If Christ Paid For The Sins Of All Men....

[seer]

...then why do some go to hell.... I always thought this was a lame Calvinist argument. First, because we know justification is not applied to the individual until he believes. Men are justified by faith. Second, even the Calvinist believes this - Christ died for their sins 2000 years ago - yet I never heard a Calvinist claim that he was justified/saved from birth. He knows that the work of Christ was not applied to him until he had saving faith. So the Arminian believes that the work of Christ is offered to all men - but the man must apply that work to his life by faith.

[rhutchin]

...then why do some go to hell.... I always thought this was a lame Calvinist argument. First, because we know justification is not applied to the individual until he believes. Men are justified by faith. Second, even the Calvinist believes this - Christ died for their sins 2000 years ago - yet I never heard a Calvinist claim that he was justified/saved from birth. He knows that the work of Christ was not applied to him until he had saving faith. So the Arminian believes that the work of Christ is offered to all men - but the man must apply that work to his life by faith.

The Calvinist position is that the penalty for sin is death. That penalty does not increase as the number of sins increases or the number of people who sin increases. Whether one sin or many, the penalty is determined by the first sin of the first person (Adam) and is fixed. If a person does not sin, then there is no penalty.

When Christ died, He could have been punished for only one sin of one person but effectively His punishment covered all sin or all people. If Christ was specifically punished for the sin of John Doe, then effectively Jane Doe could claim that her sin was also covered and be correct. Both Calvinist and Arminian admit that Christ's work on the cross was sufficient to achieve the salvation of all people but that all people will not be saved.

The Calvinist/Arminian distinction concerns a very narrow argument about the manner in which a person is brought to salvation. Calvinism and Arminianism agree on the broad principles of salvation.

[Ormly]

The Calvinist position is that the penalty for sin is death. That penalty does not increase as the number of sins increases or the number of people who sin increases. Whether one sin or many, the penalty is determined by the first sin of the first person (Adam) and is fixed. If a person does not sin, then there is no penalty.
I think I know what you mean but you are not clear in this. In light of Adam, what do mean "IF a person doesn't sin then there is no penalty"? What person are you refering to here.

[rhutchin]

I think I know what you mean but you are not clear in this. In light of Adam, what do mean "IF a person doesn't sin then there is no penalty"? What person are you refering to here.

Death is specifically identified as the penalty for sin. If a person did not ever sin, that person would not be subject to any penalty.

[Ormly]

Death is specifically identified as the penalty for sin. If a person did not ever sin, that person would not be subject to any penalty.
By that are you implying that you believe there is NO hereditary sin of Adam and the penalty for that sin that is passed on through the generations?

[Xmansmommy]

Seer, I have met at least one Calvinist, and perhaps more, who believe that they were saved from birth. And rhutchin, perhaps I've been hanging with hyper Calvinists for too long, because, unless there are some here, all the Calvinists I know do not believe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient to save all men. They believe it was sufficient only for the Elect. :nsm:

[themuzicman]

I think seer's point is that justification comes to all men (Rom 5:18), but Calvinists cannot explain why not all are saved, if God is the only one who chooses.

Michael

[Ormly]

I think seer's point is that justification comes to all men (Rom 5:18), but Calvinists cannot explain why not all are saved, if God is the only one who chooses.

MichaelYou are equating being saved with justication. I'll yield for sake of argument but justification requires faith in God + a righteous life that supports that faith. All don't have faith in God and live righteously, so how can all be justified? For now I'm speaking only from the OT perspective.

[tizzidale]

I wouldn't say that death is the penalty of sin, rather the result of sin. In my opinion there is a grave difference.

rusty

[Ormly]

I wouldn't say that death is the penalty of sin, rather the result of sin. In my opinion there is a grave difference.

rusty
I don't believe there is penalty OF sin. Since sin is it's own penalty.

Two deaths in this. One physical the other spiritual. The wages of sin is death to both.

[themuzicman]

I wouldn't say that death is the penalty of sin, rather the result of sin. In my opinion there is a grave difference.

rusty

Romans 3:23?

[themuzicman]

You are equating being saved with justication. I'll yield for sake of argument but justification requires faith in God + a righteous life that supports that faith. All don't have faith in God and live righteously, so how can all be justified? For now I'm speaking only from the OT perspective.

I disagree. Hebrews 11 never speaks of works when speaking of the faith of the greats in the OT.

Michael

[tizzidale]

Romans 3:23?
for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,


I'm confused about why you cited this verse.

rusty

[tizzidale]

Wages do not a penalty make.

rusty

[Ormly]

I disagree. Hebrews 11 never speaks of works when speaking of the faith of the greats in the OT.

Michael
Disagree if you will but first read what I said, accurately.

[Ormly]

Wages do not a penalty make.

rusty
The wages of sin does. Need a scripture for that?

[themuzicman]

A penalty is A punishment established by law or authority for a crime or offense.

Wages: Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.

A fitting return; a recompense.

So, the wages of sin are a penalty, because it is the intentional and direct judgment of God upon those who sin!

Michael

[tizzidale]

I guess I'm not being clear in what I'm trying to say here. Death (both physical and spiritual) is a direct result of man's disobedience. I guess what I'm trying to emphasize is man's responsibility in the equation - which I know you guys aren't de-emphasizing. It is, however, a tendency to view sin through judicially tinted glasses, rather than sin as corruption - and death a result of this spiritual sickness.

rusty

[themuzicman]

IF it were a sickness, we would need healing. But what we need is atonement and justification. These are clear from reading Paul.

Michael

[Ormly]

IF it were a sickness, we would need healing. But what we need is atonement and justification. These are clear from reading Paul.

Michael
But unfortunately not received in a clear teaching.

"By His stripes we are healed" means for both the physical and the spiritual.

Gotta remember that severed spirit we possessed that was in need of a healing/restoration.

[tizzidale]

The problem I think is that all of these terms serve a purpose. We need to view sin as "falling short" of the glory of God. But I think we need to view the Law of God and the Glory of God as the created Norm. We were created to live in the glory of God and in perfect harmony with God's nature. But due to our own selfishness, our own free will, we are separated from God's glory by our sin. Sin and death, to me, are mutually dependent entities. You can't have one without the other. I'm finding it hard to express exactly how I feel about this issue. Let me just quote Fr. Thomas Hopko on this subject (he can say it so much better than I):

If man had not sinned, he would not have died. His body may have changed and evolved over great periods of time, but it would not have been separated from his spirit to return to the dust, And man's soul itself would not have been corrupted, losing power over its body and becoming its slave. This is the meaning of the sin of Adam, that man has emerged on the face of the earth, made in God's image and inspired with His Spirit, and has chosen death instead of life, evil instead of righteousness, and so through defilement of his nature in rebellion against God, brought corruption and death to the world.

rusty

[Berean Todd]

And rhutchin, perhaps I've been hanging with hyper Calvinists for too long, because, unless there are some here, all the Calvinists I know do not believe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient to save all men. They believe it was sufficient only for the Elect. :nsm:
I disagree Xmans; as a reformed, I and all of my Calvinist bretheren whom I know and have spoken to at leangth believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all, it just wasn't intended for all. That's one of the reasons I dislike TULIP, I don't think it really properly expresses "calvinism" properly. I never use the term Limited Atonement, I prefer purposeful atonement. It was sufficient for all, but only intended for those God purposed it for, being the elect.

[Xmansmommy]

Then you are the exception to the rule...at least in the circles I've been in Todd.

[Ormly]

The problem I think is that all of these terms serve a purpose. We need to view sin as "falling short" of the glory of God. But I think we need to view the Law of God and the Glory of God as the created Norm. We were created to live in the glory of God and in perfect harmony with God's nature. But due to our own selfishness, our own free will, we are separated from God's glory by our sin.We are separated from God because of the transgression of one man, Adam. We didn't committ that sin, he did. But through heredity we are contiminated; "bad blood" handled down to us.. Jesus died to remove the consequences of Adam's transgression, which is seperation from Father, from us by virtue of the fact He gives His blood to us because of our faith placed in Him. If we never sinned we would still need that blood transfusion. Can you see where this can be viewed as a healing?


