Response to Post: The True Gospel

Below is a letter that my friend, Van, sent me in response to my post titled, The True Gospel.  With Van's permission, I have copied it in its entirety, below, because I think he makes some very important points that should be considered. Unfortunately, some of the formatting is lost between his PDF original and my HTML version, below, but I have done my best to preserve his intent where fancy formatting (like tables) just don't look the same. – Glenn

---

Friday 14 Oct 2011

Glenn,

I really appreciate the time and care you took to outline your understanding of God’s wrath on your blog. I want to engage your ideas, but I found that what I wanted to share was too long to put into a comment. Yet, at the same time, it’s not really a stand-alone article meriting a posting on my blog. So I’ll put it into an email.

The ideas you present are certainly attractive, and have their own internal logic. Unfortunately, like many theories, they don’t agree with the data. I’ll point out the two tensions I see between your posting and the Scriptures, then suggest where the underlying problem may lie in your reasoning.

Two Tensions with the Data

Two of your positions directly conflict with the Scriptures: the notion that God isn’t angry with anyone during what you call “the age of grace,” and the idea that people whose sins are forgiven might end up in hell.

No wrath between Calvary and the Second Coming?

You write: “…now that Christ's sacrifice has been received by God as total propitiation for our sin and the satisfaction of God's righteous anger, God is not angry with anyone anymore…. But this grace is available for a limited time only (II Corinthians 6:2).” My understanding of your position is that you do recognize the outpouring of God’s wrath after the second coming, but until then, you believe, “God is not angry with anyone…” You dismiss the Scriptures I cite about God’s anger because they were written or (in the case of our Lord’s words) spoken before our Lord offered himself as a sacrifice for us, and you dismiss verses written after Calvary that talk about wrath because they are describing the judgment that will be poured out when the Lord returns.

This position requires that there be no verses that talk about God’s wrath being active after Calvary but before the second coming. Such verses would directly contradict your notion that “God is not angry with anyone anymore.” In fact, there are such verses. Here are three examples that are particularly clear.

John 3:36 is written by John, the evangelist, at the time he composed his gospel. (The evidence for this claim is outlined at www.cyber-chapel.org/sermons/john/notes/John3a.pdf (p. 12), and takes the form of patterns of repetition showing that this verse is part of a regularly structured framework within which the historical accounts of those chapters are embedded.) John writes,

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Now, John is certainly writing after Calvary. He speaks of someone who rejects that sacrifice, and says, “the wrath of God abideth on him.” To see the impact of this statement, let’s contrast it with a different statement that would be compatible with your theory: “The wrath of God shall come on him.” If John had written that, it would allow for your position: after Calvary but before the second coming God isn’t angry with anyone, but when the Lord returns, God’s wrath will

Page 1

come on people. What John actually wrote conflicts with your theory in two ways: the verb and its tense.

For the verb, he chose “abide,” not “come.” He is not describing a change in a person’s state with respect to the wrath of God, but a continuation in his state. People are born sinners (Ps 58:3), born under God’s wrath (Ps 58:9-11), and remain under that wrath until they believe.

John put this verb is in the present tense. He is describing, not some future event, but something that is true in the period in which he writes. He is presenting the general condition of all people in this “present evil age” (Gal 1:4). God is angry with people during this age, and his wrath abides on them unless and until they believe. This is not just an OT idea, nor a teaching of our Lord that becomes obsolete at Calvary. It is a statement by one of the Twelve reflecting his understanding of the state of affairs that obtains after Calvary and before the second coming.

My second example comes from the words of our Lord, but they describe something that happened after Calvary and before his return. In responding to his disciples’ questions about the end times, he said,

Luk 21:20-24 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

The phrase “days of vengeance” is comes from the LXX of Deut 32:35 and Jer 46:10, when God takes vengeance on his adversaries. Note the reference to the fulfillment of OT prophecy. “You’ve read about the days of God’s vengeance. This is it.” That allusion makes it clear that our Lord has in view God as taking vengeance.

What event does this describe? Some people think it’s talking about the eschatological attack on Jerusalem recounted in Zech 14. But Luke goes on to describe things that have already happened:

24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

If you align the accounts of the Olivet Discourse in the synoptics, it becomes clear that this cannot be the final attack, but instead is the fall of Jerusalem to Titus in AD 70. (For a synopsis of the passages, see www.cyber-chapel.org/rapture.pdf .) This happened after Calvary, but (unless you are a preterist) before the second advent, and yet it is described as [God’s] vengeance. This event was the subject of OT prophecy (Deut 28:68; Ps 74:4; Zech 1:17—I don’t expect you to see the allusions here without further explanation, but will be glad to go into them if you like). Again, God definitely does exhibit anger toward his creatures during this period.

