A response to Lonnie Hendrix's post on "CGI’s Bill Watson: Pastor or Warlock?"
Vance Stinson gave permission to post his letter here.
Hi Lonnie,
You asked me to listen to Bill Watson’s message on imprecatory prayer and give you my thoughts on it. The subject was not new to me; I first explored it many years ago. Theories on the purpose and meaning of the imprecatory psalms, as well as questions surrounding whether and how Christians should apply them in their own prayer lives, have been debated by Christian scholars, and different conclusions have been drawn. Bill raises essentially the same questions many have raised in times past, but does so with modern evils in view—the abortion mill, the rise of Marxist elements in our own society, etc. As he concludes his message, Bill summarizes his purpose for giving it:
“When is the prayer of imprecation, of asking God to intercede and to short-circuit some of the things we see around us? All I’m doing is asking. I’m asking you to think about it; I’m asking yo to look deep into your own hearts, gauge your involvement, your interest, your action, and then ask yourself, heart-to-heart, maybe in your prayer closed with God the Father—ask yourself, What do you think about it?”
At points in the message Bill does seem to be advocating imprecations against organizations, movements, and perhaps even individuals perceived to be enemies of freedom, godliness, and true justice; however, he carefully qualifies his comments by repeatedly reminding his listeners that he’s merely raising the question, not telling anyone how to interpret and apply the biblical examples of imprecation.
Bill has raised some thought-provoking questions and placed them in the context of many of today’s issues of concern. Here, in a nutshell, are my thoughts on the subject:
I’ve been an advocate of “praying the Psalms” for many years. The Psalms reflect/reveal the good and perfect will of their divine Author as well as the strengths and weaknesses of their human authors. David, who composed many of the psalms, was both a bloody warrior (1 Chron. 22:8; 28:3) and a man of profound faith and commitment. We should expect, then, that deeply introspective prayers composed by a man like King David would reflect his exceptional qualities as well as his shortcomings. And I believe that’s exactly what we do find in the imprecatory psalms.
The Tanakh (“Old Testament”) itself is the revelation of God—not merely a revelation (or collection of revelations) fromGod, but the revelation of God Himself. That is, this collection of books (including the Psalms) reveals what God Himself is like, but only in part. The fullness of the revelation of God came into the world at the Incarnation. Jesus Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension; His offices of King of Kings, High Priest, and Savior/Redeemer; and His teachings, as recorded in the New Testament, fill up the meaning of (“fulfill”) all previous revelation (Mt. 5:17ff). Indeed, we can see God most fully by looking into the human face of Jesus!
Therefore, when I read the Tanakh, I read it through the lens of the Christ-event (which includes all that is mentioned above). The question, then, is not whether or not the imprecatory psalms are instructive for Christian readers—I believe they are!—but is simply this: What does Jesus Christ say about how His followers should think of their enemies? And to this question, we have an unambiguous answer:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt. 5:43-48, ESV, emphasis mine).
This passage needs no explanation; its meaning is clear. The meaning of Psalm 109 is likewise unambiguous. The psalm, which is attributed to David, reads (in part) as follows:
9 May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow!
10 May his children wander about and beg,
seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!
11 May the creditor seize all that he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil!
12 Let there be none to extend kindness to him,
nor any to pity his fatherless children!
13 May his posterity be cut off;
may his name be blotted out in the second generation!
14 May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord,
and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out!
15 Let them be before the Lord continually,
that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth! (ESV)
The psalmist is describing a corrupt court whose purpose is to destroy the accused. The New Testament account of Christ’s betrayal, arrest, and trial echoes the situation the psalmist describes. The individual the psalmist refers to is either a corrupt judge or the chief accuser (prosecutor) of this bogus trial. The psalmist, in poetic fashion, is calling on God to reverse the roles and allow him to pronounce judgment on his false accusers; to let them—the chief accuser in particular—receive the punishment they seek for the accused.
The psalmist honestly expresses his feelings toward his accuser and the false witnesses the accuser has assembled. His enemies “encircle [him] with words of hate, and attack [him] without cause.” They “reward [him] evil for good, and hatred for [his] love” (vv. 3-4). If we put ourselves in the psalmist’s place, we can easily sympathize with him; we can feel what he feels, and we realize he’s just being honest with his own feelings. One of the lessons here is that we should always be open and honest with God, for we cannot hide our innermost thoughts and feelings from Him. (Bill mentions this important principle in his message.) However, this should not be looked upon as a model for how we ought to pray regarding corrupt individuals and those who persecute us. The psalmist was not praying for his enemy, except in the sense that he was praying for his enemy to die! He obviously did not have love of his enemy in his heart when he composed these words; nor was he thinking in terms of “hate the sin but not the sinner.” No, he wanted the scoundrel dead and forgotten!
