Are Ananias and Sapphira in heaven?

[D28guy]

same

Gekko,

"D28guy... it almost seems like you are saying that... once we become christians - we are secure and going to heaven."

There is probably nothing that I am more certain of than the absolutle security of the born again child of God.

"Most assuredly I say to you, he who hears my word, and believes in Him who sent me has eternal life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death unto life."

"Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has annointed us is God, who has also sealed us and given us the Holy Spirit as a gurantee"

"In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also, having believed, who were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarentee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possesion."

"And this is the testimony: That God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life, he who does not have the Son, does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God."

I could go and on and on and on and on.

"doesn't matter what we do - if we repent - the Lord will forgive us... we are going to heaven."

Whether we repent or not...we ARE forgiven, and we WILL go to heaven when we die.

If we walk in known willful sin there will be consequences. Nobody denies that. Natural consequences that come upon us, and also Gods discipline. But that only effects our life down here on earth, and also the loss of rewards when we stand at the "bhema" seat of judgment.(NOT the great white thrown judgement. We have no part of that one)

"and yet - no sin will be allowed in heaven."

And no sin WILL be in heaven. What does what we are talking about have to do with that?

Do you actually think that if someone here on earth who is born again, but who struggles with stealing, and then dies...do you actually think that when the find themself in the glory of heaven an instant after dying...do you actually think that they will immedietly start looking for something to steal?

C'mon.

"so are we to ask for forgiveness just before we die?"

We walk in Gods forgiveness every second that we live. Including the moment we die. When we seek Gods forgiviness down here its His parental forgiviness, not His judicial forgiviness. Gods judicial forgiviness...that which gets us into heaven...took place 2000 years ago on the cross.

"not that i think you're saying that.

I hope this posts clears things up for you.

"i see you saying that all our sins are forgiven - no need to worry about them now - because there is no condemnation to those that embrace Christ."

No need to worry about them now? I wouldnt say that. When I sin I wish I hadnt of, and I seek to always be growing in my relationship with Christ. I want for there to be less and less of me and more and more of Christ. All of us will be doing that for the rest of our natural lives.

But we who are born again certainly have no reason to worry about our eternal destination. It grieves me beyond comprehension when I see born again people wondering and fretting as to whether they will be "good" enough to "make it in" when they die, and hoping they "hold on" until the end.

What a tragic thing it is to have such little confidence in Gods ability to keep them.

if this is what you are saying - from what i've read this is what i see you are saying - if not. please correct me.

Again, I hope this clears things up for you.

God bless you,

Mike

 

[Brother Bob]

No liars in Heaven, matter of fact they have their part in the Lake!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: -He gave himself for us; He redeemed us; God made him to be sin for us; the Lord laid on Christ the iniquity of us all.
That last phrase is the most powerful of them all.

HP: Sure that is powerful. But again how does it support the literal payment theory? Forgive me, maybe I am just not getting the connection you see. Explain how any of these verses or any others demand that one come to the conclusion that there was a literal debt transaction taken place consistent with the literal payment theory?

DHK:Often times a governor has no good reason to give a pardon to a criminal except out of his own mercy and grace.

HP: If he has no good reason, he is an unjust and unfair governor that operates without regard to societies best interest. I would consider such a governor as wicked, not merciful or gracious.

DHK: God offers me forgiveness of sin only out of his mercy and grace. I, like a criminal before God have done nothing to deserve it. I don't deserve to go to heaven. What have I done to merit Heaven. Absolutely nothing, and in this lifetime could never ever do anything to merit eternal life. I don't deserve anything but the wrath of God.

HP: Who would not agree with this statement? The works God calls upon us to do are NOT meritorious in the least. Nothing we can or will do will merit our pardon. Just the same, there are some things we must do, NOT meritorious in nature, but without which we shall not see God; repentance, faith and obedience to the end. We are not saved on the account of any of these things, but neither will we be saved apart from them. They are mere conditions and are not the grounds of salvation.

There have been several good Scriptural examples posted by others depicting this clear distinction between grounds and conditions. Jesus healed by grace and mercy, without anyone ever meriting His favor. Just the same, He often required them to go wash, dip, etc. in order to receive their healing. Was their obedience meritorious, in that God was under necessity to heal them because they did something that ‘merited’ His healing, or were they healed in mercy and grace, and their actions were simply obedience to a conditions God mandated to enable their healing to actually come to fruition? Is not the God of the Universe able to place conditions on His acts of mercy and grace? If not, why not?

