Which view really exalts man?

[webdog]

Jbh, John 3:36 is not dealing with Gods wrath against sin, but judgement on the sinner. The time of Jacobs Trouble (Great Tribulation) is a time of Gods wrath on people who rejected Him. The 7 years are not designed for them to be atoning for their own sin, it is a time of judgement. Their is a clear distinction between wrath against sin and against sinner, even as a parent we witness this.

The funny thing is when I mentioned this distinction iconoclast said I was moving the goalposts :laugh:

 

[Skandelon]

Jbh, John 3:36 is not dealing with Gods wrath against sin, but judgement on the sinner.

Well stated.

The full weight of God's anger against that which would destroy the greatest objects of His affection was poured out at the cross.

Those who reject the cross choose the destruction prepared for Satan and his angels. And they make that choice in the face of God's gracious and loving provision of the cross. They do not perish for lack of atonement. They do not perish for lack of divine love or choice. They do not perish for lack of being drawn. They do not perish for some inborn impediment keeping them from choosing Christ. They do not perish for lack of a call to come and repent. They ONLY perish "because they refused to accept the truth and so be saved."

 

[jbh28]

Jbh, John 3:36 is not dealing with Gods wrath against sin, but judgement on the sinner. The time of Jacobs Trouble (Great Tribulation) is a time of Gods wrath on people who rejected Him. The 7 years are not designed for them to be atoning for their own sin, it is a time of judgement. Their is a clear distinction between wrath against sin and against sinner, even as a parent we witness this.

The funny thing is when I mentioned this distinction iconoclast said I was moving the goalposts :laugh:

wrath against the sinners because of the sin of the sinner. That's exactly what John 3:36 is dealing with as with the other passages I have stated.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him

Those that believe will have eternal life, those that don't will see the wrath of God on their sin. They have rejected the salvation of God and thus must face the penalty of their sin.

Rev. 20:12 "the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works" And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

You are right that we will be judged. Those that are not saved will be judged according to their works.

Christ's atonement is only effective on those that believe. If Christ's atonement was effective on unbelievers, then all would be saved. Unbelief is a sin. If Christ' atonement covers all sin including unbelievers, then there would be no reason to be in hell.

 

[Skandelon]

wrath against the sinners because of the sin of the sinner...

Christ's atonement is only effective on those that believe. If Christ's atonement was effective on unbelievers, then all would be saved. Unbelief is a sin. If Christ' atonement covers all sin including unbelievers, then there would be no reason to be in hell.

You are still looking at this from an individual standpoint. This is the same reason the mistake in interpreting the doctrines of predestination/election.

When we say that Christ atoned for the sin of the world you immediately assume universalism because you think individually, not corporately. The wrath for the whole can be appeased without forgiveness for the individual being applied. The debt can be paid in full for the whole, without the individual meeting the given condition for being saved. It was the same with the OT sacrificial system and it hasn't changed.

Suppose a group of 3 business executives commit fraud and are caught. They go bankrupt and have a huge fine that they cannot afford to pay. If they don't pay they all go to prison. The Judge, because of his love and grace, chooses to pay their fine for them and says they will be released immediately if they simply repent of their crime to the court. The first one immediately repents and is released, the second,though guilty, defiantly denies it and claims innocence listing all his good deeds in life, and the third admits his guilt but cusses out the judge. (The first represents a believer, the second represents a Pharisee trying to earn his freedom, and the last represents a defiant barbarian hardened in his sin.)

Why did the first man get released? Was it because he 'saved himself?' Of course not. He could not have been freed if not for the gracious provision of the judge.

Why did the second two men end up in prison? If you say that they went to prison because they committed fraud and couldn't pay their debt you'd be wrong because the first guy committed fraud and couldn't pay his debt, but he didn't go to prison. They went to prison because they refused to meet the judges condition. The DEBT had to be paid in full for any one of the guys to be released. It wasn't a debt that was equally divided between the three defendants. The DEBT was all or nothing. (An infinite offense deserves an infinite sacrifice). If the DEBT for the WHOLE is paid in full, which it was, then the only impediment for their being freed is their willingness to meet the one condition imposed by the judge. IF they go to prison, it is because of their rejection of that provision, not because they committed the crime or couldn't pay the debt. They aren't going into prison to pay their debt, they are going to prison for their rebellion in the face of a gracious judge who paid their debt for them.