Sin and death, to me, are mutually dependent entities. You can't have one without the other. I'm finding it hard to express exactly how I feel about this issue. Let me just quote Fr. Thomas Hopko on this subject (he can say it so much better than I):

If man had not sinned, he would not have died. His body may have changed and evolved over great periods of time, but it would not have been separated from his spirit to return to the dust, And man's soul itself would not have been corrupted, losing power over its body and becoming its slave. This is the meaning of the sin of Adam, that man has emerged on the face of the earth, made in God's image and inspired with His Spirit, and has chosen death instead of life, evil instead of righteousness, and so through defilement of his nature in rebellion against God, brought corruption and death to the world.
rustyTry this: If Adam had never sinned he would have eventually had his own "Mount of Transfiguration" experience; growing old while learning obedience by making moral choices as Satan would still have been his adversary in this. Unfortunately he failed his first test of allegiance. Had he succeeded he would have received, at some point in time, a glorified body and become our role model instead of Jesus. Do you remember the transfiguration of Jesus? This same test of allegiance was given Jesus in His 40 day wilderness experience. Think about it and make the comparison.

[Berean Todd]

Then you are the exception to the rule...at least in the circles I've been in Todd.
Like I said, it goes not just for me, but for one of my proffessors, the entire rest of the staff at my church, one of my close friends who pastor's another church, several friends of mine. I could count up at least 2 dozen skilled pastor/theologians/teachers who hold my same opinion without breaking a sweat.

[Xmansmommy]

I'm not suggesting that those that believe like you don't exist Todd. My point simply was that I know many that believe otherwise. Perhaps you haven't come in contact with them, but I certainly have. :nsm:

[Benster]

...to whom did he pay this debt of sin?

[Solly]

It's not to whom, but for whom. that's where the ECF went wrong, and guessed it was Satan.

He didn't pay the debt, it was paid to him. the wages - what we earn - of sin is death - what we get. He got the death.

[Solly]

I disagree Xmans; as a reformed, I and all of my Calvinist bretheren whom I know and have spoken to at leangth believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all, it just wasn't intended for all. That's one of the reasons I dislike TULIP, I don't think it really properly expresses "calvinism" properly. I never use the term Limited Atonement, I prefer purposeful atonement. It was sufficient for all, but only intended for those God purposed it for, being the elect.

BT is correct here, part of the Reformed wing, the low Calvinist, hold sufficient for all, effecient for some. this balances the whosoever with the except I draw.

The constituency I inhabited until recently hold that it is sufficient and effecient only for the elect.

It swing somewhat on how you deal with 1 John 2.2. Take out the words sins of the which aren't there, and Christ comes to be the propiation for the world as such, that God's long suffering might continue, and a way be opened, a place for God to meet with men. But for our sins is only something the church can say. Statements such as sins of the world in John's gospel refer to those outside the commonwealth of Israel, sinners, not just those who are on the inside. It is qualitative, not quantitative, as per the use of the word kosmos.

[Ormly]

I disagree Xmans; as a reformed, I and all of my Calvinist bretheren whom I know and have spoken to at leangth believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all, it just wasn't intended for all. That's one of the reasons I dislike TULIP, I don't think it really properly expresses "calvinism" properly. I never use the term Limited Atonement, I prefer purposeful atonement. It was sufficient for all, but only intended for those God purposed it for, being the elect.
Common sense and Faith sense clearly speaks of this as wrong. It is presumption by Calvin. Not only that but the simple fact of the matter is that you disagreeing with tulip means that you are not in accord with the gospel since, by Calvin thinkers, he is the gospel. So now the whole thing becomes a variable and you are on your own, which you should be in this.

Why praytell can't God give His grace to all for all to choose? What's wrong with thinking that a man can choose? Is that something Too great for God to allow? Isn't His Grace, grace enough? Especially when you know that love MUST be freely given and received? I don't get how any rational thinker can willfully travel down a different road totally away from logic that scripture totally supports. There is an agenda that needs to be exposed. I can guess what it is --- but why go there?

My cousin is a reformed Baptist minister and disagrees with all of tulip except the "P". Go figure.

Think we can discuss it?

[Spokoina]

You are equating being saved with justication. I'll yield for sake of argument but justification requires faith in God + a righteous life that supports that faith. All don't have faith in God and live righteously, so how can all be justified? For now I'm speaking only from the OT perspective.

Can you be justified and not saved?

Justification is not faith plus a righteous life that supports faith, most strongly it is not that for the reformed faith.

Romans 5:2 makes it clear enough to me: We access grace by our faith. The grace is sufficient to save all men, and the key is there, but if you dont use the faith key to access the available grace, then it is only yourself to blame.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
Rom 5:4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
Rom 5:5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.



Universalism and Calvinism should be the partners, honestly. God desires all to come to repentance, the Bible says. Calvinists say God's grace is sufficient to save all, but God just didn't want to save all, contradicting many things in scripture. Universalism says God is saving all men, being so sovereign, able and desiring to do so.

For the calvinists, I often wonder about this unconditional election theorem added to this discussion of atonement. Was you sinfulness lest wicked than the wicked God didn't elect to save?

Some calvinist boldly prounounced that God hates, hates, hates the wicked, he HATES Esau so that is their fate. OK, then smarty pants in the theological world, what made the elects wickedness more palatable to God that he would save you and not that wicked other guy? Eenie meenie miney mo? Unconditional means you might not even be elected, since it isnt your profession of faith and your righteous life born in the faith that means a doggone thing to your salvation.

Did God find Jacob's wickedness more lovable? After all, his faith didn't mean a thing in his election..God did that.

See what a capricious and game playing God that becomes?

[Solly]

Common sense and Faith sense clearly speaks of this as wrong. It is presumption by Calvin. Not only that but the simple fact of the matter is that you disagreeing with tulip means that you are not in accord with the gospel since, by Calvin thinkers, he is the gospel. So now the whole thing becomes a variable and you are on your own, which you should be in this.

Not. But I guess that won't be the last time I say it. In actual fact, most Calvinistic Reformed folks [ie, 5 pointers] hold to the post-Calvin symbols, such as the Westminster Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Synod of Dort (with the London Confession of 1689 for Baptists), all representing an advance upon Calvin's view, by the creation of Federal Covenant Theology via Turretin, Perkins, etc.

Why praytell can't God give His grace to all for all to choose? What's wrong with thinking that a man can choose? Is that something Too great for God to allow? Isn't His Grace, grace enough? Especially when you know that love MUST be freely given and received? I don't get how any rational thinker can willfully travel down a different road totally away from logic that scripture totally supports. There is an agenda that needs to be exposed. I can guess what it is --- but why go there?
There is logic here, but not necessarily scripture logic; most of it is assumptions parading as certainties. There is an agenda here too.

My cousin is a reformed Baptist minister and disagrees with all of tulip except the "P". Go figure.

Time he moved on then.

[Benster]

[QUOTE=Solly]It's not to whom, but for whom. that's where the ECF went wrong, and guessed it was Satan.

Go slow with me, here. When someone pays a debt of something, for you, in your place, then there must be an amount of something to be paid (the death), the original debt (sin) and a third party to which the debt is owed. Otherwise Christ AND us could get away without paying anything. So, to whom was this debt owed?

[Ormly]

Common sense and Faith sense clearly speaks of this as wrong. It is presumption by Calvin. Not only that but the simple fact of the matter is that you disagreeing with tulip means that you are not in accord with the gospel since, by Calvin thinkers, he is the gospel. So now the whole thing becomes a variable and you are on your own, which you should be in this. Not. But I guess that won't be the last time I say it. In actual fact, most Calvinistic Reformed folks [ie, 5 pointers] hold to the post-Calvin symbols, such as the Westminster Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Synod of Dort (with the London Confession of 1689 for Baptists), all representing an advance upon Calvin's view, by the creation of Federal Covenant Theology via Turretin, Perkins, etc.
You can deny it, Solly, til the cows come home but you are speaking to the wrong guy. I know better. And by your own confession why would my Baptist minister cousin have to move on? I don't get how you people think- contradictions galore!



There is logic here, but not necessarily scripture logic; most of it is assumptions parading as certainties. There is an agenda here too.

I'm glad to hear you admit that it isn't logic based on scripture. <I think I got that right> --- and there is an agenda --- for what reasons I've pondered for years.

[Solly]

[/indent]
You can deny it, Solly, til the cows come home but you are speaking to the wrong guy. I know better. And by your own confession why would my Baptist minister cousin have to move on? I don't get how you people think- contradictions galore!

Mwah ha ha ha ha evil Calvinist laugh. We shall have to eliminate you then, if you know the secret.

Again, not. I am a Calvinist, I think I know my doctrines well enough, and I think i know my constituency well enough, and I know my calvinist history well enough, so yah sucks boo to you.

I'm glad to hear you admit that it isn't logic based on scripture. <I think I got that right> --- and there is an agenda --- for what reasons I've pondered for years.

Ee-jut, I was referring to your interpretation and assumptions. Can't ya even read properly???

As for the minister, he should leave for the same reason I did. If you don't agree with em, then you shouldn't be in them.

[Solly]

[QUOTE=Solly]It's not to whom, but for whom. that's where the ECF went wrong, and guessed it was Satan.