DHK: God literally laid upon Christ the sins of all the people of all the ages. All sins: past, present, and future were put on Christ. He bore them all on the cross.

HP: Now take that statement out to its logical conclusions. If Christ literally paid for all sins, past present and future, either all would be saved, establishing universalism as truth, or His payment was less than capable of performing what you say it did. What other possible option could exist? I am not saying there are no others, I just wonder if I am missing one or if you can think of any other possibilities.

One thing you failed to address is how can you keep out of the necessitated fatalism of the predestination of the damned, and keep God from being seen as a respecter of persons which Scripture point blank tells us He is not? How can you keep God from willing the damnation of the lost before they ever had a choice in anything, and then tell me that their wills can reject His offer? What? Reject an offer how? Are they to will something that God had predestined from eternity past not to happen? Are they more powerful than God Himself?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Hi Gekko,
It seems to me that your whole focus is upon the 7th chapter of Romans. How do you harmonize your beliefs found in the 7th chapter with the total victory over sin found in the 6th &8th chapters? You must see Paul as the most inconsistent, confused individual that ever penned a verse of Scripture. If you cannot believe the testimony he gave of being made free from sin and being victorious over sin, how can you believe him in the 7th chapter? Harmonize all three chapters together for me so that I can see one harmonious picture of the Christian walk penned by the Apostle Paul.

 

[gekko]

heavenly pilgrim said "You must see Paul as the most inconsistent, confused individual that ever penned a verse of Scripture. If you cannot believe the testimony he gave of being made free from sin and being victorious over sin, how can you believe him in the 7th chapter?"

huh? where'd that come from?
i dont see paul as inconsistent - never have. dont see him as confused either - never have. i fully believe his testimony of being made free from sin and being victorious over sin. and i fully believe him in the 7th chapter...

so i dont understand where you got all that... haha.
i just havn't mentioned either chp. 6 or 8 - simply because i havn't. not because i want to stay away from them. because i dont. just simply didnt mention them. that's all. nothing to worry about.

i wont harmonize all three chapters for you so you can see a harmonious picture... because you already have that picture. so there's no need for me to explain.

how did you come to the conclusion that i must see paul as inconsistent and confused? that's what i dont get...

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Gekko: how did you come to the conclusion that i must see paul as inconsistent and confused? that's what i dont get...

HP: You seemed to take Pauls word in chapter 7 and apply them to your own life.

Geeko: "for that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." --- let me pause here: for to will is present with me... will to do what? will to be Holy as He is Holy. but how to perform that which is good I find not -- what is good? becoming righteous as Christ is righteous - how to perform that Paul finds not - he explains in the next verses - "for the good that I would I do no: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me... so then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." -- see paul had struggles in the flesh - he hated sin - and willed not to sin but to be righteous - he had no desires to sin - all his desires were upon God. so when he did sin - it was not him - it was not his will - it was not his mind - it was not his spirit that had sinned - but the flesh - the sin that dwelt within him.

so. how do you sin against your will? your will and God's will - your thinking and God's thinking - must be the same. you must hate sin. and have desires only for God.

HP: Now how can you be free from sin yet not be able to be able to perform good? If you cannot perform good, you can only do evil. If you can only do evil, how can you be free from sin? If you are not free from sin, what does this passage say to you? Ro 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” How can one do anything right according to chapter 7? What matters if in fact the possibility of through the Spirit ‘mortifying the deeds of the body?’ Paul said in chapter 7 that he could not find that help or strength, “but how to perform that which is good I find not;”

Either Paul found freedom from sin, freedom to walk a holy life or he didn’t. Which was it? It is an absolute impossibility for the Apostle Paul to have lived in chapter 7 while at the same time experiencing the freedom from and victory over sin found in the 6th and 8th chapters. No man is free from sin that cannot find the power to overcome it. No man is free from sin if in fact to sin is all he can find himself able to perform. If you are living as a Christian as Paul expounded upon in Romans 7, you are of all men most miserable, not victorious and free from sin. (not that you said you were or were not in all fairness)

How am I misunderstanding your confusion over the life expressed by the Apostle Paul in the 7th chapter and the life Paul said we are to live out and enjoy as believers in the 6th and 8th free from and victorious over sin, the flesh, and the devil?