Should, as disciples of the New David, pray that way? No, we should not! However, there is a sense in which we can and should pray for—and even work toward—the “destruction” of the ungodly. We do this, not by calling on God to reign fire from heaven upon them or causing them to meet the same fate Jezebel or the prophets of Baal met in the days of Elijah, but by calling on God to change their hearts, and by using us as His agents—instruments in His Almighty hands—in helping to bring about such change. This is what the Church’s commission is all about!
I don’t wish for the heads of abortion providers to be dashed against the stones or for their bellies to burst open and pour their entrails onto the street for all to see. I want to see them “perish” by way of repentance and remission of sins. My hope—and prayer—is that the gospel will convict them; that the old, sinful, murderous self will “die” and be replaced by the new man in Christ. God destroys the wicked by turning the wicked into saints—and He does it through human agents! This kind of “death of the wicked” happens all the time. It happens every day in the Muslim world and in communist countries where the saints suffer severe persecution. It happens in the abortion clinics and among abortion-providing doctors and nurses. It happens in prisons. It happens in families and homes. It is by way of prayerful intervention and proclamation of the good-news message (the gospel) that our despised, falsely accused, persecuted brothers and sisters in China, North Korea, Nigeria, and many other parts of the world are, so to speak, agents of destruction—death angels!—whose prayers for their persecutors storm heaven day and night.
The “destruction” we should pray for (and work to bring about) is the same kind of “destruction” the apostle Paul refers to in his first epistle to the Corinthian believers:
“When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man [who was in an incestuous relationship] to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:4-5, ESV, emphasis mine).
To “deliver to Satan” means simply to expel from fellowship. The purpose of this action is two-fold: 1) to prevent “a little leaven” from leavening “the whole lump” (v. 6), and 2) to motivate the offender to repent of and overcome his sinful tendencies (“the destruction of the flesh”). Without the “destruction of the flesh” (repentance, overcoming), the man’s “spirit” won’t be “saved in the day of the Lord.” (Side note: This text does not mean “Let the sinner die physically so that he might be saved spiritually in the second resurrection,” as some few have suggested.)
In addition, when we take our concerns before God, we, as followers of Christ, must recognize who the real enemy is. Paul says, “For we so not wrestle against flesh and blood [our human persecutors are but pawns; they’re not the realenemy], but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). That’s the real enemy! And that’s the enemy we should proactively oppose (see vv. 13-20 for how to do it).
In conclusion, the imprecatory psalms are deeply meaningful, especially when we read them through the lens of the Christ-event. The details of the New Testament Passion narratives “fulfill” (i.e., fill up the meaning of) the imprecatory psalms’ descriptions of the treachery and deceit of the accusers and the overwhelming anxiety of the accused; and they speak, in human terms, of divine retribution and the ultimate fate of the ungodly. These psalms also remind us of the importance of laying our hearts bare before God, of being completely honest about our innermost thoughts, feelings, and motives. And, finally, they remind us that the accuser of accusers is at work behind the scenes, that human accusers are mere pawns, oftentimes believing they are doing God a service. Our hope and prayer is that God will “destroy” them—that is, destroy the carnality the enemy uses to hold them under his sway—and “raise them up” to a new life in Christ. So when we pray for our persecutors, we look to the model of David—the New David, that is—who, in the torments of the cross, prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”
That’s the rich spiritual and Christological meaning I derive from reading the imprecatory psalms through the lens of the Christ-event.
27 comments:
I find myself to be in broad agreement with both the spirit and theological content of Mr. Stinson's response. Let us hope that his views prevail over those of Mr. Watson within the ranks of the CGI!
Quite a difference in the response from Vance Stinson and the diatribe from Mark Fike.
Just in case anybody is actually concerned about this, I believe that considering the track record of answered prayer in general amongst Armstrongite members and ministers, there is no need to worry that their collective imprecatory prayers would ever ever be answered.
