Partial LA?

[Josheb]

Thanks for the op, @His clay, and what looks like an earnest effort to solve a real or perceived inconsistency.

PSA's Relevance
I stated the following for a very important reason. "Again, I fully hold to penal substitutionary atonement. Jesus died in my place to satisfy the just demands of God's wrath against sin." The relevance of this statement deserves further elaboration. The double jeopardy argument is that if God dealt with all people's sin on the cross, then for what reason are the unbelieving in hell? Are the paying for their sin a second time?

First thoughts: They are not believing, and the lack of belief is sufficient. I see you've note that next but let me say, just so we're all mindful of the most basic precept of salvation with which we all agree, whether Arm or Cal... salvation is by grace through faith and for monergists faith (or soteriological belief) is gift from God. Therefore, in the Calvinist schema the redemptive payment does nothing in and of itself to address the matter of faith. Jesus paid for sin with his blood, but soteriological faith must also be gifted. So why wouldn't God give soteriological effective faith to everyone? Great question but it's not the subject of this op . The fact remains PSA is not all that is needed.

The second thought is application. The classic elaboration of LA is that of sufficiency and efficiency, or what is sufficient and what is effective. The blood of Christ is sufficient to cover all sin for all people; it is sufficiently powerful enough to do that. However, it is effective only in the lies to which the sufficiency is applied? How is it applied? one way is through faith. This is one of the main divisions between monergists and synergists, but this also divides synergists from synergists - classic or Reformed Arminians hold to Total Depravity (TD) but Provisionists do not. The Arm also holds God is selective but selective based on who has faith. The Provisionist holds that selectivity is due to the sinner's inherent ability and not the gifting of some prevenient grace availing the otherwise TD sinner from believing. The salient point is that God has to act and, except for the Provisionist, it is not a uniquely Calvinist position to think so. In Calvinism the distinction is that God applies the blood selectively, or electively, and we do not know His basis for doing so (UC). We do not know why God gifts faith salvifically to some, leaving them in their willfully chosen sin, and we do not know why God applies the blood selectively when He could do so to all. Let's be clear: no one deserves salvation. It is by grace we are saved.

A poor analogy might be the use of an atomic bomb to eradicate disease. Countries like the US have a variety of nuclear technologies from which a bomb could be chosen. We've got nuclear bombs that can destroy vast amounts of square mileage/kilometerage , and we've got bombs that can pinpoint specific areas within a limited area. We also have the technology to destroy people/creatures but not buildings . How do we decide which bomb to use since all of them are capable of eradicating disease-infected humans near-instantly? Some guys just like to see big explosions . Let's change the analogy away from a bomb of destruction and say we have a bomb that can kill the disease without killing the people the disease would otherwise kill. Why wouldn't we drop as big a bomb as we can and save as many people as we can, after all, some guys just like seeing big explosions and they don't care about who gets saved. That, of course, would not be God, but the point is there is a very human way to understand how and why unbelieving people still go to hell.

My third thought is, they are NOT paying twice, because they did not pay once! Just because God paid does not mean they've paid. Just because God paid does not mean anyone or everyone is off the hook, or absolved of their responsibility, accountability, or culpability. The argument to the contrary fails prima facie. Keep in mind what I have already posted about the differences between redemption and atonement in Post #16. When I was 18 I accumulated several hundreds of dollars in traffic tickets I could not repay. My dad took me to the courthouse and paid the fines. I was instantly debt-free but that did nothing to change my driving habits, my lack of stewardship, or my otherwise spendthrift character. Atonement is different, and much greater than the mere canceling of a debt.... and sinners having paid anything in monergist soteriology.

So, no, unbelieving sinners are not paying for their sin a second time. They are simply left where they have always been: dead in sin because the blood of Christ, while sufficient to both pay the debt and repair their lives, it has not been applied that way.

Instead, that very same price - the blood of Christ - serves a different purpose. The exact same cross that saves also judges . Thinking the blood serves only one purpose is a mistake.

