Colossians 2:13-14 and Reformed/Calvinist theology

[AresMan]

If I were in debt to Vinny the loan-shark and a good freind loved me enough to give me the money to pay off that debt, but instead of paying off my loan-shark, I simply put the money under my matress and did nothing with it. Then my freind has "paid for" my debt, only, I never gave it to my creditor, thus my debt was never "cancelled". Vinny the loan-shark comes to my house breaks my legs, and then burns down my house, and the money is burned up. It has cost my loving freind, and it has also cost me...but Vinny never got his money.

Do you see the Scriptures actually support such a concept of atonement, or is it just a rational one to which you hold to cling to the idea of libertarian free will being the determiner of the recipients of the atonement?

Jesus didn't put a check in the mail. He paid the mortgage in full. It is simply up to God when He will use to glorious means of the gospel to slap His elect debtors upside the head and show them the kingly palace He has waiting freely for them.

Under the Old Covenant, the priest was the intercessor between God and the sinner. When the priest made the sacrifice on the altar, God forgave the sin on the basis of this as a picture of the Ultimate Sacrifice. The priest didn't sacrifice the animal, then give the blood to the sinner to make it effectual by sprinkling the blood on the altar. The priest did all this as a mediator between the sinner and God.

So, Christ is both priest and sacrifice. He is mediator and intercessor. He paid the ransom to the Father.

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Jesus paid the ransom for us to the Father. We were not party to this transaction. We are not the mediators between Jesus and the Father.

Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Heb 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Heb 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

The Calvinist cannot accept usually that the same crime or debt can end up costing more than one person....i.e both Christ and the reprobate. A non-reformed person must wrap his head around the idea that it can. I personally never viewed Christ's atoning work as a mere sum-total of punishment dealt upon Christ for a sum-total of all sins which were to be paid for. Subconciously, (I think) the Calvinist seems to view it like this. I don't. I see that an infinitely perfect and infinitely Holy God was offended, and therefore an infinitely perfect sacrifice must be made for these offenses to satisfy the demands of justice. Why for instance, is someone who has offended only one portion of the law guilty of all? Because it is WHOM one offended that is at issue, not how "BAD" the tresspass was. There is no independent criterion of right and wrong in the Universe, only the perfection of it's sole law-giver.

I agree that the penalty is infinite because the worth of God is infinite. However, in a personal, qualitative sense, there is a direct, personal link between the sacrifice of Christ and my sins.

1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

He didn't just pay for "sin." He literally bore MY sins on the Cross. It is a personal atonement, just as a Levitical priestly sacrifice for an Israelite was a personal atonement in type. That is what makes my union with Christ, my crucifixion with Him, and my resurrection with Him more than just an academic declaration. It is an intensely personal realization, overwhelmingly humbling, and emotionally vexing.

An imperfect man can never "Pay-off" the cosmic treason he has committed against a perfect God. Therefore, there is no amount of time he can spend in Hell to work it off. His debt is NEVER paid for in hell. Only a perfect sacrifice can satisfy the demands of justice against a perfect offended party. Thus, Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, has been offered to "pay for" the debt. This satisfies in the sense that it is sufficiently potent. But if you choose to refuse that substitution...then it is never placed on your account. I believe that Christ's punishment on the cross would have been the same if he were paying only for the crimes of only ONE elected "sheep" (in the Calvinist view) or if EVERY person on Earth (in a non-reformed view) accepted Christ's substitutionary sacrifice. The "Cost" for sin is the same either way.

Yes, but I don't think the writers of Scripture at the time thought about purchasing things with the mechanics of bank checks that can be destroyed like we have today. In a transaction, once the scales were weighed and the exchange made, the purchase was done. I believe the "double jeopardy" challenge holds because our modern, western idea of payment in transition awaiting clearance with the potential of bouncing is not presented in Scripture.

