Is Physical Death the Penalty for Sin?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:

HP: By this vicarious substitution, God has made a way to governmentally treat the sinner as if though he had not sinned, IF the sinner will fulfill the stated conditions of salvation which are initially repentance and faith.

BR: Agreed. This upholds the law "the penalty the law demands" and it satisfies both justice and mercy.

justice because the Law is satisifed AND the sinner is killed in the form of dying to self and being "created" as a new creation.

Justice would not be satisified if someone simply let the murderer back out onto the streets to "murder some more".

HP: Good point. No change of heart, no forgiveness invoked.

HP:On the cross no specific sin was literally paid for, but rather it was again a substitutionary atonement that addressed the penalty and demands of the law for the entire sinful fallen human race.

BR: It is like saying that all my bills add up to some huge amount. So now a rich benefactor steps in a pays the entire lump sum debt without actually paying off any of the debts owed?? Or are you saying that even the lump sum debt is not paid -- just abolished?

HP: Your questions assume some type of forensic proceeding which it was not. God simply accepted the punishment Christ endured as a satisfaction of the penalty owed by the sinner. Again, it never literally paid for anything but built the bridge via an atonement between a Holy God, His Holy Law, and sinful man whereby man could once again receive forgiveness for sins that are past and enter into fellowship with God IF and when man would fulfill the stated conditions of repentance and faith.

BR: IF the debts could be abolished instead of paid then the economy collapses since debts are not actually payable.

HP: There is no tangible analogy possible between a forensic proceeding and the atonement. The closest thing that serves as a good analogy is a pardon, not the payment of a debt. You said previously, " in the atonement model no "being" is getting paid anything." May I suggrest that we stop using the words that relate to the payment of a debt if there is none?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I am still waiting for responses from BR and Pastor Bob.

I know, I know, Patience is a virtue, and I am told to be anxious for nothing:godisgood:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR

"The reason that Christ can do that without ALSO having to be tormented infinitely for each sin of each person - is that infinite suffering is NOT the debt owed for each sin we FINITE beings commit."

GE

It's easy for you being a SDA to think this way, because you do not believe Christ died in being, while being, and indeed, FOR being, God Omnipotent, God Eternal and God Infinite. Had you believed Christ died for sin in being, while being, and indeed for being God Omnipotent, God Eternal and God Infinite, you would have understood that Christ suffered infinitely for each sin of each person He forgave - that infinite suffeiring IS, the debt owed for each sin we FINITE beings committed, because possible for only, the God Omnipotent, God Eternal and God Infinite! Anything less than this God in laying down his Life for sins, would make of Christ an imposter - banish the thought! Had Christ not had the Power wherewith both to lay down his Life, He also would not have had the Power to take up His Life again.

That's why you people see the Atonement Christ had finished on earth and from the dead and grave, as finite, incomplete and wanting, and something that had to be improved on afterwards 'in heaven' through your so-called 'investigative judgment'.

Don't look for an "infinite suffering" that might pay "the debt owed for each sin we FINITE beings commit", but look for the Infinite Love and Grace of the Infinite God.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP
"Good point. No change of heart, no forgiveness invoked."

GE

Worst point ever if ... If 'change of heart' is seen as of man's own doing, and as if in time and consequence, conditional for forgiveness. The two, change of heart, and forgiveness never go without one another, both being the sovereign prerogative and sovereign will and sovereign work, of God, and God alone, against the wishes, will or desire and inclination of the individual thus visited. Is it not sinners, who are forgiven their sins? Is it not sinners' hearts, changed? so how do you expect a man change his heart from his own self or nature?

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

HP: Absolutely Jesus died. He tasted death for everyman. Just the same I can point to some that did not see death, i.e. Enoch and Elijah.

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God

You cannot just start lumping together ‘death’ and a ‘transition phase in ones existence,’ as if though one of necessity refers to the other or they both refer to the same process. Scripture clearly distinguishes between the two, does it not?.

Suppose one puts ice under a sunlight, it melts. The property of ice is that it melts. If it does not melt then it has some other property and it is not ice. Enoch was removed before he died, but he still possessed the property that would result in His death had he not been removed, sin. If Enoch lived and was not removed and never died, well then you would have a exception to this rule of death. But the fact is God said he did NOT or should not see death. Clearly the indication is that he would have eventually seen death. Death would have come upon Enoch because he possessed the property that results in all our deaths, sin (I realize the topic of the OP has been moved on from somewhat but I had time for this brief response).

 

[righteousdude2]

Death: A LIVING Hell

Need one say any more than this. Death for the unbeliever leads them to their judgment and being cast into a LIVING Hell. At least that's what I understand.

The new age teaching that "everyone will go to heaven is not scriptural. those who reject Jesus will be cast into hell, and they shall live, in an eternal existance of torment, and suffering. A just punishment for those who mock God and reject His love.

Pastor Paul

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

AQ: Suppose one puts ice under a sunlight, it melts. The property of ice is that it melts. If it does not melt then it has some other property and it is not ice. Enoch was removed before he died, but he still possessed the property that would result in His death had he not been removed, sin.

HP: You confuse physical depravity and mortality with sin. One is in the arena of the physical while sin resides in the arena of the spiritual. Another way to put it is that you confuse the sensibilities with the will. Sin is the results of the intents of the heart where as physical death is the normal physical consequence of simply being human subsequent to the fall.