Against whom did he take vengeance in AD 70? At one level, it doesn’t matter for our discussion; the point is that God is taking vengeance after Calvary and before the second coming. But it’s hard to think that the Romans were the object of his vengeance, given the outcome that our Lord describes. The most likely interpretation is that he is taking vengeance on the Jews for their rejection of his Son. That would align with Paul’s words in 1 Thes 2:

Page 2

1Th 2:14-16 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Here Paul clearly has the unbelieving Jews in view. He says that God’s “wrath is come upon them.” The verb is the aorist of φθανω, commonly used to describe something that has already come, as in Matt 12:28; 2 Cor 10:14; Eph 3:16. Now, Paul writes before AD 70, but when he sees the sin of the Jews, his natural conclusion is that God’s wrath must be upon them for such behavior. (He would no doubt agree with John that it was there from birth, and their rejection of the Messiah shows that it is still there.) He may have had an intuition of the disaster under Titus that would follow within a few decades. He certainly is not talking about the eschaton.

I could add others, but these perhaps are enough to show that the claim that “God isn’t angry with anyone anymore,” while seductive, is contrary to the teaching of the NT.

Sinless people in heaven? (Note: I think Van meant to type "Hell" here—GAF)

A second point at which your construct doesn’t match the data is your claim that “Everyone who goes to hell will go there with their sins forgiven.”

Yet the Scriptures teach that sin is why people go to hell. If their sins are forgiven, there would be no reason for God to banish them to hell.

Consider our Lord’s teaching about what constitutes a breach of the law.

Mat 5:28-30 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

The sin of adultery consists not just of the physical union, but of the lustful look. If you can’t avoid such looks, you are better off plucking out your eye, lest sinning by looking bring you into hell. He presents a direct causal link between sin and hell. If a person’s sin is forgiven, there is no need for him to go to hell.

When our Lord told of a coming day of judgment, he described it in these words:

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Their iniquity is the reason for casting them out. If their iniquity is forgiven, why would he cite it as reason to cast them out?

Later, he again relates the failures of those whom he rejects in more detail:

Mat 25:41-46 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye

Page 3

visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

The last verse makes it plain that everlasting fire is for those who fall short of the behavior that God expects, while his presence is for the righteous. But your statement would imply that all these shortcomings are forgiven, and in that case the Lord’s decision to reject them is unjustified.

Peter also gives us some insight into the motive for eternal judgment.

2Pe 2:4-9 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

It is sin that took the angels into hell. Those people who will be judged are the unjust. Peter certainly would not describe the people in v. 9 as having their sins forgiven.

As I understand the Scriptures, Sinners go to hell for two reasons: to punish them for their sinful rebellion against God (Ps 73:16-20; Ps 58; 2 Pet 2:9; Rev 20:13), and because God will not tolerate sin in his holy presence (Hab 1:13; Ps 5:4,5; Ps 34:16; Isa 59:1). Neither motive applies to someone whose sins are forgiven.

Debugging the Logic

When a theory doesn’t match the data, it’s worthwhile to try to figure out where the logic went wrong. I think I can detect at least two misunderstandings that led you to the positions discussed above: the idea that the “age of grace” is temporary and limited, and the nature of our Lord’s propitiation.

What is “the day of salvation”?

In support of the idea that “Christ's grace is …available for a limited time only,” you cite 2Co 6:2

For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

I think you would understand this “day of salvation” to end with the second advent, at which time you would indeed expect to see God’s wrath and vengeance poured out on the world. But this suggests to you that things are different until then.

Page 4

Nothing in this verse or its immediate context suggests any notion of limited duration. What the context does show is that it is a quotation from the OT (“For he saith…”). In such cases, it’s always important to go back to the OT context from which the quotation was made. Invariably, I find that the NT writers do not cite verses out of context, but have that context firmly in mind.

This particular verse is a quotation from one of Isaiah’s Servant songs (49:1-12). The Messiah expresses his discouragement (v. 4), and the Lord promises to vindicate him for the rejection he has experienced (v. 7) by establishing his rule over all the earth.