Sure, quantitatively, the payment would be the same if it were for every person or for only the elect in the same sense, because infinity + infinity = infinity. However, in a qualitative, personal sense, there is a difference between an effectual atonement for certain people that guaranteed a payment has cleared and a general atonement with a check in the mail, essentially awaiting the results of a numbers game.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Does Christ mediate between the Father and the one in hell? Does the Father reject a positive mediation from His own Son? Is there disunity in the work of the Trinity here? Can Christ fail in His mediation?

I believe these are important questions to consider.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you see the Scriptures actually support such a concept of atonement, or is it just a rational one to which you hold to cling to the idea of libertarian free will being the determiner of the recipients of the atonement?

Jesus didn't put a check in the mail. He paid the mortgage in full. It is simply up to God when He will use to glorious means of the gospel to slap His elect debtors upside the head and show them the kingly palace He has waiting freely for them.

Under the Old Covenant, the priest was the intercessor between God and the sinner. When the priest made the sacrifice on the altar, God forgave the sin on the basis of this as a picture of the Ultimate Sacrifice. The priest didn't sacrifice the animal, then give the blood to the sinner to make it effectual by sprinkling the blood on the altar. The priest did all this as a mediator between the sinner and God.

So, Christ is both priest and sacrifice. He is mediator and intercessor. He paid the ransom to the Father.

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Jesus paid the ransom for us to the Father. We were not party to this transaction. We are not the mediators between Jesus and the Father.

Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Heb 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Heb 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

I agree that the penalty is infinite because the worth of God is infinite. However, in a personal, qualitative sense, there is a direct, personal link between the sacrifice of Christ and my sins.

1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

He didn't just pay for "sin." He literally bore MY sins on the Cross. It is a personal atonement, just as a Levitical priestly sacrifice for an Israelite was a personal atonement in type. That is what makes my union with Christ, my crucifixion with Him, and my resurrection with Him more than just an academic declaration. It is an intensely personal realization, overwhelmingly humbling, and emotionally vexing.

Yes, but I don't think the writers of Scripture at the time thought about purchasing things with the mechanics of bank checks that can be destroyed like we have today. In a transaction, once the scales were weighed and the exchange made, the purchase was done. I believe the "double jeopardy" challenge holds because our modern, western idea of payment in transition awaiting clearance with the potential of bouncing is not presented in Scripture.

Sure, quantitatively, the payment would be the same if it were for every person or for only the elect in the same sense, because infinity + infinity = infinity. However, in a qualitative, personal sense, there is a difference between an effectual atonement for certain people that guaranteed a payment has cleared and a general atonement with a check in the mail, essentially awaiting the results of a numbers game.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Does Christ mediate between the Father and the one in hell? Does the Father reject a positive mediation from His own Son? Is there disunity in the work of the Trinity here? Can Christ fail in His mediation?

I believe these are important questions to consider.

The answer to your last set of questions is a resounding NO!

that is why Jesus HAD to die and atone for a particular group of sinners, those who would chose him as their saviour, and their "chose" was based upon the fact that he died for them specifically, the father had decreed they would come to jesus, and the Spirit enabled them to come!

 

[Tom Butler]

I've been thinking. If God elects based on foreseen faith, then he knows who will repent and trust Him for salvation. He knows it from eternity.

What point is there, then, in Christ's atoning for the sins of those he knows will never avail themselves of it, who don't want it and never will want it, and making it available is a useless exercise.

In fact, since their faith (or lack of it) is foreknown, then not only will they not believe, but also they cannot believe. Isn't it fair to say that their eternal fate is sealed from eternity?

I'm just asking questions here. My own position is that election is not based on foreseen faith. If so, then we elect ourselves.