Sometimes the non-C will respond that they are not paying for their sin in hell; rather, they are paying for their unbelief. The response is "Is unbelief sin?" Jesus certainly seems to think that unbelief is a sin, and if all sin is paid for on the cross, then it seems that unbelief is paid for on the cross. So again, for what reason is the unbeliever in hell? The wages of sin is death, as scripture declares.

Jesus does not just "seem to think unbelief is a sin." He inspired the apostle Paul to state that fact unequivocally. When writing about food offered to idols and the question of treating some days more honorable than others Paul wrote,

Romans 14:23
But the one who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

And he wrote that to redeemed, atoned, regenerate believers! How much more salient is that to those who have only their sinful flesh?

Are the unbelieving paying for their sins a second time, even though Jesus was their perfect substitute on the cross?

No.


Because this attempt at an answer is lengthy, I'll pick up the rest of the op in a separate post.

 

[Josheb]

Part 2:

This [the premise of having to pay for sin twice] leads some, who hold to the unlimited atonement position, to jettison PSA. Several of us who used to post at CARM remember a very long discussion over this very issue.

That would not be you or me (although I subscribe to a much more diverse view of the atonement that is not limited to PSA).

Some, try to....

What others do or do not do is no measure of your views or mine (assuming these views all fall within the pale of orthodoxy), so let's try to keep the discussion about your half-LA view. I understand the exposition is included to clarify the prospective dilemmas, but if they're not applicable to the partial-LA position they can be mentioned, and we can then move on because they do not apply specifically to the partial-LA pov.

My main struggle
Passages indicating a universal scope, like 1 Jn2, give me significant pause. Yes, I'm well aware of the "all without exception" and "all without distinction" discussion. I've seen the issue debated many times, and most likely I'll see it again. My main struggle is being a fence sitter. Both views seem very plausible to me, and I'm not persuaded fully either way. And herein is my -.5

I wish that had been more specific because 1 John 2 is too lengthy to quote in its entirety and examine in a single post. What is it, specifically, in 1 John 2 that gives you pause?

Remember our doctrines of salvation are specifically about how a person becomes saved from sin, death, and the ensuing wrath of God commensurate from sin. Those doctrines begin with how a person is converted to Christ. There is a lot entailed in salvation but none of it has any eternal effect if a person remains unconverted. This is important because any sound doctrine of salvation from sin must necessarily include and address how an atheist is converted, not just a Jew or a pagan theist. Intellectually speaking, we can imagine it is much easier to convert a person who already believes in the existence of a god and who already believes in the existence of iniquity. The atheist does just deny both, the ardent atheist doesn't give either a thought; it is not in their mind. The opposite of love is not hate - it is apathy. There is no affect and there is no thought.

John was writing to Jewish converts, people who'd already been converted. John was also writing about the post-conversion experience of his audience, and NOT the unconverted experience of atheists. Make sure a false equivalence fallacy is not committed by assuming anything and everything in the epistle automatically applies to non-believers in the atheist category. For example, when John writes,

1 John 2:1-2
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

...that CANNOT be read to apply to any atheist ever. Atheists are not John's "children." In the preceding verses (chapter 1) John said, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us." That is exactly what atheists do. Denying the existence of any god and denying the existence of sin, and at best saying Jesus was a real-life human who had a few good lessons to learn (some deny his existence), they make God/Jesus a liar and His word is not in them.

Nothing John wrote in his epistle is directed to the non-believer, and very little can be read to apply to the non-believer.

So, the content in 1 John 2 that gives pause will have to be specified.

Uneasy tension
Holding to PSA and fence sitting on the atonement's scope creates an uneasy tension for me. I definitely feel the weight of the double jeopardy objection, but it feels too rationalistic to be fully persuasive to me. I could probably explain the issue better, and I hope to learn from other posters. I'll leave the issue as stated. I'm out of time to explain my views any further.

I would pray about this, @His clay.

