If Christ died for Judas just as He did for Peter

[Ian Major]

Lea said
Ian, you do relize that Judas was a saved man who backslid correct? You do realize that salvation is eternal and once you have it, it can never be taken from you? You also do realize that umm, we are all held accountable for what we do, and Christ paid the price for us all ?

A pertinent point, dear sister. For the purposes of the debate, I used Judas as an example of a damned man. So I'm asking really about anyone who dies without Christ.

But to answer your point about Judas' state. As Psr.2 points out, Judas was a reprobate. His profession was false, for he was stealing from the communal bag from the beginning. For all the light he had, he was ever in darkness. The 'son of perdition'.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

ILUVLIGHT said
My explanation of my last comment; Judas was never forgiven for all His sins. Christ hadn't paid for them yet. No where did I read that any of the disciples ever offered sacrifice which was still the Law until Christ paid for them. In other words there was no blood sacrifice as far as we know when he killed himself.

Hmmm. Abraham was also in the position of dying before Christ's atonement. But He died a saved man. However, to avoid complications, let's apply the question to a man who died AFTER Christ's death - any wicked person will do. What are they suffering in hell for?

Not only this but even if he was forgiven he wasn't converted because of his unforgivable sin of rejection.

Rejection of the gospel is one unforgiveable sin; what about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? That's two. What then happens to the idea that Christ has paid for the sins of EVERY man? That means that He paid for all the sins of unbelief and blasphemy, of all the unsaved dead, but they now too pay for those sins in hell. Is that what you are saying?

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Bob Ryan said
Correct - Judas pays for his own sins and So did Christ.

OK, a clear statement that both Christ and the lost pay for the same sins.

The flaw in Calvinism is that it views God as the great banker "getting paid for sins". But monetary economy is not the model for salvation - rather substitutionary atonement is. God pays "in suffering" what is owed "in suffering" by mankind for sin. So God is not "getting paid" He is "paying".

Wrong. God either pays the sinner's debt OR is paid that debt by the sinner. Substitutionary atonement means Christ stood in our place, took the punishment that was our due. If God is not 'getting paid', why is the sinner suffering in hell?

Neither is Satan "getting paid"

Absolutely correct.

When a murderer is executed the family is not "repaid" for the loss of their loved one. They are not "even". Their loss "remains". This is the form of "payment" that sin incurrs.

Wrong again. The criminal pays a debt to society, the society he offended. Likewise, the lost sinner pays the penalty to God for his violation of God's laws.

Let me ask you again, for what is the sinner suffering in hell? Why has the Judge sentenced him to such suffering?

In Him

Ian

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
Skandelon said
But you don't have to hold to a "universal atonement" to be an Arminian. Nor do you have to be against it to be a Calvinists.

I knew of 4-point Calvinists, and the question applies to them also. But I was unaware of Limited Atonement Arminians. Do they base their limitation on God's forseen choice, or what? Very interesting.

I guess you could approach it that way. They just teach that the blood covers the believer who repents. His death is timeless and was once for all. Sufficient for all but only efficient for those who repent and believe. Who is to say that the blood can't be applied 2000 years after the death if indeed the cross is timeless. It pays for past, present and future sins of all who confess.

But there is another way to approach this as well. Some Arminians say Christ died for EVERY sin except the "unpardonable sin", which is the sin of resisting and thus blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The continual rejection of the Holy Spirit is unpardonable because Christ did not die for that sin, the rest are atoned for in full. Therefore those who suffer in hell suffer for the rejection of the Holy Spirit. They are judged, not based upon their inherited sin nature or even their past misdeeds according to the law, instead they are judged by their response to the Holy Spirit wrought WORD. I'm beginning to lean toward this latter interpretation because of verses like the one in 1 Peter where he speaks about the false teachers being bought and other such passages.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Ryan said
Correct - Judas pays for his own sins and So did Christ.

Originally posted by Ian Major:

OK, a clear statement that both Christ and the lost pay for the same sins.

Agreed.

Bob said -
The (critical) flaw in Calvinism is that it views God as the great banker "getting paid for sins". But monetary economy is not the model for salvation - rather substitutionary atonement is. God pays "in suffering" what is owed "in suffering" by mankind for sin. So God is not "getting paid" He is "paying".

Originally posted by Ian Major:
God either pays the sinner's debt OR is paid that debt by the sinner.

Wrong.

Even your own statement should tell you it is wrong. It says that God pays and is not paid. If God pays - then who is "getting paid" when God pays"???