 

[psalms109:31]

Hebrews 3:
Warning Against Unbelief

7 So, as the Holy Spirit says:

“Today, if you hear his voice,
8 do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the wilderness,
9 where your ancestors tested and tried me,
though for forty years they saw what I did.
10 That is why I was angry with that generation;
I said, ‘Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.’
11 So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’ ”[Psalm 95:7-11]

12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. 14 We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end. 15 As has just been said:

“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion.”[Psalm 95:7,8]

16 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17 And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies perished in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

Hebrews 4

4 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed.[Some manuscripts because those who heard did not combine it with faith] 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,

“So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’”[Psalm 95:11; also in verse 5]

And yet his works have been finished since the creation of the world. 4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “On the seventh day God rested from all his works.”[Gen. 2:2] 5 And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.”

6 Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, 7 God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted:

“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”[Psalm 95:7,8]

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works,[Or labor] just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.

12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Jude 1 :
5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[Some early manuscripts Jesus] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.


Me as a believer is to encourage no one to turn away from the Living God Jesus Christ. It is in Christ we was chosen ,in His rest apart from Christ we was heading for destruction. God has the end result He doesn't have to foreseen us, He foreknows all who is in Christ every one else is fit for destruction. We are saved in Christ from Alpha to omega. God has elected Christ and we are saved and elected because of Him. We can either trust Christ or our own election.

Isaiah 44

Israel the Chosen

44 “But now listen, Jacob, my servant,
Israel, whom I have chosen.
2 This is what the Lord says—
he who made you, who formed you in the womb,
and who will help you:
Do not be afraid, Jacob, my servant,
Jeshurun, [Jeshurun means the upright one, that is, Israel.] whom I have chosen.
3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land,
and streams on the dry ground;
I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring,
and my blessing on your descendants.
4 They will spring up like grass in a meadow,
like poplar trees by flowing streams.
5 Some will say, ‘I belong to the Lord’;
others will call themselves by the name of Jacob;
still others will write on their hand, ‘The Lord’s,’
and will take the name Israel.

Jesus is the only upright one, from Alpha to Omega

 

[humblethinker]

I've been thinking. If God elects based on foreseen faith, then he knows who will repent and trust Him for salvation. He knows it from eternity.

What point is there, then, in Christ's atoning for the sins of those he knows will never avail themselves of it, who don't want it and never will want it, and making it available is a useless exercise.

In fact, since their faith (or lack of it) is foreknown, then not only will they not believe, but also they cannot believe. Isn't it fair to say that their eternal fate is sealed from eternity?

so, it sounds, if you were to continue in your logic, that there have never nor are there presently any ontological possibilities of reality ever being different than what it is. What we humans think is a real possibility does not actually have a true ontological status as such. Therefore, in the view of humans, 'possibilities' are only perceived to be real but are actually not real, and it is the case that we are only convinced that the possibility is real. No?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Do you see the Scriptures actually support such a concept of atonement, or is it just a rational one to which you hold to cling to the idea of libertarian free will being the determiner of the recipients of the atonement?

Jesus didn't put a check in the mail. He paid the mortgage in full. It is simply up to God when He will use to glorious means of the gospel to slap His elect debtors upside the head and show them the kingly palace He has waiting freely for them.

Under the Old Covenant, the priest was the intercessor between God and the sinner. When the priest made the sacrifice on the altar, God forgave the sin on the basis of this as a picture of the Ultimate Sacrifice. The priest didn't sacrifice the animal, then give the blood to the sinner to make it effectual by sprinkling the blood on the altar. The priest did all this as a mediator between the sinner and God.

So, Christ is both priest and sacrifice. He is mediator and intercessor. He paid the ransom to the Father.

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Jesus paid the ransom for us to the Father. We were not party to this transaction. We are not the mediators between Jesus and the Father.

Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Heb 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Heb 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

I agree that the penalty is infinite because the worth of God is infinite. However, in a personal, qualitative sense, there is a direct, personal link between the sacrifice of Christ and my sins.

1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

He didn't just pay for "sin." He literally bore MY sins on the Cross. It is a personal atonement, just as a Levitical priestly sacrifice for an Israelite was a personal atonement in type. That is what makes my union with Christ, my crucifixion with Him, and my resurrection with Him more than just an academic declaration. It is an intensely personal realization, overwhelmingly humbling, and emotionally vexing.