Go slow with me, here. When someone pays a debt of something, for you, in your place, then there must be an amount of something to be paid (the death), the original debt (sin) and a third party to which the debt is owed. Otherwise Christ AND us could get away without paying anything. So, to whom was this debt owed?

The wages earned is death, and Christ received it for us.
The debt owed is death, and Christ paid it for.
Death comes from God, as you see right back in Gen 3, because of sin.
But the focus is on us, not on God. He sorted the issue, by sending his son to die for us; that is why life is promised.

anyway, gotta rush.

[Benster]

The wages earned is death, and Christ received it for us.
The debt owed is death, and Christ paid it for.
Death comes from God, as you see right back in Gen 3, because of sin.
But the focus is on us, not on God. He sorted the issue, by sending his son to die for us; that is why life is promised.

anyway, gotta rush.So, if God had simply forgiven the debt, as mortals frequently do, then Jesus (who is variously described as God-in-the-flesh, or His son) wouldn't have had to suffer on the cross?

[Ormly]

[QUOTE=Solly]It's not to whom, but for whom. that's where the ECF went wrong, and guessed it was Satan.

Go slow with me, here. When someone pays a debt of something, for you, in your place, then there must be an amount of something to be paid (the death), the original debt (sin) and a third party to which the debt is owed. Otherwise Christ AND us could get away without paying anything. So, to whom was this debt owed?Excellent observation!! This places the whole thing as something to God and not from Him! Any other view of this makes man the victim, a woe is me thing -- and he did the deed! But Jesus, the man, steps in to redeem God's program for His Son and God. <Words I've looking for>That puts Calvinism to flight since, in this can be seen the offer to all who WILL receive it.

The song: I owed a debt I could not pay, He paid a debt He did not owe...

[tizzidale]

It's not to whom, but for whom. that's where the ECF went wrong, and guessed it was Satan. I almost feel like starting another thread to discuss this statement. First of all you swat aside the opinions of very learned Fathers rather brashly, without providing "proof" of your interpretation - only stating it as truth.

Let's look at some of the passages in question:

even as the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many

I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, where are your plagues; O Grave, where is your ruin! Repentance shall be hidden from My eyes.

You said earlier:

He didn't pay the debt, it was paid to him. the wages - what we earn - of sin is death - what we get. He got the death. and then in a later post:

The wages earned is death, and Christ received it for us.
The debt owed is death, and Christ paid it for.
Death comes from God, as you see right back in Gen 3, because of sin.
But the focus is on us, not on God. He sorted the issue, by sending his son to die for us; that is why life is promised. In light of the passages in Hosea and in Matthew, it seems clear that the power of death and the grave held us captive - but Christ paid the ransom. In your understanding, and in your dismissive attitude toward the ECF's, you seem to be saying that the ransom was paid to Christ Himself. But let's look at another passage:

Since then the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise partook of the same; that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death (that is, the Devil), and deliver those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

So, in essence the ECF's were not wrong is saying that Christ paid the debt to Satan - as it was Satan that held the power of death prior to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

I believe I understand where you are coming from, and what you are attempting to say; but I feel you are dead wrong in dismissing the Early Fathers as "guessing" wrong.

rusty

[Ormly]

So, in essence the ECF's were not wrong is saying that Christ paid the debt to Satan - as it was Satan that held the power of death prior to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
rustyNo. Jesus paid it to the Father. As all sacrifices of the Old Testament when presented to Him properly were a sweet savour, how much more was this one that it also redeemed man. God's justice was satisfied. His Holiness released and Satan no longer had an argument where he could accuse God unfairly. Now he accuses us who squander the great gift before the throne. "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation"?

[tizzidale]

See, that's what I mean by looking at this through judicially tinted glasses. I think this is an essential point of difference between the Eastern Church and the Western.

rusty

[Ormly]

See, that's what I mean by looking at this through judicially tinted glasses. I think this is an essential point of difference between the Eastern Church and the Western.

rustyYou mean self-centered glasses as opposed to God-centered ones.

There is an ultimate intention that God has in mind for His creation. Does anyone honestly think man is the center of it and not Christ? Apparently so, in the Calvin camp.

[tizzidale]

Well, I am assuredly not in Calvin's camp - or anywhere near it.

rusty

[Ormly]

Well, I am assuredly not in Calvin's camp - or anywhere near it.

rustyGlad to hear it. Keep your thoughts coming. They will be a pleasure to address and the conversation will be fruitful even for those standing on their toes in the Calvin camp[fire]

[tizzidale]

I wanted to clarify what I meant by mentioning the different views of Eastern and Western soteriology. If I may, let me post a portion from this web page - http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/differences_roman_catholicism.htm. If you would only substitute "Roman Catholic" with Western, I think you could see where I'm coming from.

Why did God become man? The Roman Catholic answer to this question differs from the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church.
Following the holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that Christ, on the Cross, gave "His life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28). "For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). The "ransom" is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14), "I will ransom them (us) from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death." In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14).

The man Christ voluntarily gave Himself on the Cross. He died for all ("a ransom for many" or "the many"). But He rose from the dead in His crucified body. Death had no power to hold Him. It has no power over anyone. The human race is redeemed from the grave, from the devil. Free of the devil is to be free of death and sin. To be free of these, we become like God (deification) and may live with Him forever.

According to Roman Catholic theology, God became man in order to satisfy the divine Justice which was offended by the sin of Adam. In other words, by his sin Adam offended the infinite God and, therefore, his sin had infinite consequences. It was not within the power of sinful and finite man to make amends, for the sin of Adam ("original sin") passed to us; but it is our obligation to do so. Only Christ, Who was God and man, could pay this "debt of honor."

He pays the debt by dying on the Cross. His death makes up for what Adam had done; the offense is removed. God is no longer angry with man. Christ rises from the dead, the promise or "earnest" of the believing man's future.

[rhutchin]

Ormly
By that are you implying that you believe there is NO hereditary sin of Adam and the penalty for that sin that is passed on through the generations?

Yes, if I understand your question. We do not inherit sin from Adam, we inherit the effects of that sin. The effects of Adam’s sin are:

1. We are no longer in the presence of God and must petition God to enter into His presence.
2. We no longer desire communion with God; like Adam we choose to hide from God.
3. We no longer desire to please God and desire only to please ourselves.
4. We worship God only as a reaction to His requirement that we do so instead of proactively offering worship to God without request from Him.

Point 4 means that we sin from the beginning because God requires that we be proactive in our worship of Him (First commandment).


Xmansmommy
And rhutchin, perhaps I've been hanging with hyper Calvinists for too long, because, unless there are some here, all the Calvinists I know do not believe the atoning sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient to save all men. They believe it was sufficient only for the Elect.

There is an illogic to that thinking. Let’s assume that Christ specifically died for 1,000 people. If His death was sufficient only for those 1,000 people then He would have to die again for an additional 1,000 people. On the other hand, He would have to endure some lesser punishment for less than 1,000 people.

In reality, Christ would have had to die for only one sin committed by only one person. He would not have to die 1,000 times for 1,000 sins committed by one person or for 1,000 people who each committed only one sin. One death was sufficient for all sin.

Your question to those who do not believe that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient to save all men would be to ask, what Christ would have had to do if God had saved more people than He did.


Berean Todd
I disagree Xmans; as a reformed, I and all of my Calvinist bretheren whom I know and have spoken to at leangth believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all, it just wasn't intended for all. That's one of the reasons I dislike TULIP, I don't think it really properly expresses "calvinism" properly. I never use the term Limited Atonement, I prefer purposeful atonement. It was sufficient for all, but only intended for those God purposed it for, being the elect.

As a practical matter, the atonement is limited because the conclusion of the matter is that a limited number of people will be saved. Once it is determined that all will not be saved, then the rest of that which “L” implies falls into place. I think that you are correct in saying that TULIP is not a perfect descriptor of Calvinism. Nonetheless, it is a very good way to frame Calvinism so long as one has a basic understanding of what it means.


themuzicman
I think seer's point is that justification comes to all men (Rom 5:18), but Calvinists cannot explain why not all are saved, if God is the only one who chooses.

Romans 5:18 says, “Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people.”

The distinction here is that condemnation came to all people like an infection that spreads unseen from one to another. One does not choose to be infected; he discovers that he is infected.

When righteousness came to all, it did not spread like the earlier condemnation. It was only available to those who would take it or to those to whom God imputed it. Consequently, all are not saved either because all do not take it or God does not impute that righteousness to all.

[themuzicman]

In a sense, the debt is paid to us.

Remember that these are all analogies to the reality that Christ came to die, so that we could have eternal life.

