Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
1) Stott may combine other views with PSA, that is not the same thing as his definition of PSA. Sorry but I am not budging here.

---

PSA is a M O D E L.

It is not specifically mentioned in scripture nor was it established at some church council or other. The way to interact with models is to point out inconsistencies, show where they contradict scripture or other models, and look at how other theologians have interacted with them. If you want to demonstrate how PSA fails to take innocent suffering into account then ... be my guest ... but please stop telling people what they believe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
You know I just re-read the chapter in Stott you mentioned. I did not find the reference you made of comfort to suffering in the knowledge of God punishing injustice. Can you site the page? What I did find is that the part that is in Stott's own words, the most important aspect of what the cross has to say of unjust suffering is heavily based on the ideas of Moltmann and liberation theology.

---

p328-329 includes this "So between the cross, where God's love and justice began to be clearly revealed, and the day of judgment when they will be completely revealed, it is reasonable to trust in him."

That 'day of judgment', according to Stott, includes punishment. (See below.)

p332 After quoting Moltmann Stott goes back to Luther , to explain how Christ suffers alongside us (including innocent suffering). "For the 'pain of God' results from the love of the One who intercepts and blocks his wrath towards us, the One who himself is smitten by his wrath."

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Also I have to ask: are you trying to imply that if we lose the concept of punishment that this will lead to universalism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
2) I am certainly not a universalist, I also doubt that Moltmann is (I'd like to see your evidence for this accusation), and find your thesis that CV arises out of a rise in universalism unfounded. I would say instead it arises out of a much larger disillusionment with (abusive) authority and increased awareness of personal and structural evil in the lager culture in contrast to the optimism of modernism.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes, without punishment eventually any atonement model will collapse into universalism.

---

quote:

---

From here he builds a model of atonement that is so 'Reformed', so strong on sovereignty and predestination, that Christ even redeems hell and those who don't want to be saved.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
PS I've just noticed that this thread has broken the 1500 barrier!

Surely that deserves some kind of celebration?

---

Yay.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

I do hope that God redeems everyone, that he breaks past our blindness and foolishness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
The Bible tells me also that God "does not desire our destruction" in non-redemptive punishment, but "that all people would be saved". So God gave his life to break us out of the road to death we were on and to give us life. You seem tp be arguing for the goodness and necessity of non-redemptive punishment and against the hope of redemption. Tell me how that is not anti-Gospel? It seems to me in championing punishment and opposing redemption you are opposing the purpose of God.

---

The tension between God's sovereignty and our free will is hardly a new one and I doubt if we can sort it out with a few posts!

CV, if left on its own as an 'umbrella' model must eventually collapse into universalism since, according to your description, Christ has conquered all opposition and God desires everyone to be saved ... so everyone must be saved. What could possibly prevent it from being so?

The only way you could possibly hold onto CV without becoming universalist is if Christ's victory was not complete, not exhaustive, not fully effective.

Attractive though I find that position the teaching of Jesus specifically rules it out. Too frequently and too explicitly Jesus speaks about eternal punishment - e.g. Matthew 25. It strikes fear within me, and I don't like it, but I cannot ignore the clear teaching of Jesus. According to him Hell will not be empty.

So, as you ask, how can I champion the gospel, about God's love and his desire for all people to be saved?

Well, let me tell you about an alternative atonement model, you may have heard about it before ... PSA!

With PSA I am able to state the following:

1. Christ's death is completely effective for everyone.
2. God wants all people to be saved.
3. All our sin will receive punishment, either on the cross or at the last judgment.
4. Therefore whether we experience God's punishment or not is down to whether we accept Christ's death and resurrection for us.

Call it crude and simplistic if you like, but PSA can hold together the following: God's desire for all to be saved / Christ's victory being effective for everyone / Christ's teaching about the last judgment. "I do hope that God redeems everyone" - I hope that too, but whether or not he does depends on our response to the gospel. There is no 'need' for any to perish. It is great news and I want to tell everyone.

I can't see how CV can do that. If you can explain how CV avoids universalism then I'd love to hear. AFAIK PSA is what stops CV collapsing into universalism.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
CV, if left on its own as an 'umbrella' model must eventually collapse into universalism since, according to your description, Christ has conquered all opposition and God desires everyone to be saved ... so everyone must be saved. What could possibly prevent it from being so?

---

quote:

---

The only way you could possibly hold onto CV without becoming universalist is if Christ's victory was not complete, not exhaustive, not fully effective.

