The Vain Fool, Child of Pride, Son of Folly Who Replies Against God's Sovereignty

[KenH]

I do not put limits on what He can do

Yes, you do. You apparently believe that God can only save a person that He wills to save if that person lets Him do so.

 

[KenH]

Since you say that you have to do nothing, which includes believe

I have not said that a person doesn't have to have true saving faith. You think man wells it up out of his own will. The Bible teaches that is it a gift from God - Ephesians 2:8.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1Jn 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

So the verse still says that He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world or do you not understand the sentence?

If God through Christ is propitiiated in respect of every single person in the world, then there can be no condemnation for anyone in the whole world. So you need to ak yourself what 'world' (kosmos) means in this particular context. Have a think about it.

 

[JonC]

Know


Our sin debt is our sin against God.

Conviction of our sin is necessary
to need a Savior.

Sin as Debt
Benjamin Keach.
Matthew 18:23-35
Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened to a certain king, which would take account of his servants.…

I. That sin is a debt, a vast debt; or that there is much, yea great, exceeding great evil in sin, considered as a debt.

II. That sinners are debtors, and have nothing to pay, and therefore are forgiven freely, as an act of God's mercy, all their debts without any satisfaction made by them.

III. That God doth and will call sinners who are debtors to Him, to an account, be they willing or no.

IV. That a pardoned person, or one that God hath forgiven, does forgive from his heart all those that have injured him, and they that do not so are not, nor shall be ever forgiven.

(Benjamin Keach.)

Why turn what the Bible says ("the wages of sin") upside down into a "sin debt"?

I ask because I often hear sin referred to in the sence it is a "sin debt" (which is not in the Bible) but rarely as "wages" (which is in the Bible).

Do you know why we have gravitated to viewing sin as a debt? Looking back, this seems to be relatively new to baptistic churches (actually, relatively new to Christianity in general). But a very common view in congregations from the 17th century forward. Do we simply approach Scripture differently (maybe like looking at a diamond in a different setting)?

 

[KenH]

Christ covering the sins of all allows for all to be saved but they still have to trust in Him for salvation.

Make up your mind. Do you believe that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect, including unbelief(unless you think the elect are never in unbelief) or just some of the sins of the elect?

 

[Silverhair]

If God through Christ is propitiiated in respect of every single person in the world, then there can be no condemnation for anyone in the whole world. So you need to ak yourself what 'world' (kosmos) means in this particular context. Have a think about it.

Metonymically, the world meaning the inhabitants of the earth, men, mankind (Mat_5:14; Mat_13:38; Joh_1:29; Joh_3:16; Rom_3:6, Rom_3:19; 1Co_4:13; 2Co_5:19; Heb_11:7; 2Pe_2:5; 1Jn_2:2).
{The Complete Word Study Dictionary Spiros Zodhiates}

The prima facie reading of this text seems unequivocal:
Jesus is the propitiation G2434 for the sins of believers, many of whom John is addressing (“for our sins”); and furthermore, Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of “the whole world,” meaning unbelievers to whom John is not directly writing to.
Succinctly put, it does not follow that John is saying that only some Jews and only some Gentiles are atoned for. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus has a universal scope
Xref 1Jn_4:14; 1Jn_4:10; 1Pe_2:24; Joh_1:29; Joh_12:32; Rom_3:25-26
If the limited atonement advocate is to defend his position, the burden of proof is on him to provide evidence as to why this one example in 1Jn_2:2 is the sole exception of John’s undeviating meaning of world.

 

[Silverhair]

Make up your mind. Do you believe that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect, including unbelief(unless you think the elect are never in unbelief) or just some of the sins of the elect?

I have made up my mind you just do not like what I say or for that matter what the bible says. Christ died to cover the sins of all mankind but only those that trust in Him for salvation will be saved.

It is your errant theology that has only the sins of the elect covered so you need to do a rethink of your theology.

 

[KenH]

f the limited atonement advocate is to defend his position, the burden of proof is on him to provide evidence as to why this one example in 1Jn_2:2 is the sole exception of John’s undeviating meaning of world.

See post #14 above.

 

[KenH]

I have made up my mind you just do not like what I say or for that matter what the bible says. Christ died to cover the sins of all mankind but only those that trust in Him for salvation will be saved.

It is your errant theology that has only the sins of the elect covered so you need to do a rethink of your theology.

Do you believe that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect, including unbelief(unless you think the elect are never in unbelief) or just some of the sins of the elect?

 

[37818]

"this phrase, "all the world", or "the whole world", in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luke 2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1 John 5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins", the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1 John 2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for John 17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them. Once more, the design of the apostle in these words is to comfort his "little children" with the advocacy and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, who might fall into sin through weakness and inadvertency; but what comfort would it yield to a distressed mind, to be told that Christ was a propitiation not only for the sins of the apostles and other saints, but for the sins of every individual in the world, even of these that are in hell? Would it not be natural for persons in such circumstances to argue rather against, than for themselves, and conclude that seeing persons might be damned notwithstanding the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, that this might, and would be their case.

