God's eternal mercy

[johngc]

Ps 136:1-26, (KJV)
1 O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.

As I understand the term mercy, it refers to God's benevolence to those who do not deserve it.
I deserve to be condemned for my sin, but by God's mercy I am not. God has shown me mercy in saving me.
My query is this....
According to Psalm 136, God's mercy endures eternally. How does he show his mercy in the age to come ?
He will not be merciful to those in hell- granted; they are the objects of his wrath.
But what of those who are in heaven? We will be fully redeemed and sinless so can God really show mercy to us then?
I must admit I haven't really thought this through too well; i hope it's not verging on hersey!

[Brandan Kraft]

Good question Johng... I don't think this question is approaching heresy...

Here are my thoughts (correct me if I'm out in left field): When Christ suffered on the cross, He no doubt suffered infinite punishment for our sin - as we were deserving an eternal stay in hell... In a sense, you could say that was infinite mercy / infinite wrath but was also finite in that it was measured in three days. How could Jesus suffer an infinite amount of wrath in a finite amount of time thereby freeing the Father to extend infnite mercy to His elect???? Wow, that's a tough one.

Brandan

[Christ_†_Alone]

Well... here's a thought.

In Psalm 136:1, the phrase " for his mercy <02617> endureth for ever <05769>." is in actuality, only 2 words.

Those 2 words are, checed and owlam, respectively.

Checed is the Hebrew word for the term "for his mercy" and simply means, the mercy of God - His goodness, kindness, faithfulness.

Owlam is the Hebrew word used for the term "endureth forever" and means everlasting, evermore, for ever, continuous existence, eternity.

If translated another way - it could read to say:

"for His goodness is everlasting"
"for His kindness is eternal"
"for His faithfulness is forever"

You asked "But what of those who are in heaven? We will be fully redeemed and sinless so can God really show mercy to us then?"

Yes, He can - by being exactly what this verse says - good, kind, faithful, and merciful, forever - by never changing (as Scripture also says He never does), He will be showing us, the redeemed, His mercy, for all eternity.

There is great comfort in knowing our Father NEVER changes, that He is EVER faithful to always be, exactly who He is.

Just a few thoughts...

[johngc]

I don't have a lot of time to log on very often so I'll try to comment on the two replies that I have received.
Firstly with regard to the finite/infinite nature of Christ's sufferings- he suffered for a finite amount of time but then he is an infinite person, hence an infinite punishment for sin is achieved. The other option is to punish a finite person for an infinite time i.e that which happens when un unrepentant sinner experiences the wrath of God in hell.
For the algebraic minded consider the following :
Infinite person X Finite time = Infinite time X Finite person, in both cases God's justice is satisfied.
Christ_†_Alone writes:

Yes, He can - by being exactly what this verse says - good, kind, faithful, and merciful, forever - by never changing (as Scripture also says He never does), He will be showing us, the redeemed, His mercy, for all eternity.

I can see how God shows his goodness, kindness and faithfulness to us in heaven, but according to my understanding you can only show mercy to someone who is guilty and worthy of condemnation. In eternity are we still guilty and do we still deserve to be punished?

[Brandan Kraft]

Thanks johng for showing me the algebra

[disciple]

Originally posted by johngc
According to Psalm 136, God's mercy endures eternally. How does he show his mercy in the age to come ?

we must not limit mercy to the definition "not getting what we deserve". in addition, the word here can also be translated "lovingkindness" or "loyal love" or "faithful love". it is from the Hebrew CHECED which refers to covenant love or faithful covenant love. while the LXX (greek translation of the OT) has ELEOS which is normally translated into english as "mercy" we need to get away from thinking of mercy in such a limited way (i.e., as if it only means "not getting what we deserve"). the terms are much broader than this. mainly it is a "kindness or good will towards the miserable and the afflicted". so i believe that yes indeed God's mercy and faithful covenant love indeed endure forever...even in the age to come.

[Robert R. Higby]

I agree on the definition of mercy. The Hebrew hesed is focused on the idea that God's grace is inexhaustible. It is not oriented around the notion of a pound-for-pound substitution of God's wrath in a substitute to stand in the place of what we deserve in our sin. Only that God indeed provides atonement (and whatever else is comprehended in eternal mercy).