 

[D28guy]

same

DHK,

"For I am a sinner--a terrible horrible sinner which has commintted many crimes against God in my life. I have done nothing worthy of going to heaven. Yet God in his mercy has already granted me eternal life."

Join the crowd, brother.

"I know I will go to heaven when I die just as surely as if I had already been there. I have no reason to doubt the promises of God, and no reaosn to call Him a liar."

Isnt it just unfathonably wonderful the provision God has made for us? Its unimaginably wonderful. How can we possibly ever thank Him enough.

God bless,

Mike

 

[gekko]

quote: "
Gekko: how did you come to the conclusion that i must see paul as inconsistent and confused? that's what i dont get...

HP: You seemed to take Pauls word in chapter 7 and apply them to your own life.

Geeko: "for that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." --- let me pause here: for to will is present with me... will to do what? will to be Holy as He is Holy. but how to perform that which is good I find not -- what is good? becoming righteous as Christ is righteous - how to perform that Paul finds not - he explains in the next verses - "for the good that I would I do no: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me... so then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." -- see paul had struggles in the flesh - he hated sin - and willed not to sin but to be righteous - he had no desires to sin - all his desires were upon God. so when he did sin - it was not him - it was not his will - it was not his mind - it was not his spirit that had sinned - but the flesh - the sin that dwelt within him.

so. how do you sin against your will? your will and God's will - your thinking and God's thinking - must be the same. you must hate sin. and have desires only for God.

HP: Now how can you be free from sin yet not be able to be able to perform good? If you cannot perform good, you can only do evil. If you can only do evil, how can you be free from sin? If you are not free from sin, what does this passage say to you? Ro 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” How can one do anything right according to chapter 7? What matters if in fact the possibility of through the Spirit ‘mortifying the deeds of the body?’ Paul said in chapter 7 that he could not find that help or strength, “but how to perform that which is good I find not;”

Either Paul found freedom from sin, freedom to walk a holy life or he didn’t. Which was it? It is an absolute impossibility for the Apostle Paul to have lived in chapter 7 while at the same time experiencing the freedom from and victory over sin found in the 6th and 8th chapters. No man is free from sin that cannot find the power to overcome it. No man is free from sin if in fact to sin is all he can find himself able to perform. If you are living as a Christian as Paul expounded upon in Romans 7, you are of all men most miserable, not victorious and free from sin. (not that you said you were or were not in all fairness)

How am I misunderstanding your confusion over the life expressed by the Apostle Paul in the 7th chapter and the life Paul said we are to live out and enjoy as believers in the 6th and 8th free from and victorious over sin, the flesh, and the devil?"

(i use quick reply... so it doesn't really look like a real quote... )

heavenly pilgrim... i dont know why we're arguing about this... haha. one thing i want to point out is that there is none good - but one - that is God. paul - his soul longed to perform that which was good in God's eyes - and he did - his soul and spirit did that which was good in God's eyes - because his spirit bore witness with God's spirit. but to perform that in the flesh was another story - it was hard for paul to perform that good in the flesh - but if read in the last two verses of chp. 7 - "o wretched man that i am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin"

Jesus Christ was the answer to help him in the flesh - and in the spirit.

so honestly i dont know why we're arguing here... just some miscommunication i guess...

unless you dont agree with that either...

 

[BobRyan]

For those of you who accept the depravity of man listed in Romans 3 -- does the statement of Paul in Romans 7 "I joyfully CONCUR with the Law of God" where "The LAW of God is SPIRITUAL" and the LAW of God is "Holy Just and Good" represent the statement of the "total depraved" or the "born again"?

 

[gekko]

what d'you mean "depravity of man? what is that?

 

[DHK]

DHK: -He gave himself for us; He redeemed us; God made him to be sin for us; the Lord laid on Christ the iniquity of us all.
That last phrase is the most powerful of them all.

HP: Sure that is powerful. But again how does it support the literal payment theory? Forgive me, maybe I am just not getting the connection you see. Explain how any of these verses or any others demand that one come to the conclusion that there was a literal debt transaction taken place consistent with the literal payment theory?