---

quote:

---

With PSA I am able to state the following:
1. Christ's death is completely effective for everyone.

---

quote:

---

"I do hope that God redeems everyone" - I hope that too, but whether or not he does depends on our response to the gospel.

---

quote:

---

I can't see how CV can do that. If you can explain how CV avoids universalism then I'd love to hear. AFAIK PSA is what stops CV collapsing into universalism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

With PSA I am able to state the following:
1. Christ's death is completely effective for everyone.

---

so according to your own definition you are a universalist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
I think you have created an imaginary problem. CV would say just as much as PSA that we need to respond to the Gospel. It would not claim that everything was fine. It does not deny the reality of sin and the reality of Hell.

---

Ah, but it does. Sin and hell are real but Christ has destroyed them. If hell is still a future reality then doesn't that undermine his victory? (But only if you remove punishment out of the equation! )

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
And again, to return to the point of Stott and suffering. He may have incorporated the insights of Moltmann and accept the idea of God's solidarity with us in our suffering, he may even be able to hold that view in addition to PSA, but it is not a perspective that grew out of PSA soil, but one that grew clearly out of CV soil (Moltmann, liberation theology, etc).PSA alone would never lead there, and in fact it leads in the opposite direction towards seeing all suffering as deserved.

---

Perserverance is often a good quality, but not always.

PSA addresses innocent suffering in various ways that Stott acknowledges. At the very least Stott clearly saw no contradiction between PSA and these issues... and thus what for you is a reason to ditch PSA is very obvious not for him.

Most, but not all, innocent suffering is caused by other people. PSA says that innocent suffering matters very much to God and therefore those who cause it will be punished. Even if it were possible to 'undo' it I'm not sure if that would take innocent suffering seriously enough. I'm not talking about revenge, but about an objective acknowledgement of wrong.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

[QUOTE]

I do hope that God redeems everyone, that he breaks past our blindness and foolishness. The Bible tells me also that God "does not desire our destruction" in non-redemptive punishment, but "that all people would be saved". So God gave his life to break us out of the road to death we were on and to give us life. You seem tp be arguing for the goodness and necessity of non-redemptive punishment and against the hope of redemption. Tell me how that is not anti-Gospel? It seems to me in championing punishment and opposing redemption you are opposing the purpose of God. [/

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

[QUOTE]

I do hope that God redeems everyone, that he breaks past our blindness and foolishness. The Bible tells me also that God "does not desire our destruction" in non-redemptive punishment, but "that all people would be saved". So God gave his life to break us out of the road to death we were on and to give us life. You seem tp be arguing for the goodness and necessity of non-redemptive punishment and against the hope of redemption. Tell me how that is not anti-Gospel? It seems to me in championing punishment and opposing redemption you are opposing the purpose of God. [/

---

Interesting discussion.

It is not anti gospel to believe in non redemptive punishment. Jesus virtually cursed the temple and the generation he was born into when he said "Your house is left unto you desolate." Also,when he said, "Offences must come but woe unto the one by whom they come." In Jesus teaching there is "outer darkness" where there is weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth.

It is both unscriptural and foolish to dismiss all the Bible says about judgement and punishment. Foolish because It demands we re invent the God we worship which then demands that we embrace relativism.

The Universalist position, while seductive simply doesn't run scripturally. It makes a nonsense of evangelism and as I said on about P 2 of this thread, if CV does logically suggest it as a bottom line, then this reveals a weak understanding of sin as a concept, or its seriousness to God.

Incidentally,if Hell is empty, then why try to be holy?

If the charge of universalism as a bottom line is denied, then CV faces the problem of what are the consequences of of rejecting the Gospel, or even more fundamentally, what precisely IS the gospel? If one embraces PSA the whole Gospel devolves into the 4 Spiritual Laws
1. God loves me
2. I'm separated from this love by my sin.
3. Christ died to redeem me so I don't have to be judged though I deserve it
4. I have to accept this by faith.

Viz:

I'm a sinner saved by grace because my Lord died in my place so don't you be surprised if I sing hallelujah."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I really want to thank you guys Shark ,JJ, Johnny, Freddy, Karl and Numpty plus others I can't remember for what has been quite a discussion... one that has demanded quite a lot of soul searching and been such a good debate.

It has been a good eg of 'iron sharpening iron' and I can remember only minor incidences of real acrimony and none of personal attack though we might have got close on occasion.

---

quote:

---

It is not anti gospel to believe in non redemptive punishment.

