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

[JonC]

If there were no sin debt there would be fellowship with God. If there were no sin debt, we would not die.

How do you come to this conclusion?

Scripture describes men as being separated from God by sin (men need a reconciliation). And Scripture tells us that the reason we die is that death is the wages of sin.

But I am not following how you get from Scripture to your conclusions.

For example, what there is death because the wages of sin is death? What if death entered the world through Adams sin and spread to all mankind because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?

 

[unprofitable]

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.

Christ said no man cometh unto the Father but by (the work of) the Son. Ther ransom had to be paid by Christ that men might return to the father. That return to fellowship was to be accomplished by the Father in a particular, or demanded way. Exo 25:9, 2 Sam 2:35 for a couple of examples
:
Matt 26:39 And he went a little farther and fell on his face and prayed, O Father is it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will, but AS THOU WILT. The will of the Father can be seen as a requirement, demand, or ransom that could only be paid or fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ. It had been prophesied and would be fulfilled according to the will of the Father.

This clearly shows that the Father required something, therefore a requirement, demand or debt, or ransom and He required/demanded it be done in a particular way that only the Son could perform or pay.

 

[unprofitable]

How do you come to this conclusion?

Scripture describes men as being separated from God by sin (men need a reconciliation). And Scripture tells us that the reason we die is that death is the wages of sin.

But I am not following how you get from Scripture to your conclusions.

For example, what there is death because the wages of sin is death? What if death entered the world through Adams sin and spread to all mankind because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?

Before Adam sinned, he had fellowship with God. Through Adam all became sinners and it was necessary that there be a sacrifice for both Adam and his seed. That is the reason that a sacrifice was provided for both him and Eve in the garden.

Do you believe that a sacrifice can stand as a payment? Did not Christ stand in our stead, the just for the unjust?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

I'll reply in more detail later on, but in view of John's 'undeviating meaning of world,' would you like to comment on 1 John 2:15-17?

 

[JonC]

Christ said no man cometh unto the Father but by (the work of) the Son. Ther ransom had to be paid by Christ that men might return to the father. That return to fellowship was to be accomplished by the Father in a particular, or demanded way. Exo 25:9, 2 Sam 2:35 for a couple of examples
:
Matt 26:39 And he went a little farther and fell on his face and prayed, O Father is it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not as I will, but AS THOU WILT. The will of the Father can be seen as a requirement, demand, or ransom that could only be paid or fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ. It had been prophesied and would be fulfilled according to the will of the Father.

This clearly shows that the Father required something, therefore a requirement, demand or debt, or ransom and He required/demanded it be done in a particular way that only the Son could perform or pay.

I agree with a lot of your post.

But just saying "this clearly shows" does not validate your conclusion. For over a millenia Christians did not see what you say is "clearly shown".

The will of the Father can be seen as what the Father requires. But you are making connections without justifying those connections (you are making assertions without validating them) when you equate the Father's will to a ransom.

Scripture says that we were ransomed or delivered from the "dominion of darkness"(Col. 1). What method do you use to equate the "dominion of darkeness" with the God?

What I am asking for is exactly how you reach your conclusions as they are not "clearly shown".

 

[JonC]

Before Adam sinned, he had fellowship with God. Through Adam all became sinners and it was necessary that there be a sacrifice for both Adam and his seed. That is the reason that a sacrifice was provided for both him and Eve in the garden.

Do you believe that a sacrifice can stand as a payment? Did not Christ stand in our stead, the just for the unjust?

I believe that the work of the Cross delivered us not from God but from "the dominion of darkness" by ransoming us from the bondage of sin and death and putting us "in Christ" where we will escape "the wrath to come" at Judgment when this "dominion on darkness" is cast into the Lake of Fire.

I also believe that Christ is "the Second Adam" and as such is the "Head" and "Firstborn of many brethern".

Do I believe Christ died instead of us? Of course not. I do believe that He is this "Second Adam".

I'm just trying to follow how you reach your conclusions.

If I understand correctly because a sacrifice can be a payment you think that Christ's sacrifice was a payment. Because it was "God's predetermined plan" (God's will) that Jesus die it was from God that we were ransomed. And because it was for us that Christ died He died instead of us.

But I do not understand how Christ ransoming us "from tge dominion of darkness", the "bondage of sin and death", and the "powers of evil" equates to Christ ransoming us from the Father. How is that connection made?

 

[Guido]

The wrath to come has to do with the tribulation period.

 

[JonC]

The wrath to come has to do with the tribulation period.

So the verse that in Christ we escape the wrath to come applies only to Christians who have not passed away during this period?