 

[webdog]

That is a good analogy :thumbs:

jbh, you are still equating wrath against sin and wrath against the sinner as the same thing when they are not. While the sin of unbelief was paid at the cross the judgement for the refusal to apply this payment remains.

At any rate we are getting a little off track. The man under God's wrath in hell is in no way paying for their sins, they are being judged on a life of sin and refusal of Life. You have even admitted the offer to be sincere. If there was no payment, the offer cannot be truly sincere.

It is exalting man to state that he is in hell appeasing God's wrath even if it can never be fully appeased. Just the idea that we can compensate Him...in ANY manner, even not fully is a slap in His face. We don't believe in works salvation, but we believe in works reprobation?

 

[percho]

You are still looking at this from an individual standpoint. This is the same reason the mistake in interpreting the doctrines of predestination/election.

When we say that Christ atoned for the sin of the world you immediately assume universalism because you think individually, not corporately. The wrath for the whole can be appeased without forgiveness for the individual being applied. The debt can be paid in full for the whole, without the individual meeting the given condition for being saved. It was the same with the OT sacrificial system and it hasn't changed.

Suppose a group of 3 business executives commit fraud and are caught. They go bankrupt and have a huge fine that they cannot afford to pay. If they don't pay they all go to prison. The Judge, because of his love and grace, chooses to pay their fine for them and says they will be released immediately if they simply repent of their crime to the court. The first one immediately repents and is released, the second,though guilty, defiantly denies it and claims innocence listing all his good deeds in life, and the third admits his guilt but cusses out the judge. (The first represents a believer, the second represents a Pharisee trying to earn his freedom, and the last represents a defiant barbarian hardened in his sin.)

Why did the first man get released? Was it because he 'saved himself?' Of course not. He could not have been freed if not for the gracious provision of the judge.

Why did the second two men end up in prison? If you say that they went to prison because they committed fraud and couldn't pay their debt you'd be wrong because the first guy committed fraud and couldn't pay his debt, but he didn't go to prison. They went to prison because they refused to meet the judges condition. The DEBT had to be paid in full for any one of the guys to be released. It wasn't a debt that was equally divided between the three defendants. The DEBT was all or nothing. (An infinite offense deserves an infinite sacrifice). If the DEBT for the WHOLE is paid in full, which it was, then the only impediment for their being freed is their willingness to meet the one condition imposed by the judge. IF they go to prison, it is because of their rejection of that provision, not because they committed the crime or couldn't pay the debt. They aren't going into prison to pay their debt, they are going to prison for their rebellion in the face of a gracious judge who paid their debt for them.

What could the other two have done to bring the free salvation to themselves. Easy be obedient unto repentance ie save themselves.

All that the LORD has said we will do.

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

What fault? They did not do all that the LORD had said.

Under the New, will they be required to do or is God going to do?

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Make that verse say whatever you want but if it stands exactly as written it equals the thought above concerning the New Covenant. No?

 

[jbh28]

jbh, you are still equating wrath against sin and wrath against the sinner as the same thing when they are not.

explain the difference to me. I've stated that the wrath of God will remain on the person that doesn't believe. The wrath is against the man because of his sin and since he doesn't believe, the wrath of God remains on him(John 3:36)

While the sin of unbelief was paid at the cross the judgement for the refusal to apply this payment remains.

Which means man has to pay for his sin. That's the penalty of sin. I agree that a sufficient payment was made on the cross, but because of mans refusal(rejection, unbelief) the application of the payment isn't not credited to his account.

Man has sinned.
there is a penatly for this sin.
Jesus paid the penalty.
man refuses the payment(rejection of God, unbelief)
man has to now pay for his sin.

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

If man rejects the free gift of God, he must face the penalty of sin

At any rate we are getting a little off track. The man under God's wrath in hell is in no way paying for their sins, they are being judged on a life of sin and refusal of Life...

He's paying for his sin because of he refuesed the payment of Jesus. There is no reason for man to be in hell if Chris't payment for his sin was fully paid for already and applied to his account. If so, then man is condemned a 2nd time which is not taught in the Bible

It is exalting man to state that he is in hell appeasing God's wrath even if it can never be fully appeased. Just the idea that we can compensate Him...in ANY manner, even not fully is a slap in His face. We don't believe in works salvation, but we believe in works reprobation?