---

quote:

---

if CV does logically suggest it as a bottom line, then this reveals a weak understanding of sin as a concept, or its seriousness to God.

---

quote:

---

Incidentally,if Hell is empty, then why try to be holy?

---

quote:

---

CV faces the problem of what are the consequences of of rejecting the Gospel

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
It is completely false to claim that CV suggests or entails universalism. It most certainly does not. Anyone who says otherwise has completely misunderstood CV.

---

quote:

---

CV doesn't have such a mechanism to explain why Christ's victory is applied to some but not to all. Either Christ defeated sin, death and the devil or he didn't. Again, I ask if Christ is fully victorious, according to CV what is there to stop universalism?

...


If hell is still a future reality then doesn't that undermine his victory? (But only if you remove punishment out of the equation!)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
I already answered this.

---

Where? (At least give me a hint. )

Whether or not I believe something happened or not makes no difference to the objective nature of the event. Without a transactional component I still cannot see how CV does not collapse into universalism.

And if that transactional component is not penal then I can't think of anything else that would fit the bill. The medical model, on its own, is not transactional. (I'm not disputing that the 'medical' model is useful or biblical, just whether it can stand as an umbrella model.)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
The simple fact is that no proponent of CV has ever advocated universalism.

---

So Moltmann was anti-CV then?

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
That alone ought to be a pretty clear indicator that it does not lead to universalism. Theory meet reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
On top of that your theory is a logical fallacy.
A medical model requires there to be a personal appropriation: each individual must go to the doctor to be healed. Medicine is always and only individual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
The legal model of PSA does not require there to be a personal appropriation: Christ pays the price to acquit all of humanity and thus there is no need for any personal appropriation. Everyone is acquitted, or if you prefer Calvinism's take, the elect are all automatically acquitted and the reprobate Christ did not die for anyway.

---

If your point holds at all then it must be true for CV as well. (Unless Christ's victory wasn't really for everyone.)

BTW There was a court ruling in America (back in the 19th century I think) that a pardon must be accepted in order to be valid. The man in question refused his pardon and was executed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
Your logic is backwards. PSA has a danger of leading to universalism, and historically in the past within some forms of Calvinism it has.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

That's because no one has used CV exclusively as an umbrella model before.

---

quote:

---

If your point holds at all then it must be true for CV as well.

---

quote:

---

How many current proponents of PSA do you know who are universalists?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
The early church almost without exception used CV as their sole model for the 1st 1000 years of church history. The entire Eastern Orthodox church still does. Neither were or are universalists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
No that is illogical. If at all, it would only hold for a legal model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

How many current proponents of PSA do you know who are universalists?

---

Many 5-point Calvinists today are. Thankfully most Calvinists have rejected the heresy of 5-point Calvinism.

---

Not only have you not answered my question, but you have even taken the time to post my original question alongside your answer to a completely different question. Your fixation with Calvinists points towards a straw man syndrome.

Again I ask, and I'll even spread it out across history if you like - is universalism common among proponents of PSA?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
... Moltmann, but I would have to add that having read him extensively I find it highly suspect that he is a universalist. It would go against his whole line of thought. So I remain completely unconvinced that he is until you can quote me chapter and verse from him where he claims this.

---

Well, I'll dig up all the quotes for you if you want, but you could just google 'Moltmann universalism' and the thousands of hits should give you enough to go on.

I'm reluctant to 'tarnish' your great hero in your eyes because I think he is a great theologian. (Of course plenty of folk think he is great because of his views on universalism!) However, this stuff about his universalist views is not some whispering campaign. It is common currency in theological faculties across the globe. Hey, one of my tutors set us an essay on it over 10 years ago!

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally if Hell is empty, then why try to be holy?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

Disclaimer: I'm not a Universalist but I hope and pray Hell will be empty. Yes, there is a difference.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

Disclaimer: I'm not a Universalist but I hope and pray Hell will be empty. Yes, there is a difference.

---

Hey Grey, I hope it is empty too.

I was really disturbed by the idea of Hell and told God that I could not have joy in heaven if I knew that those I loved where in Hell. God showed me that this was the reason that he left heaven himself, and came among the lost, condemned, and broken giving his life. Why he was willing to take any pain and pay any price just to save one of us.

I think the central question with universalism is whether we think
A) there is no problem, and are passive
B) there is a problem but have faith that God can overcome it

I would agree with "B" and say that because of this hope and trust in God's ability to overcome the evil in us and our world, I am driven to share the Gospel not out of fear of God, but motivated by God's compassion for the real hurts and lostness in people. I think that was Christ's motivation as well, just as it was his desire that ALL people wold come to him.