Isa 49:7-12 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee. 8 Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages; 9 That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places. 10 They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them. 11 And I will make all my mountains a way, and my highways shall be exalted. 12 Behold, these shall come from far: and, lo, these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of Sinim.

The point of the prophecy is that the “day of salvation” is when the Messiah comes and is vindicated for the treatment he received at his first advent. The salvation being spoken of is first of all not our salvation, but the Messiah’s salvation from his enemies, which likely begins with the resurrection and ascension. There is not a hint that this time of blessing will come to an end. In fact, when one compares this prophecy with others in Isaiah, it’s clear that he is anticipating what we would call the Millennium (note the promise of a change in the physical nature of the earth in v. 8). The “day of salvation” does not end with the second coming. That event actually amplifies it. Yet you will agree, I hope, that God’s wrath is quite evident during the millennium (cf. our Lord’s conquest over the nations at the end of Rev 19 at the beginning of his earthly rule).

It’s common among dispensationalists to speak, of “the age of grace,” as though there were some delimited period of history when God’s grace is available. The phrase itself is not biblical, and as a matter of exegetical discipline it’s well to avoid building theology on non-biblical expressions, seeking instead to “hold fast the form of sound words” (2 Tim 1:13). It is true that the time since Calvary has given us a much greater appreciation of God’s grace than his people had before then. But throughout history, he has always dealt with his people on the basis of grace, as Paul argues in Rom 4:1-8, proving justification by faith apart from works by reference to two OT saints. It is true now, and has always been true, that God isn’t angry with his people any more (not just until the second coming, but forever). But it’s also true that the wrath of God against unbelievers (and false professors) that we see in the OT continues unabated after Calvary. God’s grace founded on our Lord’s sacrifice is what saved Adam. It is what saves us, and it is what will save children born after our Lord returns, to those who enter the Millennium in natural bodies. It is not by any means available “for a limited time only.”

Page 5 (Note: In Van's original the first line of a table appeared here, and the rest of the table appeared later. I have taken the liberty to move it to the table below where it makes more sense (to me)– GAF)

What does propitiation achieve?

The heart of your understanding seems to be John’s description of our Lord’s work as a “propitiation.” You write,

Christ's completed work paid for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2) not just for those who are being saved. It is complete propitiation (I John 4:10; Hebrews 2:17). Barnes defines propitiation as "reconciling, appeasing, turning away anger, rendering propitious or favourable."

It’s instructive that you use the paraphrase “paid for the sins of” to explain your understanding of “propitiation.” In fact, the notion of payment is more appropriate to three other Greek words usually rendered “ransom.” There are other words as well: wash, forgive, reconcile, carry [sin], etc. Most evangelicals lump these together as different perspectives on a single transaction. In fact, one of the great theological debates of the post-reformation period centered around just such a lumping. The classic theological definition of “atonement” is “everything that Christ accomplished in his death.” The reformed systematizers, noting that a) some texts (e.g., Rom 5:10) indicate that the death of Christ saves sinners and b) not everybody will be saved (e.g., Isa 66:23, 24), posited that “atonement” was limited to the elect. Others, properly noting passages such as 1 John 2:2, insisted that it was universal. What nobody seems to have recognized is the NT nowhere calls our Lord’s death an atonement, and in the OT “atonement” actually describes something far inferior to what our Lord accomplished (www.cyber-chapel.org/AtonementInTheNT.pdf). There is no such portmanteau term in the lexicon of the apostles. They talk about propitiation, and redemption (using three distinct terms), and washing, and forgiveness, and reconciliation, and carrying sin, etc. But they never imply that they are equivalent or of equal extent, and only two of them (propitiation and one of the three forms of redemption, αγοραζω in 2 Pet 2:1) are said to be universal. (2 Cor 5:19 does not justify including reconciliation; Paul speaks only of the “world,” which is a description of quality, not quantity, otherwise John’s addition of “whole” in 1 John 2:2 would be superfluous.)

The Lord accomplished many distinct things by his death. Some of them are said to universal scope. I believe that others are intended only for those who believe. In the latter category would fall reconciliation with God and the bearing of sin.

What then does “propitiation” mean? In the context, John is discussing the problem of sin in the life of the believer. Our verse is at the conclusion of the third of three parallel panels. See the table nearby.

