charles m wrote:ok so you would say that the sinner in hell can pay for his sin and God will be satisfied? i take the point that the payment would be made twice but that presupposes that the sinner is actualy capable of rendering payment
From the perspective of the damned, the infinite debt for sin in hell can NEVER be fully paid off because he's still a temporal creature -- he "travels" through time. And there are clocks and calendars in hell (as far as the damned are concerned).
From God's perspective, the infinite debt for sin is FULLY paid off by the damned sinner because the punishment in hell is forever and God can see from -- {He actually EXISTS in} -- one end of infinity to the other. (and I don't REALLY know what I just said!)
DJC49 wrote:You stretch the typology too far, *John UK*. There is NO typology in Scripture with an exact 1-to-1 positive correlation [type-to-antitype]. If you're looking for a perfect parallel, you won't find it ...The serpent was lifted up -- Jesus would be lifted up. Those who looked at the bronze serpent were healed -- those who look at (believe in) Jesus will be saved. THAT'S as far as the typology goes!
However, it should be remembered that in both cases (the lifted up brazen serpent, and the lifted up glorious Son of God) it is God who saves those who obey his injunction to look.
The Jews who obeyed God by doing something as 'foolish' as 'looking' were received by God and healed.
Men who obey God by doing something as 'foolish' as 'looking to Christ' are received by God and saved.
There is a parallel here which is evident: "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:22 KJV
I am glad Jesus brought the parallel. Because with this parallel, we can explain in very simple terms what God requires us to do to be saved.
Is not this laid up in store with me, and sealed up among my treasures?
35To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste
charles m wrote:do you think therefore that the sinner can pay his debt to God in hell ? I only ask because if he cannot then is it still neccessary for recompense to be made to God and if so and if not by the sinner then is it scriptural to conclude that this is what is meant by Jesus taking upon Himself the sin of the world ?
The unsaved sinner pays for his own sins by judgment to eternal damnation.
Therefore there is no outstanding debt.
If Jesus was to pay for the sins of everybody who ever lived, then the unsaved could not be found guilty - since the debt would have been paid by Jesus. If Jesus also paid for the sins of those in hell - that would mean the payment was made twice, (by Jesus and the unsaved person). That is not just.Therefore the unsaved receive the just punishment for their sins by going to hell.
John UK wrote:This bronze serpent which Moses made ... I cannot see how a limit can apply because of the parallel.
The serpent was lifted up -- Jesus would be lifted up. Those who looked at the bronze serpent were healed -- those who look at (believe in) Jesus will be saved. THAT'S as far as the typology goes!
Anything MORE than that is pure speculation leading to nonsense.
For example: There's ...No mention of ELECTION in Scripture about those Jews who would indeed look at the bronze serpent.No indication that without the GRACE of God no Jew would have looked at the bronze serpent.No mention that the bitten had to BELIEVE in the bronze serpent.No mention about all the Jews who WEREN'T bitten by snakes and what relationship the bronze serpent had to them.No mention that EVERY Jew had to look at the bronze serpent whether or not they were bitten because ALL were somehow "poisoned" already.You get the picture?
In short, *John UK*, you are trying to make the 2 events [bronze serpent & Cross] perfectly parallel to your own confusion.
Pew view - do you think therefore that the sinner can pay his debt to God in hell ? I only ask because if he cannot then is it still neccessary for recompense to be made to God and if so and if not by the sinner then is it scriptural to conclude that this is what is meant by Jesus taking upon Himself the sin of the world ?
charles m wrote:but they wont look up (unbelief)Jesus will never turn any man away but they wont come unless the Father calls them (total degeneracy) unless God called some from the race of adam none at all would come of their own volition
But that is a separate issue. It is very easy to 'logically' conclude doctrine, rather than get it straight from scripture. The doctrine of 'limited atonement' is such a 'logically determined' doctrine, which should never be a part of a statement of faith. In fact, many confessions do not include the extent of the atonement for that very reason.
Jesus will never turn any man away but they wont come unless the Father calls them (total degeneracy) unless God called some from the race of adam none at all would come of their own volition
charles m wrote:so the atonement for the debt of the world can only be done by Jesus since the creature is unable to do it even in hell and yet the debt must be paid.
Rom 5:10 "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."
See the two words here "reconciled" and "atonement" - well they are both the same Greek word. Thus if you are reconciled by God you are atoned by Christ, if I can put it that way.
At 2Cor 5:18 Paul teaches that it is God Himself who has reconciled us to Himself. 19. God was IN Christ doing the reconciling.
God as you know owes no man anything.Those whom HE does not reconcile get their just deserts anyway. They as sinners are guilty as charged. The punishment is hell - a complete separation from God.
The debt is paid then by Christ.OrThe debt is paid by the sinner.
God does not exact the same payment twice as that would be unjust.
pew view wrote:Together they would imply that in the MIND of God HEa] Ordained salvation for some.b] Yet created the same atonement potential for both the saved and the reprobate.
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:14-15 KJV
This bronze serpent which Moses made, and placed at the top of a pole. Let us say that 40,000 Jews were bitten by poisonous snakes, and 39,000 looked up at the serpent. All these, God healed and saved from death. But according to your theory, if just one more had looked up, he would not have been healed, because there was nothing there for him. According to my thinking, he would have been healed and saved.
