Featured Which view really exalts man?

It would do you good first not to assume just because you are to lazy to substantiate your view with scripture and second to provide scripture for your crazy view since you posted it.

 

To say they are suffering in hell for the rest of eternity for their sin suggests that nothing was provided to atone for their sin, but it was. So, though it may seem to be a difference without much of a distinction, I believe they are suffering in hell for their unbelief alone.

"They perish because they refused to accept the truth and so be saved." - Paul

Their sin may be why they stood condemned to begin with, but after the cross that impediment is removed. The only thing that stands between them and heaven is faith.

 

No, it doesn't suggest that at all. There is an infinite sacrifice made by Jesus on the cross. The atonement is only effective to believers.

No, because of their unbelief, they are having to pay for their sins. unbelief is a sin and was paid for on the cross.

And they still are condemned because of their sin. Why are they still condemned because of their sin? Because of unbelief. What is being said is that Christ paid fully and applied fully every sin. If that were true, none would be in hell because unbelief would have also been paid for. This is not taught in Scripture.

 

webdog, it would be nice to see you defend your position with Scripture. I haven't seen it yet. Maybe I missed it, but I've yet to see you defend your position.

Just as a reminder...

 

I'm still waiting for your Scripture to backup your OP.

 

In this passage here, you see David prophesying about Jesus, and what He was to do.


Psalms 40:7-10

7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

9 I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest.

10 I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.


Now, let's break Hebrews 10(not all of it, but about half of this chapter) down into segments to get to the heart of the matter:

Hebrews 10
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.


Here, Paul is showing that the Law could not eternally appease God's wrath concerning sin, because each year, He remembered them, and another sin sacrifice had to take place.


4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.


Here again, shows the shortcomings of the Law. The Law made no one, and I mean no one, saved. God had no pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin, because He remembered them from year to year.



7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.



Jesus came to do the will of His Father. The will of the Father was for Him to die for sinful mankind.


11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.




Again, Paul is showing that the daily ministering and offering was insuffiecient to appease God's wrath. Jesus, by His one offering, has perfected those who have been redeemed/bought back. The Law could never do this.





15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.



Jesus made a new covenant with us, and in this covenant, our sins, once they have been blotted out by the blood, will never be brought back before us. Under the Law, it was never this way.





Jesus was/is the only One who could ever appease God's wrath. God has no pleasure in seeing His creation suffer in torment. However, in His righteousness, sin can not, and will not go unpunished.


Eze. 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

 

It calls attention to the fruit of bad theology.If you read what was posted each point was wrong, because there is an effort to replace sound teaching with false ,inconsistent ideas that have been shown to be wrong.

It also allowed you to avoid answering questions,and responses you were given. Your responses seemed quite short and bitter especially to mandy....either you are tired, or the cat peed in your cornflakes:wavey:

You have started this idea that is foreign to scripture....people are answering,and asking questions.....not the ones you want, but answers nevertheless.....you are getting hostile take a deep breath...and compose yourself.....sum up a response to several ideas at the same time...a summary of what you are now asking...because most everyone thinks you have been answered....but you:thumbs:

 

We are talking past each other. On this point the end result for both of our views is the same, so really we are just discussing the REASON someone is perishing, which may be distinguished from what are the perishing for.

Christ’s death made provision for all sin (agreed?), yet only those who come to be in union with Christ partake of that provision. Thus, unbelief is atoned for, but only “in Christ.” The atonement is provided for all, while only believers will actually experience forgiveness on the condition of faith (which unites us with Christ and the benefits of His atonement). SEE this LINK for more>>>

So, we both affirm that unbelievers perish, but we seem to disagree as to why they perish. Some think their sins weren't atoned for (limited atonement), they weren't elected (loved by God - Unconditionally Elected), and though invited by God, were never able to willingly accept that appeal (Total Depravity/Irresistible Grace). But the Bible teaches they are atoned for,invited, chosen and loved by God, and thus able to choose to accept or reject God's genuine appeal.

Personally, I believe the wrath of God is satisfied at the cross. I don't believe God spends the rest of eternity pouring out wrath on the the non-elect, never gaining full satisfaction for their sin. I believe they perish for unbelief and are destroyed with Sin and the enemies of God.