This is not to deny, of course, that the atonement of Christ is substitutionary and in our stead. Christ suffered once, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. It is indeed the wrath of God poured out on him instead of us! But this need not be evaluated in terms of pound for pound substitution. The more important issue in the atonement is the glory of God manifested in providing a substitutionary righteousness, not the honor of God defended in satisfying the requirements of an exact measure of abstract eternal justice. God decided in his own sovereignty the price of salvation for the elect, determined to owe it to himself, then paid it personally in Christ. In our faith response, all we can do is celebrate the Hebrew tradition anew that the mercy of God is inexhaustible!

'Eternal law' philosophy is the basis of perpetual earthly law (the 10 commandments 'forever') philosophy. I believe that both are wrong.

In the spirit of the deceased chairman,

[Robert R. Higby]

Can we ever get back to very much in-depth biblical discussion of 'real' theology on this forum? The 'doctrinal damnation' focus of the last 6 months has diverted us from seeking a joyful knowledge of the truth, lest we prove ourselves damned for our former beliefs when we end up adjusting them. This is nonsense. Exile Hagar and her illegitimate son! Let's be filled with the Spirit, claim our liberation in the gospel again, and start seeking truth for the joy of knowing the 'meat' of Christ and his resurrection!

The prior post here is the very first that I ever posted in this forum. What about the atonement? Is Anselm's view of 'pound for pound' substitution, as essential to defending God's honor, the 'biblical view'? Hodge and others have challenged this. Reymond newly defended it in his recent Systematic Theology. What do you all think?

[Brandan Kraft]

Can we ever get back to very much in-depth biblical discussion of 'real' theology on this forum? The 'doctrinal damnation' focus of the last 6 months has diverted us from seeking a joyful knowledge of the truth, lest we prove ourselves damned for our former beliefs when we end up adjusting them. This is nonsense. Exile Hagar and her illegitimate son!

Agreed Bob. I'm quite tired of discussing what doctrines are "essential" to be saved. If you notice this board has died down a lot and I think this is the sole reason. However, I'm glad we went through that phase because if the topic ever comes up again we can say..."Pppht. Been there done that."

[disciple]

Can we ever get back to very much in-depth biblical discussion of 'real' theology on this forum? The 'doctrinal damnation' focus of the last 6 months has diverted us from seeking a joyful knowledge of the truth, lest we prove ourselves damned for our former beliefs when we end up adjusting them. This is nonsense. Exile Hagar and her illegitimate son! Let's be filled with the Spirit, claim our liberation in the gospel again, and start seeking truth for the joy of knowing the 'meat' of Christ and his resurrection!

you took the words right out of my mouth. i am tiring of the hyper-calvinistic rancor that has been infecting our forums. it seems that the only interest in these threads is promoting agendas and not discussing and dialoguing. it is definitely time to move on.

The prior post here is the very first that I ever posted in this forum. What about the atonement? Is Anselm's view of 'pound for pound' substitution, as essential to defending God's honor, the 'biblical view'? Hodge and others have challenged this. Reymond newly defended it in his recent Systematic Theology. What do you all think?

i don't believe so. i don't know any text that requires such an understanding of the atonement. i believe anslem's theory of the atonement has admirable qualities to it (i.e., that the King has been offended and requires satisfaction and the wrongs need to be righted, etc.), but i don't know that it is necessary view it so mathematically. i believe He took our place and that God has been satisfied. going into the details of how exactly He was satisfied for each and every individual sin is unecessary in my opinion. a good text of discussion regarding this is Romans 3:24-26:

Rom 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (NAS)

Rom 3:24 But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. 26 This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness. (NET)

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks for your response, Doug. This is definitely a first step in 'setting the stage' for a debate on the issue.

As a background, we must certainly remember all of the false atonement views. The Patristics taught that Christ paid a ransom to the devil. Abelard taught that Christ died as a 'moral influence' toward experiential redemption. Others have taught a 'governmental' view proposing that the purpose of the atonement was merely to demonstrate that God is fair.

Anselm, the Roman Catholics following him (Aquinas, etc.), and the Protestants taught that Christ made atonement to satisfy the justice of God, as a substitute for the sinner. So on this point we have agreement.

Nonetheless, Anselm introduced elements that were unknown in the prior history of dogma: those that had to do with a theory of abstract eternal law and justice. The notion that the primary element involved in atonement is the vindication of God's HONOR as infinite God offended by finite beings: where is that in scripture? The theory led to all of these dogmatic propositions:

1. The sin of Adam--a finite being, in offending an infinite God, deserves a worse punishment than that of any other created being who would destroy the entire created universe (many worlds!).

