Sergey Hudiev

Assurance of salvation

THE PUNISHMENT FOR SIN IS DEATH

The Holy Scriptures constantly speak of the fact that people are held responsibility for their behavior; man is a morally responsible being– otherwise he would not be a man. God proclaims his Law and lays upon man the responsibility to fulfill it.

鉄ee, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you listen to the commandments of the Lord your God, which I am commanding you today; and the curse, if you do not listen to the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I am commanding you today, (Deuteronomy 11:26-28)

Here, I think, it will be appropriate to examine a few difficulties which may arise in regard to the question of how the enslavement of man through sin corresponds with his free will and moral responsibility. God treats man as a morally responsible creature. This presupposes that man has a real choice. For otherwise what purpose would there be in saying to man to "choose life", if in principle he could not do so? For what in general can one answer who has lost his freedom? These are perplexities that give rise to confusion among the various understandings of freedom. In our common understanding of freedom– this means the possibility to do that which we desire or want to do. Such freedom as this is never lost by man–it is limited by our weakness and mortality but is not lost. The Biblical concept of freedom is the freedom to desire that which is pleasing to God and which conforms to true goodness and the destination of man–freedom from sin, freedom for righteousness (see for example Rom. 6:20-22). This freedom was lost in the Fall through Adam. Fallen man indeed does that which he wants--- however, that which he desires is that which is not pleasing to God and is actually destructive for him. I will set forth the following example: the vocal cords of a blasphemer are arranged exactly the same as the vocal cords of a the most reverent person of prayer. There are not any outer obstacles which would hinder the one man to cease blaspheming and to begin to pray. Rather, he blasphemes because he himself wants to do so Page 2

and he himself is free to so choose. When fallen man sins, he is doing exactly what he wants to do. He has the freedom to choose, but he always chooses what is wrong. He could chose life if that is what he wanted, but without the grace of God he is not able to want or desire to do so. Enslavement by sin–this is an outer constraint, but rather an inward depravity in which the sinner himself "practices every kind of impurity with greediness" (Eph. 4:19). Moreover, i , he considers each one who tries to limit him in his sin–be it God or his neighbor,–a mortal enemy who encroaches upon his freedom. Since in this event man acts freely and willingly, without any outward coercion, he carries full responsibility for his actions, a responsibility which the law places upon him. The Law of God is not some kind of collection of arbitrary demands which one could, for practical considerations, look over. The moral law reflects the holiness of God and His demands of holiness in relation to His creatures who should reflect His glory: because it is written, —You shall be holy, for I am holy. (1 Peter 1:16) We cannot demand God to make "an allowance" in view of our fallen nature; it is absurd to expect that God to pervert His justice in order to adjust to our inclinations. —The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He. —They have acted corruptly toward Him, They are not His children, because of their defect; But are a perverse and crooked generation. (Deut. 32:4-5) We may misinterpret ourselves, but God does not for He remains always: justified when [He] speaks And blameless when [He] judges(Ps. 51:4) The Apostle Paul says that sin makes us not merely unhappy but namely guilty: Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; (Romans 3:19) There is not one person who can escape the responsibility for his actions: And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, (Hebrews 9:27) Page 3

who will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. (Romans 2:6-10) We all will stand before the judgment. Just as the enemy deceived our first parents, saying "no, you will not die" (Gen. 3:4), he deceives also people today, saying that judgment and the penalties for sin do not exist. So it was in the times of Jeremiah when people with irritation apprehended every reminder of God's judgment regarding sin (Jer. 26:11); and then also they willingly listened to false prophets who said, "peace will be yours" (Jer. 14:13-16). Sometimes I am given opportunity to talk with people who with great indignation deny the idea that God can judge and reject someone. To people this seems almost blasphemous. Their indignation appears to be so lofty and noble that one would want to join them. However, I cannot join them when I understand against Whom in reality they are so nobly indignant with. For none other than the Lord Jesus Himself, who Himself is the God of love Who came in the flesh, very strongly warned people of the reality of eternal condemnation:

的f your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] 的f your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] 的f your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. (Mark 9:43- 48)

典he Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.(Matthew 13:41-42)

典hen He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; (Matthew 25:41)

But really could God not simply forgive sinners? No, he cannot. Is there really something that is impossible for God? For God there is Page 4

nothing that impossible in the physical sense–He can create worlds, perform miracles and in general do all that he desires. But there are moral impossibilities in relation to God. For example, God cannot lie (Heb. 6:18), nor can he deny himself (2 Tim. 2:13). When we say that such a person could not, for example, steal–we do not mean that it is impossible for him to do so for in relation to such an action he is restricted. What we mean is that he never acts in such a way. God cannot accept, justify, or ignore sin. This is not as a result of the limitation of His abilities but rather it is the result of His moral holiness. For He has loved righteousness and hated wickedness (Psalm 45:7), and likewise He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. (Proverbs 17:15)