Michael

[themuzicman]

Romans 5:18 says, “Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people.”

What version are you reading?

The distinction here is that condemnation came to all people like an infection that spreads unseen from one to another. One does not choose to be infected; he discovers that he is infected.

That's not what Paul is saying. We are sinful because we sin. Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, et. al. Adam's sin brought sin and evil and death into the world, and we all sin condemning us all.

When righteousness came to all, it did not spread like the earlier condemnation. It was only available to those who would take it or to those to whom God imputed it. Consequently, all are not saved either because all do not take it or God does not impute that righteousness to all.

You can't have it both ways. Either is comes to all men, or it does not. What good is it if justificaiton comes to you, but you can't receive it?

Michael

[Ormly]

I wanted to clarify what I meant by mentioning the different views of Eastern and Western soteriology. If I may, let me post a portion from this web page - http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/differences_roman_catholicism.htm. If you would only substitute "Roman Catholic" with Western, I think you could see where I'm coming from.

Why did God become man? The Roman Catholic answer to this question differs from the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church.
Following the holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that Christ, on the Cross, gave "His life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28). "For even the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). The "ransom" is paid to the grave. As the Lord revealed to the Prophet Hosea (Hosea 13:14), "I will ransom them (us) from the power of the grave, I will redeem them from death." In a sense, He pays the ransom to the devil who has the keeper of the grave and holds the power of death (Heb. 2:14).

The man Christ voluntarily gave Himself on the Cross. He died for all ("a ransom for many" or "the many"). But He rose from the dead in His crucified body. Death had no power to hold Him. It has no power over anyone. The human race is redeemed from the grave, from the devil. Free of the devil is to be free of death and sin. To be free of these, we become like God (deification) and may live with Him forever.

According to Roman Catholic theology, God became man in order to satisfy the divine Justice which was offended by the sin of Adam. In other words, by his sin Adam offended the infinite God and, therefore, his sin had infinite consequences. It was not within the power of sinful and finite man to make amends, for the sin of Adam ("original sin") passed to us; but it is our obligation to do so. Only Christ, Who was God and man, could pay this "debt of honor."

He pays the debt by dying on the Cross. His death makes up for what Adam had done; the offense is removed. God is no longer angry with man. Christ rises from the dead, the promise or "earnest" of the believing man's future. Luke 12:5 (NASB-U)
"But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!

In this verse, can it not be seen that the justice and Holiness of God is the issue? Jesus owes NOTHING to satan. Satan was the instigater! Why is anything due him? The issue is not to satisfy death, but life! Having said that, the death of the totally innocent Jesus, the man, cancels out the guilty Adam to a state whereby man's righteousness is now judged on it's own merit. If the individual abides in Jesus Christ, He abides rightly and without sin, -- no sin is allowed. If not, there is a variable whereby the condition of "just saved man" remains unsure if viewed presumptuously to be secure in Christ. Words means something. The word "believe" has a meaning that all should give heed to.

[tizzidale]

The issue is not whether Jesus owes anything to Satan, but our captivity to death and the grave. I don't think anyone mentioned God owing Satan anything whatsoever.

rusty

[Ormly]

The issue is not whether Jesus owes anything to Satan, but our captivity to death and the grave. I don't think anyone mentioned God owing Satan anything whatsoever.

rusty
In this are you implying death and grave have a personality?? If not then the debt is to satisfy the justice of God, agree?

[tizzidale]

Well, I definitely think that death and the grave are personified in scripture, but they are represented in the person of Satan - the Father of Lies. In truth, we have sold ourselves under sin (Rom 7:14), and have been ensnared by the Evil One (1 Tim. 3:7). Christ, through His death, burial, and resurrection won victory over sin, death, and the grave. As the Orthodox hymn says, "Trampling down death by death."

rusty

[Ormly]

Well, I definitely think that death and the grave are personified in scripture, but they are represented in the person of Satan - the Father of Lies. In truth, we have sold ourselves under sin (Rom 7:14), and have been ensnared by the Evil One (1 Tim. 3:7). Christ, through His death, burial, and resurrection won victory over sin, death, and the grave. As the Orthodox hymn says, "Trampling down death by death."

rusty
But death as a personality? That's a stretch. If you do that sort of thing you make a lot of things say what they don't.

[tizzidale]

I didn't say it actually had personality, but that it is personified - attributing human qualities to some thing or idea. We can see this is passages such as in Isaiah 28:15; Isaiah 38:18; Hosea 13:14; Romans 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:26; et. al. I'm not saying it's always personified. But anyway, I don't think this is important. I did find some interesting things though. Often the Bible speaks about the snare of Death, and we're told in the New Testament about the snare of the Devil. Also, death is mentioned 351 time in the Bible. "Guilt" is mentioned 2 times. "Guilty" 32 times. "Guiltiness" 3 times.

rusty

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Romans 5:18 says, “Consequently, just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people.”

themuzicman
What version are you reading?

I downloaded the NET Bible. It seems pretty good, as far as I can tell.


rhutchin
The distinction here is that condemnation came to all people like an infection that spreads unseen from one to another. One does not choose to be infected; he discovers that he is infected.

themuzicman
That's not what Paul is saying. We are sinful because we sin. Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, et. al. Adam's sin brought sin and evil and death into the world, and we all sin condemning us all.

I agree. My point was just that we did not have a choice in the matter.


rhutchin
When righteousness came to all, it did not spread like the earlier condemnation. It was only available to those who would take it or to those to whom God imputed it. Consequently, all are not saved either because all do not take it or God does not impute that righteousness to all.

themuzicman
You can't have it both ways. Either is comes to all men, or it does not. What good is it if justification comes to you, but you can't receive it?

Again I agree. My point, here, is that the individual chooses whether to receive it (contrasted with his initial condition over which he had no choice).

[themuzicman]

I downloaded the NET Bible. It seems pretty good, as far as I can tell.

Err... It doesn't appear to be a formal translation. I'd be careful using it for doctrinal study.

I agree. My point was just that we did not have a choice in the matter.

Ah, but we did... It was our choice to sin that ultimately condemns us. Just like justification, Adam's sin brought sin to us, but we are the ones who chose to embrace it.

Again I agree. My point, here, is that the individual chooses whether to receive it (contrasted with his initial condition over which he had no choice).

So, you're an Arminian.... interesting....

Michael

[Ormly]

Err... It doesn't appear to be a formal translation. I'd be careful using it for doctrinal study.



Ah, but we did... It was our choice to sin that ultimately condemns us. Just like justification, Adam's sin brought sin to us, but we are the ones who chose to embrace it.



So, you're an Arminian.... interesting....

Michael
Is that what an Arminian is? Adam had no choice? -- am I reading this wrongly?

[themuzicman]

Read more carefully, Ormly...

RH: Again I agree. My point, here, is that the individual chooses whether to receive it (contrasted with his initial condition over which he had no choice).

Me: So, you're an Arminian.... interesting....


Sheesh, you can't even read MY posts in context.

Michael

[Ormly]

Read more carefully, Ormly...



Sheesh, you can't even read MY posts in context.

Michael
Sorry for my slowness but I still don't see it. I asked if I was reading wrongly. I'm leaving the door open for that possibilty, since I'm capable of doing it.


Again I agree. My point, here, is that the individual chooses whether to receive it (contrasted with his initial condition over which he had no choice).

I'm assuming that you all are speaking of Adam. So correct me.:ahem:

[themuzicman]

rh was speaking of salvation before the parentheses, and sin inside them. (Then again, I could be wrong...)

Michael

[Ormly]

rh was speaking of salvation before the parentheses, and sin inside them. (Then again, I could be wrong...)

Michael
Ok, I guess I see it. If I do then I won't be in error when stating: that man was never in an "original" condition when he couldn't choose.

[themuzicman]

Then again, your reading may be correct. I keep re-reading it and getting a different sense of what rh meant each time, now... :doh:

[Ormly]

Then again, your reading may be correct. I keep re-reading it and getting a different sense of what rh meant each time, now... :doh:
Thanks. I was about to take my pulse.

Words do mean something, eh? I hate to mis-quote as much as being mis-quoted. It just leads to more mis-understanding. Then you must determine whether or not it is willful. :smile:

[Xmansmommy]

Is that what an Arminian is? Adam had no choice? -- am I reading this wrongly?

I think what rhutchin is saying is in regards to us not being able to choose before we are regenerated. I could be wrong too though. :nsm:

[Ormly]

I think what rhutchin is saying is in regards to us not being able to choose before we are regenerated. I could be wrong too though. :nsm:
I know what my definition is of regeneration, and I may wrong, but what is your's and do think his and yours is the same? I'd like to compare them both with mine.