Your "God the banker" idea - has God paying himself as if "He feels better with the torture and suffering He endures for the saints".

That is simply... wrong.

And that is why you are having a hard time with this concept.

Originally posted by Ian Major:

Substitutionary atonement means Christ stood in our place, took the punishment that was our due.

Indeed - suffering and torment in our place. We don't have to pay if we accept His payment for us - in our place suffering for us. But if we refuse that gift - then we pay for our own sins.

But of course - in "neither case" is God "getting paid".

Originally posted by Ian Major:
If God is not 'getting paid', why is the sinner suffering in hell?

God is not "getting" paid when Christ dies for us and PAYS -- neither is Satan in that case, nor is any other living being in the universe. Nobody is saying that the suffering of Christ "makes them feel satisfied or better or happy to see Him suffer". Though Calvinist seem to think that is the case.

God did not give us a "monetary payment" example as if the Bank is "getting paid" - RATHER we have the substitutionary atonement model - and entirely DIFFERENT concept from a Bank "getting your money".

Neither is Satan "getting paid"

Absolutely correct.

When a murderer is executed the family is not "repaid" for the loss of their loved one. They are not "even". Their loss "remains". This is the form of "payment" that sin incurrs.

The criminal pays a debt to society, the society he offended. Likewise, the lost sinner pays the penalty to God for his violation of God's laws.

Now you are getting close to the truth. Society is not "even" when you kill someone and they society has you killed - society is not "the same" as if you had not killed the innocent. In fact there is NO WAY to repay society for your killing an innocent being. The only thing society accomplishes by killing you is...
#1. GEt rid of the criminal so he can't kill again.

#2. Do it in a way that discourages other would-be criminals.

What society does NOT do is --
#1. Get rich off of your death.
#2. Get even so that its innocent member is returned "plus interest".

But if you STEAL a car - and society demands that you pay back the debt with interest - at some point the person you stole from is BETTER off than before you took their car. (imagine - "Give me another car plus a million dollars" as the "payback" -- society is WAY AHEAD once you pay).

Let me ask you again, for what is the sinner suffering in hell? Why has the Judge sentenced him to such suffering?

God has a sin and suffering economy such that x-amount of sin (murder etc ) requires y-amount of suffering (See MAtt 18, Rev 20, Luke 12). So God summed up all the debt of all the sin of the entire world and then Christ became "The Atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the Whole World"

But in all that - God does not "get paid" one cent. Not one ounce of suffering serves to "cheer God" or and joy to His day.

Though the suffering of Christ doubtles gave joy to Satan.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said
But there is another way to approach this as well. Some Arminians say Christ died for EVERY sin except the "unpardonable sin", which is the sin of resisting and thus blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The continual rejection of the Holy Spirit is unpardonable because Christ did not die for that sin, the rest are atoned for in full. Therefore those who suffer in hell suffer for the rejection of the Holy Spirit. They are judged, not based upon their inherited sin nature or even their past misdeeds according to the law, instead they are judged by their response to the Holy Spirit wrought WORD. I'm beginning to lean toward this latter interpretation because of verses like the one in 1 Peter where he speaks about the false teachers being bought and other such passages.

There are several reasons this theory does not hold water.
1. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a specific offence, like theft or adultery. It may or may not be repeated, but once is enough for one to be guilty of it. We all have been guilty of resisting the Spirit before we were saved, so that cannot be the unpardonable sin.

2. If, as Arminianism alleges, Christ took away the sin of the every person, how can they say one sin was excepted? The verse says the sin of the world - no qualifiers. Likewise with the other passages that speak of Him bearing our sins on his own body on the tree, etc. No mention of all-but-one.

3. Men are judged not merely for their refusal to obey the gospel, but even for every idle word they speak. Men suffer in hell for ALL their sins.

No, we either have to say Christ bore all the sin of all the world without exception, or that He bore all the sin of all His sheep without exception.

That leaves Arminians with a problem: How can God demand from the wicked dead what He already received from Christ?

Calvinists have no problem saying that what God once received from His Son, He never will require of us, His people.

In Him

Ian

 

[BrotherJoe]

Brother PSR2,

Good day.

BROTHER PSR2SAID: Potential= Possible but not actual. Having capacity for existence but not yet existing.

Until a person receives Christ as their Saviour he is not their Saviour. He is potentially their Saviour.