 

[unprofitable]

JonC,

It is difficult to justify your statement that "for over a mellenia Christians did not see what you said is "clearly seen" without you providing evidence of its source. Augustine and the catholics are not a reliable source and mean nothing to me. I am a Baptist. I have to ask what is the source or writings for your conclusion?

The dominion of darkness has been in existence since before the time of Adam. It is the ability of Satan to deceive a people by perverting the truth of God. It is how Satan tried to deceive Christ when he quoted scripture in error, just as he did in the garden.

It is the reason Christ told the Pharisees in John 8:44 Ye are of your Father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, (by perverting scripture), he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar and the father of it. This describes the dominion of darkness. The dominion of darkness covers not only the man on the street corner dealing drugs but above all extends up to the highest realms of a perverted doctrine of "whom say ye that I am" in the churches.

It is also seen in the perverting of the righteousness of the Law. (Romans 10:3) It is the reason Christ had to come to show Israel that he was the express image of the Father, (John 17:3), so they would no longer seek the Father by the types and shadows that Satan used to deceive, resulting in them calling good evil and evil good.

Christ, the express, exact, true image, had to be revealed so that we could be delivered from such a system of doctrine. It is the reason that Isaiah 43:10 says, "Ye are my (true) witnesses, sayeth the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I AM he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

It was the Father's will to deliver us from such a system of lies (a thing of naught) that we might know him. This is the salvation spoken of in John 17:3.

Ransom will always indicate a debt that must be paid in order to redeem the debtor.

Psalms 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem (by paying the required ransom or debt) his brother, nor GIVE TO GOD a ransom for him. This is proof that God does require a ransom and that ransom payment is to redeem the brethren taken captive by the deception of Satan. Since none of the brethren could pay that ransom, then the Father sent the Son to deliver the brethren by paying thr debt by dying for them through his life, death and resurrection. The resurrection is as important as the cross. It is that by which he is the firstborn and thus deserving of the glory given to him. It is the proof that death could not hold him and is the promise given to those in Christ. It is the proof of him being the firstborn from the dead (ones).

Isaiah 52:3 For thus sayeth the Lord, Ye HAVE SOLD YOURSELVES (therefore a debt exists) for (a thing of) naught (by perverting the scriptures from the influence of Satan), and shall be redeemed without money. Since we sold ourselves because of sin and unbelief, then a sin debt is incurred and must be paid.

Isaiah 43:3 For I am the Lord thy God, the holy one of Israel, thy savior: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. The sin debt, resulting wherein we sold ourselves for naught, has been paid in and by Christ in fulfilling the will and love of the Father in redeeming the brethren

The statement, the wages of sin, if isolated from other scriptures, does not fully explain that there is a sin debt because we sold ourselves for naught. It is related but does not fully explain the work of Christ and why he did what he did by fulfilling the will of the Father.

I hope this better explains my understanding more clearly.

 

[JonC]

JonC,

It is difficult to justify your statement that "for over a mellenia Christians did not see what you said is "clearly seen" without you providing evidence of its source. Augustine and the catholics are not a reliable source and mean nothing to me. I am a Baptist. I have to ask what is the source or writings for your conclusion?

The dominion of darkness has been in existence since before the time of Adam. It is the ability of Satan to deceive a people by perverting the truth of God. It is how Satan tried to deceive Christ when he quoted scripture in error, just as he did in the garden.

It is the reason Christ told the Pharisees in John 8:44 Ye are of your Father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, (by perverting scripture), he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar and the father of it. This describes the dominion of darkness. The dominion of darkness covers not only the man on the street corner dealing drugs but above all extends up to the highest realms of a perverted doctrine of "whom say ye that I am" in the churches.

It is also seen in the perverting of the righteousness of the Law. (Romans 10:3) It is the reason Christ had to come to show Israel that he was the express image of the Father, (John 17:3), so they would no longer seek the Father by the types and shadows that Satan used to deceive, resulting in them calling good evil and evil good.

Christ, the express, exact, true image, had to be revealed so that we could be delivered from such a system of doctrine. It is the reason that Isaiah 43:10 says, "Ye are my (true) witnesses, sayeth the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I AM he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

It was the Father's will to deliver us from such a system of lies (a thing of naught) that we might know him. This is the salvation spoken of in John 17:3.

Ransom will always indicate a debt that must be paid in order to redeem the debtor.