- from John Gill's Bible commentary on 1 John 2:2

John Gill makes said claim.
But doesn't really show a simple clear case that must be applied to 1 John 2:2.

1 Timothy 2:3-6, ". . . For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. . . ."

 

[KenH]

John Gill makes said claim.
But doesn't really show a simple clear case that must be applied to 1 John 2:2.

I did not post all of John Gill's commentary on 1 John 2:2. If you want to read the whole shebang(with footnotes), you can do so here:

1 John 2:2 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse (biblestudytools.com)

 

[Silverhair]

See post #14 above.

Why would I listen to Gill? You should just trust what the bible says but you seem to place more trust in these men than the bible. Why is that?

 

[Silverhair]

Do you believe that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect, including unbelief(unless you think the elect are never in unbelief) or just some of the sins of the elect?

Did you not read my answer to this question? If you think asking it again will change the answer you are wrong.

But to save you time here is the same answer as before

I have made up my mind you just do not like what I say or for that matter what the bible says. Christ died to cover the sins of all mankind but only those that trust in Him for salvation will be saved.

It is your errant theology that has only the sins of the elect covered so you need to do a rethink of your theology.

 

[Silverhair]

I did not post all of John Gill's commentary on 1 John 2:2. If you want to read the whole shebang(with footnotes), you can do so here:

1 John 2:2 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse (biblestudytools.com)

The prima facie reading of this text seems unequivocal:
Jesus is the propitiation G2434 for the sins of believers, many of whom John is addressing (“for our sins”); and furthermore, Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of “the whole world,” meaning unbelievers to whom John is not directly writing to.
Succinctly put, it does not follow that John is saying that only some Jews and only some Gentiles are atoned for. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus has a universal scope
Xref 1 John 4:14; 1 John 4:10; 1 Peter 2:24; John 1:29; John 12:32; Romans 3:25-26
If the limited atonement advocate is to defend his position, the burden of proof is on him to provide evidence as to why this one example in 1 John 2:2 is the sole exception of John’s undeviating meaning of world.

Can you provide such proof from scripture or are you just going to keep quoting these men in the vain hope that we will believe them?

 

[37818]

I did not post all of John Gill's commentary on 1 John 2:2. If you want to read the whole shebang(with footnotes), you can do so here:

1 John 2:2 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse (biblestudytools.com)

I have Gill's commontary on my Android divices. I have been doing my own studies since 1968 and is on going to this day.

John Gill reinterprets 1 Timothy 2:4, "Who will have all men to be saved,...." To mean "Who will have all {sorts of} men to be saved,...."

 

[KenH]

Did you not read my answer to this question? If you think asking it again will change the answer you are wrong.

But to save you time here is the same answer as before

I have made up my mind you just do not like what I say or for that matter what the bible says. Christ died to cover the sins of all mankind but only those that trust in Him for salvation will be saved.

It is your errant theology that has only the sins of the elect covered so you need to do a rethink of your theology.

I still don't see a clear answer from you in all those words. Guess you either don't have a clear answer or don't want want to provide a clear answer.

Oh well.

 

[unprofitable]

Why turn what the Bible says ("the wages of sin") upside down into a "sin debt"?

I ask because I often hear sin referred to in the sence it is a "sin debt" (which is not in the Bible) but rarely as "wages" (which is in the Bible).

Do you know why we have gravitated to viewing sin as a debt? Looking back, this seems to be relatively new to baptistic churches (actually, relatively new to Christianity in general). But a very common view in congregations from the 17th century forward. Do we simply approach Scripture differently (maybe like looking at a diamond in a different setting)?

The teaching of sin debt can easily be seen from the teaching of the kinsman redeemer. Redemption is not necessary when there is no debt to be paid. Romans 5:13, Hebrews 10:18 Redemption, defined as the action of regaining or gaining possession of something for payment or CLEARING OF A DEBT, clearly shows the necessity that a sin debt must exist before payment is required.

The kinsman redeemer also illustrates the principle of the ransom that was necessary to be paid. One definition of ransom is a sum of money or other payment (death of the testator) demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner or to obtain the release of a prisoner by making a payment demanded. The wages of sin results in a sin debt, that if unpaid or unredeemed, results in death. Christ is our kinsman redeemer. Psalms 49:7, Mark 10:45 We were prisoners because we had sinned and could not pay the demanded payment. We could not restore ourselves to righteousness nor fellowship. It is easy to see that a ransom was required, because of a sin debt that occurred from the wages or works of sin.

