Common Grace Purchased By Christ

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Ron,

Well, there's a lot here to deal with. I'll try to be succinct.



How could Abraham have gone to Sheol when he was justified? If God reckoned his believing for righteousness (Gen. 15:6, Rom. 4), what could have kept him from the heavenly kingdom? God pronouncing Abraham righteous was not a future event, but a present reality.

Gen. 15:6 "And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted [past tense] it to him for righteousness."

The tense is confirmed in Romans 4. Likewise, Paul also desribes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness, picking up the teaching of David (Rom. 4:6-8). Now if OT saints had imputed righteousness in time and prior to the incarnation, I have to ask, "who's rightoeusness was imputed to them in that time?" If it was not Christ's righteousness, was it their own? I fear the logical conclusion of your argument would be a Papist delight! No, they were justified by the righteousness of Christ. There is no need to go to Sheol (as you define it), but being covered in Christ's righteousness, they could come into the very presence of God when they died!

2 Kings 2:11: "Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

Did God then tell him to go down to Sheol after the whirlwind took him into heaven? Did Elijah appear at the mount of transfiguration (Matt. 17:3) from Sheol since Christ did not yet suffer on the cross?



I think I gave substantial evidence that Christ's merits were applied in the OT. This appeal to Eph. 4 and Heb. 12 is speculative and does not at all confirm the doctrine to which you espouse.



I'm not dogmatic that these terms must be used. I ask because you are distinguishing between Hodge's "innumerable blessings" and my use of (common) mercy. If there is a substantial difference between the terms grace and mercy, please enlighten me.



I agree, though would want to be careful that we don't have an anthrocentric approach to seeing God's dealings with the world. God is bringing glory to Himself in all of His creation, so in the preserving of the world until the elect are all brought in, He is also displaying His power in all things. I want to be careful to emphasize multiple purposes in God's dealings with this creation that all bring glory to His name. Again, I don't think you would disagree with this point.



We need to be careful here. Your language is mutually exclusive when I believe the true biblical doctrine is mutually inclusive. Even though the reprobate will suffer God's eternal wrath, this does not mean that everything up to that point is for the sole purpose of getting them there. God can have multiple purposes accomplished according to His decree. Could God purpose to demonstrate His mercy to those who reject it? Absolutely! He reveals to creation who He is and all of creation has experienced the kindness and mercy of God in temporal blessings (Psalm 145).



I'm sorry you feel this way. "Perpetually" is a strong word, because all along I've said these mercies were "temporal." Further, I never have said they receive "mercy for their sin." They receive mercy in spite of their sin. If my position is unclear to you, I'd appreciate if you could ask more questions rather than assert what I'm saying when I do not say such things.



This point only has validity if I accept your premise that Christ's merits could not be applied until after the crusifixion. Since I do not accept this premise, the perceived problem in my reasoning is moot.



The fact that they do not currently have bodies in hell does not mean that they currently receive mercy.



Paul says: "Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness..." (Rom. 2:4-5a)

Please see Calvin's commentary on this point.

Further, you are making distinctions contrary to Scripture. When Christ teaches in Luke 6 (similar passage to Matt. 5), He says:

"But hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful." (Luke 6:35-36)

Is the point here substantually different from Matt 5:48, when Christ says "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect"?

Ron, I think the distinctions you are promoting help your theological position, but are not faithfully representing the Word of God. Please reconsider.

Respectfully,

Tim

Tim,

I think I’ll bow out. We’re too far apart on this. Maybe others might be able to pick this up.
 
Tim,

I think I’ll bow out. We’re too far apart on this. Maybe others might be able to pick this up.

No problem. I think it's getting too far off the OP anyway. Always a pleasure talking, even if we disagree on some things. :)
 
Sheol isn't the same thing as "heaven," nor did Elijah "die." In any case, your objections hinge on Sheol = bad place, which it clearly isn't.

Yes, I understood this. My point was that the OT saint wouldn't yet be qualified to be in God's presence, bringing into question what their justification even meant to begin with.
 
Sheol isn't hell. It's the realm of the dead. It's not permanent. Those who were in Sheol (before Christ) experienced it differently. The demon kings of the underworld, the Shedim and Rephaim, no doubt had a worse go of it than Job.
I agree that Sheol =/= hell, and more properly is "the grave" (or realm of the dead). But neither do I think it proper to regard it as of itself spatio-tempora. Sheol is metaphorical, and therefore is appropriate description in a certain sense for "any-and-all" that leave this world behind. What follows is a bit different take, however not offered out of antagonism over these cloudy things (which were even more indistinct in the OT ages).

What I mean is that I do not think "Sheol" was a conceived a two-compartment holding chamber, with better and worse experiences for those died out of this world, but "not in heaven (or hell) yet." I don't think "Abraham's bosom" (Lk.16:22) is anywhere "short" of the high estate (call it the beatific vision if you will) that the elect of God were destined for.

