Correct - this picture of Israel's salvation from slavery in Egypt is a foreshadowing of the salvation of God's people from sin.
That shows us that the lamb was slain for His people only. Not for the Egyptians. Yes, exceptions were made, because it was only a picture; the reality of people of all nations being spiritually saved had to be hinted at. But the main type stood: God saves His people, not the world.
The type continued in the high priest's garments. His breastplate as he stood to offer atonement had 12 stones, one for each tribe of Israel. ALL Israel were being atoned for. But not the Edomites, Midianites, Egyptians, etc. Israel only.
Still, the exceptions are significant enough, because it WAS a picture. When you say "saves the world"/"saves His people", this is true, but not preordained states of the people, and even those "exceptions" (as well as any in the "people" who didn't follow the rule and were slaughered) show this.
An infinite debt is paid for an infinite duration. How can it ever be said to be fully paid? Does that mean it is not BEING paid?
[infinity]/[infinity] is not necessarily infinity; any finite number will fit; once again, the eternity (infinity) of the duration would then
equal the debt, and it would be paid, and then in some infinitely far time (conceivable, considering time may be different in the new Heavens, which we often call "eternity"), they would be saved. This idea would be better for a concept of purgatory.
The recompense to God is the vindication of His holiness. If God did not punish the wicked in hell, He would not be the Righteous God. He recompenses to them the tribulation they deserve for offending Him. They are paying back to God the debt they owe Him, not in holiness but in exact measure suffering for the lack of holiness.
His holiness is vindcated just by the removal of sin from His presence. What people owe God is to eternal service and worship, not that OR "suffering". HE is not getting that in those punished, but they are removed from His presence.
God getting 'enjoyment' is just an Arminian smear , a misrepresentation of His desire that justice be done.
Based on things Calvinists themselves have said, though you may not put things that way.
Your definition of eternal suffering misses out some of the statements Scripture makes. The 'flame' of hell is real enough for the rich man to desire water to cool his tongue. Obviously we are speaking of spiritual realities rather than material ones. But the meaning is clear enough, that banishment is not all of the punishment. There is the outer darkness, the flame, the worm. Spiritual realities that bring conscious misery and pain. The place He sent them to provides the 'doing' to them that God has appointed.
Though we can't speculate too much, still, you could look at the commonly accepted view that the flame and other torment is the sensation of their own sin (lust, hatreds, guilt & shame, etc.), forever unfulfilled and perhaps magnified. They are separated (the "outer darkness") from God, the source of all things good. So what is there but misery? Like people are hurt by rejection,; imagine being rejected by the ultimate being in the universe (after finally seeing for sure that He was real after all!). In any case, as all of that would be the
characteristic of the banishment, the banishment WOULD be the punishment.
True. But Christ singles out Judas for special mention. Judas' sin is much greater than others, so his punishment will be much greater.
That still renders meaningless the ide of it being better not to be born. If any are preordained to Hell, it would be better for any of them not tobe born, however much worse it may be for some than others. But if many people are in a position where they can still be saved, and some are in a hardened position where they for all purposes cannot, (and then are used for such a wicked role), then you would have a meaningful difference.
Judas was the one foreordained, not just any reprobate. The son of perdition had to be one of His appointed band,
None of us are innocents. WE are all damned, if God does not intervene. God chose to allow Judas to go to depths of sin He did not permit others to go to. He chose Judas for that, but that does not mean He forced Judas to do it. Only that He allowed him to be what any of us could be, but for His grace.
Still, God could choose any reprobate to be that one of his appointed band. It's not that God made him a reprobate to fulfill the purpose. That He in effect says "well, this person just won't have any chance to be saved because I need him for this purpose" (but come to find out all who for some reason are not chosen to be saved are in the same situation, just not quite as bad). That WOULD be "forcing" the person to do it. If you place a baby on a slide down into a pit, then you can say "well, it was just his own mass that pulled him in; I just let him go the way his nature gravitated", he was still forced into the pit.
No one is discussing "innocence". (though it is the Calvinists who insist these decisions are made before the person is born and did any sin). Just the idea of God shutting people out, as "non-innocent" as they may be.
You confuse what Scripture calls the 'children of wrath' - all mankind, with 'goats' or non-sheep. Scripture shows the people of God as His sheep, even when they were gone astray. They were never goats. In their natural state, they were sheep lost, away from their shepherd. But a moment came when they heard their Shepherd's voice and followed Him.
No, you're confusing either someone who was a person of God who backslides, or those back then who were already pretty much following Christ, but were not yet "of the fold". Clearly, the definition of sheep is one who "hears His voice",
currently, that is, not "all who will in the future". If they are not following His voice now, they do not fit the description of a sheep.