Psalms 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem (pay the required ransom or debt) his brother, nor GIVE TO GOD a ransom for him. This is proof that God does require a ransom and that ransom payment is to redeem the brethren taken captive by the deception of Satan. Since none of the brethren could pay that ransom, then the Father sent the Son to deliver the brethren by dying for them through his life, death and resurrection. The resurrection is as important as the cross. It is that by which he is the firstborn and thus deserving of the glory given to him. It is the proof that death could not hold him and is the promise given to those in Christ. It is the proof of him being the firstborn from the dead (ones).

Isaiah 52:3 For thus sayeth the Lord, Ye HAVE SOLD YOURSELVES (therefore a debt exists) for (a thing of) naught, and shall be redeemed without money.

Isaiah 43:3 For I am the Lord thy God, the holy one of Israel, thy savior: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. The sin debt, resulting wherein we sold ourselves for naught, has been paid in and by Christ in fulfilling the will and love of the Father in redeeming the brethren

The statement, the wages of sin, if isolated from other scriptures, does not fully explain that there is a sin debt because we sold ourselves for naught. It is related but does not fully explain the work of Christ and why he did what he did by the will of the Father.

I hope this better explains my understanding more clearly.

It is a logical fallacy to insist one prove a negative. The evidence is that we have no proof that any Christian held the view until the 15th Century (even the 13th century view of merit did not include a "sin debt"). You are asking for what cannot be provided because the view did not exist (the burden of proof is on you to prove it did exist).

But the fact that the idea of a "sin debt" is relatively new does not mean it is wrong.

I understand what you believe, but you are still not "connecting the dots".

Scripture tells us that we were ransomed from the "dominion of darkness", from "the bondage of sin and death", from the "powers of this world" and that we are "delivered from evil".

If I understand you correctly then you are saying that we were ransomed from the Father. How do you go from Scripture (ransomed from evil, the powers of this world, from the dominion of darkness) to say ransomed from the Father?

Does this not equate the Father with evil, the dominion of darkness, and the power of this world that we are to resist?

 

[unprofitable]

I agree with a lot of your post.

But just saying "this clearly shows" does not validate your conclusion. For over a millenia Christians did not see what you say is "clearly shown".

The will of the Father can be seen as what the Father requires. But you are making connections without justifying those connections (you are making assertions without validating them) when you equate the Father's will to a ransom.

Scripture says that we were ransomed or delivered from the "dominion of darkness"(Col. 1). What method do you use to equate the "dominion of darkeness" with the God?

What I am asking for is exactly how you reach your conclusions as they are not "clearly shown".

It is a logical fallacy to insist one prove a negative. The evidence is that we have no proof that any Christian held the view until the 15th Century (even the 13th century view of merit did not include a "sin debt"). You are asking for what cannot be provided because the view did not exist (the burden of proof is on you to prove it did exist).

But the fact that the idea of a "sin debt" is relatively new does not mean it is wrong.

I understand what you believe, but you are still not "connecting the dots".

Scripture tells us that we were ransomed from the "dominion of darkness", from "the bondage of sin and death", from the "powers of this world" and that we are "delivered from evil".

If I understand you correctly then you are saying that we were ransomed from the Father. How do you go from Scripture (ransomed from evil, the powers of this world, from the dominion of darkness) to say ransomed from the Father?

Thank you for your reply.

First, if you make a statement that the scriptures were interpreted in a particular way for a thousand years, then you need to give writings that prove YOUR point.

Second, I did not in any way intend for you to believe I was saying we are ransomed FROM God. I am not sure how you interpreted that in my writings but that you for your question. We are ransomed FOR (by the will of) the Father. Neither am I in any way equating the Father with the kingdom of darkness but as only victor over it through the work of Christ

We are ransomed from debt of the law of sin and death or a perverted system of doctrine (a thing of naught) wherein we bowed down to strange gods in the form of foreign doctrines. that we might know and serve the only true God and Jesus Christ. John 17:3

Romans 8:2 says, "For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Christ paid the ransom necessary to make us holy and thereby we enter into the presence and have fellowship with the Father/godhead.

The scriptures say ye shall be holy for I am holy. How can we be holy if we are still captive to false doctrine that cannot declare "who say ye that I am?" as the true God. There was a price/ransom to pay that we might be freed from the captivity of the law of sin and death. We had to be made servants of righteousness (Rom 6:16,18) This was accomplished by Christ in his life, death and resurrection by which we might be placed in Christ and therefore made holy. And if made holy, then the covenant of peace is administered and we can enter the presence of the Father. This was the plan and will of the Father.


Does this not equate the Father with evil, the dominion of darkness, and the power of this world that we are to resist?