2. Mankind must be punished with infinite suffering because he offended the honor of an infinite God. So his punishment must be 'without measure and without end.'

3. The atonement of Christ had to be the equivalent of infinite suffering in order to save those who committed infinite sin. Christ, the infinite God in the person of the divine Son, suffered an infinite separation from the infinite person of God the Father thus constituting an infinite punishment. The essence of the atonment is deity infinitely separated from deity.

4. Only infinite suffering experienced by God alone could have substituted for the infinite suffering ('without measure and without end') of a creature in eternity future due to the infinite disgrace of God's honor.

So where is all this in scripture? Since most Protestant theologians agree with all this, it is certainly a fair question to ask.

[wildboar]

Strangely, it seems that Time Magazine discussed this in a recent issue. The Standard Bearer quoted parts of it and it can be read here: http://www.prca.org/standard_bearer/...%20Around%20Us:

[Robert R. Higby]

This article raises some extremely important points as an introduction to the issue--but fails to adequately distinguish the view of Anselm/Aquinan Catholics/Protestants on substitution from Paul's view of substitution. The two have a point of similarity (affirming Christ's satisfaction of God's justice) but are infinitely different on the implications of the reality of that penal satisfaction. That is the issue facing us.

[disciple]

This article raises some extremely important points as an introduction to the issue--but fails to adequately distinguish the view of Anselm/Aquinan Catholics/Protestants on substitution from Paul's view of substitution. The two have a point of similarity (affirming Christ's satisfaction of God's justice) but are infinitely different on the implications of the reality of that penal satisfaction. That is the issue facing us.

a somewhat related discussion has been going on at a thread at www.unchainedradio.com forums. a covenant theologian is basically saying that NCT adherents will fall prey to the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) because of their rejection of covenant theology. here's what he says:

By denying the covenant of works (and covenant of redemption) NCT denies a strict legality of merit for both Adam and Jesus Christ (though they inconsistently speak of Christ in different manners). I believe that without understanding merit, specifically God being in debt to Adam and Christ upon completion of the two covenants, one will inevitably be unable to uphold the imputation of Christ's righteousness...It all begins with Adam in the garden and the covenant of works. If one regretfully denies the concept of merit for the first Adam, there is NO basis for the concept of merit with the Last Adam, and us in justification...Reisinger may be right in stating that the covenant of works is the premise of covenant theology, but it is also the only biblical, logical, and consitant premise for justification. Anyone who denies the covenant of works cannot honestly and logically argue for imputation in justification.

thoughts?

[Brandan Kraft]

I've met a good many NCT people that have been sucked into the NPP, and to a degree, I agree with this individual. But only to a degree - and this is coming from one who denies the "covenant of works" as commonly understood in the Reformed community.

When I use the phrase "covenant of works", I'm referring to the law / works covenant given by Moses at Sinai. When I use the phrase "covenant of Grace", I'm referring to the "covenant of redemption" or the "new covenant".

When I as one who holds to NCT deny the covenant of works, I'm not denying a law / gospel antithesis. Without Christ, we're under the law for righteousness. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.

Rom 10:4, (KJV), For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Of course, it would be impossible for any of us to earn our righteousness. We are completely incapable of living up to the law. But even if we did, we still have our past sins which Christ had to atone for.

Adam did not have to break a covenant of works for sin to be imputed to his posterity. He disobeyed God and because of that he plunged all of his posterity into sin.

If we remove the law/gospel antithesis however, I can certainly see how men are sucked into the NPP. And unfortunately, there are many in the NCT camp that don't believe or don't teach this vital doctrine. Without this vital teaching, destructive doctrines like the NPP take hold in order to fill the gaping hole left in these mens' theologies.

BTW, don't get me started on Gene Cook! He's great against hyper-preterism, but man oh man, his latest stuff on hyper-calvinism is a travesty!