The author endlessly jumps through loops to give credibility to Kenneth Copeland 'Christianity.' On one of Copeland's programs dedicated to young teenagers, they instructed them to turn a closed fist aimed at a bully, into a open hand and blow a kiss across that open hand to the bully. Blowing kisses to a bully?? How ridiculous! To a bully, all that's real is what they can get away with. This. like the above article, is great partiality towards evil, with biblical window dressing thrown in. They also instructed the teenages to "stand back and let God deal with the bully." This is a blatant lie, which experience confirms.
With hardened criminals, suffering for their crimes is the only possible way of convincing them to repent. Which is why God over and over destroyed nations in the OT as a means of encouraging repentance. It is why the coming tribulation which will destroy billions.
Observation and introspection proves this article rubbish. Btw, people who advocate this have a double standard and are monstrously vindictive. Again it's the wolf breeding lambs and foxes breeding chickens.
Too much “spiritualizing”. My present understanding is: God’s Plan for the future includes two resurrections and two deaths for humanity, meaning, die a first death, be resurrected to live again, whether in the spirit or in the flesh, and those who in the second life are unrepentant will die the second death – Rev 20:14. It’s difficult to believe the children at Korah’s rebellion – Num 16:27 – are “lost” forever: will be resurrected. The news today have horrifying accounts of children dying, as in a recent Philadelphia fire: will be resurrected. The point: Paul did mean, literally and physically, destruction of the flesh of the one in an incestuous relationship, and in the day of the Lord Jesus the individual is resurrected, and then has the opportunity to repent, if there was no repentance before.
Mr. Stinson is a kind person and always made us feel welcomed in church.
Anon 5:34, your god is a bully!
Despite this interesting interpretation I still hold on to my own current
view as posted previously as I don’t see any contradiction between asking God to meter vengeance or justice on behalf of His people against the enemies of God, His Christ and His people, while at the same time expressing care and concern towards those very same enemies as the OT and NT teach.
"With hardened criminals, suffering for their crimes is the only possible way of convincing them to repent."
if they are all that hardened, suffering will only harden them more....
"It is monstrously simple-minded to read the cursings in the Psalms with no feeling except one of horror at the uncharity of the poets." - C.S. Lewis, "Reflections on the Psalms"
Overall I agree with V. Stinson because I believe that the Bible as a whole must be viewed through Jesus and some form of this hermeneutic is what Stinson uses. I do disagree with some of his views. For instance, I disagee with the way Stinson applied this specific hermeneutic: "...this collection of books (including the Psalms) reveals what God Himself is like, but only in part."
Lewis, in the chapter titled "Cursings" in the book cited above, pointed out that the authors of the maledictory psalms, such as Ps 109, could not be defended by asserting that they were not Christians and they did not know any better. So it is then up to the Christian reader to bring the appropriate ethics to the interpretation - "the lens of the Christ-event." I agree with the brother. I don't think this defense works. For example, the authors of the maledictions were familar with Leviticus 19:17-18 yet waxed vehement in their cursings. The imprecative language is then not a reflection of how God implemented his wrath but is the way the supplicant Psalmists dealt with their wrath.
What maledictory Psalms do reflect as a subtext is that God is willing to permit such case studies on supplicant wrath into the canon - even though such malediction is not exemplary. And we must struggle with its meaning in midrash to this day. These were people under duress, they reacted like we would and God let their word stand - I think, sympathetically. And the inclusion of the direct meaning of malediction tells us something about us rather than about God.
A sidebar: The Psalmist in Psalm 109:28 states, "Let them curse, but do thou bless!" Contained within this is the acknowledgement that God is the final arbiter. A curse has no effect unless God, who is gracious and merciful, sees fit to implement it. A curse is not a self-contained improvised explosive device. We can be thankful. Think of how any imprecative prayers must have been directed against this blog by the acolytes of Splinterdom.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
In my opinion, anything that seeks to advance the notion of biblical inerrancy is not helpful. I've been saying for years that there is a great deal in Scripture that did NOT originate in the mind of God (refer back to my original article on the imprecatory psalms). There is no amount of explaining that can justify something like this as being consistent with Christ's teachings and his notions of righteousness:
"O Babylon, you will be destroyed.
Happy is the one who pays you back
for what you have done to us.
Happy is the one who takes your babies
and smashes them against the rocks!" --Psalm 137:8-9
Ps 137:8-9 is metaphorical, kinda like Rev 17:5.
12.17 PM
Golly Miller Jones, are we supposed to be shocked out of our socks by Psalm 137:8,9?
Talking about smashing babies, Soviet mother's smashed their babies on the ground to protect them from being abused by the Nazi soldiers. It's Satan's world, and harsh judgements are handed down for harsh crimes.
