Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

TurningIntoDavid · 04-20-2012, 02:59 PM

Yeah, that's what I've found. Problem is, it leaves off the rest of verse 13:

Your eyes are too pure to look on evil;
you cannot tolerate wrongdoing.
Why then do you tolerate the treacherous?
Why are you silent while the wicked
swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

That doesn't seem to imply anything like "God can't allow evil in His presence." It could be construed, if you leave off the ending, but... it doesn't float in context. It doesn't seem to mean anything of the kind.

Got anything else?

oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest · 04-21-2012, 01:14 PM

The bible does not have one uniform teaching on hell. The OT does not have a doctrine of hell as most know it today at all. It just isn't there (sheol is the place where all the dead go - good and evil alike). Many OT passages teach annihilation.

The NT uses different words/language for hell. Gehenna referred to a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. Hades and Tartarus are borrowed from greek mythology. The lake of fire comes from the highly symbolic apocalyptic book of Revelation. Paul doesn't refer to hell in any of his undisputed letters (if I remember correctly).

All that to say the Bible is not as dogmatic about hell as many Christians are. Texts and writers are in tension.

Don · 04-22-2012, 03:25 PM

So what is your point?
One only has to read scripture to see God's view of sin and iniquity. If sin is allowed to dwell in heaven then Christ died for nothing. One does not need fundy like chapter and verse proof-texting to clearly see this concept in Scripture.

(04-20-2012 02:07 PM)TurningIntoDavid Wrote: So I was thinking today about whether or not God can allow sin into His presence, and I couldn't remember any scriptural justification for that statement.

(02-22-2011 01:01 AM)Don Wrote: How could a loving and Just God allow sin into heaven?

I looked for verses, and couldn't find any. It looks like it's just a Penal Subsitutionary Atonement theodicy that's basically assumed without proof. ...At least I think it's without proof. And that's why I came back here. I figured if anybody knew the verses that say God can't allow sin into his presence, it'd be Don

Some possible evidence to the contrary:

In Job, Satan is in God's presence.

All will be judged by God. Does that mean sinful man is allowed into God's presence?

When Jesus came to earth (fully God) He had sin and sinners in his presence often, and he seemed to be okay with it (though fully God!)

Sorry to re-open an old can of worms... sometimes old worms are the tastiest, right? blech

TurningIntoDavid · (This post was last modified: 04-22-2012 06:41 PM by TurningIntoDavid.)

(04-22-2012 03:25 PM)Don Wrote: If sin is allowed to dwell in heaven then Christ died for nothing.

That concept is missing something. It should say something more like:

Quote:
(1) If sin is allowed to dwell in heaven
(2) and if the only reason Jesus died was because
(a) sin is not allowed in heaven and
(b) we all have sin and
© through Jesus death we are allowed to dwell in heaven in spite of our being sinful
(3) then Christ died for nothing.

(2c), which does all the work, depends on (2) and (2a). Without (2) and (2a), your original statement doesn't even begin to make sense. I'm mostly questioning the truth of (2) and (2a), and thereby (2c) and the rest of the argument. (2a) is the notion I'm looking for scriptural basis for, and it's required for your reply "If sin is allowed to dwell in heaven then Christ died for nothing" to be true. And even if it's not the case that (1) and (3) are separated by (2a-c) your original statement still depends on (2a-c).

My question is, why believe (2a) - or any of (2) (besides (2b), which is well-established)? And basically, you answered my question "Why believe X is true" with a statement that depended for its validity upon the truth of X. Try again?

EDIT: Also, why say "If sin is allowed to dwell in heaven, then Christ died for nothing"? Paul himself says "If the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen and you are still in your sins." Rescue from our sins, according to Paul, it seems to be contingent not upon His death, but upon His resurrection.

NotUnderLaw · 04-22-2012, 07:27 PM

I don't think that any universalist is saying that sinners dwell in heaven, but that all are made righteous in Christ. In other words, he accomplished the redemption of all. Not saying I believe that, but I do understand that they aren't saying "anything goes".

TurningIntoDavid · 04-22-2012, 07:32 PM

That isn't an argument for universalism Per Se. It's just a question / concern about an idea that may not be in the Bible that I (and clearly many others) have been taught. It's kinda part of Anselm's Penal Substitutionary theory of the atonement. Maybe I should just start a new thread...