ME(BROTHER JOE): So do you believe Christ ACTUALLY was paying for anyones sins at the time he was suffering on the cross or do you take the position he merely was POTENTIALLY suffering for the sins of people?

Saved by grace,

Brother Joe

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Ian;

Hmmm. Abraham was also in the position of dying before Christ's atonement. But He died a saved man. However, to avoid complications, let's apply the question to a man who died AFTER Christ's death - any wicked person will do. What are they suffering in hell for?

Really! saved. Hmmmmmm; oh I see you think that the blood sacrafice of animals is enough to save you. Abraham was eventually saved but not until Christ Paid for His sins. He still had to accept Christ.

Rejection of the gospel is one unforgiveable sin; what about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? That's two. What then happens to the idea that Christ has paid for the sins of EVERY man? That means that He paid for all the sins of unbelief and blasphemy, of all the unsaved dead, but they now too pay for those sins in hell. Is that what you are saying?

If you would have read my last post a little more carefully you would have had your answer before you asked.

The rejection of Christ is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Father ,Son, And Holy Spirit are one in the same.
Websters defintion;

Blasphemy;
BLAS'PHEMY, n. An indignity offered to God by words or writing; reproachful, contemptuous or irreverent words uttered impiously against Jehovah.

Blasphemy is an injury offered to God, by denying that which is due and belonging to him, or attributing to him that which is not agreeable to his nature.

In the middle ages, blasphemy was used to denote simply the blaming or condemning of a person or thing. Among the Greeks, to blaspheme was to use words of ill omen, which they were careful to avoid.
1. That which derogates from the prerogatives of God. Mark 2.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:

There are several reasons this theory does not hold water.
1. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a specific offence, like theft or adultery. It may or may not be repeated, but once is enough for one to be guilty of it. We all have been guilty of resisting the Spirit before we were saved, so that cannot be the unpardonable sin.

Actually many scholars interpret the verb Blaspheme as continual action because it is in the aorist tense.

"The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations."

It can be understood as continual action. So the passage would mean, "Those who continue to blaspheme the Holy Spirit commit the unpardonable sin," which would not include those who repent of such actions.

The verse could therefore be understood as saying, "I assure you that any sin can be forgiven, including blasphemy; 29 but anyone who continually blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. It is an eternal sin."

So, the point of Christ's warning would be to help them see the danger of their actions, whereas if they had already committed a sin that could never be forgiven there wouldn't be much point in warning them of being in danger of Hell, they would be destined to it regardless.

Plus, Calvinists are the ones who believe that God makes empty threats, how do you know this isn't just something Jesus made up to ensure that the elect wouldn't blaspheme the Holy Spirit?

2. If, as Arminianism alleges, Christ took away the sin of the every person, how can they say one sin was excepted? The verse says the sin of the world - no qualifiers. Likewise with the other passages that speak of Him bearing our sins on his own body on the tree, etc. No mention of all-but-one.

That is the point. This verse would be the qualifier. You guys use verses all the time to qualify other verses.

Plus, keep in mind I'm not speaking with certainity or any type of dogmatism on this subject. I'm just presenting the possiblity. Really, as I stated in the beginning, I believe the debate over the atonement really misses the heart of the issue because it can be understood in so many different ways even from within the Calvinistic perspective.

3. Men are judged not merely for their refusal to obey the gospel, but even for every idle word they speak. Men suffer in hell for ALL their sins.

But the scripture clearly shows that we are judged not by Christ but by his words, the words he spoke, the gospel message that he gave for the world to hear during his time here on earth. That is what we are going to be judged by on the final day.

No, we either have to say Christ bore all the sin of all the world without exception, or that He bore all the sin of all His sheep without exception.

I'm ok with with either of those options. That's been my point, you don't have to pick a side on the atonement to support your soterilogical system.

That leaves Arminians with a problem: How can God demand from the wicked dead what He already received from Christ?

This is a problem you have created in your mind, scripture doesn't address it and you would think with all those rank Arminians running around that Paul was fighting against in Romans 9 that he would have brought up this very valid point. The wicked dead are judged for not responding in faith to God's revelation of himself. In the very least we can all say that Christ died for the those who repented, right? So the debate is...

You believe they repented because God made them repent and I believe scripture.

Calvinists have no problem saying that what God once received from His Son, He never will require of us, His people.

Again, why can't an Arminian say this? Don't you agree that Christ died for all you believe? How they come to faith is another debate all together, but it certainly doesn't change the effect of the atonement in the long run.