 

Expiation emphasizes the removal of guilt through a payment of the penalty, while propitiation emphasizes the appeasement or averting of God's wrath. Would you agree?

 

If by this a sufficient payment has been made, but is only effective to those that are in Christ, I would agree. It wouldn't be just unbelief.


I disagree about the wrath of God based on John 3:36.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

 

That's a good point. I meant to distinguish wrath against lawlessness (sin) versus God's wrath against those who reject his provision of Grace.

To say, as John 3:36 says, that God's wrath remains on him, suggests that it may have been removed...an impossibility for the non-elect in your system. That is the problem with Calvinism's view of wrath. In your system it must be wrath for the original sin and breaking of God's law, because your system doesn't provide a means of escape for most of humanity from that wrath. In our system, however, all mankind is provided a means of escape, a hope of salvation, an atoning sacrifice, thus the wrath or judgement is not for breaking God's laws, but for rejecting Christ's words.

This is why Jesus said, 46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. 47 "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48 There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49 For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50 I know that his command leads to eternal life."

What condemns him on the final day?

 

Let's get the "system" stuff out. Let's just discuss the topic at hand. All the system stuff has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We both agree that man is a sinner and deserves punishment for his sin.

I agree that there is hope of salvation by a sufficient sacrifice of Jesus has been made and Jesus has promised to save all that come. The question is what is man being punished for in hell.

the wrath is because of breaking God's laws. That's exactly what John 3:36 says.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him"

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life"

We would have some agreeable premises here. Man is a sinner and because of his sin he deserves hell. John says here that "whoever believes in the Son has eternal life." So those that believe will not have to face the penalty of sin.

"but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him"

In contrast, whoever rejects(doesn't believe) will not see life(eternal life). It then goes on to say that the wrath of God remains on him. It was there before because of his sin and remains there.

both. All of it. not believing doesn't add but just continues the condemnation that was already coming. Because he doesn't believe, the wrath remains. Remember, John said in John 3 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." When a person doesn't believe(rejects) he is condemned already. He was under the penalty of condemnation before and after rejection.

Rev. 20:12 "the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works" And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Those that don't believe will be judged according to their works. Those that do believe will be presented faultless because he has the righteousness of Christ. Those that don't will have to suffer the wrath of God in eternity in hell. He will be judged according to his works because he hasn't believed.


Here's how I'm seeing the two sides.

man sinned
Jesus paid a sufficient and efficient sacrifice
man is no longer under condemnation
man rejects
man is recondemned for unbelief.

man sinned.
Jesus paid a sufficient sacrifice
man rejects
man stays under condemnation

 

Before we go further, what do you believe hell was created for? You said, 'Man is a sinner and because of his sin he deserves hell,' as if hell was made to be a place of punishment for man who sins. Is that what you believe?

 

I believe "Man is a sinner and because of his sin he deserves hell" I could rephrase it to deserves eternal punishment, which of course will take place in hell

Another passage about the final judgment and eternal punishment

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
(Matthew 25:31-33 ESV)

In the final judgment God will separate the believers(Sheep) from the unbelievers(goats).

The believers(Sheep) will inherit the kingdom.

Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
(Matthew 25:34 ESV)

the unbelievers(Goats) will receive eternal punishement
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
(Matthew 25:41, 46 ESV)

 

Matthew 25:41 tells us that Hell was prepared for the Devil and his angels. It was not by original plan and design for men and women--for human sinners. It was prepared for the Devil and his angels. The Lord Jesus tells us that Himself.

This speaks to the distinction between the idea of propitiation and expiation mentioned earlier. This has been a debate for centuries, and I admit has many nuances that really do appear to be differences without much if any distinction....which is why I'm *NOT* being overly dogmatic on this point. Wrath for immoral living verses wrath for unbelief is still wrath, and is eternally significant. My major point of contention with Calvinism, generally speaking, has more to do with 'limited atonement.' Dabney, a Calvinist, drew the distinction well when he wrote:

"Redemption is limited, i.e., to true believers, and is particular. Expiation is not limited." -Dabney