You have no Bible to backup this statement. You do believe man will spend an infinite amount if time in hell right? What will he be doing there? he will be paying the penalty of sin since he rejected the gift of salvation. We see clearly in the passage of the final judgment that people will be judged for their actions and punished accordingly.

 

[jbh28]

[Note: Sorry, I meant to reply to this thread and accidentally selected the 'edit' button instead, now I'm trying to put it back like it was. Skan]

Sorry, Skan, but I've given plenty of Bible passages. You didn't address my points. You just gave us story time again, no Bible. Don't give me a made up story to support what you are saying, give me the Bible to support what you are saying. Your post in no way address my post. It's individuals that are going to be in hell. God's wrath remains on the person that doesn't believe. Those that don't believe are condemned already, not re-condemned for a 2nd offense.

I'll let you try again...

wrath against the sinners because of the sin of the sinner. That's exactly what John 3:36 is dealing with as with the other passages I have stated.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him

Those that believe will have eternal life, those that don't will see the wrath of God on their sin. They have rejected the salvation of God and thus must face the penalty of their sin.

Rev. 20:12 "the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works" And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

You are right that we will be judged. Those that are not saved will be judged according to their works.

Christ's atonement is only effective on those that believe. If Christ's atonement was effective on unbelievers, then all would be saved. Unbelief is a sin. If Christ' atonement covers all sin including unbelievers, then there would be no reason to be in hell.

 

[percho]

I have offered a third view.

Of the three which exalts God totally and which exalts man to some degree?

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?

If God raises them from the dead and applies the New Covenant to them, will they be born again? Will 1 John 3:9 apply?

Just as you had not one thing to do with your physical birth from your mother and father neither will you have anything to do with your spiritual birth. To both the C's and the A's concept of born again you had to participate in that birth. Yes or No?


The death of Jesus took care of the wrath of God. Now it is up to God not us to apply that to man in what ever way he, God chooses.

 

[Skandelon]

Sorry, Skan, but I've given plenty of Bible passages. You didn't address my points. You just gave us story time again, no Bible.

Bro, you've been around this debate long enough to know what passages we use to support our views, but if you insist I can list them again. Here is a good list from this LINk>>>>

Luke 19:10: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (The "lost" seems to refer to the entire world of lost humanity, not just the lost elect.)

John 1:29: "The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'"

What is the "world" here? Exegete B. F. Westcott says: "The fundamental idea of kosmos [world] in St. John is that of the sum of created being which belongs to the sphere of human life as an ordered whole, considered apart from God....the world comes to represent humanity in its fallen state, alienated from its Maker."

John Calvin says of this verse: "He uses the word sin in the singular number for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race."

Ryle similarly states: "Christ is...a Savior for all mankind....He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all mankind....What Christ took away, and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam....I hold as strongly as anyone that Christ's death is profitable to none but the elect who believe in His Name. But I dare not limit and pare down such expressions as the one before us....I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man....The atonement was made for all the world, though it is applied and enjoyed by none but believers."
John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

The Greek lexicons are unanimous that "world" here denotes humankind, not the "world of the elect."
John 3:16 cannot be divorced from verses 14-15, wherein Christ alludes to Numbers 21 with its discussion of Moses setting up the brazen serpent in the camp of Israel, so that if "any man" looked to it, he experienced physical deliverance. In verse 15 Christ applies the story spiritually when He says that "whosoever" believes on the uplifted Son of Man shall experience spiritual deliverance.

John Calvin says: "He has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world which He formerly used [God so loved the world]; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception [not merely 'without distinction'] to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life."
John 4:42: "They said to the woman, 'We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'"

It is certain that when the Samaritans called Jesus "the Savior of the world," they were not thinking of the world of the elect.

Likewise, when Jesus said, "I am the Light of the world" (John 8:12), He was not thinking of Himself as the Light of the world of the elect. "The sun in the heavens shines on all men, though some, in their folly, may choose to withdraw into dark caves to evade its illuminating rays."

When Jesus called His disciples "the light of the world" (Matt. 5:14), He did not mean they were the "light of the elect."

Likewise, the "Savior of the world" in John 4:42 cannot be limited to the elect.
Acts 2:21: "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Romans 5:6: "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly."

2 Corinthians 5:14-15: "For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."

1 Timothy 2:3-4: "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time."

1 Timothy 4:10: "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

Hebrews 2:9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

The word "everyone" is better translated "each."