[Xmansmommy]

If my assumption was correct, then no, mine and his are not the same. I personally don't believe a person is regenerated before they have faith. I believe regeneration is an ongoing process that takes place in the lives of believers as they renew their minds.

[Starkman]

Nothing in Scripture says that Adam's blood was literally contaminated; sin and evil aren't ontological. When Adam fell, there was'n't some sort of force (evil, sin) that suddenly invaded his body, hence, "sin" or "evil" could not have been extracted from Adam's body or blood.

We are told of the curses that came upon Adam, Eve, the world and Satan when Adam and Eve fell. Those curses reflect a change in relationships, particularly between God and mankind. Romans 5:12-21 parallels the one-time sin of Adam with the one-time work of Christ. The passage clarifies the one-time sin of Adam having affected and effected all, even if all did not sin in the same similitude as Adam; however, the one-time work of Christ is not equal in parallel to Adam's transgression; Christ's one-time affects all but does not effect all. This is extremely important to understand in view of the way Adam's sin is passed along to all mankind.

Romans 5:17 states, If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness (emphasis mine) reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ (ESV). Adam's sin affected all, whether they like it or not. Christ's work, also, affects all, but its effect is only upon "those who receive..." In other words, the parallel between Adam and Christ applies only to the extent that both Adam and Christ have enacted a "one-time" work. Where the parallel ceases is in the effects, not the affects, of each person's work. Adam's sin affects all, and effects a change, regardless of whether it is wanted or not. Christ's work affects all but only "effects" change for those who receive it. There is no effect for those who do not want it. That's the point of the passage. That's why Paul goes to great length in verses 12-21 to outline the similarities and contrasts between the two one-time works, so that we understand who we are in Christ.

Now, with that said, we can go back to the Fall itself. As I said, it isn't an ontological issue, but rather, a placement issue: Adam is placed out of the sphere of relationship with God, of peace with God, and of the love of God. That's unfortunate, but worse is that everyone born of him is born into this sphere, whether they like it or not. No one has to commit sin to end up in this horrible existence; the problem is simply a product of one human being's one-time sin. This has nothing to do with contaminated blood or some sort of ontological existence of evil or sin inside Adam's body. It is simply that when one choses, as Adam did, to operate outside the parameters of God and is thrust into an existence that is fitting for that "life stye," one is without God's protection and presence, in every area. That person will sin. Indeed, that person is already corrupt at birth, because they are born into a corrupted existence (the child, until the age of accountability arrives, whenever that is, just doesn't know he has been born into a corrupt world or that he himself/herself is corrupt). The corruption is not ontological, it is influence by the Evil One and done so within the Evil One's sphere of existence.

There is nothing within mankind to function in and of itself in the capacity that God functions (relationship, peace and love) without the "presence" of God to afford the possibility. One must be in "right" relationship--in the sphere of existence God is--with God if one wants to function as one in relationship with God. Enter Romans 6, where we have "died" to this existence IF we are in Christ (but this is another issue for another thread).

The work of Christ, then, is to set right what has been wronged. The issue is that God would have to orchestrate and conduct the means by which man can be rescued from his state of being, if man is ever to have a relationship with God. This takes into account the legal/judicial aspect of the sin of Adam (and the sins of mankind): the soul that sins shall die, and, the wages of sin--the payoff, the reward--is death. We cannot skirt around this theological aspect without sacrificing the meaning of these verses. What we must not do is append to our soteriology any concept of an angry God taking his wrath out on His Son. That concept is not biblical, and it is a perversion of a sound soteriology. (As if God was really saying, "Boy, I'll get you, Jesus, for all they've done...take THAT, and THAT. I'll punish you for all they did." A far cry from any concept of judicial elements within the theology of the cross.)


Finally, in view of Romans 5, particularly verse 17, and in view of the understanding of the Fall, the work of Christ affects all but does not effect all toward or into salvation. Whether one wishes to argue that God elects some and not others, or that man has part in responding to God’s call, is not the point of this post. Understanding the one-time work of Christ, similar in some but not all aspects of Adam’s one-time sin, is the issue; unlike the affects and effects of Adam's sin upon all mankind, the effect of Christ’s work is not imparted to all, nor is it for all. It is only for those who receive it.

One last word...

I do not see anything in Scripture addressing Satan receiving any payment from God in view of the work of the cross. Nothing in Scripture says anything is owed to Satan, or that God had entered into a contract with Satan about this world or its inhabitants. All we are told is that once Adam was removed "from the Garden"--moved out of relationship with God an into this current existence where Satan both dwells and defines as his way of existence--Satan could rightly claim that the inhabitants were under his domain. After all, that's where Adam ended up: in Satan's very own dwelling. Until something was done to remove mankind out from under Satan's dominion, Satan could rightly claim jurisdiction over mankind. Colossians 1:13 states, "For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves," a clear statement of deliverance, if ever there were on in Scripture!


Starkman

[Ormly]

Nothing in Scripture says that Adam's blood was literally contaminated; sin and evil aren't ontological. When Adam fell, there was'n't some sort of force (evil, sin) that suddenly invaded his body, hence, "sin" or "evil" could not have been extracted from Adam's body or blood.

We are told of the curses that came upon Adam, Eve, the world and Satan when Adam and Eve fell. Those curses reflect a change in relationships, What's a curse? Can it be reversed? Passed on?

What is it that was passed on but contaminated blood that only non-contaminated blood could cancel out?
The life is in the blood and if the blood is "dirty", what can the life be? Dead? or just "dirty", unacceptable to one who is Holy.

[tizzidale]

Whoa, what are we implying here? That sin is actually transmitted in the "blood"?

rusty

[Ormly]

Whoa, what are we implying here? That sin is actually transmitted in the "blood"?

rustySin transmitted? No. I am saying what sin 'did' is transmitted through the blood i.e., The access to the soul and the power of Satan to unfluence man. The cross of Jesus cancels out that power and sets man free -- if man chooses. The influence is now a matter of allegiance. Who will man obey? Re-born man no longer is under the power of Satan by virtue of the new birth experience and by that same virtue now has a higher power to aid him in the overcoming of the enemy of his soul,

"If any be in Him he is a new creation" -- however, Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? ---- Paul.

[Starkman]

What's a curse? Can it be reversed? Passed on?

What is it that was passed on but contaminated blood that only non-contaminated blood could cancel out?
The life is in the blood and if the blood is "dirty", what can the life be? Dead? or just "dirty", unacceptable to one who is Holy.
Hello Ormly,

First, the curse is, in essence, the removal of Adam and Eve (and all their decendants to be) from fellowship with God, in every possible manner. They were cursed in that they were thrust out of the relationship, of the peace, of the joy and of the love of being in right-standing with God and were thrust into the antithesis of all these. There's nothing to "pass on" to another individual, like a witch is said to curse someone and his/her children and children's children. These curses in Genesis reflect a state-of-being for mankind from the time of the Fall on until the Redeemer would come.

As regards the issue of contaminated blood, you've made an invalid (but popular) connection between the statement in Levitus about the life of the flesh being in the blood and the curse in Genesis; you are saying that because the life of flesh is in the blood, therefore, the curses in Genesis must have to do with contamination of Adam and Eve's blood. But there's no correlation between the two, whatsoever. All Leviticus is saying is that the sustenance of human life is essentially the blood. There is definitely theological implications to blood in view of the sacrifices that are addressed in the book. Ultimately, the Savior's shedded blood would remove His sustenance, His life. This would satisfy the requirement (in that the Savior dies as a human being) for atonement, but this has nothing to do with what's going on in Genesis. Nothing in those early Genesis chapters even hints at anything to do with contaminated blood, only to, as does Leviticus, to sacrifice (of the Seed to come).

I think the "contaminated blood" teaching goes around because it sounds ok, like it makes sense, but it doesn't make sense, and it's not taught in Scripture. To conclude contaminated blood in Adam and Eve because of the statement about blood in Leviticus is what's called committing a non-sequitur; an illogical conclusion from the premise(s). Here, look at it this way:

The life of the flesh is in the blood
Adam and Eve sinned and were cursed
Therefore, their blood had become contaminated

Or

Adam and Eve sinned and were cursed
The life of the flesh is in the blood
Therefore, their blood had become contaminated

You see, this just doesn't work.

Further, it isn't the blood that is unacceptable to God; it is the person sustained by blood who is not acceptable to God. No person but the Christ could offer himself to God as an acceptable offering, because (and this is important!) only HE was not of this world, of this sphere. That's why Satan had no claim on Him. The Christ alone was without sin, not because His blood wasn't contaminated, but because He wasn't of this world! He wasn't "born into" the corruption of the sphere of existence we live in. Yes, He was fully God and fully man, but He was not born into this world as just any other human is. Therefore, He alone can die and take us out of this existence and place us, in Him, into a new existence, a new and living hope!