Perhaps you missed Revelation 19 where Christ leads His heavenly army to destroy this world's armies. It will be very ugly for the human armies.
The supreme power of the universe is called God the Father rather than God the Mother. It's only punishment that maintains law and order. I've heard people dispute this, but they, perhaps unknowingly, are freeloading on the coat tails of a punishing society.
Pr 24:17 Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Pr 25:21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
"The psalmist was not praying for his enemy, except in the sense that he was praying for his enemy to die! He obviously did not have love of his enemy in his heart when he composed these words; nor was he thinking in terms of "hate the sin but not the sinner." No, he wanted the scoundrel dead and forgotten!" (CGI: Vance Stinson responds To "Imprecation" Post About Bill Watson, Banned, January 10, 2022).
I would suggest that there are a number of problems with this statement. Some thoughts.
Ps 5:5b thou hatest all workers of iniquity
"hate the sinner but not the sinner" - the cliche "is false on the face of it and should be abandoned. Fourteen times in the first fifty psalms alone, we are told that God hates the sinner, his wrath is on the liar, and so forth. In the Bible, the wrath of God rests both on the sin (Rom. 1:18ff.) and on the sinner (John 3:36)" (D.A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, Crossway, 2000, p.70).
Ps 109:4 For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer.
Ps 109:5 And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
"For the thought of v 4 one can compare Ps 35:13 and Jer 18:20b" (Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150, WBC, p.102). Ps 35 is also a psalm of David and the first psalm where imprecations "loom large".
Ps 35:11 Ruthless witnesses come forward; they question me on things I know nothing about.
Ps 35:12 They repay me evil for good and leave my soul forlorn.
Ps 35:13 Yet when they were ill, I put on sackcloth and humbled myself with fasting. When my prayers returned to me unanswered,
Ps 35:14 I went about mourning as though for my friend or brother. I bowed my head in grief as though weeping for my mother.
Ps 109:11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
"... invective has its own rhetoric, in which horror may be piled on horror to express the speaker's sense of outrage than to spell out the penalties he literally intends.
Jer 20:15 Cursed be the man who brought tidings to my father, saying, A man child is born unto thee; making him very glad.
Jer 20:16 And let that man be as the cities which the LORD overthrew, and repented not: and let him hear the cry in the morning, and the shouting at noontide;
Jer 20:17 Because he slew me not from the womb; or that my mother might have been my grave, and her womb to be always great with me.
"This can be seen quite clearly in the curse which Jeremiah elaborated with savage eloquence against the man who brought his father congratulations on his birth instead of murdering the pregnant mother. This immoderate language [according to modern Western culture] has an air of irresponsibility which cries out for criticism, yet it would be a mistake to wish it away. It has a valid a function in this kind of context as hyperbole has in the realm of description: a vividness of communication which is beyond the reach of cautious literalism" (Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72, TOTC, pp.41-42).
Ps 109:17 As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him.
"We should not forget that behind the emotive language lies an appeal to God for justice to be done" (Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150, WBC, p.107).
Ps 109:16 Because that he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.
"Christians should seek to understand the psalmist and respect the validity of his position within the framework of OT and indeed biblical faith and also to hear his protests as a call for compassion when others are abused and victimized" (Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150, WBC, pp.106-07).
There is "the occasional equivalent of cursing in the New Testament...
.. there present at all in the New Testament confirms its continuity with the Old" (Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72, TOTC, p.46).
1 Co 16:22 If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come! (ESV).
"Paul pronounces a curse on those who do not love the Lord... The term cursed (anathema) here refers to final destruction and condemnation (cf. Rom 9:3; Gal 1:8-9). The word has its roots in the Old Testament word ‘destruction' (herem) which refers to something devoted to God (e.g. Lev 27:28-29; Num 18:14; Deut 7:26). For instance, those who sacrificed to other gods were devoted to destruction (Exod 22:20). The cities within the land of promise were devoted to destruction and wiped out entirely (e.g., Num 21:2-3; Josh 6:17). Therefore, irrevocable punishment will be meted out to those who do not love the Lord" (Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians, TOTC, pp.335-36).
2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
"In effect Paul simply appeals to God's justice found in the Old testament in the lex talionis, the laws of just retribution. Thus God's just" dealings in this case are expressed in terms of what the Thessalonian believers have been experiencing - thlipsis ("affliction"), which is what God will eventually mete out on their persecutors" (Gordon D. Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, NICNT, p.255).