Page 6

False claim	1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness,	8 If we say that we have no sin,	10 If we say that we have not sinned,
Charge that the claim is false	we lie, and do not the truth:	we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.	we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Remedy	7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,	9 If we confess our sins,	2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
Consequence	we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.	he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.	2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Note the different mechanisms in view in the panels. The sacrifice of Christ is in view in the first panel (“the blood of Jesus Christ his Son” 1:7), but in the third his heavenly intercession is in focus (2:1 “an advocate with the Father). John pictures the Lord urging God to withhold his just wrath. You cite C.S. Lewis’s notion that “the surprising thing is that there is not more pain and destruction in this world.” The reason is that God’s beloved Son is in his presence, urging him to be gentle. The astounding truth of 1 John 2:2 is that the benefits of this advocacy extend not only to believers, but to unbelievers as well.

John writes of “us,” the community of believers, that God forgives and cleanses us (1:7, 9). He does not claim these benefits of our Lord’s sacrifice for “the whole world.” The universality is invoked only with respect to what is achieved by his advocacy with the Father. Note, by the way, that while his advocacy concerns our sins, no mention is made of the sins of the world. The translators inserted those words, as marked by the italics, but the literal text reads simply, “he is the propitiation … for the whole world.” He advocates on behalf of the world, but John changes his phrasing from “propitiation for our sins” to “propitiation for the whole world,” avoiding any claim that he has removed their sin.

“Propitiation,” with its implication of a restraint of wrath, is not a bad translation. It is because our kinsman is in heaven that God is as gentle as he is with the sons of men, but that does not remove their sin, nor the wrath of God against unbelievers that other Scriptures attest. Propitiation is a band-aid, not the solution. It withholds the judgment, but there is no basis for saying that it removes the cause, the underlying sin. The “day of salvation” will come when the last Adam will return to earth to be vindicated, and God’s wrath will be fully manifested, something that would be completely unjust if everybody’s sin were forgiven.

It’s reasonable to ask, “If the Lord Jesus is pleading with the Father to withhold his wrath, then why would God show his wrath at all?” Even if the cause is the Lord’s intercession rather than the efficacy of his sacrifice, wouldn’t the result still be no divine wrath?

We don’t know much about how our Lord’s intercession relates to unbelievers. 1 John 2:2 is the only text I know that addresses the issue. But I can suggest an hypothesis, based on Isaiah 26.

Isa 26:8-10 Yea, in the way of thy judgments, O LORD, have we waited for thee; the desire of our soul is to thy name, and to the remembrance of thee. 9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.

Page 7

10 Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the LORD.

At least in Isaiah’s day, it was characteristic of human nature not to seek the Lord unless things were going badly. I don’t know of any theological reason why that aspect of human nature should have changed at Calvary. Disaster often goads people to seek the Lord. This is certainly true of us as believers, and undergirds the whole notion of divine chastisement.

Psa 119:71 It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes.

But Isaiah’s insight extends beyond the people of God. He sees that God’s judgments can have a salutary effect throughout the earth, in leading even the wicked to turn to the Lord. (Note, by the way, that he does not hesitate to describe such disasters as “God’s judgments.” He does not conclude, as you do, that such attribution is “a backward kind of blasphemy.”)

The insight of this evangelistic effect of God’s judgments suggests what may be going on in heaven. The Son has redeemed the people whom the Father entrusted to his care (John 10:15, 27- 29). His intercessory benefits include the whole world, withholding the Father’s wrath for them. But that propitiation is tempered by the principle of Isa 26:9. The Father and Son agree that some warning of God’s judgment is needed to arouse unbelievers from their complacency, and that is what we see in the disasters I was addressing in my post. That outpouring of wrath is less than it would have been without the Lord’s intercession. (I have some interesting thoughts for the mechanism by which our Lord has achieved this reduction, but this note is too long already.) But it is still, as Isaiah describes it, “thy judgments.”

I’m not sure whether that’s the right explanation or not, but as a matter of principle, my first commitment is to the data, whether or not I have a theory that embraces all of it. And that data teaches me that God’s wrath is active during this present evil age, and that our Savior accomplished a wide range of things in his death, warning us against oversimplifying what he accomplished.

Oh, my. I hadn’t intended to burden you with such a tome! But you offered some very thought- provoking ideas, and I really enjoyed interacting with them. Let’s keep the conversation going.

In Christian love,

Van