Starkman

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I downloaded the NET Bible. It seems pretty good, as far as I can tell.

themuzicman
Err... It doesn't appear to be a formal translation. I'd be careful using it for doctrinal study.

It seems as adequate as any other translation. I stopped comparing it to other translations over the past few months because it seemed OK.


rhutchin
I agree. My point was just that we did not have a choice in the matter.

themuzicman
Ah, but we did... It was our choice to sin that ultimately condemns us. Just like justification, Adam's sin brought sin to us, but we are the ones who chose to embrace it.

If you mean that we choose to sin and have to be aware that we had sinned, then we disagree. I guess you adhere to the age of accountability philosophy where children are saved until they reach the point where they knowingly sin and thereby lose their salvation. I do not hold to this. My view is that everyone sins by not proactively worshipping God and that this sin begins at the moment of conception.


rhutchin
Again I agree. My point, here, is that the individual chooses whether to receive it (contrasted with his initial condition over which he had no choice).

themuzicman
So, you're an Arminian.... interesting....

No. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that people freely choose whether to accept Christ.

[Ormly]

Hello Ormly,

First, the curse is, in essence, the removal of Adam and Eve (and all their decendants to be) from fellowship with God, in every possible manner. They were cursed in that they were thrust out of the relationship, of the peace, of the joy and of the love of being in right-standing with God and were thrust into the antithesis of all these. There's nothing to "pass on" to another individual, like a witch is said to curse someone and his/her children and children's children. These curses in Genesis reflect a state-of-being for mankind from the time of the Fall on until the Redeemer would come.[/QUOTE]What am I asked to argue against that you present? Doesn't sound Calvinist nor Ariminian. For instance your remark here is twisted to mean something else:

"The Christ alone was without sin, not because His blood wasn't contaminated, but because He wasn't of this world!"

His blood was not contaminated because He was without sin. See the difference?

Not so with Adam. He did sin and thus contimination instantly set in. Do you believe the Blood of Jesus could cleanse any man had it been contaminated by sin?

[Starkman]

Sin transmitted? No. I am saying what sin 'did' is transmitted through the blood i.e., The access to the soul and the power of Satan to unfluence man. The cross of Jesus cancels out that power and sets man free -- if man chooses. The influence is now a matter of allegiance. Who will man obey? Re-born man no longer is under the power of Satan by virtue of the new birth experience and by that same virtue now has a higher power to aid him in the overcoming of the enemy of his soul,

"If any be in Him he is a new creation" -- however, Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? ---- Paul.
"what sin did"...well, what did it do? When Adam sinned, did something jump into his body or blood? You've already concluded that Adam and Eve's blood became contaminated, hence, it is the blood, according to your theology, that transmits the problem, whatever this "what sin did" is. This is erroneous (I don't mean to talk you down, either. Not at all.)

Romans 5 teaches what was transmitted to us: the curse of having been born into the same existence into which Adam and Eve started. Nothing about the blood is brought up in this context until the Redeemer's work is considered; His sacrifice. Otherwise, blood is just that: blood! Arms are arms, ears are ears, hair is hair. Blood is simply a physical entity that does a lot of things to sustain life. I mean, we can live without many body parts (and I'd contend that a lot of people live without brains, as I did when I was younger!), but take the blood away, and you have taken away the essence of sustaining life. That's why it comes into play when we talk of sacrifice. Just don't make it anymore than that by attributing to it, or it's function and purpose, something God has not attributed to it. Our blood is not "dirty"; it's just...well, blood! WE are the ones who are dirty. Very dirty until HIS blood washes us from our sins.

Starkman

[Starkman]

"The Christ alone was without sin, not because His blood wasn't contaminated, but because He wasn't of this world!"

His blood was not contaminated because He was without sin. See the difference?

Not so with Adam. He did sin and thus contimination instantly set in. Do you believe the Blood of Jesus could cleanse any man had it been contaminated by sin?Here again, you're missing the point, Ormly. You're starting with a faulty premise that it's the blood of a human being that's contaminated, as if we could get God's magnifying glass, look at some of our blood and find some sort of thing in it that's made it contaminated. Further, do you think that when it says Christ's blood cleanses us that what is meant is that God takes some of the literal blood and cleanses us with it? Christ's blood "cleanses" us in that the sacrfice He made is acceptable. Those who receive its work are said to be cleansed by it. It is just a way of saying that we have found a way, a new and living way, into relationship with God brought about by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. To make anything more out of His blood is not only erroneous, but it's making a plain, historical event to have mystical ramifications that aren't warrented by Scripture. There simply is no contaminated blood in you, me, or anyone else. Christ's blood wasn't any different than yours or mine, as hard as that may be for you to accept without it sounding insulting. Rather, it is HE who is perfect because of who HE is! That is what pleases the Father when it comes to Christ's sacrifice. The Father has always been pleased with Christ (the Logos), the only one who could take upon Himself a body, with plain old blood in it, and create meaning in the shedding of that blood.

So, in the sense that Christ's blood was red and white blood cells, with all the other stuff that makes blood what it is, it is plain old blood. BUT in that it is only HIS blood that can save "wash away sin" or "take sin away," that blood is precious. We need to distinguish between the literal blood itself and the value of the person from whom the blood came. Christ is the one who saves. His death--the shedding of His blood--provided the means, and God accepts those who receive, by faith, Christ's sacrifice. This isn't about contaminated blood being washed by perfect blood, unless you are only making an illustration (which I think is still faulty). It's about humans outside of relationship with God who needed a perfect sacrifice in order to get them out of sin's dominion.

Hope this clarifies things more.

Starkman

[Ormly]

"what sin did"...well, what did it do? When Adam sinned, did something jump into his body or blood? You've already concluded that Adam and Eve's blood became contaminated, hence, it is the blood, according to your theology, that transmits the problem, whatever this "what sin did" is. This is erroneous (I don't mean to talk you down, either. Not at all.)
Whatever it specifically was that Adam let in he let in to everyman after Him by reason of heredity. I called it sin and sin=Satan since Satan is the father of it. If you wish to argue semantics don't do it with me. It's not necessary. If you have an agenda that doesn't accept what I stated then we'll never be compatible in our thinking.

Romans 5 teaches what was transmitted to us: the curse of having been born into the same existence into which Adam and Eve started
Nothing about the blood is brought up in this context until the Redeemer's work is considered; His sacrifice. Otherwise, blood is just that: blood! .But they did start something as you righly state. How did it get to us if not through the blood?
Arms are arms, ears are ears, hair is hair. Blood is simply a physical entity that does a lot of things to sustain life. I mean, we can live without many body parts (and I'd contend that a lot of people live without brains, as I did when I was younger!), but take the blood away, and you have taken away the essence of sustaining life. That's why it comes into play when we talk of sacrifice. Just don't make it anymore than that by attributing to it, or it's function and purpose, something God has not attributed to it. Our blood is not "dirty"; it's just...well, blood! WE are the ones who are dirty. Very dirty until HIS blood washes us from our sins.Right --- and wrong. You are equating what we have something to do with; ours sins-- with something we had nothing we had nothing to do with i.e., Adam's trangression; his sin. His transgression became our weakness and bondage to that weakness. Satan simply exploits man's weaknesses he introduced man to as pleasure and lust. Jesus sets captives free who realize they are captives to that "death" and go to Him for their peace of new life. Adam could have done that with God before he made his decision to excerise his freewill wrongly. After the fact was too late. Only sinless blood allowed in the presence of a Holy God.

[tizzidale]

So, was Christ's blood different from my blood and your blood? Because blood is part of humanity, did Christ take on humanity incompletely? This is all getting confusing and off topic, but I'm curious. I've heard this teaching all my life, but it never made since to me. If Christ wasn't fully human, then why the incarnation?

rusty

[Starkman]

Since I've been writing about the blood of Christ, one of the pet-peeves I have is with the idea that we can "plead the blood." What exactly does one think is being accomplished by "pleading" the blood? After all, when one pleads for something, one is appealing or providing an argument for something, of which none of these things apply in regard to the work of Christ on the cross, the shedding His blood.

When the martyrs in Revelation overcome the enemy by their testimonies and the blood of the lamb, nothing is said here to infer they have pleaded the blood in order to overcome the enemy. All it means is that they are sure about who they are and Whose they are; their testimony is valid and the blood of Christ is the proof. For the martyrs are not of nor have any dealings with this world. They overcome because the Christ has already overcome (remember I John?).