Yes, but I don't think the writers of Scripture at the time thought about purchasing things with the mechanics of bank checks that can be destroyed like we have today. In a transaction, once the scales were weighed and the exchange made, the purchase was done. I believe the "double jeopardy" challenge holds because our modern, western idea of payment in transition awaiting clearance with the potential of bouncing is not presented in Scripture.

Sure, quantitatively, the payment would be the same if it were for every person or for only the elect in the same sense, because infinity + infinity = infinity. However, in a qualitative, personal sense, there is a difference between an effectual atonement for certain people that guaranteed a payment has cleared and a general atonement with a check in the mail, essentially awaiting the results of a numbers game.

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Does Christ mediate between the Father and the one in hell? Does the Father reject a positive mediation from His own Son? Is there disunity in the work of the Trinity here? Can Christ fail in His mediation?

I believe these are important questions to consider.

More later.....but if you re-read my initial post...I intentionally never referred to the idea of a check awaiting clearance at a bank, in the mail, or anything like that. Something tells me you have heard and are arguing against a similar analogy you have once heard. Drat!! and I thought I was being original I intentionally spoke as though I were speaking of cash, in my analogy. I think you missed that. But good response...More later when I have time.

Do you see the Scriptures actually support such a concept of atonement, or is it just a rational one to which you hold to cling to the idea of libertarian free will being the determiner of the recipients of the atonement?

You should know better than this though...sure I do, but it isn't really about LFW..(not directly anyway). Arminians/non-Cals don't "cling" to free-will btw. We assume it. We are not forever attempting to defend the idea of it either to ourselves or others (it only seems that way when discussing such issues with Calvinists) Calvinists are forever denying freedom of will, but unless speaking of it with you guys...we are never clinging to it. We don't bother to defend the notion as a rule. We don't consider it up for dispute really. It is, to most of us, so a-priori obvious that it is assumed and essentially undebated. It is (to us) like what Plantinga might call a "properly basic" belief. We believe it like we believe that the Sun exists...so no, I am not a desperado reaching out in hopes of possibly preserving what I think to be my imminently sinking ship. It seems that way perhaps to you as a Calvinist....but unless you ARE a Calvinist forever denying free will, you will never see us bother to defend the idea.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Does Christ mediate between the Father and the one in hell? Does the Father reject a positive mediation from His own Son? Is there disunity in the work of the Trinity here? Can Christ fail in His mediation?

No on all counts...but I don't see how these questions are pertinent.

 

[Winman]

I've been thinking. If God elects based on foreseen faith, then he knows who will repent and trust Him for salvation. He knows it from eternity.

Correct.

What point is there, then, in Christ's atoning for the sins of those he knows will never avail themselves of it, who don't want it and never will want it, and making it available is a useless exercise.

It makes all the difference in the world. If Christ did not atone for them, and if God chose to pass them by, then their damnation is God's fault. If on the other hand Christ provided salvation for the reprobate, but they willingly and knowingly rejected it, then their damnation is their own fault.

In fact, since their faith (or lack of it) is foreknown, then not only will they not believe, but also they cannot believe. Isn't it fair to say that their eternal fate is sealed from eternity?

It is very different to say someone is not willing to believe versus they are not able to believe. Men are able to come, they are simply unwilling. Their damnation is their own fault.

If I were to say, "None of my neighbors goes to church, no, not one" would you understand that to mean they are unable to go to church? Of course not, but that is what Calvinists read into scripture when it says "There is none good, no, not one".

I'm just asking questions here. My own position is that election is not based on foreseen faith. If so, then we elect ourselves.

No, God elected those who would believe. God determined who would be saved and on what condition they would be saved. Man must submit to God and come in faith to be saved.

Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

To submit to God is to obey him, it is to make him the master and boss. For man to attempt to establish his own righteousness is an attempt for man to elect himself.