I'm sitting miles away reading this op through a computer screen and I do not see the problem. I appreciate the arguments presented but they are incomplete at best. The premise of paying for sin twice is deeply flawed so if that were removed the obstacles to full-LA are removed. I've tried to provide what I believe is a firmly scriptural response, although I concede there is very little actual scripture in my post(s). That absence is partly due to my knowing you and most others currently here have a good knowledge of scripture. I will gladly provide a non-Calvinist scriptural exegesis if requested. Remember: a proper Calvinist/monergist does not open his/her Bible with a pre-existing bias and then filter his reading of scripture with that prejudice. A Calvinist arrives at his Calvinism or monergistic position because that is what an unbiased exegetical reading of scripture teaches.

I think if a correct definition of atonement is possessed (one that does not conflate atonement merely with paying for sin) and the premise of "double-payment" is discarded then full-LA will be found easily embraceable.

 

[makesends]

Very true. The one making atonement for such a crime as is committed by all of humanity ever, must be infinitely greater than those He is atoning for.

Another way of distinguishing between redemption and atonement is satisfaction and atonement. Those who do not agree with the penal aspect often do agree with the satisfaction.

Redemption goes back to the law of the kinsman redeemer. This would be a male relative who had the privilege or responsibility to act on behalf of a relative who was in trouble, need, or danger. Go el is the Hebrew term, meaning one who delivers or rescues, or redeems property or a person. It is interesting that in Ex 6:6 God designates Himself as the One who would deliver Israel from bondage with acts of judgement. The Exodus is a forerunner and shadow of a people being delivered from bondage to sin.

Jesus, our kinsman redeemer, as one of us, steps forward to make atonement for us, to deliver us from our bondage to sin.

This redemption of the kinsman redeemer was to in essence bail the one in need out of trouble by paying the debt or in the case of the nearest relative marrying a widow, become her provider and protector as husband. (Boaz and Ruth).

So, Jesus offered Himself as Redeemer and this satisfies that aspect of what needed to be done to redeem a people. That, however did not solve the entire divide between God and man. There was still the matter of a penalty that must be met for the treason against God that comes in us through Adam, and hold us in the condition of being an enemy of God. The offering of satisfaction alone could not do that. In order for God to remain just, our depravity, our sin and sins, must meet sins punishment. Atonement must be made. Death and judgement. Thus the cross and the grave. Full propitiation. Only in this is the Holy One able to defeat the power of sin and death to condemn, by rising again to life victorious, ascending back to the Father as our High Priest, in His victory crowned King of kings. Jesus offering Himself is the satisfaction (redeemer) the punishment He bore on the cross is the atonement.

And if Jesus did this, He did it. He fully accomplished His mission. Therefore, if not all people are redeemed, and they are not, the only reason for that must be in God and cannot be in the guilty---in man. The Bible tells us it is in God, who calls, and chooses, elects, predestines, draws, and gives to the Son.

It is in the infinite nature of sin —crime against infinite God— that calls for an infinite punishment.

 

[Arial]

It is in the infinite nature of sin —crime against infinite God— that calls for an infinite punishment.

However, I would say infinite Redeemer who could therefore make infinite atonement, rather than infinite punishment.

 

[Josheb]

My bad for not @ you. I really thought that my quote of your words in the op would send you a notification. Hence, I didn't use the @ feature.

It did, but somehow it was not the first notification in my list. Don't know how Post 5 managed to beat Post 1 but it's all good. Big hug.

 

[Josheb]

Very true. The one making atonement for such a crime as is committed by all of humanity ever, must be infinitely greater than those He is atoning for......................

Yep. The salient point, however, is that redemption and atonement should not be conflated and the doctrine of Limited Atonement is not solely about redemption. Sadly, many of our theologians do not adequately (or sometimes correctly) discriminate between the two. Another term for LA is "particular redemption." That does not help. I'm a big fan of R. C. Sproul but even he lapses in this regard. When this lapse occurs, it places a certain "burden" (for lack of a better word at the moment) on the Calvinist because we must ask ourselves whether or not we side with scripture or side with doctrine. Ideally the two never conflict but as I tried to show in Post 16 "atonement" is a doctrinal word and scripture has a lot to say about the redemptive work of Christ's blood that goes WAY beyond the mere purchase of a slave of sin. Limiting atonement to redemption is, therefore, a mistake and care must be taken so as not to end up arguing an unintended false dichotomy (a lack of overlap) or a false equivalence (redemption and atonement wholly synonymous) OR a move of the goal posts because @His clay's concern with LA can, imo, be easily resolved by correctly understanding atonement is not merely about what I called a "buy back."