This concept of pleading the blood attributes mystical attributes to the blood of Christ that simply do not exist. The shedding of blood as a sacrifice, however, goes back to Genesis 3, is developed in the Law and is consumated in Christ's death on the cross. The whole point is to understand that an acceptable and perfect sacrifice has been offered. To make anything more out of the blood of Christ, as is done when we "plead the blood," is to violate Scripture's teaching on Christ's precious blood, and to enter into an unauthorized mysticism and false doctrine.

For His blood...

Starkman

[Ormly]

Here again, you're missing the point, Ormly. You're starting with a faulty premise that it's the blood of a human being that's contaminated, as if we could get God's magnifying glass, look at some of our blood and find some sort of thing in it that's made it contaminated. Further, do you think that when it says Christ's blood cleanses us that what is meant is that God takes some of the literal blood and cleanses us with it? Christ's blood "cleanses" us in that the sacrfice He made is acceptable. Those who receive its work are said to be cleansed by it. It is just a way of saying that we have found a way, a new and living way, into relationship with God brought about by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. To make anything more out of His blood is not only erroneous, but it's making a plain, historical event to have mystical ramifications that aren't warrented by Scripture. There simply is no contaminated blood in you, me, or anyone else. Christ's blood wasn't any different than yours or mine, as hard as that may be for you to accept without it sounding insulting. Rather, it is HE who is perfect because of who HE is! That is what pleases the Father when it comes to Christ's sacrifice. The Father has always been pleased with Christ (the Logos), the only one who could take upon Himself a body, with plain old blood in it, and create meaning in the shedding of that blood.
If you trully believe that then why the virgin birth?
He is perfect because of who is and that He remained true to His Father otherwise "It is finished" is meanless.

So, in the sense that Christ's blood was red and white blood cells, with all the other stuff that makes blood what it is, it is plain old blood. BUT in that it is only HIS blood that can save "wash away sin" or "take sin away," that blood is precious. We need to distinguish between the literal blood itself and the value of the person from whom the blood came. Christ is the one who saves. His death--the shedding of His blood--provided the means, and God accepts those who receive, by faith, Christ's sacrifice. This isn't about contaminated blood being washed by perfect blood, unless you are only making an illustration (which I think is still faulty). It's about humans outside of relationship with God who needed a perfect sacrifice in order to get them out of sin's dominion.Since He had to be man and not God hanging the cross what was it about as Him that qualified Him to be a substitute for us? What was that perfect sacrifice he offered except perfect sinless blood? While you are at it please explain the blood of animals God required in the OT? Where was the purpose of all that blood in man's relationship to God.

I'm still anxious to know what persuasion you are. Care to respond to that.

[Ormly]

Since I've been writing about the blood of Christ, one of the pet-peeves I have is with the idea that we can "plead the blood." What exactly does one think is being accomplished by "pleading" the blood? After all, when one pleads for something, one is appealing or providing an argument for something, of which none of these things apply in regard to the work of Christ on the cross, the shedding His blood.

When the martyrs in Revelation overcome the enemy by their testimonies and the blood of the lamb, nothing is said here to infer they have pleaded the blood in order to overcome the enemy. All it means is that they are sure about who they are and Whose they are; their testimony is valid and the blood of Christ is the proof. For the martyrs are not of nor have any dealings with this world. They overcome because the Christ has already overcome (remember I John?).

This concept of pleading the blood attributes mystical attributes to the blood of Christ that simply do not exist. The shedding of blood as a sacrifice, however, goes back to Genesis 3, is developed in the Law and is consumated in Christ's death on the cross. The whole point is to understand that an acceptable and perfect sacrifice has been offered. To make anything more out of the blood of Christ, as is done when we "plead the blood," is to violate Scripture's teaching on Christ's precious blood, and to enter into an unauthorized mysticism and false doctrine.

For His blood...

StarkmanYou need to speak that to those who abide in Him and He in them. You need to speak that to those who experience His power in their lives who are one with Him as He is with the Father. Now speak of their blood.

Exodus 12:13 (NASB-U)
'The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.

What was mystical about the blood in this verse that God would honor so?

[Starkman]

So, was Christ's blood different from my blood and your blood? Because blood is part of humanity, did Christ take on humanity incompletely? This is all getting confusing and off topic, but I'm curious. I've heard this teaching all my life, but it never made since to me. If Christ wasn't fully human, then why the incarnation?
...off the topic...yes, I suppose I have gotten off the topic. What was the topic? (Sorry, Old Timer's, you know, and I'm only 43-years-old!)

First, Christ was fully human. I said that above. Second, He was fully God. But what He wasn't was born into this sphere of existence; He was born human but not into the dominion that controls humanity. Remember, he was from above, we are not (until we are born again). That whole "above" thing is the theological crux: Christ was human and God but not entrapped in the sphere of Satan's dominion.

Now, if I'm to explain the mechanics of how Christ could be fully human yet not completely submerged into the pit (sphere) of sin we are, well, you're guess is as good as mine! I can't think of any place in Scripture that gives us these kinds of details. I supposed that is one of the "mysteries" of which we will have to wait until He can explain it to us personally before we will realize a mechanical understanding of His incarnation. We do know, however, that Scripture teach that Christ was not of this world, of it's control or its dominion. He was from above and said that we, too, must become born of above (placed into a new sphere of existence--that living hope) if we are to have relationship with God.

Now, to go back and re-read the fool thread to get back on topic!

Starkman

[Ormly]

First, Christ was fully human. I said that above. Second, He was fully God. But what He wasn't was born into this sphere of existence; He was born human but not into the dominion that controls humanity. Remember, he was from above, we are not (until we are born again). That whole "above" thing is the theological crux: Christ was human and God but not entrapped in the sphere of Satan's dominion.
Two different things here and you aren't making the proper distinctions to separate them. First He was subjected to all that humanity was subjected to. He was born into it for starters. [We can elaborate more on that, but not now] Christ willingly laid asided His divinity to step into Satan's domain in the body of the man Jesus that He overcome Satan as a man thereby making a way that we can now do the same..In that there can be no argument.

[Starkman]

If you trully believe that then why the virgin birth?
He is perfect because of who is and that He remained true to His Father otherwise "It is finished" is meanless.The virgin birth is part of what makes the incarnation from keeping Jesus from being just another human being, yet still fully human. He is not conceived by men, but by God; therefore, He is from above, and not below, where we are from. But to conclude from this that he didn't have contaminated blood because he only had human mother but not a human father is false. I ask you again: where are you getting the idea that when Adam fell it was his blood that became contaminated and, thus, contaminates his decendants? Where is that taught in Genesis? Where does Paul, or Jesus for that matter, teach this? Where is this taught anywhere in Scripture? It's not. You are illogically concluding that it must be so because the life of the flesh is in the blood and because the blood of Christ "cleanses" us. But I have to say again that you are not working through this in Scripture or in your thinking. (Again, I don't mean to insult you at all. I understand where you're coming from, because I used to believe the same.)

Since He had to be man and not God hanging the cross what was it about as Him that qualified Him to be a substitute for us? What was that perfect sacrifice he offered except perfect sinless blood? While you are at it please explain the blood of animals God required in the OT? Where was the purpose of all that blood in man's relationship to God.

I'm still anxious to know what persuasion you are. Care to respond to that.Yes, His blood was "sinless" because He was not of our world. But what do you mean by "sinless"? Contaminated? That simply isn't waht's taught in Scripture. What is taught is that HE was carrying around blood just like you and me. Since He was perfect and from above, He, Himself, is the perfect sacrifice. It doesn't matter if His blood has "contamination," such as dirt from a wound or something like that. But there is no Scripture teaching that His blood wasn't contaminated in some mystical manner. Through his very human blood flowed very human blood. If you still believe I'm wrong, would you please give us the medical or scientific evidence showing our blood is contaminated?

I am an Open Theist, but please DO NOT attribute my theological perspective to the Open View. The two are completely separate and have nothing to do with each other.

You need to speak that to those who abide in Him and He in them. You need to speak that to those who experience His power in their lives who are one with Him as He is with the Father. Now speak of their blood.

Exodus 12:13 (NASB-U)
'The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and when I see the blood I will pass over you, and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.

What was mystical about the blood in this verse that God would honor so?As to the first paragraph, I don't know what you mean. As to the second and third, I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll answer the question this way: the blood on the houses was theological, not mystical. It isn't as if the Angel of Death went about, saw blood on the Jewish households and noted to himself that the blood was contaminated. This Exodus event is the theology that God will always require (the shedding of) blood in order for man to enter into a right relationship with God. It's how God starts the whole Israelite nation off into their journey: by the blood.

