Substitionary death of Christ

[DeeJay]

Good points rsr and npet. I am not set on my thoughts but that is one of the reasons this board is such a blessing. We can argue and refine the finer points of our faith. That way we can be knowlegeable when speaking to others.

Why not use the word elect in John 3:16 For God so love the world he sent his only begoten Son so that the elect should not perish......

Whosoever believes in him should not perish.

It is going to take alot of evidence to convince me that anybody who belives in Him will not perish. If I can not trust the Bible in this simple statement then what else should I doubt.

"And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross." (ESV)

Is this speaking to believers. If so it makes sense. We are dead until we place our faith in Christ for our salvation.

If Jesus would not have died on the cross for us. Our debt would have been on us to pay. We would have been condemed to hell. Because of Jesus' work on the cross whosoever believes in him will not perish.

On the cross, Jesus said "It is finished," which in Greek carries the connotation of "paid in full."

It was paid in full. Jesus paid our debt in full. Then if you want if forgiven you must do what He commands.

 

[DeeJay]

The debt was originally owed to God; even if it transferred like a mortgage, it still would be owed to the same creditor.

If you think about it that way. Why did He need to become man and lay down His life to pay a debt that we owed to His. He sacraficed Himself to pay Himself.

that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
2 Corinthians 5:19

The terms of the debt were set. Hell was the payment. Our debt had to be bought by Jesus so the terms of the debt could be re-writen. We then could owe the same debt or choose to enter into a new contract where our debt is forgiven.

I know my analogy is week at best but analogys usealy are. I am just trying to explain how I think about it and recieve feedback.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by npetreley:
The point is that free willers are guilty of demanding that "the whole world" must mean "every person without exception" simply because it supports their assumptions. "The world", "the whole world", etc., mean different things depending on context, and whether or not the author was using hyperbole. There's no way you can simply assert that it must mean "every person without exception" unless the text demands that interpretation, and even then you can't assert that it means "every person without exception" if there is other text to contradict that interpretation.

The fact is, there are other texts that contradict that interpretation.

For example: What does "whole world" mean when John says "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." Does it mean every person without exception? No, it cannot mean that. Why? Because there are texts that contradict that interpretation, and the Bible does not contradict itself.

"Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” The word is MANY, not ALL.

"And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors."

The word is MANY, not ALL.

Therefore "the whole world" must mean something else, most likely "everyone without distinction (both Jews and Gentiles)" rather than "everyone without exception". [/QB]

"World" for the most part means "SINNERS", the unsaved.

Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, (Sinners) that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Ro 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Ro 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;(sinners) but that the world (sinners) through him might be saved.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world,(of sinners

Joh 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

Predestination, denies this light has shined into the life of every person to convert them, but it has, even to those who died before Jesus was born, so any "theory" about Indians/China doesn't hold water, their souls are as loved/important to God as any others.

Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Just as the Natural "SUN" lights the whole world, so does the Spiritual "SON".

 

[Bill Brown]

limited atonement presents a problem of "JUSTICE" during "JUDGMENT".

You're absolutely right. Limited atonement wouldpresent a problem during judgment,but not for God. If man was judging man then equity and fairness could be used as a defense by the one being judged. But God is under no such constraints.

Limited atonement teaches that Christ died only for the elect. Another way of putting it is that his death was only effectual for the elect. But even an Arminian would agree that the benefits of Christ's sacrifice would not profit the person who rejects Him.

If you are going to use an argument of fairness then it would be helpful to be consistent. Would not God have been unfair to make Israel His chosen people? Did God not bless the nation of Israel at the expense of the Gentile nations surrounding her? Was it fair to the poor Philistine child that he/she was born in Philistia? Did that child choose to be born there? Certainly God, because He is fair, will not judge that child? But we see from history that God did just that. In order for the Arminian to remain consistent it forces some painful interpretive challenges. 1) Separate God's equity and fairness from Old to New Testaments. 2) Find some way of defending God's actions in the Old Testament while not detracting from His fairness and equity in the New Testament 3) Extrapolate God's judgment upon Gentile nations (in the O.T.) as being warranted. 4) Don't deal with the logical inconsistency. There are undoubtly more options to consider but I believe I made my point.

This is a good debate to have because, for the Arminian, limited atonement is arguably the most disturbing doctrine of Calvinism. It grates against the Arminians sense of fair play, justice and equity.

 

[4His_glory]

Me4Him,

So did Christ die for sinners or for sin? If He died for sinners and paid their penlaty, and that death was universal in its scope, then why do men still pay for their sins in hell as the Bible clearly teaches?

 

[johnp.]

If I buy your debt, as in a morgage or such, I can then re-negotiate your payments. I does not mean you are debt free.

It is not likened to a morgage debt DeeJay. As I understand the good old days one could be thrown into prison by the one who you owed money to and you would not be released until the full amount was paid.
If someone else paid your debt you would be freed from prison. You could not refuse the debt being paid as it is a thing between the one owed and the giver. The one owed the debt could not refuse, thus keeping one in prison, either.

There is no transfer of debt. The debtor was released debt free.

rsr's quote "...by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross." (ESV)

There is a short article on it here:
http://www.oilandwineministries.org/Certificate%20of%20Debt.html

I don't know the website I just took the first one off the Google search.

john.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by DeeJay:
Why not use the word elect in John 3:16 For God so love the world he sent his only begoten Son so that the elect should not perish......