And as Jesus used the illustration to explain the gospel of his Cross, and the fact that he himself would be lifted up, I cannot see how a limit can apply because of the parallel.
so the atonement for the debt of the world can only be done by Jesus since the creature is unable to do it even in hell and yet the debt must be paid. I havent heard anybody else preach on this its just my reading - can someone advise on this ?
John UK wrote:the atonement was quite sufficient in its merit to atone for not only the whole world
But if He did then that would be unjust and God is not unjust!
1] If God sent Christ to atone for ALL men, then2] WHY does HE choose-elect only SOME?
The two propostions conflict with one another.Together they would imply that in the MIND of God HEa] Ordained salvation for some.b] Yet created the same atonement potential for both the saved and the reprobate.
God's omniscient wisdom and knowledge elected from the beginning, the few to be saved by His Son's atonement.There is no justification then to make His Son's blood a potential for the sins - of those who will themselves pay for their own sins.
That would be unrighteous and unjust!This theory seeks to establish the possibility of paying twice for the same sins. NOT something God would entertain after creating hell and damnation.
This then insists upon a contradiction in the MIND of God.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 ,,, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will and I will have cocompassion on whom I will have compassion.
OBSERVE:
First, he went into his "slaughterhouse" with the presupposition that Universal Atonement was fact.
Next, in order to slaughter and stuff his pig, he suggested that the words: "the elect" be substituted for the word: "all" (or where "all" was inferred) in the 2Cor 5:15 verse.
Now, ... IF he were HONEST about it, the verse WOULD have then read:
"And that He died for the elect, that the elect which live should not henceforth live unto themselves ..."
INSTEAD, butcher *John UK* forced the verse to read:"And that he died for the elect, that ***FROM*** the elect which live [i.e., get saved] should not henceforth live unto themselves"
The pig was now stuffed and ready for roasting!
This little addition of ***FROM*** enabled *John UK* to then offer the reader the totally ABSURD choice between either:
#1 Christ dying for all men, and some of these getting savedor#2 Christ dying for the elect only, and only SOME OF THESE ELECT getting saved!
No WONDER why the butcher of Wales thought that "it comes out like gobbledegook and makes no sense at all"
Then he talks about "wresting" Scripture?!
charles m wrote:thanks john you are very generous, the brethren say i have made good progress largely as a result of resources like sermon audio as i work alone so i can listen all day ! election the hardest thing in scripture for me to understand (so far) as it ran contrary to my own ideas of 'natural justice' for want of a better phrase it didnt line up with everything id been led to understand about 'christianity' but once i had worked thru it whole new araes of understanding came with it. as well as disposing of the pseudo gospel id had.
DJC49Your presuppositions have let you down. I BEGAN with the doctrine of limited atonement, finding much scripture on this, and some which didn't tally. My only intention is to understand what the Bible is saying in various places, NOT develop a doctrine of universal atonement.
pew view wrote:JohnYou still didn't answer the question.Thus considering all the points you've made above; - Why did God, knowing he would elect only a FEW - send His Son to atone for ALL?
I am in shock! I have made a bold statement of my belief, giving a brief overview of my interpretation of the verse you posted and
You haven't disagreed with any of it.
But yes, I did clean forget to answer the question, as I got so carried away with the joy of looking at scripture itself.
Do you not remember the quotation I posted of Charles Spurgeon who claimed that the atonement of Christ was obviously of infinite value and merit, and that to limit the atonement in any way would be tantamount to blasphemy? And that the atonement was quite sufficient in its merit to atone for not only the whole world, but any number of worlds, should God have willed it? From his "A defence of calvinism"?
Well, obviously, when God sent his Son to atone for men, knowing full well whom he had chosen unto eternal life, then the atonement must have been aimed at the salvation of such, and not the whole world being put into a salvable state; yet because of the nature of the sacrifice, it was quite impossible to limit it thus.
'If Christ intended by His death on Calvary to save every single human being in history then He has failed in His intention. If He shed His blood to infallibly secure heaven for all men without exception then He shed His blood in vain for those who end up in Hell. If he paid the price, the ransom, the sin-debt for everyone who ever lived then how can God demand the payment again from those who are everlastingly punished? Would a just God punish His Son for their sins and then punish them in Hell for the same sins? Did Jesus do nothing more for the believers who go to Heaven than He did for those unbelievers who go to Hell? And for how many of their sins did Jesus die? Our opponents will argue that such are lost because of their unbelief and NOT because Jesus did not pay for their sins. I reply: Then He did NOT die for all their sins at all, because they are in hell for the sin of unbelief!!
The atonement of Christ is limited by the Arminian-types, because it does not save all for whom it was made ' Rev Hamilton
[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details3.asp?ID=18573]]]full transcript[/URL]
John UK wrote:"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."No man or woman (in their unconverted state and rebellion against God, living in darkness and sin) can (is able to) come to me (the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world) except (unless) the Father (from whom proceedeth every good and perfect gift) which hath sent me (whose plan it was that I should come into the world) draw him (with that powerful love and grace allocated to each one of those whose names are in the Lamb's Book of Life); and I (Jesus) will raise him up (resurrect him who believed on me, being drawn by the Father and illumined/quickened by the Spirit) at the last day (on the resurrection day, the Day of Judgment, the end of the world).Even briefer: Many (sinners) are called (in general) but few are chosen (relatively).
Page 1 | Jump to Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 more | last