[disciple]

I've met a good many NCT people that have been sucked into the NPP, and to a degree, I agree with this individual...If we remove the law/gospel antithesis however, I can certainly see how men are sucked into the NPP. And unfortunately, there are many in the NCT camp that don't believe or don't teach this vital doctrine. Without this vital teaching, destructive doctrines like the NPP take hold in order to fill the gaping hole in these men's theology.

that is interesting to me. it suprised me very much when i heard this gentleman say it, but i didn't think this had any basis. as i understand it, NCT and NPP are antithetical and mutually exclusive. NPP is roman catholicism minus some stuff in my opinion. as i see it, in regards to the issue of continuity and discontinuity in the covenants there is a continuum with roman catholicism on one extreme and dispensationalism on the other. from left to right is roman catholicism, NPP, CT, lutheranism, reformed baptist, NCT, progressive disp, disp. this is a very crude comparison but this is how i see it (though i don't really know where to put lutheranism as i don't know how developed their view of this issue is). do you have any specific examples of people who have went from NCT to NPP? i have actually never met a NPP in real life.

BTW, don't get me started on Gene Cook! He's great against hyper-preterism, but man oh man, his latest stuff on hyper-calvinism is a travesty!

yes i've been listening to the latest series. it is quite interesting. i would be interesting for him to have a guest who is a supposed hyper-calvinist. i would think many here would qualify to be this guest in his estimation. i also found it interesting that his guest mentioned marc carpenter (outside the camp). i found it humerous that he stated that the carpenterites (though he didn't call them that) were actually the ones who were "outside-the-camp."

[Brandan Kraft]

that is interesting to me. it suprised me very much when i heard this gentleman say it, but i didn't think this had any basis. as i understand it, NCT and NPP are antithetical and mutually exclusive. NPP is roman catholicism minus some stuff in my opinion. as i see it, in regards to the issue of continuity and discontinuity in the covenants there is a continuum with roman catholicism on one extreme and dispensationalism on the other. from left to right is roman catholicism, NPP, CT, lutheranism, reformed baptist, NCT, progressive disp, disp. this is a very crude comparison but this is how i see it (though i don't really know where to put lutheranism as i don't know how developed their view of this issue is). do you have any specific examples of people who have went from NCT to NPP? i have actually never met a NPP in real life.

Well one guy I met through the telephone and e-mail last year in Toronto was claiming to be NCT. When I asked him about the NPP, he started to defend it and was angry at me for calling it heresy! It completely caught me off guard. Dr. Garlington was propagating the NPP from Toronto Baptist Seminary before the seminary fired him. This man is very close to Garlington, and I found him through the solochristo.com church directory. And as you might know, many people who attend or have attended TBS are NCT. Several of them fell prey to Garlington's teachings. Reisinger I believe still makes it up to TBS often to teach.

To be honest with you Doug, I think Reisinger, Zens, and all the leading NCT people are FAILING the NCT community by failing to clearly teach justification by faith. They are properly teaching the covenants, to which I'm grateful, but that's about all they're doing I'm afraid. The Gospel is very dim in the NCT camp.

Don Fortner and the churches he is affiliated with is pretty much NCT but majors on the Gospel. This is the direction I would like to see the NCT camp take - get the Gospel right - proclaim it loudly, strong, and with boldness. I believe this is truly the major issue of the day. Whether one picks up the mosaic law as a "rule of living" or not is not nearly as important as the Gospel.

yes i've been listening to the latest series. it is quite interesting. i would be interesting for him to get a guest on who is a supposed hyper-calvinist. i would think many here would qualify in his estimation. i also found it interesting that his guest mentioned marc carpenter (outside the camp). i found it humerous that he stated that the carpenterites (though he didn't call them that) were actually the ones who were "outside-the-camp."

Oh, yes, according to Gene, I'm the worst "hyper-calvinist" around! According to him, I'm an antinomian, and a hyper-calvie because I deny common grace, God's universal love for all men, free-offer, duty-faith and I affirm eternal justification and "double" predestination - LOL. And as far as the carpenterites - they're not hyper-calvinists either. Their theology of "judging" is what bothers me - not their stance on common grace or well-meant offer.

[Brandan Kraft]

Here is a church that is NPP and NCT.

Mount Pleasant Road Baptist Church
http://www3.sympatico.ca/mprbc/

[disciple]

Here is a church that is NPP and NCT.

Mount Pleasant Road Baptist Church
http://www3.sympatico.ca/mprbc/

where do you see that they are NPP?

[Brandan Kraft]

where do you see that they are NPP?

They don't say it anywhere on the site. I only found out by asking the pastor what he thought about the NPP. When I asked him what he thought about it, I didn't use the phrase "NPP", but the phrase, "New Perspective on Justification", and he BIT MY HEAD OFF and proceeded to say justification is by FAITH ALONE AND WORKS! He also claimed to be close friends with Garlington. I kid you not!

Brandan