punishment). As Tommy points out that seems to place forgiveness under a condition, which again causes problems for God's sense of justice

Fanny Cradock · 02-07-2013 12:27PM

For more on the PSA and Christus Victor models see here.

Fanny Cradock · 02-07-2013 12:28PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

So redemption was conditional? Not sure that's orthodox christian thinking!

I think that it is orthodox. What is your understanding of salvation and judgement?

tommy2bad · 02-07-2013 12:46PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that it is orthodox. What is your understanding of salvation and judgement?

That was a fast reaction I gave, not sure redemption is the right word. I always understood that the redemption of the cross was unconditional, it happened whether we accepted it or not. The conditional part is our imposition, we can reject this but God has done His part.
I'm more of a Christus Victor inclination, it solves a lot of the problems of PSA without excluding atonement completely.
It's not one or the other anyway, a bit of both really. Damage repaired and the cost born by someone other than the vandal.

Zombrex · 02-07-2013 01:00PM

Can someone explain what the difference between being punished for sin and not accepting God's gift of salvation are. Both seem to end up in hell.

So I sin. Then Jesus takes my punishment. So despite being sinful I no longer deserve punishment for this sin.

Surely in that state (sinner but punishment free) I am not the in the same class as someone who is a sinner but has not had someone else take their punishment.

Christianity seems to treat these two class of people the same, which doesn't make a huge amont of sense to me.

JoeB- · 02-07-2013 01:22PM

Some people are saying that humans are inherently sinful. Having such a belief indicates a lack of respect for oneself, or an inferiority complex of some kind.

You are not responsible for the way you are made. Your maker is responsible for his actions and creations. If you were created as a sinful creature then that is your creators fault, i.e Gods fault. He should accept the responsibility in full for his own actions.

God is clearly not as forgiving as I am. I refuse to condemn humans for actions that they did not take. God however does insist on punishment for actions not taken. For a being of supposed infinite forgiveness that would appear to be quite a handicap. I am genuinely astonished that anyone would have a belief or a respect for God given his paradoxical teachings and ways of behaving.

It'd be correct to say that millions of humans who existed before Jesus can never get to Heaven can they?, as they cannot have complied with a message that they had never heard. Clearly these people are being punished about something over which they had no control. This indicates clearly that God is neither forgiving nor reasonable.

Fanny Cradock · 02-07-2013 01:27PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Can someone explain what the difference between being punished for sin and not accepting God's gift of salvation are. Both seem to end up in hell.

So I sin. Then Jesus takes my punishment. So despite being sinful I no longer deserve punishment for this sin.

Surely in that state (sinner but punishment free) I am not the in the same class as someone who is a sinner but has not had someone else take their punishment.

Christianity seems to treat these two class of people the same, which doesn't make a huge amont of sense to me.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

If the Government announces that they have developed a cure for a plague that has been ravaging the land you, and every other citizen, still has to do something if you all want to live - namely take your medicine! Sitting back safe in the knowledge that they have the cure isn't going to do you any good if you have the plague.

What you seem to be puzzling over is in some way equivalent to the man who sits on couch, beer at the ready and remote in hand, unable to figure out why he weighs more even after watching all of Carroll Vorderman's "Get Fit With Fractions" fitness DVD's.

There are many views on atonement - here is a good place to start. The link that I provided involves a good bit of back and forth between two of the possible views.

tommy2bad · 02-07-2013 02:06PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Can someone explain what the difference between being punished for sin and not accepting God's gift of salvation are. Both seem to end up in hell.

So I sin. Then Jesus takes my punishment. So despite being sinful I no longer deserve punishment for this sin.

Surely in that state (sinner but punishment free) I am not the in the same class as someone who is a sinner but has not had someone else take their punishment.

Christianity seems to treat these two class of people the same, which doesn't make a huge amont of sense to me.

This is what makes discussions like this difficult, we don't define the terms first.
Punished imply retribution, it might be more a consequence than an imposed punishment.
Sin isn't a 'thing' or choice, it's the state we are in, we don't chose to sin, we sin because we are human, all it means is that we fall short of the mark, fail to be what God wants. We are bound to this for some reason, I haven't figured out yet. But that's what it is. Now God says "OK I can live with you humans and all your faults, just accept that I can help you be better". If we refuse then we are stuck with our sin, if we accept this offer we can change.