 

[Ian Major]

Bob Ryan said
Even your own statement should tell you it is wrong. It says that God pays and is not paid. If God pays - then who is "getting paid" when God pays"???

God is getting paid when God pays. Sinners owe a debt to God for their sin. They will pay - be punished - for those sins on the Day of Judgement. but God the Son substituted for those who trust in Him; He bore their punishment instead. Christ was paying back to God the price due for His people's sins. That's what Substitutionary Atonement means.

Your "God the banker" idea - has God paying himself as if "He feels better with the torture and suffering He endures for the saints".

'Feels better'? Your dismissive portrayal I leave between you and God, but the truth of the matter is that God was pleased to suffer Himself for the sins of His people. His holiness could not ignore our sin, so it HAD to be paid for, if we were to be saved.

Indeed - suffering and torment in our place. We don't have to pay if we accept His payment for us - in our place suffering for us. But if we refuse that gift - then we pay for our own sins.... But of course - in "neither case" is God "getting paid".

OK, you agree this much: God pays for our sins, and unrepentant sinners pay for their sins. You then say that God is not getting paid in either case. But if someone is paying, to whom are they paying?

God is not "getting" paid when Christ dies for us and PAYS -- neither is Satan in that case, nor is any other living being in the universe. Nobody is saying that the suffering of Christ "makes them feel satisfied or better or happy to see Him suffer". Though Calvinist seem to think that is the case.

No closer to revealing who is being paid.

God did not give us a "monetary payment" example as if the Bank is "getting paid" - RATHER we have the substitutionary atonement model - and entirely DIFFERENT concept from a Bank "getting your money".

No closer.

God has a sin and suffering economy such that x-amount of sin (murder etc ) requires y-amount of suffering (See MAtt 18, Rev 20, Luke 12). So God summed up all the debt of all the sin of the entire world and then Christ became "The Atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the Whole World"

Ah, your understanding of payment gets clearer, though not more biblical. You are saying the payment is made to nobody. And that Christ has paid for everybody's sin - but that most of them will also pay for it! Have you been studying in Ray Berrian's seminary?

But in all that - God does not "get paid" one cent. Not one ounce of suffering serves to "cheer God" or and joy to His day.

Confusion again.

But let me end all these theories of sin and suffering economies, x-sin and y-suffering. Your error is in failing to accept the Scripture explanation of sin and punishment. OUR SINS ARE DEBTS WE OWE TO GOD.

Compare Mt.6: 12And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.with Mt.6: 14"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

God gives punishment in exact accordance to unfulfilled debt. The sinner pays back to God in suffering exactly what he stole from Him in the obedience that was His due.

Rom.2: 5But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6who "will render to each one according to his deeds":

Rom.12: 19Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.

2 Thess.1: 6since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Bob, this whole concept of Forgiveness/Punishment of the Debt we owe to God is BASIC. Only a theology desperate to avoid sovereign grace conclusions could miss it.

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

ILUVLIGHT said
Really! saved. Hmmmmmm; oh I see you think that the blood sacrafice of animals is enough to save you. Abraham was eventually saved but not until Christ Paid for His sins. He still had to accept Christ.

No, Abraham was saved the moment he believed. He accepted Christ in that very act of believing God's promises. Rom.4: 3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." The price for Abraham's sins was not yet paid, but od looked on Christ as the 'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.' His blood already covered Abraham, though it was yet to be shed.

The rejection of Christ is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Father ,Son, And Holy Spirit are one in the same.

The Trinity are certainly One God in Three Persons. But you cannot apply everything about one to all. Christ made it clear that one could blaspheme Him and be forgiven; but not so if one blasphemed the Holy spirit.


But in any event, dying without Christ is certainly eternally damning, as is the blasphemy against the Spirit. So where do you get it that this sins are excepted from the 'sin of the world' that Christ died for? Did John mean 'most of the sin of the world'?

Again, if Christ took away all these other sins, how come God is going to punish men for their theft, adultery, murder, etc., in exact accordance with their deeds?

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said
Actually many scholars interpret the verb Blaspheme as continual action because it is in the aorist tense.

News to me. Normally the aorist is an event. But let's accept it COULD mean continual action. Surely that would make blasphemy against the Spirit no different than blasphemy against Christ (which He said could be forgiven, unlike the other) - or indeed any sin. Continual fornication will never be forgiven. If one dies a fornicator, one perishes

Again, why say a continual sin cannot be forgiven in this life? It is a contradiction. If one repented of it in this life, it would not be continual.