Henry Alford comments: "If it be asked, why pantos (each) rather than panton (all), we may safely say that the singular brings out, far more strongly than the plural word, the applicability of Christ's death to each individual man."
2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

1 John 2:2: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (Note the distinction between "ours" and "the whole world.")

1 John 4:14: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."

 

[Skandelon]

and some more....

There are certain Scripture passages that seem very difficult to fit within the framework of limited atonement. For example:

Romans 5:6 says: "At just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly." It doesn't make much sense to read this as saying that Christ died for the ungodly of the elect.

Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."
Regarding this verse, John Calvin says: "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."

Regarding the two occurrences of the phrase "all men," E. H. Gifford comments: "The words all men [in v. 18] must have the same extent in both clauses."
1 John 2:2 says: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." A natural reading of this verse, without imposing theological presuppositions on it, seems to support unlimited atonement.

Isaiah 53:6 says: "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6).

This verse doesn't make sense unless it is read to say that the same "all" that went astray is the "all" for whom the Lord died.

"In the first of these statements, the general apostasy of men is declared; in the second, the particular deviation of each one; in the third, the atoning suffering of the Messiah, which is said to be on behalf of all. As the first 'all' is true of all men (and not just of the elect), we judge that the last 'all' relates to the same company."

Theologian Millard Erickson comments: "This passage is especially powerful from a logical standpoint. It is clear that the extent of sin is universal; it is specified that every one of us has sinned. It should also be noticed that the extent of what will be laid on the suffering servant exactly parallels the extent of sin. It is difficult to read this passage and not conclude that just as everyone sins, everyone is also atoned for."
1 Timothy 4:10 says: "...we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

There is a clear distinction here between "all men" and "those who believe."

Erickson notes that "apparently the Savior has done something for all persons, though it is less in degree than what he has done for those who believe."
In 2 Peter 2:1, it seems that Christ even paid the price of redemption for false teachers who deny Him: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on themselves." Millard Erickson notes that "2 Peter 2:1 seems to point out most clearly that people for whom Christ died may be lost....there is a distinction between those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved."
John 3:17 says: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

Regarding this verse John Calvin says: "God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because He has appointed His Son to be the salvation of the world."

Calvin also stated: "The word world is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keeps the road of faith."

Many passages indicate that the Gospel is to be universally proclaimed, and this supports unlimited atonement.
Matthew 24:14: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."

Acts 1:8: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Acts 17:30: "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

In view of such passages, it is legitimate to ask: "If Christ died only for the elect, how can the offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved? Is it not improper to offer salvation to everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone?"

"How can God authorize His servants to offer pardon to the non-elect if Christ did not purchase it for them? This is a problem that does not plague those who hold to General [Unlimited] Redemption, for it is most reasonable to proclaim the Gospel to all if Christ died for all."

 

[webdog]

explain the difference to me. I've stated that the wrath of God will remain on the person that doesn't believe. The wrath is against the man because of his sin and since he doesn't believe, the wrath of God remains on him(John 3:36)

I've explained the difference. Skan has explained the difference. The wrath of God HERE is judgement against man, it is the payment man receives...not the payment man gives in your view.

Which means man has to pay for his sin. That's the penalty of sin. I agree that a sufficient payment was made on the cross, but because of mans refusal(rejection, unbelief) the application of the payment isn't not credited to his account.

Again, payment received is not the same as payment given. If man is paying for his sins he is paying God. Man is punished as this is the payment given FROM God.

He's paying for his sin because of he refuesed the payment of Jesus. There is no reason for man to be in hell if Chris't payment for his sin was fully paid for already and applied to his account. If so, then man is condemned a 2nd time which is not taught in the Bible

He's not paying anything, he is being punished for his refusal. The bolded is where you get this all wrong. Christ's death didn't equate to automatic application. His blood is applied via sola fide.

You have no Bible to backup this statement.

Yet when I supplied some to review you ignored them. It is biblical truth that ONLY Christ can appease God's wrath against sin. This is a foundation of our faith.

You do believe man will spend an infinite amount if time in hell right?

I believe he will spend eternity in hell, but since man has a beginning he is not infinite by any stretch of the imagination, resulting in him being unable to spend infinity in hell.

What will he be doing there?

Nothing.

he will be paying the penalty of sin since he rejected the gift of salvation. We see clearly in the passage of the final judgment that people will be judged for their actions and punished accordingly.