AQ: If Enoch lived and was not removed and never died, well then you would have a exception to this rule of death.

HP: That is impossible as Enoch had flesh and bones. Flesh and bones cannot, nor was it designed to, live eternally. IF Enoch had lived and never sinned, he still would have had to be changed in order to inhabit eternity according to Scripture, not me. 1Co 15:53 “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” Funny thing, but that is exactly what happened was it not?

AQ: But the fact is God said he did NOT taste death. Clearly the indication is that he would have eventually seen death.

HP: Why do you say that? You are reading in an implication that simply is not there nor is it implied.

AQ: Death would have come upon Enoch because he possessed the property that results in all our deaths, sin

HP: You have now added to Scripture for Scripture in no wise accounts sin to Enoch anywhere. Because something is needed or desired to some how round out or put the finishing touches on ones theology to make it appear consistent, that does not give any of us the right to create evidence that Scripture does not support in this individuals case. IF Enoch sinned, we will have to wait to find that out. Again, no indication is given in Scripture that he sinned. Every indication in Scripture is that Enoch fron first light of moral agency, walked with God.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

: You have now added to Scripture for Scripture in no wise accounts sin to Enoch anywhere. Because something is needed or desired to some how round out or put the finishing touches on ones theology to make it appear consistent, that does not give any of us the right to create evidence that Scripture does not support in this individuals case. IF Enoch sinned, we will have to wait to find that out. Again, no indication is given in Scripture that he sinned. Every indication in Scripture is that Enoch fron first light of moral agency, walked with God. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Okay, I see where you are coming from. We have two very opposing views of sin and its inherent nature in all humanity after the fall. I doubt we can go further here on debate but thanks.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

AQ: Okay, I see where you are coming from. We have two very opposing views of sin and its inherent nature in all humanity after the fall. I doubt we can go further here on debate but thanks.

HP: Now if I were to use the same tactics on you concerning sin as GE does on me concerning grace, I would say that you don’t believe in sin. :tonofbricks:

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

HP: Now if I were to use the same tactics on you concerning sin as GE does on me concerning grace, I would say that you don’t believe in sin. :tonofbricks:

And if you did attempt to use that tactic of course you would be wrong, I do believe in sin, but fortunately you aren't going to employ it anyway.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

AQ: And if you did attempt to use that tactic of course you would be wrong, I do believe in sin, but fortunately you aren't going to employ it anyway.

HP: I agree that such tactics are wrong, and I trust I will never use such tactics.

That is the very tactic Augustine used against Pelagius. When Pelagius disagreed on what grace entailed, in that it does not entail the granting of abilities, Augustine claimed that Pelagius was denying that man needed grace to be saved.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP: I agree that such tactics are wrong, and I trust I will never use such tactics.

That is the very tactic Augustine used against Pelagius. When Pelagius disagreed on what grace entailed, in that it does not entail the granting of abilities, Augustine claimed that Pelagius was denying that man needed grace to be saved.

GE

If Grace - God of his own free will - does not give one ability to accept, ability to believe, ability to decide, ability to obey, ability to follow Christ, then is Jesus Christ a liar, who said, "Without Me, you can do nothing!" So, how right and to the point was Augustine! Augustine not only in faith far exceeds Pelagius; he towers over him in intellect.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Need one say any more than this. Death for the unbeliever leads them to their judgment and being cast into a LIVING Hell. At least that's what I understand.

The new age teaching that "everyone will go to heaven is not scriptural. those who reject Jesus will be cast into hell, and they shall live, in an eternal existance of torment, and suffering. A just punishment for those who mock God and reject His love.

Pastor Paul

GE

Also to God's judgments, one should, and want to, say, Amen!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE: If Grace - God of his own free will - does not give one ability to accept, ability to believe, ability to decide, ability to obey, ability to follow Christ, then is Jesus Christ a liar, who said, "Without Me, you can do nothing!"

HP: If that is your position, be consistent. According to you one could not even sin without God enabling him to do so, is that not correct? All this time I thought that apart from God all one could do was sin and that continually. Now you tell us that one cannot do ‘anything’ apart from God granting the ability.

The real truth of the matter your position, as I understand it, is not one of mere ability, but rather causation. Men are dead logs until God 'causes' them to act differently, and then still they are helpless due to the fact that they cannot resist that which God has caused. am I not right? . Your system is one of pure deterministic fatalism GE.

 

[bound]

HP: If that is your position, be consistent. According to you one could not even sin without God enabling him to do so, is that not correct? All this time I thought that apart from God all one could do was sin and that continually. Now you tell us that one cannot do ‘anything’ apart from God granting the ability.

The real truth of the matter your position, as I understand it, is not one of mere ability, but rather causation. Men are dead logs until God 'causes' them to act differently, and then still they are helpless due to the fact that they cannot resist that which God has caused. am I not right? . Your system is one of pure deterministic fatalism GE.

Grace and Peace HP,

It's called 'hyper-calvinism' and yes it's a very ugly doctrine. God's 'gift' of Free Will has never been taken from man. All that man need do is not to resist what has been freely given and he will participate in the divine nature that was once his inheritance and can be once again through Christ Jesus. Hard Determinism is fatalism and is extremely ugly. Never ever agree with it.

I will be leaving on our family Thanksgiving Day trip to visit family and friends so I won't be able to reply but I hope that you and everyone has a safe and healthy Thanksgiving. God Bless.