No, the contrast is between a sin that cannot be forgiven and the rest.

So, the point of Christ's warning would be to help them see the danger of their actions, whereas if they had already committed a sin that could never be forgiven there wouldn't be much point in warning them of being in danger of Hell, they would be destined to it regardless.

Christ's warning was given not to those already guilty of this blasphemy, but the those who hadn't, to keep them from it.

Leaving your charicature aside, that is why Christ gave the warning, to ensure the elect did not do so. MEANS to His ENDS.

That is the point. This verse would be the qualifier. You guys use verses all the time to qualify other verses.

Seems a pretty big gap between John's words and Christ's 'qualifier'.

Plus, keep in mind I'm not speaking with certainity or any type of dogmatism on this subject. I'm just presenting the possiblity.

OK, I take it in that context.

But the scripture clearly shows that we are judged not by Christ but by his words, the words he spoke, the gospel message that he gave for the world to hear during his time here on earth. That is what we are going to be judged by on the final day.

But that does not mean that Christ is not the judge, nor that individual sinners are going to be punished for individual sins. The sinner's refusal of the gospel opens him up to answer for all his sins, every idle word, impure thought, cruel deed, callous inaction. God is going to avenge every sin, not only the rejection of the gospel. Mt.25 has some very specific offenses listed; as do Rom.2 and other passages.

This is a problem you have created in your mind, scripture doesn't address it

It doesn't address it because it doesn't exist.

So the debate is... You believe they repented because God made them repent and I believe scripture.

But No, THIS debate is about explaining why the wicked dead are punished for the sins universal atonement says Christ paid for.

A Very Happy 4 July to you and all our American brothers and sisters.

In Him

Ian

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Ian;

No, Abraham was saved the moment he believed. He accepted Christ in that very act of believing God's promises. Rom.4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Abraham was indeed a righteous as man. He was willing submitted to God. It's just that what you are claiming is that Abraham saved himself by being righteous. That is Salvation by works.

God lives outside of time and is able to make statements like slain before the foundation of the world. As far as we are concerned we live according to time, we are limited by it. With out the blood of Christ no one is ever saved. The acts of sin requires payment. With out the Blood of Christ there is no payment.

The Trinity are certainly One God in Three Persons. But you cannot apply everything about one to all. Christ made it clear that one could blaspheme Him and be forgiven; but not so if one blasphemed the Holy spirit.

It is blasphemy to reject the conviction placed on your heart just before Salvation. The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts us of our sins. He is the one who urges us to repent of our sins. He's the one that speaks to our hearts.

But in any event, dying without Christ is certainly eternally damning, as is the blasphemy against the Spirit. So where do you get it that this sins are excepted from the 'sin of the world' that Christ died for? Did John mean 'most of the sin of the world'?

I'm not sure what you mean here So I'll take a guess.
I never said any sin is accepted certainly no sin is. All sins are forgiven the moment we repent. But if we do not repent then we wind up going to hell and yes we will suffer for them. Why do you think that is the way it is? It's because we reject Christ, because if we accept Christ and repent then even our rejection is forgiven. The reason it is forgiven is because the sin of rejection isn't until death. In other words we repent there fore we do not pay for any of our sin because Christ already did that for us.

Again, if Christ took away all these other sins, how come God is going to punish men for their theft, adultery, murder, etc., in exact accordance with their deeds?

When you reject Christ and die with out ever repenting. You will be judged for them because you rejected your only advocate. The only one you will ever have. Jesus Christ our Savior. Without Christ we have no covering for our sins. We have no blood sacrifice. We have no atonement. All because of one sin, it's called rejection of Jesus Christ as your Savior.

The thing that keeps me walking with Christ everyday is my surrender to Him. Without this commitment it would be like a marriage in name only.
Being a Christian is being commited to Christ.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[npetreley]

It's just that what you are claiming is that Abraham saved himself by being righteous. That is Salvation by works.

The whole reason Paul uses the illustration of Abraham is to explain that through faith, righteousness is credited to our account.


1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."

 

[Skandelon]

Originally posted by Ian Major:
Surely that would make blasphemy against the Spirit no different than blasphemy against Christ (which He said could be forgiven, unlike the other)

Christ was leaving the earth, but the Holy Spirit is the one who was to bring the message to the world and this could have been seen as Christ's warning to the world not to continually reject the calling of the Holy Spirit.