I don't see that as a guarantee, but as a hope based on trusting in the power of love over the power of evil.

---

I guess that my take on this is pretty similar to yours, Sharktacos, but I would venture to call myself a "weak" (ie empty hell) universalist. I think that there are bits of the bible that seem to me to support universalism and the ultimate triumph of God (Paul's writings, in particular, seem to be replete with universalist references) and other bits that seem to speak differently. I think we must treat both voices with appropriate respect. However, given that as the case, I think that the case in reason that, at the end, God will be able to acheive His aim as stated by Peter (who, otherwise, seems to be an annihilationist), is pretty strong. How could God be truely said to be triumphant, if he is not capable of rescuing, even against their own will, those who are forever perishing in hell. As (I think) Karl pointed out, if most, or even some of those for whom Jesus died end up in hell, however we conceive it, then the cross looks more like ignominious defeat than glorious victory.

Of course, there are other models of ultimate judgement. The Orthodox take on things (pretty much Freddy's position, IIRC) that we continue into eternity pretty much with the character and values which we have grown into in this life, and that hell, rather than a place of punishment, is merely the experience of heaven for those who have rejected God's way in this life, springs to mind.

So the position I hold is pretty much in line with that which Greyface and Sharktacos have outlined, and separated only from them by the degree of expectation that we place on ultimate reconciliation, ISTM. I do believe that, in the end, all will be saved, but it is a belief I hold from heart conviction rather than due to the overwhelming weight of scriptural evidence one way or the other, and thus it is a view I hold tentatively.

As to where CV sits within this framework, I think that both CV and PSA are compatible either with a universalist or a non-universalist approach. Universalists will be able to draw comfort from the victory motifs in both models, whilst non-universalists will as much see the need to "take the medicine", to join themselves to Christ in order to partake of the fruits of His victory under CV, as will PSAers see the necessity of accepting the penal substitution of Christ for them. In fact, both models are, in a sense, transactional, but in different ways. As Sharktacos has developed at some length, PSA is essentially a legal model, so the transaction is more easily discertnable, but CV also has more subtle transactional elements, whereby the ontolgical state of being slaves to the forces of decay, of spiritual entropy, which bind us to this fallen, mortal existance, is exchanged for that of being "in Christ" (and therefore being freed from the law of sin and death). Sort of like "new lives for old". I really dont see that belief or otherwise in universalism is per se tied to a CV understanding.

The wicked part of me just wants to add the rider "other than that Paul seemed to believe in both"! )

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I really dont see that belief or otherwise in universalism is per se tied to a CV understanding.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[I guess that my take on this is pretty similar to yours, Sharktacos, but I would venture to call myself a "weak" (ie empty hell) universalist.

---

Thanks JJ, that's helpful.

My point about Moltmann etc. is that I think CV leads towards this form of 'weak' universalism. Maybe that's where some confusion has arisen. I don't think that CVers are universalists, but I do think (and I know you disagree) that it leads to an empty hell. As Moltmann put it hell itself is conquered by Christ.

Now I want to make it clear that universalism appeals strongly to me, and that I too hope and long for an empty hell. However, what I long for is not always reality ... and so the questions and debate must continue!

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Incidentally if Hell is empty, then why try to be holy?

---

I don't mean to be rude Jamat, but that question betrays that your sole motivation for seeking holiness is fear, specifically of Hell. You cannot see that holiness brings you closer to being the person God wants you to be. You cannot see that through holiness this world might be transformed. You cannot see that seeking holiness is trying to emulate Christ Jesus, our example and our king.

Peculiar that I hear these arguments against universalism from a sector of Christianity that tends to emphasise the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus. I've observed that when you love somebody, doing things that please them and avoiding things that piss them off goes with the territory.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Universalist but I hope and pray Hell will be empty. Yes, there is a difference.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Unfortunately, I'm convinced Hell is quite full and probably a significant number of its denizens thought it was empty till they ended up there.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Unfortunately, I'm convinced Hell is quite full and probably a significant number of its denizens thought it was empty till they ended up there.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:

quote:

---

Unfortunately, I'm convinced Hell is quite full and probably a significant number of its denizens thought it was empty till they ended up there.

---

Do you ever worry you might be in their number? If not, is that because, as you sort of imply, you don't sin?