Don · (This post was last modified: 04-22-2012 08:41 PM by Don.)

If you believe 2( c ), then you have no Biblical, Christian concept of Atonement, redemption, salvation, justification or the believer's final glorification.
your argument dies where it is.
And no, my statement does not depend on you interjection of any part of "2". Try again?

(04-22-2012 06:39 PM)TurningIntoDavid Wrote:
(04-22-2012 03:25 PM)Don Wrote: If sin is allowed to dwell in heaven then Christ died for nothing.

That concept is missing something. It should say something more like:

Quote:
(1) If sin is allowed to dwell in heaven
(2) and if the only reason Jesus died was because
(a) sin is not allowed in heaven and
(b) we all have sin and
© through Jesus death we are allowed to dwell in heaven in spite of our being sinful
(3) then Christ died for nothing.

(2c), which does all the work, depends on (2) and (2a). Without (2) and (2a), your original statement doesn't even begin to make sense. I'm mostly questioning the truth of (2) and (2a), and thereby (2c) and the rest of the argument. (2a) is the notion I'm looking for scriptural basis for, and it's required for your reply "If sin is allowed to dwell in heaven then Christ died for nothing" to be true. And even if it's not the case that (1) and (3) are separated by (2a-c) your original statement still depends on (2a-c).

My question is, why believe (2a) - or any of (2) (besides (2b), which is well-established)? And basically, you answered my question "Why believe X is true" with a statement that depended for its validity upon the truth of X. Try again?

EDIT: Also, why say "If sin is allowed to dwell in heaven, then Christ died for nothing"? Paul himself says "If the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen and you are still in your sins." Rescue from our sins, according to Paul, it seems to be contingent not upon His death, but upon His resurrection.

TurningIntoDavid · (This post was last modified: 04-22-2012 10:43 PM by TurningIntoDavid.)

I see... I may need to adjust (2c) to fit.

Maybe better still would be that "If sin is allowed to dwell in heaven then Christ died for nothing" entails the following, at least.
(i) Jesus' dying had only one purpose,
(ii) the sole purpose of Jesus' dying was so that we, who are or were sinners or sinful, may somehow be in God's presence, and
(iii) apart from Jesus' dying for them, persons who have sinned at any point are not permitted in God's presence, and

(i) is entailed by your statement.
(ii) seems to be entailed by your statement as well.
(iii) is entailed by (i) and your statement. I think in (ii) I have sufficiently rescued (2c) from its problems of specificity: namely, if (2c) is correct, then it negates (2a) by saying that God allows sin in His presence.

Better? Smile

TurningIntoDavid · 04-22-2012, 10:45 PM

btw: I'm liking this discussion. I may yet get proved wrong! Smile

We're off to a great start!!!

I think i'm sick somehow... i like it when somebody finds a huge gaping hole in my arguments.

07-13-2012, 07:07 PM

(04-22-2012 10:41 PM)TurningIntoDavid Wrote: I see... I may need to adjust (2c) to fit.

(1) If sin is allowed to dwell in heaven
(2) and if the only reason Jesus died was because

(a) sin is not allowed in heaven and
(b) we all have sinned and
© because of Jesus' death we are in some way cleansed from our sin and therefore allowed into heaven.
(3) then Christ died for nothing.

Maybe better still would be that "If sin is allowed to dwell in heaven then Christ died for nothing" entails the following, at least.
(i) Jesus' dying had only one purpose,
(ii) the sole purpose of Jesus' dying was so that we, who are or were sinners or sinful, may somehow be in God's presence, and
(iii) apart from Jesus' dying for them, persons who have sinned at any point are not permitted in God's presence, and

(i) is entailed by your statement.
(ii) seems to be entailed by your statement as well.
(iii) is entailed by (i) and your statement. I think in (ii) I have sufficiently rescued (2c) from its problems of specificity: namely, if (2c) is correct, then it negates (2a) by saying that God allows sin in His presence.

Better?

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. Blah, Blah, Blah. Glad you've impressed yourself with your great intellect and rejection of biblical truth.