"Just as it is true that it is a righteous thing with God to bring salvation and blessing in his kingdom, so it is a righteous thing with him to bring punishment to those who persist in courses of evil. This is sometimes thought to be so un-Christian that the hypothesis of interpolation has been resorted to.... If it is true that the New Testament speaks much of the love and mercy of God, it is also true that it does not gloss over the serious nature of moral issues. Our Lord spoke plainly of the fate of those who persist in ways of sin and impenitence (Mark 9:47-48; Luke 13:3, 5, etc.). Those who followed after did not slur over this truth. They said plainly that the evildoer can look for nothing but the continuing wrath of God (Rom 1:18ff.). Often retribution is pictured as overtaking people in the world to come, but not a few passages indicate that it may operate here and now (e.g., Rom 1:24, 26, 28). This verse ought not then to be dismissed as unChristian, but recognized as giving expression to a well-defined strand of New Testament teaching (even if is unpalatable to many modern people). We should not miss the point that there are differing aspects of the Lord's coming. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 he will come to gather his people; here his coming is also a coming for judgment" (Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Revised, NICNT, pp.199-200).
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
NT application of the Psalm
Ac 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take.
Ps 69:25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.
Ps 109:8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
"As if to make up for its detractors, Ps 109 received the supreme accolade of being interpreted as a mirror of Christ's sufferings. Behind its use in Acts 1:20 lies an understanding of the psalm, as in the other case of other psalms of suffering, whereby it found its loudest echo in the experience of Jesus. From this perspective Judas became the fitting heir of its curse, as history's archetype of wanton infidelity. V 8 is applied to Judas as warrant for posthumous forfeiture of his apostleship to a successor" (Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150, WBC, p.107).
Anonymous 1/12 @ 1:09/1:10,
Your comments are a good summary and expansion of the points Bill Watson made in his now infamous sermon. Like him, you referenced the imprecatory psalms to buttress your argument in favor of Christian cursing (which Vance clearly refutes). You attempt a gotcha moment against Vance's statement that the psalmist in 109 has clearly not expressed love/compassion for his enemy by quoting other Psalms (24-25) where the psalmist has prayed for his enemy (seems a little disingenuous and/or manipulative). Likewise, you quote where the psalmist has attributed to God the emotion of hatred for all workers of iniquity (you should know that all such attributions do NOT necessarily reflect reality; and, in this case, there are numerous other scriptures which suggest otherwise).
You likewise attempt to use the psalms to attack the concept of "hate the sin but love the sinner." Once again, you are accepting the psalmist's characterization of God. However, if God truly is the epitome of love, the possibility of his hatred for any of his creatures is precluded. Most of the folks who post here have been exposed to the Armstrongist definition of "love" and have rejected it for its internal inconsistencies, contradiction of other related scriptures, and the cognitive dissonance it generates. In short, it IS the behavior which God hates, not the individual.
From there, you proceed through more of the Psalms (and add a few verses from Jeremiah) to buttress your claim that calling down curses is completely appropriate for God's people. Of course, once again, completely absent from any of these references to Old Covenant cursing is Christ's perspective on the subject. Hence, even if one accepts the validity of offering imprecations under the terms of the Old Covenant (which I would reject), one must confront Christ's clear statements already cited by myself and Vance that imprecations are inappropriate under the terms of the New Covenant!
You then proceed to offer several statements made by the Apostle Paul as proof that imprecations by Christians are appropriate. I would say that "let him be anathema/accursed" is really an appeal for that person to be set aside or devoted to the Lord and his justice. In other words, let him stand before God and answer for what he has done. It is NOT the equivalent of asking God to zap the person. I have said myself that there is nothing wrong with asking God to frustrate or nullify someone's evil behavior/activities, OR even asking God to deal with them. This is very different from asking God to strike them with a plague or dash their baby's brains out against a stone! Once again, justice, rewards, punishments are strictly within God's purview - not ours!
Finally, you offer the quotation of two Psalms in Acts 1:20 as proof that imprecations are appropriate for Christians. Look at the context! What is being discussed in this passage? Aren't they employing these Psalms in the capacity of prophecies to explain and deal with what had just transpired with Judas, and the vacancy which his suicide had created? In other words, they are interpreting these old imprecations as allowing them to move beyond the sorrow of those events and replace that which was lost - not as a curse, but as a blessing!