As to eternal punishment imposed be God? no other than the consequence of rejecting the offer.

editrice · 02-07-2013 02:32PM

It's no longer fashionable to talk about hell, but if you want to know the Christian viewpoint about hell, my advice would read for yourself exactly what Christ taught about hell. Jesus very clearly describes hell, and gives us a very clear understanding of it. No one spoke of or taught on Hell and Judgment more than Jesus Christ. All but two of Christ's warnings about hell in scripture were directed to his own followers.'Christians' are in great danger of going to hell, make no mistake.

Remember the name "Jesus" means "God Saves"

No one comes to the Father except through him.

tommy2bad · 02-07-2013 02:47PM

editrice wrote: »

It's no longer fashionable to talk about hell, but if you want to know the Christian viewpoint about hell, my advice would read for yourself exactly what Christ taught about hell. Jesus very clearly describes hell, and gives us a very clear understanding of it. No one spoke of or taught on Hell and Judgment more than Jesus Christ. All but two of Christ's warnings about hell in scripture were directed to his own followers.'Christians' are in great danger of going to hell, make no mistake.

Remember the name "Jesus" means "God Saves"

No one comes to the Father except through him.

And then theirs this; http://www.godsplanforall.com/jesusdidnotteachhell

For every opinion theirs a counter opinion.

editrice · 02-07-2013 02:59PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

And then theirs this; http://www.godsplanforall.com/jesusdidnotteachhell

For every opinion theirs a counter opinion.

Yes wouldn't it be great if we could pretend there is no hell, and pretend that Christ did not warn us about it, and in particular his own followers.

If someone chooses to selectively ignore what Christ said on the subject of hell in scripture, and refuse to quote it in full, then yes, of course there is always a counter opinion.

Personally I prefer Christ's full unedited opinion and words from scripture, rather than someone else's selective editing.

That's why I advised in my post, and continue to advise people to read his entire words for themselves.

After that people can take it or leave it, it matters not to me if they do or not.

Zombrex · 02-07-2013 03:06PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They aren't mutually exclusive.

I didn't say they were.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If the Government announces that they have developed a cure for a plague that has been ravaging the land you, and every other citizen, still has to do something if you all want to live - namely take your medicine! Sitting back safe in the knowledge that they have the cure isn't going to do you any good if you have the plague.

That is an odd analogy. What did Jesus do if we have to "take the cure"? What did Jesus suffer on the cross if he wasn't suffering the punishment for all humanity? And what will "taking the cure" do for us if Jesus already took our punishment?

It is more like saying Superman has sucked up all the disease and his body will fight the entire population of bacteria for us, but we still have to take the cure. Why would we have to take the cure?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There are many views on atonement - here is a good place to start. The link that I provided involves a good bit of back and forth between two of the possible views.

Which one is the correct one

Zombrex · 02-07-2013 03:10PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

This is what makes discussions like this difficult, we don't define the terms first.
Punished imply retribution, it might be more a consequence than an imposed punishment.
Sin isn't a 'thing' or choice, it's the state we are in, we don't chose to sin, we sin because we are human, all it means is that we fall short of the mark, fail to be what God wants. We are bound to this for some reason, I haven't figured out yet. But that's what it is. Now God says "OK I can live with you humans and all your faults, just accept that I can help you be better". If we refuse then we are stuck with our sin, if we accept this offer we can change.

As to eternal punishment imposed be God? no other than the consequence of rejecting the offer.

Ok ... so what did Jesus do? Or what did the thing that happened to Jesus do?

My understanding of Christian doctrine was that we are all sinners and deserving of punishment. Jesus took our punishment upon himself so that we would not need to be punished by God.

So ... why are we then still punished by God and why do we need to do something to avoid that punishment.

Or if we are not still punished by God, why are we treated in a fashion that is equivalent to punishment if we no longer are punished (the you-don't-want-to-be-with-God theory.

santing · 02-07-2013 06:09PM

Zombrex wrote: »

That is an odd analogy. What did Jesus do if we have to "take the cure"? What did Jesus suffer on the cross if he wasn't suffering the punishment for all humanity? And what will "taking the cure" do for us if Jesus already took our punishment?

It is more like saying Superman has sucked up all the disease and his body will fight the entire population of bacteria for us, but we still have to take the cure. Why would we have to take the cure?