What God buys back is still corrupt. What God buys back has caused injury to God the mere buy back does not address. It is impossible for us to fix God's offence. God reconciles us to Himself and that is a truth laden with meaning that goes well beyond the mere purchase of a slave. The slave gets made into a servant (that's a huge distinction in Tanakh-informed thinking) and the servant is adopted as a son (or daughter ) and that is still not the end because the son and daughter of The Most High God is also heir to ALL the inheritance of the monogenes Son - all his power and privilege. The son and daughter of The Most High God is not restored to a place like the pre-disobedient Ada (or Eve). No, instead we are made royal priests and royal priests in the Order of Mel, not Levi. In Tanakh the eldest son inherited the sole blessing and an extra portion of the father's wealth but in God's family ALL those adopted by Him through His Son receive the full inheritance.

Atonement is vastly greater than a mere buy back. Conflating the two is part of the problem to be sold.

 

[Arial]

Atonement is vastly greater than a mere buy back. Conflating the two is part of the problem to be sold.

I will have to do a deeper dive into the rest of your post, studywise to pick up exactly what you are saying, when I have more time. So in what I do say here, do not think I am dismissing what you said. I just have to understand it better. Or arguing your point(s). But maybe my response to just this quoted portion, will help you to see what I am missing that is contained in your post.

I think I did make a distinction in redemption and atonement. Maybe not in the way you mean, or with the depth you intend with the distinction.

The redemption in kinsman redeemer is the person who is taking the place of another. In order to redeem, he must atone. Jesus as one of us, (kinsman) gave Himself in our place. As the Redeemer He had to make atonement for the debt that was owed, (the penal aspect associated with the "crime".) Both are necessary. And both together clear the ledger so to speak, and in reality, for Jesus substituted Himself to bear the weight or our sins and conquered sin and death for us, making us a new creation in Christ. It fully reconciled us to God. "Us" meaning those who God elected to regenerate in Christ through faith and provided that faith that justifies us before God. So, LA is dealing with both of these, redemption and atonement, because there can be no atonement without a Redeemer. IMO.

And maybe that does not even begin to address or untangle the question/tension @His clay is grappling with.

 

[makesends]

My third thought is, they are NOT paying twice, because they did not pay once! Just because God paid does not mean they've paid. Just because God paid does not mean anyone or everyone is off the hook, or absolved of their responsibility, accountability, or culpability. The argument to the contrary fails prima facie. Keep in mind what I have already posted about the differences between redemption and atonement in Post #16. When I was 18 I accumulated several hundreds of dollars in traffic tickets I could not repay. My dad took me to the courthouse and paid the fines. I was instantly debt-free but that did nothing to change my driving habits, my lack of stewardship, or my otherwise spendthrift character. Atonement is different, and much greater than the mere canceling of a debt.... and sinners having paid anything in monergist soteriology.

I don't know whether your mind took you places where you had not started out to go, because you didn't sound like this at the beginning. I thought, (and to me, you sounded at first like you thought), that @His clay , by 'double payment' or 'double jeopardy' was only referring to the notion that what Christ already payed for, the sinner also ends up paying for in the LOF —not the notion that the sinner himself pays twice.

Maybe I'm wrong about what you mean, and maybe I'm wrong about the OP.

 

[Josheb]

I don't know whether your mind took you places where you had not started out to go, because you didn't sound like this at the beginning. I thought, (and to me, you sounded at first like you thought), that @His clay , by 'double payment' or 'double jeopardy' was only referring to the notion that what Christ already payed for, the sinner also ends up paying for in the LOF —not the notion that the sinner himself pays twice.

Maybe I'm wrong about what you mean, and maybe I'm wrong about the OP.

Clarification completely accepted.

So I'll clarify what I previously posted in case it wasn't sufficiently clear. When the op asks two questions,

1. The double jeopardy argument is that if God dealt with all people's sin on the cross, then for what reason are the unbelieving in hell?
2. Are they (the unbelieving) paying for their sin a second time?