It isn't a theory. It is the gospel. Christ died for our sins. He atoned for them. He paid the price. Over and over again the Scriptures teach that Christ died for our sins; he paid the penalty for out sins. What more do you want? If you do not believe in that how can you possibly be saved. "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world. (1John 2:1). The word "propitiation" means satisfaction in the legal sense of the word. He satisfied the demands of God with the payment of his blood. The wages of sin is death. Crimes of mankind had been committed. The penalty for sin had to be paid. Christ paid it with his blood. You either accept or reject that payment, just like a convict may either accept a pardon or reject it. It is up to him. Not every convict will accept a governor's pardon. Some would rather take the death penalty. And that is exactly what happens to the unbeliever who rejects the Saviour. He chooses the death penalty--eternal death, eternal separation from God in a place called Hell.

DHK:Often times a governor has no good reason to give a pardon to a criminal except out of his own mercy and grace.

HP: If he has no good reason, he is an unjust and unfair governor that operates without regard to societies best interest. I would consider such a governor as wicked, not merciful or gracious.

Is mercy and grace wicked?
Was Jesus wicked becasue he forgave a wicked adulterous woman who under the law deserved the death penalty. He, out of His grace and mercy, simply forgave her and said: "Go and sin no more." But you have called him "wicked" instead.

DHK: God offers me forgiveness of sin only out of his mercy and grace. I, like a criminal before God have done nothing to deserve it. I don't deserve to go to heaven. What have I done to merit Heaven. Absolutely nothing, and in this lifetime could never ever do anything to merit eternal life. I don't deserve anything but the wrath of God.

HP: Who would not agree with this statement? The works God calls upon us to do are NOT meritorious in the least. Nothing we can or will do will merit our pardon. Just the same, there are some things we must do, NOT meritorious in nature, but without which we shall not see God; repentance, faith and obedience to the end. We are not saved on the account of any of these things, but neither will we be saved apart from them. They are mere conditions and are not the grounds of salvation.

What you have said is not true. I accept salvation, eternal life and forgiveness of sin entirely on God's grace and mercy. There is no But. There is no Just the same...
Salvation is by grace through faith..not of works That is plain for all to see. Either you believe it or you don't. There are no works involved in salvation. It is the free gift of God. No amount of works or the absence thereof can take it away. If I could lose eternal life in any way, then eternal life would only be termporary, and Jesus Christ would be found to be a liar.
You have redefined some very important theological terms: repentance and faith, to be exact. The Bible says to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. To belief is to have faith. Faith is not a work. You don't work to have faith. Biblical faith includes repentance otherwise it is not faith. These are not works.
However obdedience is composed of works: baptism, prayer, reading and studying the Bible, church attendance, etc. Alll of these are acts or works done in the Christian life and are not necessary to salvation. I cannot lose my salvation. To say so makes Christ a liar. I cannot, by definition, lose eternal life. Eternal does not automatically turn into temporary. How can that be??

There have been several good Scriptural examples posted by others depicting this clear distinction between grounds and conditions. Jesus healed by grace and mercy, without anyone ever meriting His favor. Just the same, He often required them to go wash, dip, etc. in order to receive their healing. Was their obedience meritorious, in that God was under necessity to heal them because they did something that ‘merited’ His healing, or were they healed in mercy and grace, and their actions were simply obedience to a conditions God mandated to enable their healing to actually come to fruition? Is not the God of the Universe able to place conditions on His acts of mercy and grace? If not, why not?

Healing has nothing to do with salvation. Your examples are all red herrings. Jesus healed ten lepers. Only one of them came back to thank him. One would conclude that the thankful one was the one that was saved. But all ten were healed, and not one of them were required to do anything. A Christian is known by his fruit, not by what he does with his life beforehand.

DHK: God literally laid upon Christ the sins of all the people of all the ages. All sins: past, present, and future were put on Christ. He bore them all on the cross.

HP: Now take that statement out to its logical conclusions. If Christ literally paid for all sins, past present and future, either all would be saved, establishing universalism as truth, or His payment was less than capable of performing what you say it did. What other possible option could exist? I am not saying there are no others, I just wonder if I am missing one or if you can think of any other possibilities.

That which you conclude is nonsense. Only those who believe are saved. Only those who appropriate the work of Christ to themselves can be saved. Those who believe on the name of the Son of God are saved.
Those who believe not on the name of the Son of God are condemned.
Those are fairly clear statements are they not. Not everyone will believe.
Christ literally paid the price of all sins. But not all will accept the payment. If you commit a crime and are taken to jail. You have an option: spend a year in jail or pay an exorbitant fine. You certainly are not rich enough to pay the required fine, and you don't want to spend time in jail. If some rich benefactor comes along and says to you, though you don't deserve to get out of jail, I love you enough to pay the fine for you, would you accept it? Or would you out of the pride of your own heart say, "I don't need you stupid help. I'm good enough as I am. I don't deserve to be here, etc. etc." If you humble yourself, admit by taking the money, and giving it to the judge that you have been wrong in your wrong and have been guilty, then and only then can you go free. There must be an admittance of guilt along with the payment of the fine. But you would be a fool not to accept the offer of freedom.
A man would be a fool not to accept the offer of freedom from sin, from Jesus Christ who paid his penalty on the cross of Calvary.