The ungodly, whose bodies are "sunk" in the grave, also have spirits that are "sunk." Death of the body has made them permanent dwellers (inmates) of the underworld (the upsidedown world). To appearances, the godly also have "sunk" in the grave. But David does not think that's his permanent condition, even in death (Ps.16:9). His flesh rests in hope, and his soul does not remain there, v10a.

Whence his soul? It does not sink below, it rises, for it belongs to the path of life, not death, and the very presence of God (N.B. Ps.17:15; cf.139:18). (Peter takes v10b, and perfects that sentiment in respect to the ultimate Holy One, Act.2:27). The restless spirits of the godless seek the depths, as far from the heights of glory as possible. The Boundary is too close, too spiritually bright. Still, as we bury our believing dead "out of our sight," Gen.23:4, what we observe is our loved one gone beneath the Boundary.

Again, this is really more metaphoric than tangible. In modern times, we tend to impose on the past a wooden literalism, as if ancient human descriptions of the supernatural world (both true religion and false) were bound to a mono-perspectival, sense-perception interpretation.
 
I agree that Sheol =/= hell, and more properly is "the grave" (or realm of the dead). But neither do I think it proper to regard it as of itself spatio-tempora. Sheol is metaphorical, and therefore is appropriate description in a certain sense for "any-and-all" that leave this world behind. What follows is a bit different take, however not offered out of antagonism over these cloudy things (which were even more indistinct in the OT ages).

What I mean is that I do not think "Sheol" was a conceived a two-compartment holding chamber, with better and worse experiences for those died out of this world, but "not in heaven (or hell) yet." I don't think "Abraham's bosom" (Lk.16:22) is anywhere "short" of the high estate (call it the beatific vision if you will) that the elect of God were destined for.

The ungodly, whose bodies are "sunk" in the grave, also have spirits that are "sunk." Death of the body has made them permanent dwellers (inmates) of the underworld (the upsidedown world). To appearances, the godly also have "sunk" in the grave. But David does not think that's his permanent condition, even in death (Ps.16:9). His flesh rests in hope, and his soul does not remain there, v10a.

Whence his soul? It does not sink below, it rises, for it belongs to the path of life, not death, and the very presence of God (N.B. Ps.17:15; cf.139:18). (Peter takes v10b, and perfects that sentiment in respect to the ultimate Holy One, Act.2:27). The restless spirits of the godless seek the depths, as far from the heights of glory as possible. The Boundary is too close, too spiritually bright. Still, as we bury our believing dead "out of our sight," Gen.23:4, what we observe is our loved one gone beneath the Boundary.

Again, this is really more metaphoric than tangible. In modern times, we tend to impose on the past a wooden literalism, as if ancient human descriptions of the supernatural world (both true religion and false) were bound to a mono-perspectival, sense-perception interpretation.

That’s why I labored, “The point is, it’s not so much that the OT saints were transported from one place to another... They were not yet souls made perfect...He brought them into the very presence of God in a manner not yet experienced.”
 
But neither do I think it proper to regard it as of itself spatio-tempora.

Same here. On one hand the Abyss will open and demons will come out in the End Times, but I don't think you can dig and find them (though CERN is coming close).
Sheol is metaphorical

As long as metaphor doesn't mean "not real."
I don't think "Abraham's bosom" (Lk.16:22) is anywhere "short" of the high estate (call it the beatific vision if you will) that the elect of God were destined for.

That's where I have some issues. Assuming the beatific vision is our ultimate goal, which means it must be coterminous with the Resurrection, then it is clear that those saints in the OT were not experiencing the Beatific vision, as the resurrection hasn't happened yet.

The ungodly, whose bodies are "sunk" in the grave, also have spirits that are "sunk." Death of the body has made them permanent dwellers (inmates) of the underworld (the upsidedown world). To appearances, the godly also have "sunk" in the grave. But David does not think that's his permanent condition, even in death (Ps.16:9). His flesh rests in hope, and his soul does not remain there, v10a.

I agree.
 
That's where I have some issues. Assuming the beatific vision is our ultimate goal, which means it must be coterminous with the Resurrection, then it is clear that those saints in the OT were not experiencing the Beatific vision, as the resurrection hasn't happened yet.

I agree. There is a distinction in the bliss experienced after the resurrection.
 
That's where I have some issues. Assuming the beatific vision is our ultimate goal, which means it must be coterminous with the Resurrection, then it is clear that those saints in the OT were not experiencing the Beatific vision, as the resurrection hasn't happened yet.
What the OT saints did not yet have was a risen, glorified theanthropos, who would be seated at the proper time between their closest ascent to the Presence, and so they brought "closer still" to that Presence.

And yes, even we NT saints after death will await our bodily vision of the Glory in the resurrection.
 
What the OT saints did not yet have was a risen, glorified theanthropos, who would be seated at the proper time between their closest ascent to the Presence, and so they brought "closer still" to that Presence.

And yes, even we NT saints after death will await our bodily vision of the Glory in the resurrection.

It’s a glorious redemption indeed! Theology gives way to doxology once again!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top