My answer to the first question is having one's sins paid for does not remove one from the death that comes from having sinned. They remain corrupted being. They remain dead in sin. Paying for sin did not sanctify anything. It did not renew anything. It did not legally justify anything. It simply paid the debt. In my earlier analogy of dad paying the fines, I was still guilty of speeding, ignoring traffic signs and signals, reckless driving, and more. I was debt free but still guilty. Being convicted and guilty I had no legal standing (justification) for any appeal. Because atonement is greater than redemption Jesus paying the price for the sinner's sin alone does not mean the sinner has a get out of hell free card. It just means his sins have been paid for.

My answer to the second question is that whether or not Jesus paid for the sins (and therefore the sins need not be paid for again) the sinner is not paying for the sins twice by going to hell. I suspect the problem lies in the idea "the wages of sin is death" is incorrectly thought to mean "the ONLY wages of sin is death," and that is not true. There is no "only" in Romans 6:23. Death is simply the wage salient to Paul's Romans 3-8 narrative - a narrative that is heavily couched in the Law of Moses and old covenant Judaism. Sin brings death but sin also brings other things, including but not limited to the aforementioned corruption, offense, and estrangement. I also suspect there is the possibility the payment for sin may be misconstrued by some, although in @His clay's case I do not believe it to be the case. Some people have the misguided notion God paid Satan, but that's not scriptural. God paid God. God was the offended party. God was the One to whom the debt was owed. God was the estranged one (humans have gone about their sinful ways oblivious to their predicament, God's loss, the huge offense the present every time He looks at us, and the true nature of light having no fellowship with darkness (and absence of light). God paid the debt He was owed. Man remained sinful. Sinful people go to hell.

That being said, there is a sense in which Christ's blood purchases us from bondage, but scripture presents a very plain, blunt dichotomy with no overlap and no alternate: a person is either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness and the buy back does not make anyone righteous. We all still need to be made good drivers . Obedient drivers who drive well and not just driving good according to the flesh or good drivers according to the laws that convict us of sin, but righteous drivers who drive according to the Spirit! So, my answer to the second question is that the question itself is a red herring. Going to hell does not pay for sins already paid for. It is the just recompense for being sinful, not just having sinned. Sinners are not paying for sin at all.

 

[makesends]

However, I would say infinite Redeemer who could therefore make infinite atonement, rather than infinite punishment.

My thoughts there have to do with the idea that it takes an infinite Redeemer, to pay infinite punishment and return. But yeah, I get your point. Yet, I'm unable to separate his atonement from his payment—God's judgement meted out upon him.

 

[makesends]

Clarification completely accepted.

So I'll clarify what I previously posted in case it wasn't sufficiently clear. When the op asks two questions,

1. The double jeopardy argument is that if God dealt with all people's sin on the cross, then for what reason are the unbelieving in hell?
2. Are they (the unbelieving) paying for their sin a second time?

My answer to the first question is having one's sins paid for does not remove one from the death that comes from having sinned. They remain corrupted being. They remain dead in sin. Paying for sin did not sanctify anything. It did not renew anything. It did not legally justify anything. It simply paid the debt. In my earlier analogy of dad paying the fines, I was still guilty of speeding, ignoring traffic signs and signals, reckless driving, and more. I was debt free but still guilty. Being convicted and guilty I had no legal standing (justification) for any appeal. Because atonement is greater than redemption Jesus paying the price for the sinner's sin alone does not mean the sinner has a get out of hell free card. It just means his sins have been paid for.

My answer to the second question is that whether or not Jesus paid for the sins (and therefore the sins need not be paid for again) the sinner is not paying for the sins twice by going to hell. I suspect the problem lies in the idea "the wages of sin is death" is incorrectly thought to mean "the ONLY wages of sin is death," and that is not true. There is no "only" in Romans 6:23. Death is simply the wage salient to Paul's Romans 3-8 narrative - a narrative that is heavily couched in the Law of Moses and old covenant Judaism. Sin brings death but sin also brings other things, including but not limited to the aforementioned corruption, offense, and estrangement. I also suspect there is the possibility the payment for sin may be misconstrued by some, although in @His clay's case I do not believe it to be the case. Some people have the misguided notion God paid Satan, but that's not scriptural. God paid God. God was the offended party. God was the One to whom the debt was owed. God was the estranged one (humans have gone about their sinful ways oblivious to their predicament, God's loss, the huge offense the present every time He looks at us, and the true nature of light having no fellowship with darkness (and absence of light). God paid the debt He was owed. Man remained sinful. Sinful people go to hell.