One thing you failed to address is how can you keep out of the necessitated fatalism of the predestination of the damned, and keep God from being seen as a respecter of persons which Scripture point blank tells us He is not? How can you keep God from willing the damnation of the lost before they ever had a choice in anything, and then tell me that their wills can reject His offer? What? Reject an offer how? Are they to will something that God had predestined from eternity past not to happen? Are they more powerful than God Himself?

God is no respector of persons. Though I don't completely understand this verse I believe it:

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
--In other words God gives every man the chance to accept Christ as Saviour. He has promised that in this verse. Either you accpet that as faith or you disbelieve the Bible.
If you are so concerned about others not hearing the gospel then get saved, be a missionary to the lost and make sure they do hear the gospel. That is the Great Commission. That is the heart of missions. That is our obligation. That is what I am involved in.
God doesn't will people to be damned. Everyone has a choice whether to receive Him or reject Him. What is your choice?
DHK

 

[Claudia_T]

Healing has nothing to do with salvation. Your examples are all red herrings. Jesus healed ten lepers. Only one of them came back to thank him. One would conclude that the thankful one was the one that was saved. But all ten were healed, and not one of them were required to do anything. A Christian is known by his fruit, not by what he does with his life beforehand.

DHK

Luke 19:8:
And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
9: And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.



Jn:8:39:
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Hi DHK:
We have fallen into the trap all great discussions fall into it seems, that of posts too lengthy and covering way too much territory. I am at fault here. I am going to try and narrow our focus a bit.

We have been discussing among many things, the penalty for sin, which is at the heart of this threads main thrust IMO. Let’s see if we can agree on this one point. I believe Scripture to present the penalty of sin as ‘eternal separation from God.’ Would you agree or disagree?

 

[DHK]

Hi DHK:

We have been discussing among many things, the penalty for sin, which is at the heart of this threads main thrust IMO. Let’s see if we can agree on this one point. I believe Scripture to present the penalty of sin as ‘eternal separation from God.’ Would you agree or disagree?

Yes. "The wages of sin is death, which is eternal death or eternal separation from God.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Yes. "The wages of sin is death, which is eternal death or eternal separation from God.

HP: You sure know how to kill a great discussion don’t you,…..with all this agreement.( Just kidding) Ok we are off to a great new beginning!

From this point of total agreement let’s consider the ramifications of such a belief as it directly affects our views of the atonement. We both know full well that Christ made an atonement for sin, and that there is no sin that cannot be forgiven apart from blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, agreed? The issue in understanding the atonement lies not in the fact of an atonement, but in how it was accomplished and to what exactly was the focus of its intended acomplishments.

Now we agree that the penalty of sin is eternal separation from God. If in fact Christ made a literal payment for sin, He would have had to suffer it's penalty, for every man women and child to be saved. Did Christ even suffer one eternity separated from God? I do not believe so. Therefore, there could not have been a literal payment made, but rather Christ suffered sufficiently that God saw that suffering as a satisfaction for a debt, NOT a literal payment of a debt. How are we doing so far? Are we still in the same boat together?

 

[DHK]

"My God, my God, Why hast thou forsaken me?"
For a brief minute of time (even in eternity) God the Father turned his back on God the Son as bore the penalty of the sins of all mankind. Christ paid the penalty for our sins. It was a literal payment when Christ shed his blood on the cross for our sins. It was not mere suffering. He suffered throughout the three years of his ministry. It was that "he tasted death for every man."

Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
--He bore our sins. He was once offered to bear our sins. The priests in the Old Testament offered sacrifices daily. Jesus Christ offered himself once and only once to pay the penalty of all our sins.
DHK

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Goodmorning DHK,
Here we were in a boat together enjoying the serenity of a peaceful ride together down the river of truth, and along came the first sign of an encounter with a rapid consisting of a simple logical conclusion, and you have to go and bail.