Starkman

[Starkman]

Two different things here and you aren't making the proper distinctions to separate them. First He was subjected to all that humanity was subjected to. He was born into it for starters. [We can elaborate more on that, but not now[quote=ormly]

I never said He wasn't subject to all of what it means to be human. What I said was He wasn't born into the sphere of our existence--where evil dwells and where Satan rules over unregenerated man. If He was, He would have been as much a sinner as the next person. This is why Christ could tell certain people that He was from above and they from below, or that He knew what was in the heart of man (which was not in His own heart). Surely, you can understand this point?

[quote=ormly]Christ willingly laid asided His divinity to step into Satan's domain in the body of the man Jesus that He overcome Satan as a man thereby making a way that we can now do the same..In that there can be no argument.
Yes, Jesus "stepped into" Satan's domain, but He was neither of it nor of its control. Yeah, He was trampling all over Satan's ground, but He was doing so as one who was not of that ground. It's the same thing I John says about us in Him; we are not of this world anymore. I add again that this has nothing to do with contaminated blood in humans. It's completely spiritual, Ormly.

Starkman

[Ormly]

Yes, Jesus "stepped into" Satan's domain, but He was neither of it nor of its control. Yeah, He was trampling all over Satan's ground, but He was doing so as one who was not of that ground. It's the same thing I John says about us in Him; we are not of this world anymore. I add again that this has nothing to do with contaminated blood in humans. It's completely spiritual, Ormly.

StarkmanHe was our role model as human. He couldn't be any kind of role model as a God. He made choices that we can make and He has explained how to go about that.. He gives understanding and power to those who abide in Him. He succeeded because He loved the Father. We can and must also if we have the same love He had. Sorry, but the sinless blood of Jesus, the man, has everything to do with reconcilation and peace with God. Perfect sinless blood of a "vulnerable" man had to be shed, one who was capable of choosing to go against God as Adam did. Jesus didn't. His vision of the Father was greater than any earthly gain Satan would throw up to Him. Failure to see that is departure from the faith and a severe detriment to your understanding of sonship, jointheirship and the basic salvation in Christ.

[Starkman]

He was our role model as human. He couldn't be any kind of role model as a God. He made choices that we can make and He has explained how to go about that.. He gives understanding and power to those who abide in Him. He succeeded because He loved the Father. We can and must also if we have the same love He had. Sorry, but the sinless blood of Jesus, the man, has everything to do with reconcilation and peace with God. Perfect sinless blood of a "vulnerable" man had to be shed, one who was capable of choosing to go against God as Adam did. Jesus didn't. His vision of the Father was greater than any earthly gain Satan would throw up to Him. Failure to see that is departure from the faith and a severe detriment to your understanding of sonship, jointheirship and the basic salvation in Christ.Your argument, "Sorry, but the sinless blood of Jesus, the man, has everything to do with reconcilation and peace with God," in the context you give it in previous posts is an argument from silence and is faulty. You must give Scriptural evidence for your stance that our blood was contaminated but Jesus' blood wasn't. If you have no Scriptural evidence, then you are "concluding" (deducing) and doing so on faulty premises.

Again...

Adam and Eve sinned and were cursed
The life of the flesh is in the blood
Therefore, Adam contaminated his blood and Jesus' blood wasn't contaminated.

This is illogical, unscriptural and inaccurate, Ormly. You made the claims about the issue of contamination, therefore, you must produce the (sound and in contextual) teaching from Scripture or...well, you're not doing theology very properly if you can't. I know how you feel about this, but you're going to have to do better than how you are arguing if you want to even get out the gate. You gotta have good, solid Scripture for your case. And I'm afraid you don't.

You may post again if you wish; however, I've said all I can say on the subject, so I won't post anymore.

For good conversation,

Starkman

[Ormly]

Your argument, "Sorry, but the sinless blood of Jesus, the man, has everything to do with reconcilation and peace with God," in the context you give it in previous posts is an argument from silence and is faulty. You must give Scriptural evidence for your stance that our blood was contaminated but Jesus' blood wasn't. If you have no Scriptural evidence, then you are "concluding" (deducing) and doing so on faulty premises.

Again...

Adam and Eve sinned and were cursed
The life of the flesh is in the blood
Therefore, Adam contaminated his blood and Jesus' blood wasn't contaminated.

This is illogical, unscriptural and inaccurate, Ormly. You made the claims about the issue of contamination, therefore, you must produce the (sound and in contextual) teaching from Scripture or...well, you're not doing theology very properly if you can't. I know how you feel about this, but you're going to have to do better than how you are arguing if you want to even get out the gate. You gotta have good, solid Scripture for your case. And I'm afraid you don't.

You may post again if you wish; however, I've said all I can say on the subject, so I won't post anymore.

For good conversation,

Starkman
Sorry. I don't feel that way. I believe you have rejected was has been given sufficient to have persuaded anyone they are misguided. No more should be necessary. I'll go no further since any further I feel will be met with the same argument. I don't like going in circles.

[Starkman]

Getting back, now, to the original topic...

The issue of Christ's sacrifice and to whom it is appropriated, again, I think Romans 5 is key. But first...

In Romans 4, Paul makes his point about faith being the vehicle in which we are able to come into God's favor, God's acceptance. In Romans 5:1-11, Paul declares that we have peace with God (when we come to Him in faith), that our faith will allow us to progress in our walk with God (. . . suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, etc.), and that we can really know that we are truly justified before Him.

Paul then moves into dealing with the issue of Adam's sin and Christ's death, making a parallel between the one-time act each of the persons has implemented, but also showing where the parallel breaks down. And there's our clue as to answering the question about why some will still go to Hell, even though Christ's death might be thought to be universal in its application.

5:12–14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Here we see the affect of Adam's transgression: sin came into all the world. And we see the effect: death reigned. Now let's look at the parallel; Christ's gift:

5:15–17 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

The contrast is immediate: the gift is not like the transgression. In what way is it not like the transgression? In that the effect of the gift (grace) is not despersed to all in universal fashion as was the effect of Adam's transgression. Yes, the free gift affects the entire world, but it does not effect results to all. Its effect is only to those who receive the free gift.

Perhaps we can consider an analogy, simple, but an analogy. Suppose a supermarket owner decides to purchase coupons offering anyone a life-time's supply of free meat from his store, and he has them inserted in the local paper. The payment is such that there is enough coupons for everyone. (We will not concern ourselves with the "how much payment" aspect of this. Suffice to know that the owner has paid the price in full.) Well, the paper goes out, everyone has access to it (the affect), but only some "receive" the coupon by taking it and redeeming it at the grocers (the effect). Everyone gets a chance to receive a coupon (affect), but only those who receive it unto themselves will benefit from the coupon (effect). One cannot realize any benefit from the coupon (though one is affected by it's opportunity) unless one effects the purpose of the coupon into one's life. Again, a simple analogy (with the breakdowns being typical, as is the case with almost any analogy), but I hope it makes the point.

To sum up, the affect of Christ's death is felt by all, as is the affect of Adam's transgression. However, the effect of Christ's free gift is not felt by all. The effect of Adam's transgression, however, is felt by all, whether we like it or not. This is why some will go to hell and others will not. Perhaps we can sharpen our soteriological edges better if we realize that it isn't an issue of Christ's free gift being spread to all in some Christian universal concept (or the wondering of why it isn't spread to all), but rather, it is for those who receive it...like the all-you-can-eat-meat coupon!

For the affect and effect of the cross,

Starkman

[gary cook]

We are Born into sin .It is in our menbers before birth .But you see ?Jesus CHRISt died for our SPIRITS .not our flesh .it is dead But our SPIRITS are for ever .This is made white as snow .We are made in the image of GOD .spirit ,soul and body .THE spirit is the inner man ,the soul is the mind .The flesh is our body .which HE has waiting for us .The spirit is cleaned by the blood of JESUS CHRIST .If we accept HIm as LORD and SAVIOR .The mind MUST be renewed . But once BORN AGAIn ?sin has no power over us .Because we are now ?Spirit .and GODS VERY SPIRIT dwells with in us .We must take control over the flesh .Let our spirit rule .instead of the flesh .which desires to sin .
It is felt by all .but not recieved by all.Because we now live by grace on the earth .the rule of the day is LOVE .LOVE gives mercy ,even to the evil of the earth .But soon ?The order of the day ?Will be the wrath of GOD .This also will be felt by the people of earth .Every thing GOD does or not ?if felt by man kind .

[gary cook]

The wages of sin does. Need a scripture for that? tThe LORD did not die for the FLESH .It MUST die because of sin .HE died for our spirits !That they might be made CLEAN ,in the blood of JESUS CHRIST .THIS recieve ?BY GRACE though FAITH .We are then ?BORN AGAIN .If we are not BORN AGAIN ?We are not saved