That being said, there is a sense in which Christ's blood purchases us from bondage, but scripture presents a very plain, blunt dichotomy with no overlap and no alternate: a person is either a slave of sin or a slave of righteousness and the buy back does not make anyone righteous. We all still need to be made good drivers . Obedient drivers who drive well and not just driving good according to the flesh or good drivers according to the laws that convict us of sin, but righteous drivers who drive according to the Spirit! So, my answer to the second question is that the question itself is a red herring. Going to hell does not pay for sins already paid for. It is the just recompense for being sinful, not just having sinned. Sinners are not paying for sin at all.

I was right there with you the whole time —right up to the last sentence. "Sinners are not paying for sin at all", in the LOF? I don't take you for one who claims Jesus paid for the sins of more than the born again, so I'm left a bit confused. Do you not hold to PSA? I agree there is more there than just PSA.

 

[makesends]

Yep. The salient point, however, is that redemption and atonement should not be conflated and the doctrine of Limited Atonement is not solely about redemption. Sadly, many of our theologians do not adequately (or sometimes correctly) discriminate between the two. Another term for LA is "particular redemption." That does not help. I'm a big fan of R. C. Sproul but even he lapses in this regard. When this lapse occurs, it places a certain "burden" (for lack of a better word at the moment) on the Calvinist because we must ask ourselves whether or not we side with scripture or side with doctrine. Ideally the two never conflict but as I tried to show in Post 16 "atonement" is a doctrinal word and scripture has a lot to say about the redemptive work of Christ's blood that goes WAY beyond the mere purchase of a slave of sin. Limiting atonement to redemption is, therefore, a mistake and care must be taken so as not to end up arguing an unintended false dichotomy (a lack of overlap) or a false equivalence (redemption and atonement wholly synonymous) OR a move of the goal posts because @His clay's concern with LA can, imo, be easily resolved by correctly understanding atonement is not merely about what I called a "buy back."

What God buys back is still corrupt. What God buys back has caused injury to God the mere buy back does not address. It is impossible for us to fix God's offence. God reconciles us to Himself and that is a truth laden with meaning that goes well beyond the mere purchase of a slave. The slave gets made into a servant (that's a huge distinction in Tanakh-informed thinking) and the servant is adopted as a son (or daughter ) and that is still not the end because the son and daughter of The Most High God is also heir to ALL the inheritance of the monogenes Son - all his power and privilege. The son and daughter of The Most High God is not restored to a place like the pre-disobedient Ada (or Eve). No, instead we are made royal priests and royal priests in the Order of Mel, not Levi. In Tanakh the eldest son inherited the sole blessing and an extra portion of the father's wealth but in God's family ALL those adopted by Him through His Son receive the full inheritance.

Atonement is vastly greater than a mere buy back. Conflating the two is part of the problem to be sold.

Nicely put. Well pointed out. I tend to conflate them, because the one doesn't occur without the other. But, true, they are not the same thing.

 

[Mr GLee]

PSA's Relevance
I stated the following for a very important reason. "Again, I fully hold to penal substitutionary atonement. Jesus died in my place to satisfy the just demands of God's wrath against sin." The relevance of this statement deserves further elaboration. The double jeopardy argument is that if God dealt with all people's sin on the cross, then for what reason are the unbelieving in hell? Are the paying for their sin a second time?

Limited atonement is limited to all or as many as God gave power to (the powerless) To both hear and perform the good will of the father
Not one more or less

.The elect who put on the whole armor of faith Christ labor of love that which defends us will not be deceived by the oral traditions of dying mankind that make the word of God to no efect No man can serve two good teaching masters of one unseen Lord

Living eternal God not seen or temporal dying mankind seen?