If this does not clear up your questions, please continue to point out your objections and I will respond.

Thank you.

 

[robycop3]

The King James Bible, the most accurate translation we have, does not use the word sovereign. It is evident that Jesus died for all people, as Hebrews says He "tasted death for every man". If God passed over whom you say are the "non-elect", there would be no need for Him to harden people's hearts, as their hearts would already be hard enough for condemnation, and they would never obey God.

The KJV isn't nearly as accurate as several newer versions. But God gives everyone a chance for salvation, some more than others. My advice is if you hear God's call, answer it affirmatively, as you may never receive another.

 

[unprofitable]

Sorry, messed up on quote function again

 

[JonC]

If this does not clear up your questions, please continue to point out your objections and I will respond.

Thank you.

Mine are not objections, just a few observations.

I agree that there was a price for our redemption. We were purchased by the blood of Christ.

And I agree that Christ's suffering was caused by the wicked, but that this was the predetermined plan of God.

What I do not understand is how you go from that to Christ ransoming us from the Father (if I understand you correctly) rather than from the powers of darkness.

 

[DaveXR650]

Scripture describes men as being separated from God by sin (men need a reconciliation). And Scripture tells us that the reason we die is that death is the wages of sin.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the term "sin debt". We use it in current criminal law. Prisoners are serving time to pay their "debt" to society. Colossians 2:13 talks about this and if you use several translations you see the difficulties in the precise wording. The idea is that we sin against God repeatedly and pile up a load of offense - the idea of looking at this as "debt" is Biblical and not a new invention. But it did succeed in derailing a thread on God's sovereignty, which I was enjoying and learning a lot from even though I was not contributing.

 

[JonC]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the term "sin debt". We use it in current criminal law. Prisoners are serving time to pay their "debt" to society. Colossians 2:13 talks about this and if you use several translations you see the difficulties in the precise wording. The idea is that we sin against God repeatedly and pile up a load of offense - the idea of looking at this as "debt" is Biblical and not a new invention. But it did succeed in derailing a thread on God's sovereignty, which I was enjoying and learning a lot from even though I was not contributing.

I don't see anything wrong with the term "sin debt" either. Reading this thread I bieve it accurate describes the position being argued.

But looking at the passage you provided -

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

I'm not sure it fits as being argued.

If we use "sin debt" as "transgressions" (which I think is fair) then there is an issue of this "sin debt" being paid rather than the debt itself being forgiven. This is what "sin debt" seems to imply when applied to the ransom (which is a forced interpretation).

The way I see it, Christ ransomed us from the "powers of this world"/ the "dominion of darkness"/ the "bondage of sin and death/ the "powers of the Evil One" and in Him our sins are forgiven and we escape the wrath to come when that "dominion of darkness" is cast into Hell.

 

[kyredneck]

The wrath to come has to do with the tribulation period.

...done already:

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance:
9 and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mt 3

21 for then shall be great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. Mt 24

 

[Silverhair]

I'll reply in more detail later on, but in view of John's 'undeviating meaning of world,' would you like to comment on 1 John 2:15-17?

Those verses are self explanatory don't you think. Those that have trusted in God for their salvation are not to be caught up in the lusts of the flesh.

 

[DaveXR650]

But looking at the passage you provided -

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

I'm not sure it fits as being argued.

Well, you're right. Because like a big dummy I failed to put in verse 14. "By canceling the record of debt that stood against us with it's legal demands. This he set aside. Colossians 2:14 (ESV).

ESV, NIV and NASV are pretty clear on this. KJV you could miss it I think. My fault.

 

[JonC]

Well, you're right. Because like a big dummy I failed to put in verse 14. "By canceling the record of debt that stood against us with it's legal demands. This he set aside. Colossians 2:14 (ESV).

ESV, NIV and NASV are pretty clear on this. KJV you could miss it I think. My fault.

The problem is still there.

Colossians 2:13–17. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

The certificate of death is the Law. And here I do agree that we can view this as a certificate of sin.

But the context of the discussion is viewing the ransom of man from the "dominion of darkness" as a ransom from the Father in the form of a "sin debt" being paid.

That is where the argument falls apart. Scripture speaks of transgressions, sins (we can use "sin debt") being forgiven - the certificate canceled. NOT Christ as paying a "sin debt" instead of us.

That is where I am seeking to understand exactly how we move from the idea that God forgives sins to the idea God cannot forgive sins (that God forgives sinners upon receipt of payment for the sin). And how do we move from the idea Christ ransomed us from the "dominion of darkness" to the idea that Christ ransomed us from the Father?