Let's face it. There's a scripture and explanation for just about anything one wants to do or not do
“Finally, you offer the quotation of two Psalms in Acts 1:20 as proof that imprecations are appropriate for Christians. Look at the context!”
I am amazed - you read a lot into my post. My post was not about "being in favor" providing "proof" for Christian cursing.
My argument was a defense of ancient-Near Eastern culture when it doesn’t meet the expectations, values and ideals of modern Western critics and expositors.
“He obviously did not have love of his enemy in his heart when he composed these words”.
I think that this is unfair to the psalmist when considering the context of this and other psalms and ancient Near-Eastern culture.
“Once again, justice, rewards, punishments are strictly within God's purview - not ours!”
Isa 14:22a “I WILL CUT OFF from Babylon her name and survivors, HER OFFSPRING AND DESCENDANTS,” DECLARES THE LORD.
I am not arguing against this nor do the imprecatory psalmists.
“God hates the sin, but loves the sinner”
1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
“I am not for a moment suggesting there is no truth at all in the cliché….
“Even so, after all caveats have been entered, the distance between our perception of where the problem lies and the perceptions of the biblical writers is one of the most sobering considerations for those who take the Bible seriously. It is one more indication that we have given ourselves to thinking great thoughts about human beings and small thoughts about God” (D.A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil).
“Where does this leave the modern cliché that "God hates the sin but loves the sinner"? Like most clichés it is a half-truth... In what sense, then, is the cliché true? It is to be understood not as limiting the objects of God's displeasure to sinful actions but as affirming God's grace. God loves sinners, not in the sense that he does not hate them along with their sin, but in the sense that he seeks their salvation in Christ. While his attitude to sinners as sinners is antagonism and wrath, his good will toward them actively seeks their conversion and forgiveness.
“But does the Bible ever talk of God actually hating people? Mostly it speaks of God hating evil deeds (e.g., Deut. 12:31; Provo 6:16-19; Isa. 61:8; Amos 6:8; Rev. 2:6), but there are seven passages that speak of his hatred for people... Finally, God twice states that he hates Israel (Jer. 12:8; Hos. 9:15). Clearly these last affirmations do not preclude God's love for Israel, as is proclaimed especially by Hosea. Perhaps we would remain closest to the emphasis of the Bible if we spoke of God's hatred of sin and his wrath against sinners, though we cannot exclude talk of God's wrath against sin or his hatred of sinners. A new slogan might be "God hates the sin and is angry with the sinner" (Tony Lane, The Wrath of God as an aspect of the Love of God, uniontheology.org).
God hates the sinner in his sins but loves a sinner who turns from his sins.
BTW, I perhaps would be considered on the fringe of Armstrongism especially when I believe that “Heaven is the Reward of the Saints” and “The Crucifixion was on a Friday”.
Anonymous 1:09 wrote, ""hate the sin (sic) but not the sinner" - the cliche "is false on the face of it and should be abandoned."
If you abandon this, you abandon the Gospel. The NT let's us know that we are all sinners. What motivation then would God have to send his Son to die for us if he had a simple, unqualified hatred for all sinners - which means all humanity that ever was, is, or shall be? I think you need to reconsider your statement above. Look at the issue through the lens of the New Testament like V. Stinson did. You inadvertently shot yourself in the foot. Or, more accurately, you consigned yourself to hell.
I believe it is important to remember that when you read the Psalms you are reading someone's prayer. The words are spoken in passion and exigency. In the case of malediction, the supplicant for rhetorical reasons usurps the role of Judge - the supplicant specifies the punishment. This does not comport with Jesus' statement "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Maybe if we lived in a Godly theocracy, we might have to judge people. But Christians live dispersed in a world separated from God.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Dennis wrote, "There's a scripture and explanation for just about anything one wants to do or not do"
That's hyperbolic. The Christian movement would have no theological cohesion if that were the case. It is fissured here and there but it hangs together.
A reaction to Dennis Diehl's comment:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2022/01/a-scripture-for-whatever.html
12.44 PM
Dennis, then why do you come here and constantly quote the bible to us?
Why quote from a book you claim is nonsense?
The Psalms are so much more than 'reading someone's prayer' NEO.
Come on, 1:59! He's attempting to use the Bible as testimony against itself. You really didn't know that?
The is no 1:59 comment Anon 10:41
So much for literacy and coherence, 6:47. Count three comments above yours! The one about Uncle Den Den quoting the Bible.
Well you know all about coherence NOT !!
Post a Comment