This isn't meant agressively, and if you think it's too personal, don't reply. I won't mind. But having tried to help somebody who was caught in the conviction that hell was the only place they were going, I could find no way of convincing them.

The logic was perfect: If any man sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice etc etc ad infernam. This person had sinned after conversion and did it deliberately. Ergo - well work it out for yourself.

I don't see any way out other than by believing that you actually aren't sinning deliberately, which must land in some sort of unreality - unless it is actually true. After all both Wesley and Finney believed that faith was incompatible with any sin, and than any who do sin are bound for hell until they get back on track.

Which is one reason why I don't believe in Hell.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Unfortunately, I'm convinced Hell is quite full and probably a significant number of its denizens thought it was empty till they ended up there.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Something else occurs to me. A sort of interim motivation I haven't mentioned yet involves the purgatorial question - given that we humans seem to grow and change (be changed) through our actions and choices and experiences in time, will the completion of our transformations from sinners into heavenly creatures not require some sort of process that might be as painful and difficult as change can be in this world?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

In fact, I speculate that the fear of Hell as a possibility might be the means by which God begins to bring to fruition the rescue of those who see the danger, without obliterating their free will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Something else occurs to me. A sort of interim motivation I haven't mentioned yet involves the purgatorial question - given that we humans seem to grow and change (be changed) through our actions and choices and experiences in time, will the completion of our transformations from sinners into heavenly creatures not require some sort of process that might be as painful and difficult as change can be in this world? A universalist might believe that all will eventually end up in heaven but find the prospect of a billion years of purgatorial preparation a good kick up the backside.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I appreciate that it is difficult to draw too much 'description' from a parable, but how do you read The Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16? Isn't the point that there is a great chasm fixed preventing this kind of 'painful process'?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

In fact, I speculate that the fear of Hell as a possibility might be the means by which God begins to bring to fruition the rescue of those who see the danger, without obliterating their free will.

---

Dr. Michael Watts gave a really interesting lecture on that subject in 1995 as part of the Dr. Williams' Library series, he entitled his lecture "Why did the English stop going to church?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
Something else occurs to me. A sort of interim motivation I haven't mentioned yet involves the purgatorial question - given that we humans seem to grow and change (be changed) through our actions and choices and experiences in time, will the completion of our transformations from sinners into heavenly creatures not require some sort of process that might be as painful and difficult as change can be in this world? A universalist might believe that all will eventually end up in heaven but find the prospect of a billion years of purgatorial preparation a good kick up the backside.

---

I thought at first that you were talking about purgatorial questions (appropriately since we are in purgatory) and then I realised you were talking about the purgatory question.

It had crossed my mind earlier to bring it up about universalism but thought it might complicate things even further.

I appreciate that it is difficult to draw too much 'description' from a parable, but how do you read The Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16? Isn't the point that there is a great chasm fixed preventing this kind of 'painful process'?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Actually, ISTM that the language which Jesus uses is chosen specifically to guard against this parable being used to teach in detail about the afterlife per se.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharktacos:
I can for example reject PSA and still embrace all of your 4 spiritual laws:
1. God loves me
2. I'm separated from this love by my sin.
3. Christ died to redeem me so I don't have to be judged though I deserve it
4. I have to accept this by faith.

I would guess that we would agree on what the Gospel is, even though we disagree on the atonement. Let's not confuse the two. [/QB]

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Well rule three infers that Christ was judged in my place ie that he was a 'penal substitute'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think, in fact, that you're begging the question.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Well rule three infers that Christ was judged in my place ie that he was a 'penal substitute'.

---

I think you mean "implies", not "infers". Inferring is what the reader does. But I disagree; it only implies that if you think that "redemption" requires judgement and punishment. Consequently, although infer PSA from redemption, I think you do so wrongly. I think, in fact, that you're begging the question.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And I'm convinced that there is something called unconditional love and forgiveness deep within God without which He is not God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If God's desire is to forgive, then He can just do that if He wants to. He's God. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone has a problem with that.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It does if you're going to assert that God is bound, forced, against His will, to punish people when He wants to forgive, so that He has to create the PSA legal fiction to resolve the conflict. I struggle with the concept of a God who is forced to act in a way contrary to His own will. If God's desire is to forgive, then He can just do that if He wants to. He's God. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone has a problem with that.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I can forgive, because I am enjoined to, but only because of a work done in me on the basis of forgiveness recieved.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
]If he did that he would be excusing evil (sin)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
what does CV stand for?

---