- or indeed any sin. Continual fornication will never be forgiven. If one dies a fornicator, one perishes

Again, why say a continual sin cannot be forgiven in this life? It is a contradiction. If one repented of it in this life, it would not be continual.

No, the contrast is between a sin that cannot be forgiven and the rest.

But I don't think its necessarily saying that the continual sin cannot be forgiven in this life, I think it may be saying it can't be forgiven at the time of judgement because it was continual.

Christ's warning was given not to those already guilty of this blasphemy, but the those who hadn't, to keep them from it.

That's possible. But it's also possible that he is warning them that if they continue in their sin they will not be pardoned.

Leaving your charicature aside, that is why Christ gave the warning, to ensure the elect did not do so. MEANS to His ENDS.

I'm sorry I just find that humerous. It's just to bad that he didn't give us a warning not to be Arminians so that we wouldn't have these debates, uh?

Seems a pretty big gap between John's words and Christ's 'qualifier'.

We'll remember you said that.

But that does not mean that Christ is not the judge, nor that individual sinners are going to be punished for individual sins. The sinner's refusal of the gospel opens him up to answer for all his sins, every idle word, impure thought, cruel deed, callous inaction. God is going to avenge every sin, not only the rejection of the gospel. Mt.25 has some very specific offenses listed; as do Rom.2 and other passages.

Yes, Christ will be the judge and he will judge based upon His words, his revelation. All of these misdeeds are listed as a part of God's word and it is by that word that we stand judged and condemned if we failed to heed its warnings. You even said earlier that Christ gives warning as a means to an end. Well, the scripture/word lists these sins as warnings and its by those warnings that we will be judged in the end. If we respent and obey we will be saved, if we don't we won't. Its all very simple, don't try to over complicate things here.

It doesn't address it because it doesn't exist.

My point was simply that this "problem" wasn't addressed in scripture and since Calvinists apparently believe that Paul often rebuted Arminians such as in Romans 9, I just figured that the issue of limited atonement would have come up in his discussions.

But No, THIS debate is about explaining why the wicked dead are punished for the sins universal atonement says Christ paid for.

All arminians don't hold to a universal atonement. Some believe that Christ died for believers.

A Very Happy 4 July to you and all our American brothers and sisters.

And to you as well my brother. I know we disagree on this issue, but I must say you keep me on my toes and in the word. I always appreciate your approach to handling our discussions. It is sincerely a pleasure. With respect!

Blessings to you and yours.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Ryan said
Even your own statement should tell you it is wrong. It says that God pays and is not paid. If God pays - then who is "getting paid" when God pays"???

Originally posted by Ian Major:

God is getting paid when God pays. Sinners owe a debt to God for their sin. They will pay - be punished - for those sins on the Day of Judgement. but God the Son substituted for those who trust in Him; He bore their punishment instead. Christ was paying back to God the price due for His people's sins. That's what Substitutionary Atonement means.

#1. Christ IS God. Christ was not torturing Himself "until He felt pretty good about it" or even "until He felt like things were finally even".

#2. God the Father SUFFERED in the torture and suffering of His sin. "God so LOVED the Word that HE GAVE..." this is an act of sacrifice, risk and loss NOT an "opportunity for payment" or a chance to "finally be even". Sacrificing one's life for others is not a form of "getting paid back".

If you can come to grips with these basic concepts of the atonement then you will see the flaw in the Calvinist argument "God got paid twice" as if "God now owes somebody".

If you don't allow yourself to unravel the knot that Calvinism has tied right here at the start - the rest will only be that much more difficult.

Bob further - elaborates the explanation --

Your "God the banker" idea - has God paying himself as if "He feels better with the torture and suffering He endures for the saints".

Ian said :

'Feels better'? ...God was pleased to suffer Himself for the sins of His people. His holiness could not ignore our sin, so it HAD to be paid for, if we were to be saved.

True enough. Now as unpleasant as it may seem - stick with that thought for a minute.

God's Law demanded that "The wages of sin is death" but this is more in line with -- the Criminal must be horribly EXECUTED - rather than - the Criminal must pay a million dollars.

When the Criminal is executed - nobody is "even" and nobody is "paid" and nobody "is ahead".

Justice has TWO scenarios not just one.

In the case of commodity theft/crime. Justice demands PAYBACK and it demands punishment in a way that discourages future theft. The one who sufferred loss - is more than compensated for that loss and often "further dissincentives" are heaped upon the offender. But if his debt is PAID for him - then the one who suffered loss is STILL paid - to the point of coming out "ahead" in many cases.