Absolutely Christ bore our sins, IN THE SENSE OF SATISFYING THE PENALTY OF THE LAW, but What He did not do in any literal sense is to make or pay a ‘literal payment’ of eternal death for even ‘one’ ‘specific’ sin. Absolutely He suffered only once, all the more evidence that whatever he accomplished was not the literal payment of the penalty you agreed with me, that served as the common truth which allowed for this boat ride together, that was said to be the penalty for sin, i.e., eternal separation from God. Christ NEVER suffered that literal payment once DHK. If that happened, He would still be suffering throughout millions of eternities. (The reason why that sounds absurd, is because such would be absurd to consider)

To follow your dance around the word “eternity,” trying to render the meaning of the word consistent with the meaning of “even in eternity,’ is beyond any semblance of proper or fair interpretation. That is simply a poor attempt to dodge the consequents of your own admission as to the penalty for sin and what it consists of.

Who said that the sufferings of Christ were “mere” anything as you falsely concluded was consistent with my beliefs? Christ suffered more than any man had ever suffered or will suffer at the hands of evil men. I simply pointed out that the penalty for sin, which was none other than eternal separation from God, was NOT LITERALLY paid, nor logically could it have been. The sufferings of Christ, as heinous and broad in scope as they were a SATISFACTION MADE, not a literal payment to, THE DEMANDS OF THE LAW. That is not to ‘mere’ anything, but rather it speaks to what was in actuality ‘paid for,’ in relationship to the necessitated logic of Scripture’s revelation and truth. If this was a literal payment transaction, Christ would have had to pay an eternal death for every one that ever sinned. It could not have been accomplished once for all, but rather would have continued though out eternity. You cannot escape the literal logical end of the ‘literal payment theory’s’ argument you are espousing. A satisfaction being made to the demands of the penalty of the law, and the setting aside of that penalty being accomplished in relationship to an individuals actual sins by the fulfilling of certain conditions, are NOT notions synonymous with the idea of the literal payment theory you are setting forth.

The principle target of the atonement was not any ‘single sin’ or sins in particular, nor was it the corporate sins of the elect alone, nor was it the literal payment of the sins of the entire world, (which again would amount to multiple ETERNAL separations for God, a preposterously absurd notion, leading to the necessitated conclusion of universalism if one is logical consistent). The focus and target of the atonement was to accomplish a ‘satisfaction of the debt the law demanded as ‘the’ penalty for sin.’ The penalty of God’s law was being satisfied via a SUBSTITUTIONAL sacrifice, directed at the penalty of sin as demanded by the law, not a literal payment for any sin or sins directly. A bridge had been built by this substitution sacrifice that paved the way, or made possible, the forgiveness of sins of all men for all ages. If a literal payment had been made for each individual sin, all sins would have been remitted and again universalism upheld. If you try and tell me that it was just for the sins of the elect, I will tell you that that would been nothing more or less than the last nail in the coffin of God being a respecter of persons, and the nail that would establish once and for all the false notion of the predestination of the damned, having never had the possibility of their sins being forgiven.

The purpose of the atonement was to make a way for the forgiveness of sins, not to literally pay for any ‘specifically.’ The purpose of the atonement was to take the literal demands of the ‘penalty for sin’ out of the way, nailing ‘THE PENALTY’ of sin to the cross once for all by a ‘satisfaction of the penalty of sin’ seen by God as sufficient to uphold the sanctity of the law and it’s demands, making possible a show of His mercy and grace that without which could not have been wisely shown. This substitutional atonement made possible the setting aside the penalty for sins, and completed the groundwork of satisfying the penalty of the law, by the mediatory work of salvation accomplished by Christ’s suffering and atonement made on the cross This selfless, merciful, loving , and gracious act on the part of God and Christ and made ‘possible’ the forgiveness of the sins of all men, upon certain conditions being met, by individuals willing to comply with the conditions set forth by God in Scripture and mandated that ‘without which’ NO penalty for sin would be set aside for any individual or on behalf of any individual sin.

The conditions of salvation in order to accomplish in our lives individually, that which Christ bought with the substitutional willing sacrifice of His own precious blood, that satisfied God that the sanctity of the law and it’s penalty, had been upheld and substitutionally made and accepted by Him as the debt of that penalty being paid in full, were always and will remain the same until the end of time; repentance, faith and continued obedience until the end.