The double jeopardy are those they say we can die twice. The appointment we are carrying out daily is once.

The second death is the death of death the letter of the law "do not or you are dead never to rise again" along with its daily sufferings the pangs of hell . Yoked with Christ's labor of love the believers daily sufferings the pangs of hell. .The Christians burden is made lighter with a hope beyond what the eyes see the temporal Christians pray give us our daily bread the food the disciple knew not of, the power to hear and to finish the work of the father working in the believer.

The daily bread serving the strengthening will of God also called hidden manna (What is it ?) mentioned in Revelation 2:17

Our thoughts are not his any more than each other. Only God can see into the heart of the matter .He gives us no hearts softened by the water of the living word the gospel

Those that have not been born again return to the dust and temporal spirit given under the letter of the law death returns to the Holy Father of all spirit life They perish as if they were never born in the first place.

Annihilation the end .No sufferings in the grave no limbo or purgatory.

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Not humans and hell in the judgment of God they worked that out in their dying and suffering . But again death itself and its sufferings ( the death of death)

Death will not rise up and corrupt another whole creation. . . . . the old things will not be remembered or ever come to mind . Now is the time we can study the book of prophecy and memorize with his help seeking the approval of the author as he loving ly commands us 2 Timothy 2:15 warning us of those who say we do ned dying mankind to teach us making the promise of the Holy Spirt of none efect

Ecclesiastics 9: 5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.

Universal Alzheimer's a terrible suffering.

No memory ,No Limbo. No patron saints working in the affairs' of the living no remembrance even who they were

Ecclesiastics 12: 5 Also when they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets:

 

[Arial]

PSA + Double jeopardy + fence sitting on scope = tension (cognitive dissonance as some call it)

I am not sure of the connection between PSA and double jeopardy, unless it is being based entirely on one scripture 1 John 2:2. I can understand why some interpret that verse, as many A'ists do, as proof that Jesus died paying for the sins of everyone---and then also say but only for those who choose to be saved. (Which is not only an oxymoron, but is a truly limited atonement although they also deny LA.) It also creates double jeopardy.

What I don't understand is why one who adheres to the rest of TULIP, would balk at LA, or what half believing LA would be.

 

[Josheb]

I was right there with you the whole time —right up to the last sentence. "Sinners are not paying for sin at all", in the LOF? I don't take you for one who claims Jesus paid for the sins of more than the born again, so I'm left a bit confused.

What's lof

Do you not hold to PSA? I agree there is more there than just PSA.

????? If my prior post stating my affirmation of PSA and my larger view and there is agreement atonement is larger than penal substitution, then why am I asked a second time a question already answered?

 

[Josheb]

I was right there with you the whole time —right up to the last sentence.

Do you agree God is the aggrieved party when humans sin?


If so, how does the destruction of the sinner in hell pay for sin? How does it repay Him for His loss? How does the loss of the sinner in hell restore what was lost or the damage caused by sin? The deathly destruction of the sinner is simply the meting out of the just recompense for that sin, not restitution.

Bernie Madof was sentenced to 150 years in prison where he'll rot and die. That 150 years did not provide restitution to a single person from whom he stole. He was ordered to pay $170 billion in restitution but the last I heard less than $20 billion has been recovered (and I don't know how much of that was actually distributed). His sentence did nothing to provide restitution to his victims.

This is very, very important because God's jurisprudence is restitutional and conciliatory, not retributional and vindictive. There are no penitentiaries in the Bible (or the ancient cultures). You either repaid or worked off the debt (restitution) or were killed. Perpetrators of capital crimes could be convicted only on the testimony of two or more witnesses (like the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Vengeance was not the domain of Man; vengeance is God's (Dt. 32:35; Rom. 12:19) and vengeance is God doing the repaying.

 

[Josheb]

Nicely put. Well pointed out. I tend to conflate them, because the one doesn't occur without the other. But, true, they are not the same thing.