Because he isn't making a point about people being elect.

The prevalent view at the time was that God only loved the Jews. Jesus just got done talking to "Israel's teacher" about the fact that you have to be born from above. Here is a Jew, who believes that the Messiah would come only for the Jews. Jesus not only instructs him that salvation comes by being born from above (made alive through the Spirit), but adds that the process of being born from above is not something you can pinpoint to any particular person or race:

7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

So when John says that "God so loved the world", he's referring to the fact that God has elected people outside the scope of the Jews only.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, "the world" cannot mean "every person without exception" because there are many contradictory texts including those that say Jesus died for MANY, not for ALL. John also says not to love the world or anything in it. So "the world" has many different meanings. You (not you personally) can't arbitrarily attach a meaning to "the world" in John 3:16 to fit a particular view if other verses contradict that view.

So this verse is really just saying that God so loved people without distinction (not the Jews only) that whosoever believes...etc.

Originally posted by DeeJay:
Whosoever believes in him should not perish.

It is going to take alot of evidence to convince me that anybody who belives in Him will not perish. If I can not trust the Bible in this simple statement then what else should I doubt.

I don't know of anyone who would try to convince you otherwise. It is a guarantee. Whoever believes in Jesus will NOT perish, period. Case closed.

But this doesn't even address the question of WHY one person believes and another does not. As I've pointed out a gazillion times, just because the word "whosoever" appears in this verse does not necessitate that belief is available to everyone. It could just as easily have said "whosoever is 6 feet tall or taller". There you have the same word, but it is limiting.

In this case, "whosoever" is limited by "believes". The question is, "who believes, and why?" That's answered elsewhere in the Bible. People believe because they are appointed to eternal life. (Acts) People believe because they are His sheep. People believe because they are given to Jesus by the Father. Those are just a few of the Bible's answers as to why people believe.

 

[Me4Him]

Bill Brown
You're absolutely right. Limited atonement wouldpresent a problem during judgment,but not for God. If man was judging man then equity and fairness could be used as a defense by the one being judged. But God is under no such constraints.

If God isn't going to judge according to law, then why did he give man the law???

Judgment day you're going into a "Court of law", and the "Judge" will be totally "UNBIAS", either way, if you're still under the law, Condemnation, if not, Salvation.

We have a "CHOICE" to obey/disobey the law, "OUR" faith in Jesus nullifies the law, unbelief keeps us under the law, and judgment will be "Accordingly".

Originally posted by npetreley:
As I have pointed out elsewhere, "the world" cannot mean "every person without exception"

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world;

God sent not his Son to condemn the world:

where is the "exception" he came to condemn???

As I've pointed out a gazillion times, just because the word "whosoever" appears in this verse does not necessitate that belief is available to everyone.

In this case, "whosoever" is limited by "believes". The question is, "who believes, and why?" That's answered elsewhere in the Bible. People believe because they are appointed to eternal life. (Acts) People believe because they are His sheep. People believe because they are given to Jesus by the Father. Those are just a few of the Bible's answers as to why people believe.

Mt 9:27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.

28 And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am "ABLE" to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.

29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, "ACCORDING" to...YOUR FAITH... be it unto you.

30 And their eyes were opened;

Do you know what this is referring to??

The world was spiritually "BLIND", in darkness, until the "light of the world" came, but to have your eyes open to the "Light", to see/receive God's salvation, you must believe Jesus is "ABLE" to do this, save you.

The choice to believe or not is a choice you make, Abraham acted on nothing more that "HIS FAITH" that God was "ABLE" to keep his promises, and it's the same with a person having Faith in Jesus.


Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was ABLE to raise him up,

God's call, is not faith, your faith enters when you chose to believe/answer that call, just as Abraham believed/answered.


God doesn't try "HIS FAITH", but he does try "YOUR FAITH",

By faith Abraham, when he was tried,

and just as Jesus ask the blind men,

Believe ye that I am "ABLE" to do this?

This doctrine that God give the faith to believe, withhold it from others, clearly refute the scriptures and the plan of salvation at it's core.

 

[AresMan]

Even the Arminians have to admit that ultimately God does "give" faith based on causality. Faith (just like life) would not exist if God had not caused it. Can man really independently conjure an essence in a vaccum? I think not.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Col 1:16-17 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by AresMan:
Even the Arminians have to admit that ultimately God does "give" faith based on causality. Faith (just like life) would not exist if God had not caused it. Can man really independently conjure an essence in a vaccum? I think not.

He can if God makes it possible.

De 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;

27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:

28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God,

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

This is perfectly true. If you don't believe, you will die in your sins. This doesn't explain why one person believes and another does not. It simply states the reality that if you don't believe, you will die in your sins.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Me4Him:
Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

This is perfectly true. If you don't believe, you will die in your sins. This doesn't explain why one person believes and another does not. It simply states the reality that if you don't believe, you will die in your sins. </font>[/QUOTE]but it doesn't explain why the "Sovereign will" of God that none should perish, DO.


1. God lied
2, sovereign will isn't being imposed,

Which is it??

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
but it doesn't explain why the "Sovereign will" of God that none should perish, DO.


1. God lied
2, sovereign will isn't being imposed,

Which is it??

How many times do I have to post the answer to this question before you read it?