But if it is case of murder - then NOBODY gets "paid back" -- nobody is "even". In that case Justice demands that you simply get rid of the offender and that you do so in such a way that it is a dissincentive to all future would-be offenders. But there is no way to "REPAY" the loss. If somone commits a horrible crime against your child - you can not be "REPAID" or "brought even".

In that kind of crime - EVEN if someone volunteers to die FOR the criminal that tortured your child - it is not a case of being "reimbursed".

God "Suffers loss" when one of HIS children is taken away in sin and rebellion. Saying that the torture of Christ is all the "reimbursement" that God needs for suffering that loss - is silly.

What IS happening is that Christ pays the debt that the law demands, AND the New Birth is "getting rid of the offender" it is death to the old and Creation of the New. It is "justice" but it us not "REIMBURSEMENT"

Indeed - suffering and torment in our place. We don't have to pay if we accept His payment for us - in our place suffering for us. But if we refuse that gift - then we pay for our own sins.... But of course - in "neither case" is God "getting paid". No REIMBURSEMENT in this model

Ian
OK, you agree this much: God pays for our sins, and unrepentant sinners pay for their sins. You then say that God is not getting paid in either case. But if someone is paying, to whom are they paying?

Good question. The answer is no one. God insures that the debt of suffering is exactly measured out - but God is not "reimbursed" by experiencing that torture Himself.

The ONLY reason suffering is required at all by God's LAW - is that justice demands that punishment be in the form of a "dissincentive" that is equal to the enormity of the crime as a means of disuading future offenders and of conveying the magnitude of the offense. But this is not a "reimbursement" scenario where in the death or execution of the criminal somebody gets "paid" and is now either "even" or "ahead".

Bob said --
God is not "getting" paid when Christ dies for us and PAYS -- neither is Satan in that case, nor is any other living being in the universe. Nobody is saying that the suffering of Christ "makes them feel satisfied or better or happy to see Him suffer". Though Calvinist seem to think that is the case.

Ian -- Have you been studying in Ray Berrian's seminary?

Ray is an excellent minister and Bible teacher. I have great respect for his views even in cases where I may differ.

But in all that - God does not "get paid" one cent. Not one ounce of suffering serves to "cheer God" or add joy to His day.

Ian said --
Confusion again.

No doubt.

Rom.2: 5But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6who "will render to each one according to his deeds":

In this all can agree. God is the one who measures the debt owed (in judgment) and then executes that judgment to insure that price in torment and suffering is "paid" and the "dissincentive" is exactly as the law demands.

This is nothing like the Calvinist "reimbursement" where SOMEONE is getting "paid".

God does not "torment Himself until He FEELS better about the sins of the saints". This is pretty basic and obvious - but Calvinism needs to ignore it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Skandelon]

Bob,

I really hadn't thought through the atonement from this perspective. Being a former Calvinists I had always seen it as if God would be paying for the atonement twice if universal atonement was true. But your post helped me to remember that God is the one setting the fine. If He wanted to He could atone for every sin in the entire world, past, present and future but choose to allow only those who met his critera into heaven. Its His pregogative, is it not?

Who says he couldn't pay for John Doe's sin and then punish him with enternal seperation if John chose to reject Christ's message of redemption? That seems to be very biblical. Men are judge based upon their acceptance or rejection of Christ's words.

 

[Ian Major]

ILUVLIGHT said
Abraham was indeed a righteous as man. He was willing submitted to God. It's just that what you are claiming is that Abraham saved himself by being righteous. That is Salvation by works.

Hi, Mike. Npetreley put it well - this is exactly the opposite of what you say. I know you wonder about how Abraham could be saved before Christ paid for his sins, but Scripture assures us he was. It is God who justified him the moment he believed, God who regarded him already washed by the blood of Christ. Abraham did not remain a sinner until Christ died. He was in the Paradise of God; in fact, it was named after him.

It is blasphemy to reject the conviction placed on your heart just before Salvation. The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts us of our sins. He is the one who urges us to repent of our sins. He's the one that speaks to our hearts.

If that constituted blasphemy, then no one who ever came under conviction and refused to repent could be saved. That certainly includes me and most Christians I know. Most have heard and rejected the Spirit's promptings once or more before they finally believed.

No, blasphemy of the Spirit refers to a specific event in which the speaker knowingly attributes the work of the Spirit to demons. The Pharisees who did that knew quite well that Christ was not speaking by a demon. His gracious words and works were irreproachable, but they cut these hypocrites to the heart and they hated Him. Therefore they would rather blaspheme the Spirit than admit their own guilt.