Let me be clear: they are not wholly identical. There is overlap. It might even be better to consider redemption a subset of atonement. Redemption can be had without atonement, but atonement cannot be had apart from redemption.

 

[makesends]

What's lof

Lake of Fire, "Hell"

????? If my prior post stating my affirmation of PSA and my larger view and there is agreement atonement is larger than penal substitution, then why am I asked a second time a question already answered?

Sorry. I'm up too late or something. I've lost this train. I'm thinking I asked it rhetorically, to get some kind of explanation for that last sentence. It sounded to me to be in opposition to the rest of what you had said, kind of suddenly, like maybe there was just a typo or a Freudian slip.

But maybe I missed what you were driving at with the rest of what you had said in that post. To me, what you had said did not show that man does not at all pay for his sin, and that, in the LOF (Hell). If you did mean that last sentence as written, maybe you can expand on, or explain it —maybe it would be suitable in a different thread? But I don't care if it happens in this one, as long as we don't lose the thread to the tangents.

 

[makesends]

Do you agree God is the aggrieved party when humans sin?

Absolutely

If so, how does the destruction of the sinner in hell pay for sin? How does it repay Him for His loss? How does the loss of the sinner in hell restore what was lost or the damage caused by sin? The deathly destruction of the sinner is simply the meting out of the just recompense for that sin, not restitution.

The wages of sin is death, and I don't take that to mean physical death. They pay in the Lake of Fire infinitely, ('eternally'), by torment meted out in precise and thorough proportion to their crime. Payment, seems to me.

Bernie Madof was sentenced to 150 years in prison where he'll rot and die. That 150 years did not provide restitution to a single person from whom he stole. He was ordered to pay $170 billion in restitution but the last I heard less than $20 billion has been recovered (and I don't know how much of that was actually distributed). His sentence did nothing to provide restitution to his victims.

This is very, very important because God's jurisprudence is restitutional and conciliatory, not retributional and vindictive. There are no penitentiaries in the Bible (or the ancient cultures). You either repaid or worked off the debt (restitution) or were killed. Perpetrators of capital crimes could be convicted only on the testimony of two or more witnesses (like the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Vengeance was not the domain of Man; vengeance is God's (Dt. 32:35; Rom. 12:19) and vengeance is God doing the repaying.

I'm not sure I follow you here. First you say God's judgement is not retributional, yet farther down you say, correctly, that vengeance is God's. The classic view of Hell, other than the foolishness about it being ruled by Satan, is that God repays man for his sins there. Thus, if all you are getting at is that man is not paying, in the sense that God is paying man, then I have to say that man is indeed recompensed according to his sin there. I call that payment. He receives according to what he deserves. The sinner's debt is extracted of him. But agreed, that is my mental construction, and, I suppose, mostly just my use of words.

BTW I hope going here is not going to derail the thread. Maybe it needs to go to another thread. But I do want to understand your thinking here.

 

[Josheb]

Lake of Fire, "Hell"

Got it. I'm going to start using that instead of "hell."

Sorry. I'm up too late or something. I've lost this train. I'm thinking I asked it rhetorically, to get some kind of explanation for that last sentence. It sounded to me to be in opposition to the rest of what you had said, kind of suddenly, like maybe there was just a typo or a Freudian slip.

But maybe I missed what you were driving at with the rest of what you had said in that post. To me, what you had said did not show that man does not at all pay for his sin, and that, in the LOF (Hell). If you did mean that last sentence as written, maybe you can expand on, or explain it —maybe it would be suitable in a different thread? But I don't care if it happens in this one, as long as we don't lose the thread to the tangents.

Lemme see if this analogy will work.


I loan someone my tractor to mow his field and, as a consequence of misuse, something happens, and my tractor is then broken and can no longer serve its intended purpose. I'm owed a working tractor. Let's say he has every intention of either repairing the tractor or providing me a replacement of equal value, function, and potential (even though sinners have no such intent). However, ignoring the obligation, the tractor-breaker goes off driving down the road and through the same sort of misuse that broke my tractor the tractor-breaker gets into a fatal collision, dies, and gets carted off to the LOF. How does his getting carted off to the LOF help pay back the tractor debt? How am I paid back?