Which one is the correct one

The analogy is indeed at odds with reality - as most analogies are

The Lord Jesus died for us while we were still sinners, enemies of God. He paid the price for our sins and offers us a new life "the cure". If we refuse the free cure and rather stay enemies of God, we can't really blame God for accepting our decision, now can we?

So we are not lost because of our sins, but because of our refusal of being saved.

hinault · 03-07-2013 12:27AM

Christ dying doesn't absolve each and every one of us.
To think this would be highly misleading.

Christ died to restore the Covenant between God and man.

However it is up to each and every individual to live a righteous life in order to save themselves.

When Christ died he ensured God's mercy would be extended to man. But it would be folly for anyone to assume that God's mercy is automatic.
We know that it isn't.

DarkDusk · 03-07-2013 12:29AM

One of the problems of religion, I'm glad I don't have to think about these things...

homer911 · 03-07-2013 07:16AM

hinault wrote: »

However it is up to each and every individual to live a righteous life in order to save themselves.

Just to be clear hinault, living a righteous life will not ensure your salvation - even atheists can live a righteous life. You have to love God first..

Geomy · 03-07-2013 08:23AM

homer911 wrote: »

Just to be clear hinault, living a righteous life will not ensure your salvation - even atheists can live a righteous life. You have to love God first..

Some of the mystics say the best way to get to know God is to reject all your preconceived thoughts about what God is all about. ..

Let go of God in a sense.

Zombrex · 03-07-2013 09:33AM

santing wrote: »

The analogy is indeed at odds with reality - as most analogies are The Lord Jesus died for us while we were still sinners, enemies of God. He paid the price for our sins and offers us a new life "the cure". If we refuse the free cure and rather stay enemies of God, we can't really blame God for accepting our decision, now can we?

I don't think you spotted the issue.

If Jesus paid the price for our sins what does "the cure" do?

My sins are paid by Jesus. Everyone's sins are paid by Jesus. I will still sin because I am human, but the debt for that sin is already paid.

So what does accepting the offer do? What does "the cure" do in that description?

santing wrote: »

So we are not lost because of our sins, but because of our refusal of being saved.

Saved from what though? The punishment for sin that Jesus has already taken for us?

If God sends us to hell, that place for punishing sinners, for refusing to like God (a sin) he is being, by definition, unjust because he is treating us with the same punishment deserved for sinners who sin has not been paid for, when our sin has been paid for.

Because of Jesus I have no punishment to pay God, even though I am a sinner. I can still not like God, which is a sin, but I won't be punished for that sin because Jesus has already paid for my, and everyone's, sin.

But God is still going to treat me as if I was being punished. That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Zombrex · 03-07-2013 09:35AM

hinault wrote: »

Christ dying doesn't absolve each and every one of us.
To think this would be highly misleading.

Christ died to restore the Covenant between God and man.

However it is up to each and every individual to live a righteous life in order to save themselves.

When Christ died he ensured God's mercy would be extended to man. But it would be folly for anyone to assume that God's mercy is automatic.
We know that it isn't.

I appreciate that some Christians believe that, but it doesn't sit very well with the notion of God's perfection and man's imperfection.

Or to put it another way, why is the sin you commit after your acceptance of Jesus, more worthy of being saved from punishment than any of the sins I commit?

homer911 · 03-07-2013 09:50AM

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't think you spotted the issue.

If Jesus paid the price for our sins what does "the cure" do?

My sins are paid by Jesus. Everyone's sins are paid by Jesus. I will still sin because I am human, but the debt for that sin is already paid.

So what does accepting the offer do? What does "the cure" do in that description?

Saved from what though? The punishment for sin that Jesus has already taken for us?

If God sends us to hell, that place for punishing sinners, for refusing to like God (a sin) he is being, by definition, unjust because he is treating us with the same punishment deserved for sinners who sin has not been paid for, when our sin has been paid for.

Because of Jesus I have no punishment to pay God, even though I am a sinner. I can still not like God, which is a sin, but I won't be punished for that sin because Jesus has already paid for my, and everyone's, sin.

But God is still going to treat me as if I was being punished. That doesn't seem to make much sense.

Hi Zombrex

Yes, Jesus has paid the price and taken the punishment for the entire world - its His gift to us. But if you dont accept this gift, its effectively sitting on a shelf gathering dust, or to put it another way, its a gift thats been given to you, but you leave it sitting in its beautful wrapping paper and red bow and refuse to open it. Just because the gift has been offered doesn't mean its accepted. This is an extension of the free will that God has given us - to choose him, or not, to accept his gift or not.

