God Judges Whose Sins?

Bible contradictions usually depend on a misunderstanding of one or the other side of the seeming paradox. A Quoran asked,

Why do we continue to blame Adam and Eve for us being sinners and remaining in our sinful ways when God judges each of us personally? Why are we able to blame Adam and Eve for our sins? Why do we blame others [Adam and Eve] for our own sins?

If you visit the question on Quora, please read the answer by Brian S. Holmes for a thorough and accurate answer. Also read the final paragraph in Barbara LeMaster’s answer for a great illustration. (Skip the first part, though.) Here, I answer the question in my own words to make sure the point gets across.

Prologue

Since Adam was the head of his family, let’s simplify “Adam and Eve” to just Adam. As the older, more experienced spouse, and as the one God had spoken to, Adam had a responsibility to fully inform Eve and guard her against error. And although Eve was deceived into sinning, Adam knew what he was doing. So his share of the responsibility was far greater.

Answer

The question assumes that God judges us for what Adam did. He does not. What we do judges us now, and He will one day pass sentence. Notice the distinction between creating guilt and passing sentence.

God’s holiness and glory are unbearable. God, “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:16). When that glory is revealed, we cannot bear it. “Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them” (Revelation 20:11).

It is our guilt, not our heritage, that disqualifies us from defiling God’s presence. Unless redemption intervenes, we will stand before Him for sentencing in accordance with our own thoughts and actions. “And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne…; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds” (Revelation 20:12–13).

“Deeds” includes both deeds of thought and deeds of action. You should be able to complete this quote from 1 Samuel 16:7: “Man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord….” That is why Jesus said that if we so much as hate someone without just cause, we are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:22) and if we look at a non-spouse with sexual desire, we are guilty of adultery (Matthew 5:28); and coveting is listed in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:17).

Adam needed redemption from the sin that gave us our tendencies, but we need redemption from how we act out out those tendencies. For our sins, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Postscript

The text above is very bad news. It gets much, much worse if you look it up and read it in context. It would be incomplete without the good news that complements it. The bad news gives context to, value to, motivation for the good news.

In the midst of the quotes from Revelation above is a reference to the Book of Life. Those whose names are written in the Book of Life will not be subject to that awful judgment. The label “dead” does not apply to them, and their judgment, a separate occasion, results in reward instead of in sentencing.

(The judgment in Revelation 20 is called the Great White Throne Judgment. The judgment of the redeemed is called the Bema Seat Judgment. It is comparable to the judgment of winners at the Olympics in which they receive medals as rewards.)

Redemption is held out as a gift, ready to be applied to all who receive it. The conditions include changing our minds about our sins and trusting Christ for his substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf.

Our worst sins include preferring a false image or mental model of God (or worse, rejecting Him outright), rationalizing our sins, trusting in self-righteousness, and prioritizing earthly desires above relationship with God. Violating do’s and don’ts like the Ten Commandments merely enacts those sins. A responsible sinner admits, “I am guilty, my guilt condemns me, and I cannot justify myself in any way.” That is the repentance side of the coin.

The reverse side of the coin is faith toward God. Not just any God that we imagine, but God as He has revealed Himself to be: namely, God as Creator (whether via Creationism or Theistic Evolution is irrelevant); and as Creator of time and space, existing in His creation as three equal Persons who voluntarily fulfill distinct roles. “Christians” with limited imaginations create idols by rejecting God’s triune nature, but the “Trinity” is the only model of God that fits all the revealed evidence.

Faith toward God excludes faith toward heritage, church membership, and self. Redemption is a gift received, not wages deserved. Gifts and wages are mutually exclusive, as are faith and works. Because of our pride, many, if not most, Christian churches try to mix faith and works. They add various do’s and don’ts such as ceremonies, deeds, and refraining from sins. Some sneak the do’s and don’ts into repentance by saying that it includes changing our behaviors. Some sneak them in by saying you need the do’s and don’ts in order to hang on to the gift. They fail to recognize that changed behaviors results from receiving the gift rather than causing or securing it. Refusing to receive the gift as a free gift insults the Giver.

Within God’s character lies a tension between His attributes. God is love, but he is also holy and just. Justice drives judgment, but Love drives redemption. Love does not mean simple forgiveness. Justice must be served. That is why God the Son took our place in judgment. Being God, He bore a sentence that would have destroyed us. And being God, he could not be held by death. The resurrection is proof, not only of His identity, but also of the new life that God offers as a gift.

The question applies to all of us: Do I, knowing my condemnation, receive the gift as a free gift from the God Who is?

Since I posted the bulk of this on Quora, I cannot copyright it. However, I hope that if you copy it, you will give credit where credit is due.

The Heresy of Including Reform in Repentance

The Heresy of Including Reform in Repentance

Like John MacArthur, despite clearly defining grace as the means of salvation and faith as the channel of grace, Todd Friel occasionally crosses the line into salvation by works.

I highly recommend listening to Wretched Radio. God does call on His children to reform their lives. Too many churches fail to call for reform, and communicating the gospel should describe the cost of obeying the gospel. Becoming a Christian does not mean God will heal all your relationships or make your life easy; and Eternal Security does not mean you can ignore your new life in Christ and do whatever you want without chastisement.

Apostate Christian churches have mis-defined repentance in both directions. Historically, churches, dominated by Roman Catholicism, have over-defined repentance by adding reform to it. In our times, New Evangelical churches tend to under-define it or omit it altogether. Many "Reformed" Christians over-emphasize repentance as an over-reaction to the New Evangelical watering down of the gospel. The mis-definitions of repentance makes it difficult to accurately differentiate between the call for non-Christians to repent and the call for God's children to reform.