Although the Scriptures speak of God's wrath upon every impurity and unrighteousness, it is extremely apparent that this idea in itself is often arouses emotional difficulites. Sometimes people say–"I do not believe in a wrathful, punishing God; I believe in a God of love." We can recall that for the prophets, apostles and even the Lord Himself that God is revealed as both a God of love and a God of judgment. They testify to us of God's grace and severity and there is not found in this any contradiction whatsoever. The difficulty with the perception of God's wrath is that it is connected with the way in which we are inclined to interpret it by analogy with man's wrath, which "worketh not the righteousness of God" (James 1:20;KJV). For us, wrath is a violent, destructive, and for the most part, an inadequate emotional reaction. In general we usually regret that we do and say in wrath. Even when we justly are filled with indignation by something that is truly a bad thing, our indignation is inevitably entangled with our own sinfulness, fears, complexes, wounded pride, and desires to defy our neighbor and appear greater than he.Nevertheless, sometimes even for us wrath is a more sound and righteous reaction, than a passionless imperturbability. Such impassivity is more characteristic of Eastern mysticism than of Christianity and can signify an absence of compassion for the sacrifices which others have made and suffered for and a neglect for the righteousness of God which is being scorned. The prophets were sometimes violently filled with indignation at the idolatry, cruelty and injustice in the world. The Apostle Paul writes with open indignation regarding the Galatian false teachers Page 5

The wrath of God (in contrast with ours) is pure–there is nothing about it that is bad, sinful or incorrect. It is not an emotional outburst of a man who has lost control of himself, but rather a pure and holy indignation in the presence of evil. The evil which is perpetrated in the world questions the goodness of God. It is easy to make the conclusion that if God allows such evil to occur, then either He is not good or He does not exist at all. This is true not only in relation to various kinds of grand atrocities but also in relation to every manifestation of moral evil. When I sin, I announce before the entire universe (including people, angels and demons) that the Creator of the world is not good–I perform evil, and He does not impede me. Moreover, when I sin I am using for evil powers, opportunities and my very existence itself (that which I moment by moment receive from God) and in such a way announce Him not only as tolerating evil but also as one who supports evil. If God were simply to renounce the punishment in relation to sin, then all of this reviling would prove to be true. A God who would not manifest complete denunciation in regard to moral evil, would not be a good God. In the day of judgment, all will be convinced that God is good; however, I fear that not all will rejoice in this (Rev. 6:16-17). God's love toward the world, which was created by Him, necessarily presupposes His extreme and severe displeasure of that defiles, destroys and mutilates this world. If God did not manifest his wrath in regard to sin, such an act would not be a manifestation of love, but rather it would be a manifestation of horrible indifference. One other possible reason for the rejection of the words of Scripture regarding the wrath of God is that we are inclined to underestimate to seriousness of our sin. It seems to us that we apparently have not deserved such a harsh reaction and that supposedly God's wrath is unjust or excessive." We only・nd He threatens us with eternal damnation." Yet we will never understand the depths of God's mercy if we refuse to realize, that we are really worthy of God's wrath. Wrath–is a completely sound, worthy, and righteous reaction to our sins. When we begin to grow in understanding of our the truth and begin to have an aversion for sin (as we should have an aversion for it)–then we willingly agree with God in His categorical rejection of sin. For an understanding of the Biblical picture of salvation it seems to me extremely important to emphasize that the destruction of sinners is not the result of some kind of impersonal, "natural effects," but rather it is a manifestation of the judgment of God and His wrath in relation to sin: According to their deeds, so He will repay, Wrath to His adversaries, recompense to His enemies; To the coastlands He will make recompense. (Isaiah 59:18)