You also trivialise faith when you say refuse to like God. God's greatest commandment to us is to LOVE him, not to LIKE him - this isn't Facebook!

You can't 'not like' God and expect to be saved through the sacrifice of Jesus, just because that sacrifice was for the whole world. I dont see how this could be any clearer

Zombrex · 03-07-2013 10:00AM

homer911 wrote: »

I dont see how this could be any clearer

Well I genuinely cannot see how you think this makes sense. Are you sure you actually understand this, you aren't just repeating back what you have been told.

Jesus was punished for my sin. He took the full weight of my punishment on the cross. He suffered the punishment for all humans.

You guys then say but we have to accept the "gift" of this salvation. What? What does that even mean. Jesus has suffered my punishment. God will not punish me for my sin, he already punished Jesus for it. He punished Jesus 2,000 years ago for all the sin I have done and will do. There is no punishment left for me, Jesus already suffered it. What is the "gift" and what do I have to "accept".

Or perhaps it would be easier to explain what happens if I don't accept it. Does Jesus get unpunished for my sin, and that punishment is sucked out of Jesus and now I get punished?

sbsquarepants · 03-07-2013 10:18AM

homer911 wrote: »

Hi Zombrex

Yes, Jesus has paid the price and taken the punishment for the entire world - its His gift to us. But if you dont accept this gift, its effectively sitting on a shelf gathering dust, or to put it another way, its a gift thats been given to you, but you leave it sitting in its beautful wrapping paper and red bow and refuse to open it. Just because the gift has been offered doesn't mean its accepted. This is an extension of the free will that God has given us - to choose him, or not, to accept his gift or not.

Hi Homer,

You seem to be in the know about this stuff, so i have a quick question for you.
This "gift" is like the ones on the late late show, one for everyone in the audience. But what happens to the poor auld sods who, through no fault of their own (in fact it could be argued it's actually tubridys gods fault) weren't there for that show, they caught an earlier show and therefore got crappier gifts?
By that i mean, there have been humans on this planet for a lot longer than 2000 years, maybe 10 times that long - what happens to those?

Fanny Cradock · 03-07-2013 01:02PM

The answer is "Who knows?". However, a precedent is set with the likes Elijah and Moses. Both lived before Jesus (at least in an earthy sense) and both existed in some form after their deaths. See Matthew 17 for more.

homer911 · 03-07-2013 01:03PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Hi Homer,

You seem to be in the know about this stuff, so i have a quick question for you.
This "gift" is like the ones on the late late show, one for everyone in the audience. But what happens to the poor auld sods who, through no fault of their own (in fact it could be argued it's actually tubridys gods fault) weren't there for that show, they caught an earlier show and therefore got crappier gifts?
By that i mean, there have been humans on this planet for a lot longer than 2000 years, maybe 10 times that long - what happens to those?

The Bible tells us that in Old testament times people were saved by their faith, just as they are now. They were not saved by obeying the law, which came hundreds of years after the early old testament times. For example Galatians 3:11 says nobody is saved by the Law, but by faith. In Romans 4:3 Paul talks about Abraham being saved by his faith. In Romans 4:6-8, David is dewscribed as being saved by his faith

sbsquarepants · 03-07-2013 01:15PM

Faith in who or in what though? What about those who had faith in zeus say, or in ra? What about early humans? What about neanderthals and such? Surely it's not their fault a new set of rules came in? What about those who even now wouldn't have heard of christianity? Some jungle dweller in the depths of borneo for example, are they doomed - surely it's not their fault they've never seen a bible?

tommy2bad · 03-07-2013 04:43PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Faith in who or in what though? What about those who had faith in zeus say, or in ra? What about early humans? What about neanderthals and such? Surely it's not their fault a new set of rules came in? What about those who even now wouldn't have heard of christianity? Some jungle dweller in the depths of borneo for example, are they doomed - surely it's not their fault they've never seen a bible?

The RCC position is whats called 'invincible ignorance' People who because of some reason never had the chance to choose are assumed to have chosen by their deeds and are judged solely on that.
Again it an example of how we attempt ownership of God as if we could decide who He will save and who He won't. What happens the rainforest tribesman or the cave man is up to God not us.

Am I going to hell?

Comments