If we are to take advantage of this substitutional offer for the forgiveness of sins, we must comply with God’s commanded conditions. The ‘penalty’ for an ‘individuals sin’ has been set aside for the offender, ‘if and when’ he fulfills the conditions God has established. ‘THE PENALTY’ that would normally been applied to the individual for his sins has been satisfied completely, set aside, and accepted as such by God Himself, as the individual meets God’s conditions. The grounds have been laid, and the bridge built to establish the possibility of the salvation of all men. All that remains is for the sinner to hear of the good news, repent for all sins that are past, receive of the pardon made possible and the substitution made for the penalty of sins, and by the grace, strength, and help God has promise to afford us, remain faithful until the end.

Such I believe is a proper concept of the atonement and the ends to which it addressed, accomplished, and made possible. I believe I have correctly set forth a Scriptural map, even though presented as a mere faltering and finite human attempt to elucidate spiritual realities, by which a wayfaring man though a fool, may follow and not error therein.

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

 

[BobRyan]

Now we agree that the penalty of sin is eternal separation from God. If in fact Christ made a literal payment for sin, He would have had to suffer it's penalty, for every man women and child to be saved. Did Christ even suffer one eternity separated from God? I do not believe so. Therefore, there could not have been a literal payment made, but rather Christ suffered sufficiently that God saw that suffering as a satisfaction for a debt, NOT a literal payment of a debt. How are we doing so far? Are we still in the same boat together?

I agree with DHK that Christ paid the debt of suffering that we owe. I also agree with HP that the wicked never go to heaven - their debt - their payment of debt produces a result that does not ever allow them "eternal life". I would guess that DHK also agrees with that point.

So what IS the payment "owed".

In Luke 12:45-55 we see that those who "knew much" and then went to hell "pay much" and those who "knew less" but also go to hell "pay less".

Question how much "less" than infinity is infinity?

Answer - you are using the wrong definition for payment.

Infinite torture by a master torturer is not the "payment owed" under God's "Holy Just and true" Law.

HP's argument is made invincible by the fact that both DHK and HP think that "infinite torture" is the debt owed by all - so all "owe infinity" not just in being dead but in BEING TORTURED.

Obviously.

HP then rightly concludes that "infinite torture" not only means infinite separation but infinite suffering, infinite torment. An infinite being could then pay for "exactly one" but only if that infinite being were "cancelled out" entirely. No infinite amount of time would be needed but that Infinite being could never "come back".

Your definition of the debt is wrong.

#1. In your definition - the debt is never paid - at no time could a sinner ever be said to "have paid the debt in full".

#2. In your definition - the sinner is always supernaturally enabled to CONTINUE sinning. Rebellion is thus supernaturally enabled for eternity.

#3. Using your definition "substitutionary atonement for all the sin owed" by all mankind is not actually possible "by definition".

 

[BobRyan]

In hell – (in the lake of fire) The “Full Penalty of sin is fully paid”

Matt 18

32 ""Then summoning him, his lord said to him, "You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.
33 " Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?'
34 ""And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him.
35 "" My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.''

Matt 5

25"Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
26"Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent[/b].

2 Thessalonians 1:9

These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

The sinner must “repay all” the debt owed – not “some” or “eternally less”.

In the model of eternal suffering the sinner is always an “eternity” away from paying ALL that is owed.

Sin and Sinners are “exterminated” not “perpetuated”

Is 13:9 – sinners are exterminated from the land.

Isaiah 13

Isaiah 13:9
Behold, the day of the LORD is coming,Cruel, with fury and burning anger,To make the land a desolation;And He will exterminate its sinners from it.

God’s plan does not allow for sinners – eternally enabled to sin against God.

Gen 3

22 Then the LORD God said, ""Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever''

23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

[BobRyan]

Hell is in fact the Lake of fire and is composed of “fire and brimstone” – “eternal fire”.

Fiery Hell == Eternal Fire == Fire and Brimstone == Second Death (lake of fire)

1.
Eternal fire = Hell (fiery Hell). (Matt 18:8-9) and “full payment” for the debt of sin is made there. Matt 18:34-35
The final Judgment is one of “Eternal Fire” Jude 7 and Sodom shows that..


2.
The eternal fire sent to Sodom was in the form of “Fire and Brimstone: (Luke 17:2-30) and it will be JUST THE SAME in the judgment of Christ on the wicked.

3. The second Death is that Fire and Brimstone judgment sent upon the wicked after the millennium (Rev 21:8):