年ow the end is upon you, and I will send My anger against you; I will judge you according to your ways and bring all your abominations upon you. (Ezekiel 7:3) See also 2 Thess. 1:8. The Lord Jesus rescues us in the first place from future wrath (Rom. 5:8; 1 Thess. 1:9). Sometimes people say that legal terminology and the idea of God a Judge is alien to Eastern Orthodoxy and that sin is not viewed"a crime that is subject to judgment" (Job 31:11), but rather sin is a disease which leads to eternal death–a disease for which Christ has given us the medicine in the form of a mystery. Salvation in this case is interpreted within the bounds of the so-called "organic theory" (This theory will not be expounded in detail here). Of course, striving to understand the meaning of revelation and to explain it to others, we cannot manage without the construction of theories and the utilization of one or another system of forms. Here, however, one must be on the watch for the danger of making our theories absolutes and unwittingly substituting these in place of God's Word. The following retort speaks against making as an absolute the "organic theory" as the "only view of the Orthodox" In the Bible, which one would hardly refer to as "alien to Eastern Orthodoxy"–God constantly speaks of Himself as a Judge and of His actions as actions of a Judge (ex: Ps. 7:12; 75:8; 94:2; Matt. 25:31-46 etc.). Likewise, the judgment of God is constantly mentioned in the word of the Church prayers. Within the limits of the concept of sin as a disease, many important and perhaps central features to an absolute proclamation such as God's judgment and wrath in relation to sin, substitutionary atonement, the forgiveness of sins and the justification of the believer in Christ before the judgment seat of God are becoming completely obscured. Indeed, forgiveness of sins in Christ was the first thing that the Apostles proclaimed (Acts 2:38, 5:31, 10:34, 13:38, 26:18); however this proclamation becomes simply nonsense if sin is considered a mere disease or illness. One cannot "forgive a disease." One can only forgive "guilt, a crime, or sin (Ex. 34:7) but it is impossible to forgive an illness. Likewise, the justification before the judgment seat of God which the Apostles preached (ex. Acts 13:39) also loses it's meaning–for what benefit do I gain from a verdict of "not guilty" if I am perishing not according to my condemnation but rather from a disease?

 This theory can led to the denial of the sovereignty of God and His power to save believers. Indeed if unrepentant sinners perish as the result of some kind of "natural effects," and God has nothing to do with this, then it would demonstrate that in the universe some kind of powers are at work Page 7

over which God has no power. If this is so, then these powers are fully able to impede God from carrying out his plans. Thus, we could not rely upon God and believe in His Word–for it could come to pass that could not fulfill His Word. Worse than this it would turn out that God lied when He gave His promises. If God does not have authority over all "natural effects" (the Scripture clearly says that God does have such authority as seen in Lam. 3:37-38; Isa. 14:24; 46:9-11), then we are no longer dealing with "organic effects" but rather with God's judgment. In this theory there is a risk of losing the understanding of moral responsibility. If I am "more unhappy than guilty", if sin is not a crime, but merely a disease, then for what reason would I, such a "poor victim" be threatened with Gehenna? A sick man is not guilty because he is sick. I can only agree with C.S. Lewis: It is corrupt to torment a man if he is undeserving of such. If the final death of the wicked does not carry the character of moral recompense, then why in the world would God allow it? The sufferings which people endure on this earth can be intended for correction (Heb. 12:4-9) or for spiritual growth (1 Pet. 4:12-13), but regarding "eternal torture"–one cannot say the same. The "organic theory" can promote the perception of a sinner as that of "a sick person" (and one who has medical records to prove it) upon which it would be foolish and cruel to place some kind of responsibility. One of the main barriers with which one must conflict is the denial of man to acknowledge responsibility for his life and actions. The unbeliever–not always of course, but quite often–is inclined to look upon himself as , and the "organic theory" may support such a view. If you follow the most extreme example , then this resembles the situation which American films love to utilize: some kind of villain slaughters 20 people and then says, "it is not possible to punish me for I am mentally ill." The Scriptures on the contrary destroy such evasions and place upon the person full responsibility for his actions.

—I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds. (Jeremiah 17:10) Thus, if we turn to the Scriptures, then we will see that the destruction of the wicked is ascribed namely to the judgment and wrath of God and this judgment and wrath is described as an active and personal action of the moral Judge of the universe who renders to morally responsible creatures "according to their deeds" (Isa. 13:11; Jer. 7:8; 2 Thess. 1:6; Matt. 25:41). Evil people suffer punishment not as the result of "natural effects" but because they morally speaking, "deserve it" (Rev. 16:6). All this sounds Page 8

severe, yet this is the necessary condition of our hope. If God's wrath threatens us, then we may find a trustworthy refuge in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. However, if "natural effects" threaten us–from which we ought to save ourselves by our own powers, then our hope becomes unstable. Thus, attempts to invent for oneself a "milder" God than the God of the Bible leads not to comfort but rather to despair. So a readiness to submit to the Word of God when it seems to us unpleasant and strict leads to great comfort–comfort of which we will discuss in the next chapter.

 Page 9