And you STILL confuse paying for sin with receiving the payment FOR sin. He is paying for NOTHING. He is being JUDGED. If you cannot discern the difference between these 2 concepts there is no reason to discuss this further.

 

[jbh28]

Bro, you've been around this debate long enough to know what passages we use to support our views, but if you insist I can list them again. Here is a good list from this LINk>>>>


[/COLOR]

I'm sorry Skan, but I'm not talking about Calvinism here. No one is speaking of the "elect." So please get back to topic. We are talking specifically that if Christ died a sufficient payment for all men, does man who rejects God go to hell to pay for his sin because he hasn't believed.

Maybe you got confused with the topic. No problem. Go back and respond to what I posted.

 

[Skandelon]

I'm sorry Skan, but I'm not talking about Calvinism here. No one is speaking of the "elect." So please get back to topic. We are talking specifically that if Christ died a sufficient payment for all men, does man who rejects God go to hell to pay for his sin because he hasn't believed.

Maybe you got confused with the topic. No problem. Go back and respond to what I posted.

Ok, I see I am going to need to take this in bite size chunks:

John 1:29: "The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'"

What is the "world" here? Exegete B. F. Westcott says: "The fundamental idea of kosmos [world] in St. John is that of the sum of created being which belongs to the sphere of human life as an ordered whole, considered apart from God....the world comes to represent humanity in its fallen state, alienated from its Maker."

John Calvin says of this verse: "He uses the word sin in the singular number for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race."

Ryle similarly states: "Christ is...a Savior for all mankind....He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all mankind....What Christ took away, and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam....I hold as strongly as anyone that Christ's death is profitable to none but the elect who believe in His Name. But I dare not limit and pare down such expressions as the one before us....I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man....The atonement was made for all the world, though it is applied and enjoyed by none but believers."
John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."​

Notice the phrase, 'sin of the world,' this goes to support the more corporate view that I mentioned and explain by analogy earlier. The debt of sin for the WHOLE can be paid without the individual escaping punishment for rebelling against God.

Look at if from this perspective. If God saw Abraham's faith and just wanted to save him, could he have done it without the sacrifice of Christ? Not without compromising his just nature, no.

So, in this case the condition (faith) was met prior to the provision of atonement. God merely 'overlooked his sin' for a time until the sacrifice could be made, right?

So, Abraham's righteousness was attained through faith, but still the demands of the law had to be fulfilled by Christ and atonement made in order for Abraham to be absolved from wrongdoing, right?

So, suppose God decided not to send Christ to make atonement for Abraham and other believers of the OT and they went on to hell even though they had faith in God. What debt would they be paying? They would be paying for what Christ didn't pay for, as would everyone else. But, once Christ did come that debt is paid in full. No one can add to that payment. Those who die and go to hell are not adding to the payment of the cross. How could they if it was a once and for all payment? They are suffering for their rejection of God's provision. They perish for unbelief.

 

[jbh28]

Hi webdog, I appreciate you address my post.

He's not paying anything, he is being punished for his refusal. The bolded is where you get this all wrong. Christ's death didn't equate to automatic application. His blood is applied via sola fide.

I agree with the bolded part. Christ blood is only applied through faith. Those that don't believe, the blood/atonement is not applied. So therefore, he is still under condemnation for his sin. The wrath of God still abides on him. He has not believed. That's what I have been saying. Christ's death doesn't mean automatic application on the sinner. It's only through faith in Jesus Christ that it is applied to our account. If it is not received, then the blood isn't applied and thus we are under condemnation.

Yet when I supplied some to review you ignored them. It is biblical truth that ONLY Christ can appease God's wrath against sin. This is a foundation of our faith.

Which is why man who rejects God will spend and endless amount of time in hell.

believe he will spend eternity in hell, but since man has a beginning he is not infinite by any stretch of the imagination, resulting in him being unable to spend infinity in hell.

infinite and eternity are synonymous here. Eternity means "Infinite or unending time." Infinite means "extending indefinitely : endless"

so we agree that he will spend an endless amount of time in hell

And you STILL confuse paying for sin with receiving the payment FOR sin. He is paying for NOTHING. He is being JUDGED. If you cannot discern the difference between these 2 concepts there is no reason to discuss this further.

paying for and being punished is the same here. Just like if someone kills someone and goes to jail. He is paying for his crime/being punished for his crime. From webster's dictionary
Paying: "to suffer the consequences of an act "

so if you want to say is being punished for his sin, fine. I'm not going to waste time over word definitions instead of discussing the truth of the matter. Words have multiple meanings so we have to check what is meant in context. Just like infinite above, infinite can mean no beginning or no end, or simply could mean never ending.

Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

If man rejects the free gift of God, he must face the penalty of sin.

would you agree with that? Man is being punished in hell for his sin.

 

[Iconoclast]

There are certain Scripture passages that seem very difficult to fit within the framework of limited atonement. For example:

Romans 5:6 says: "At just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly." It doesn't make much sense to read this as saying that Christ died for the ungodly of the elect.

It is not difficult when you see the context is Paul addressing the elect, that is those who are justified as in 5:1.......then it makes sense...absolute sense as all the elect were also ungodly until Jesus seeks them out,and saves them:thumbsup::laugh: he did not die for them because they were already saved...he had mercy on them when they were like Ezekiels infant;
1Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

2Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,

3And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.

4And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.

5None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born.

6And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.
7I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

8Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

9Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.

10I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk.

11I decked thee also with ornaments, and I put bracelets upon thy hands, and a chain on thy neck.

12And I put a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head.

13Thus wast thou decked with gold and silver; and thy raiment was of fine linen, and silk, and broidered work; thou didst eat fine flour, and honey, and oil: and thou wast exceeding beautiful, and thou didst prosper into a kingdom.

14And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord GOD.

Regarding the two occurrences of the phrase "all men," E. H. Gifford comments: "The words all men [in v. 18] must have the same extent in both clauses."

not according to 1 cor 15;22

 

[agedman]

1 Corinthians 15:22 is speaking of temporal death not eternal death.

Paul goes on to state the order of resurrection from the temporal death.

Before Christ died, Satan (as recorded in Job) could take a person's life unless God directly intervened. (Remember the argument over the body of Moses?)

At the resurrection, Christ was given ALL power in heaven and earth. He alone holds the keys to death, hell, resurrection, life, eternity...

I find it interesting that Skandelon would attempt to state there is "unlimited atonement" and then quotes Ryle, "The atonement was made for all the world, though it is applied and enjoyed by none but believers."

More to the point of the OP.

The unbeliever does not "repent unto salvation" and therefore their sins, displayed for all to see at the last judgement, serve only as an eternal reminder of the justice of the eternal lake of fire.

The Scriptures state only ONE condition that exists preventing all creation from the final judgement. The name written in the Lamb's book of Life.

When a person's name is not written, no atonement for the sin is given.

It matters not if the person lived sinless, sinned less, or sin ignorant. No name - no atonement. No atonement - spend eternity in the Lake of Fire reminded of the sin and the unbelief.

 

[Iconoclast]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Corinthians 15:22 is speaking of temporal death not eternal death.

Paul goes on to state the order of resurrection from the temporal death.

It is clearly both.....look at vs 17-20
16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

 

[Yeshua1]

If I had a quarter for each time I heard or was told my views on soteriology exalt man, I would be a lot closer to retirement.

I see Christ's atonement appeasing God's wrath against sin, death and the curse, man not perishing for want of payment of sin, but for rejection. Christ is the only one able to pay an infinite penalty against the Father, and He did just that.

man is already condemned by God as being found guilty in adam, and their rejection confirms/proves that fact

The limited atoners believe Christ payed for the sin of the "elect", with the reprobate also making their payment for sin in hell for eternity. This means God is satisfied with both payments, hence elevating the lost's payment on par with Christs pertaining expiation.

God is NOT punishing the lostin sense satisfied with their etrnal torment to make payment unto Him, but as keeping justice intact, in order to have sin warrent being judged and punished!

Who's view really elevates man more, the one that believes only Christ is able to make sufficient payment for sin...or the one that teaches both man and Christ equally pay for the same thing equally satisfying the offended?

man can contribute NOTHINGS toward their sin debt owed unto God though!

Jesus paid it all for the sake of his people, and salvation from start to finish is of the lord alone!

 

[humblethinker]

Personally, I believe the wrath of God is satisfied at the cross. I don't believe God spends the rest of eternity pouring out wrath on the the non-elect, never gaining full satisfaction for their sin. I believe they perish for unbelief and are destroyed with Sin and the enemies of God.

Skan, I am sympathetic to your statements here. Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "destroyed"? Do you mean annihilation, meaning destroyed and therefore no longer conscious or no longer existing?