While we should, therefore, practice grace when an earnest brother occasionally blurs the line, we should also stand for a correct definition of the gospel and point out failures to do so.

Friel crossed the line on Wretched Radio's "Witness Wednesday" episode for 19 June 2019. The conversation begins at 14:50. https://www.wretched.org/06-19-2019/

Friel crossed the line into a gospel of works while explaining the gospel to a young Roman Catholic woman, saying in his conclusion:

Friel: [W]hat do you need do to go to heaven? What would your answer be? 

Woman: Live for Jesus and for God.  

Friel: Yeah, that's right, to repent, and put your trust in Him. To repent, to ask for forgiveness, forsake your sins and put your trust in Jesus Christ. And then you inherit eternal life.

(Note that the woman's answer was about works, and while supplying missing elements, Friel reinforced her error.)

"Forsake your sins" is ambiguous by itself, but a minute before, Friel had described repentance and faith thus:

[Y]ou repent, you recognize that you've sinned against God, you confess your sins to him, then you forsake them instead of living for yourself, you start living for Him, and you put your trust in Jesus Christ as if your life depended on it because frankly it does.

Just as there are sins of omission and sins of commission, there are good works of restraint and good works of commission. Forsaking sins is obeying the Don'ts of the commandments. Living for God is the Do's of the commandments.

What Friel and people like John MacArthur are saying is, "Do good works and then put trust in Christ." They do not say it all the time, but they say it often enough that they need to be called out on it. Making good works a requirement for salvation prevents salvation.

Whether one reforms by obeying God's covenant with Israel or by obeying the Law of Love is irrelevant. In the context of entering into salvation, "works" includes any attempt to be righteous enough to please God. 

The rest of what Friel says is, more or less, consistent with the gospel. It is consistent because we must recognize our sin and deserved condemnation in order to approach God. It is inconsistent because the emphasis is entirely on moral sin; it ignores that "sin" includes holding wrong beliefs.

There are sins we must forsake. For example:

• Worship of false gods
• Rejecting God's standards of sin and righteousness
• Rationalizing our sins 
• Believing we can be righteous enough to be accepted by God
• Believing God will forgive us without a price being paid
• Adding anything to grace and faith -- including reform

These are all matters of heart and mind, not of moral actions. For example, it does no good to give up adultery if you continue to worship the Unitarian god of Oneness Pentecostals or to serve statues and pray to Mary. With time, the fruits of repentance and of God reforming you from within follow. But actions are not included as requirements for salvation.

God sees the sincerity of the heart and the mind. He does not have to wait to see your actions. When you repent (mind and heart) and put faith in God for redemption, God saves you in that instant.

• Repentances does not include its result, reform. 
• Reforming yourself does not cause salvation. 
• Salvation enables repentance to cause reform.

In fact, reforming yourself to achieve salvation blocks salvation because you are attempting to make yourself presentable to God instead of relying on Christ to do that for you.

Preachers like Friel and MacArthur confuse many believers. When they preach salvation through faith alone, and then require works before faith, they contradict themselves and bring heresy into their gospel.


Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for personal or non-profit use. Please give credit where credit is due.

Hyper Grace, Hyper Repentance, and the Middle Ground

Response to

Rooting Out Fuzzy Theology Behind the Hyper-Grace Message

DAVID & NANCY RAVENHILL
Charisma Magazine online 9:21AM EDT 4/2/2013
http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/prophetic-insight/17255-rooting-out-fuzzy-theology-behind-the-hyper-grace-message

Two Types of Repentance

Most Charismatics Christians (they mistakenly call themselves Pentecostals) fail to distinguish between two types of repentance. Peter explicitly names the first type, and only regarding changing minds FROM rejection of Messiah TO receiving Him. The New Testament only describes the second type without naming it "repentance." We label the second type "repentance," but the label is not Biblical, although it works as long as one does not confuse the two.

Unfortunately, many people DO confuse the two.

The first repentance exchanges a broken-down death trap of a clunker for a brand new car. The dealer has stamped "IT IS FINISHED" on the papers, sent the clunker to the recyclers, and placed the new owner's name in the Lamb's Book of Car Registrations. That new car irrevocably belongs to the new owner.

The second repentance leads to cleaning up the car, driving on better roads in accordance with the Car Ownership Bible, repairing any damage and wear, and learning to use it for profitable purposes. The owner may dent the car, soil it, and fail to maintain it until it's no earthly good. A judge may tell the owner to take it off the road. But the car will always belong to the owner.

Confusing Grace and Repentance

Many people confuse the two. When the car gets dirty, they foolishly keep returning to the dealership to ask for the car again. As the author implies, however, they would be wise to return to the Dealer as many times as needed to maintain and learn more about their car.

Just as one extreme insults the blood of Christ by excusing sin that has been washed away, the other insults the blood by ignoring its sufficiency and attempting to re-apply it, even though "there remains no more offering for sin."

Contrasting the Dangers of the Two Hypers

If we wish to compare the dangers of the two, hyper repentance poses the greater danger. Lost people who have learned hyper repentance add self-reliance on repentance to reliance on Christ. Paul explicitly explains that grace and works mutually exclude each other. The Giver does not give gifts to those who ask for wages.

Therefore, both hypers present practical dangers to the saved, but hyper repentance adds an everlasting danger to the lost.

The irony lies not in the Ravenhill's attempt to correct hyper grace (for which I am grateful), but in that he does so from within the territory of hyper repentance.