If a ransom is demanded, then it is necessary that payment must be made for the debt and resulting demand that exists. A payment must be made and therefore a debt exists because of sin. You rightly say that the wages of sin is death. This is saying that the end result of sin is to be cast out of the presence of God i.e. death. (Luke 13:28) It was necessary with the fall of Adam that the debt be paid in the sacrifice of the ram representing the sacrifice of Christ, where we are restored to fellowship or the knowledge of the most high God (John 17:3) Wages of sin in most context is an action resulting in a condition whereas sin debt is a condition resulting from an action and while related, are not the same.

Since the wages of sin is death, then what is the remedy or solution? The wages of sin result in a sin debt being owed, a debt only the kinsman redeemer can pay.

Can you give me some historical evidence that the concept of a sin debt is a recent occurence, especially among Baptists?

 

[JonC]

The teaching of sin debt can easily be seen from the teaching of the kinsman redeemer. Redemption is not necessary when there is no debt to be paid. Romans 5:13, Hebrews 10:18 Redemption, defined as the action of regaining or gaining possession of something for payment or CLEARING OF A DEBT, clearly shows the necessity that a sin debt must exist before payment is required.

The kinsman redeemer also illustrates the principle of the ransom that was necessary to be paid. One definition of ransom is a sum of money or other payment (death of the testator) demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner or to obtain the release of a prisoner by making a payment demanded. The wages of sin results in a sin debt, that if unpaid or unredeemed, results in death. Christ is our kinsman redeemer. Psalms 49:7, Mark 10:45 We were prisoners because we had sinned and could not pay the demanded payment. We could not restore ourselves to righteousness nor fellowship. It is easy to see that a ransom was required, because of a sin debt that occurred from the wages or works of sin.

If a ransom is demanded, then it is necessary that payment must be made for the debt and resulting demand that exists. A payment must be made and therefore a debt exists because of sin. You rightly say that the wages of sin is death. This is saying that the end result of sin is to be cast out of the presence of God i.e. death. (Luke 13:28) It was necessary with the fall of Adam that the debt be paid in the sacrifice of the ram representing the sacrifice of Christ, where we are restored to fellowship or the knowledge of the most high God (John 17:3) Wages of sin in most context is an action resulting in a condition whereas sin debt is a condition resulting from an action and while related, are not the same.

Since the wages of sin is death, then what is the remedy or solution? The wages of sin result in a sin debt being owed, a debt only the kinsman redeemer can pay.

Can you give me some historical evidence that the concept of a sin debt is a recent occurence, especially among Baptists?

I understand the concept of redemption. In Jewish custom one can act on behalf of a relative. We can see this in the OT account of Boaz.

I'm not talking about this. I'm talking about changing the biblical concept of the wages of sin to a type of "sin debt".

I know men can wring anything out of Scripture (and we see this often with biblical illustrations).

I am asking about how we got from Scripture, the wages of sin, and the bondage of man to this "sin debt".

Can I give you historical evidence that this concept of "sin debt" is a relatively new articulation? Yes. That is easy. The evidence is the fact that Christians did not frame the atonement in that way until relatively recently. And I said baptistic (which would include Anabaptist sects prior to the 16th century).

Now - that does not mean the concept is wrong. I'm just asking how we got from Scripture to the idea of sin being a debt to God.

 

[JonC]

If a ransom is demanded, then it is necessary that payment must be made for the debt and resulting demand that exists.

This is another question I have.

I know Christ ransomed us. On that we agree.

But what passage speaks of a "ransom demanded"?

I understand what you believe here. I'm just trying to understand exactly how you get there.

 

[unprofitable]

If there were no sin debt there would be fellowship with God. If there were no sin debt, we would not die. As I said, sin debt is a condition resulting FROM the wages of sin and wages of sin result in the sin debt. They are not the same but are related.

Please expound on how there can be death without a righteous commandment being broken and if broken then a debt is incurred and a payment required. If the wages of sin is death, then what is the remedy other than the payment by the kinsman redeemer, Christ. If a payment is required to prevent death from sin, then there is a sin offering that satisfies the sin debt. Otherwise, why did Christ have to die for our sins. Payment or ransom is not required where there is no debt.

The example of the kinsman redeemer, like all scripture, point toward the work of Christ, as does all scripture. The principle of the kinsman redeemer cannot be simply explained as one brother being a ransom for another without seeing the work of Christ for his people.

I believe that the question should rather be phrased, how did we get from a sin debt to the wages of sin being unrelated.

Why did Christ die if something was not required by the Father. If the Father required something, then is that not a debt.

What documents other than catholic can you show me that the sin debt is relatively recent teaching. I would like to study them out so that I may be able to see your point more clearly.

 

[Silverhair]

I still don't see a clear answer from you in all those words. Guess you either don't have a clear answer or don't want want to provide a clear answer.

Oh well.

You just do not like the answer or perhaps you do not have the necessary comprehension skills.

Christ died to cover the sins of all mankind but only those that trust in Him for salvation will be saved. What are you not understanding?