I never said any sin is accepted certainly no sin is. All sins are forgiven the moment we repent. But if we do not repent then we wind up going to hell and yes we will suffer for them.

Yes, I know we agree that all the believer's sins are forgiven. It is the unbeliever's sins I am asking about. How can one say Christ paid for them and then the unbeliever pays for them in hell? That is the point. Does God demand payment twice?

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Skandelon said
I'm sorry I just find that humerous. It's just to bad that he didn't give us a warning not to be Arminians so that we wouldn't have these debates, uh?

O, but He did! ! Thess.5: 21Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Yes, Christ will be the judge and he will judge based upon His words, his revelation. All of these misdeeds are listed as a part of God's word and it is by that word that we stand judged and condemned if we failed to heed its warnings. You even said earlier that Christ gives warning as a means to an end. Well, the scripture/word lists these sins as warnings and its by those warnings that we will be judged in the end. If we respent and obey we will be saved, if we don't we won't. Its all very simple, don't try to over complicate things here.

We must be talking at cross-purposes, for I agree with all you said here. Man will be judged by Christ's words. His words condemn all the sins I listed and more. Those who commit those sins and fail to repent and believe will be damned for them. Each according to his works. Not just for rejecting the gospel, but for EVERY sin.

My point was simply that this "problem" wasn't addressed in scripture and since Calvinists apparently believe that Paul often rebuted Arminians such as in Romans 9, I just figured that the issue of limited atonement would have come up in his discussions.

As I pointed out before, many serious errors were not DIRECTLY dealt with by the apostles. Even fundemental error such as on the Trinity. But the apostles left us with the means to deal with what would come up.

All arminians don't hold to a universal atonement. Some believe that Christ died for believers.

Again, THIS thread is not about the falsity or otherwise of the whole of Arminianism - it is just asking those who do believe in a universal atonement to explain why the lost pay for the sins Christ is alleged to have already paid for.

I know we disagree on this issue, but I must say you keep me on my toes and in the word. I always appreciate your approach to handling our discussions. It is sincerely a pleasure. With respect!

Ditto!

In Him

Ian

 

[Ian Major]

Bob Ryan said
#1. Christ IS God. Christ was not torturing Himself "until He felt pretty good about it" or even "until He felt pretty good about it".

Your caricature of Calvinism is laughable - when one resorts to misrepresentation of the other's beliefs, we can be sure where the Truth is. Show me where any Calvinist ever said, "until He felt pretty good about it".

Sacrificing one's life for others is not a form of "getting paid back".

If that were all the Scripture said about the death of Christ, you might have a point. But it goes on to speak of His death as an appeasement of the righteous anger of a Holy God. He is the propitiation for our sins. The atonement that turns away wrath.

And as I have already shown, and you ignored, our sins put us in debt to God. We cannot undo those sins - give back to Him our righteousness - so He requires it of us in punishment.

If you can come to grips with these basic concepts of the atonement then you will see the flaw in the Calvinist argument "God got paid twice" as if "God now owes somebody".

Your concept of the atonement just proves how dangerous Free-willism is. These views you have stated are verging on the heretical. I don't know how representative they are of Arminianism, but I suspect many Arminian brothers would tremble to touch them. Any comments, Arminian friends?

God's Law demanded that "The wages of sin is death" but this is more in line with -- the Criminal must be horribly EXECUTED - rather than - the Criminal must pay a million dollars.

Your analogy just shows how far removed from reality you are: the criminal pays with his life. If he had a million dollars, would he not gladly exchange that for his life? Death is the ultimate payment society demands.

To cut short all your banker's analogies, I jump you this:
In this all can agree. God is the one who measures the debt owed (in judgment) and then executes that judgment to insure that price in torment and suffering is "paid" and the "dissincentive" is exactly as the law demands.
and
This is nothing like the Calvinist "reimbursement" where SOMEONE is getting "paid".
and
God does not "torment Himself until He FEELS better about the sins of the saints". This is pretty basic and obvious - but Calvinism needs to ignore it.

All this to avoid explaining why the lost are punished for the sins you say Christ paid for! They OWE God a debt - but He is not being paid by their punishment!!! They ARE paying for their sins!!!

Let me simply put it again - If Christ bore their sins on His own body on the tree, why are they now being punished for those sins?

In Him

Ian