Partial LA?

[Josheb]

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.

This is a problem of ambiguity due to the English language. We use "He's gonna pay for it," in a rhetorical sense to mean someone will suffer adverse consequences for doing or not doing something. We do not mean a debt will be paid. If I drink too much alcohol, I'll awake the next morning with a hangover. I'll have to proverbially "pay for" the over consumption.

That has absolutely nothing to do with repaying a debt.

If I steal a bottle from your liquor cabinet, drink it all and awake with a hangover I still owe you the cost of the bottle of liquor, whether I "pay for it" with a hangover or not. Or suppose, going back to the earlier tractor example, suppose you get in a wreck with the tractor and have to spend time in the hospital where the doctors and surgeons repair damage caused to your body and once repaired you still have to endure months of pain, physical therapy to regain the use of your body, and further healing (atop the bill you're going to receive from the hospital. You "paying for it" does not to repay me for my tractor.

Sin brings its own consequence. The wages of sin is death but that doeth does not provide God with a good and sinless human creature like the one He made, the one with which He originally started.

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.

Vengeance and retribution are about wrath. What are we saved from? Answer: sin and wrath. Those not saved go off to the LOF where they suffer the just recompense for their sin: wrath. They've suffered a lifetime due to sin. When that life is over - having denied the offer of salvation - they stand before God in judgement (they all fail) and, lacking the shed blood of Christ as their covering, go to the LOF and suffer God's wrath - from which they would otherwise have been saved.

God metes out His justice but that does not repay Him the loss and offense He has suffered. They only way that happens is in/through/by Christ. The blood of His Son pays God back. The blood of a sinner is worthless. I might as well bring the tractor owner a bucket of manure. That would be worth more than the life of a God-denying, Christ-denying, self-elevating sinner.

 

[makesends]

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

I have found the common use of "hell" to be offensive to some Calvinists and others, where what is meant is the LOF. So I try to be more clear as to just what is meant.

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?

Yes, I think I got that same point with the similar thoughts you put across in the last post.

And, in your analogy you can never be payed back the tractor. But there is no tractor, I think.

The offense again the Almighty is not loss of commodity, but a breach of justice, purity and maybe most importantly, truth. It is cosmic treason, which to me = logical outrage, even a tear in the 'fabric of reality'. (It is hard enough for me to see that God can make something that is not himself, but that the thing he made is capable of rebellion against its creator is beyond my ken.) There is no 'repayment of substance lost', but 'punishment of misuse' might be a better way to put it. (As usual, words fail me —I see scriptural support by reason, not by word-for-word reference. I offer the above as 'a way to look at it', not as doctrine.) It is an infinite offense, and so the punishment continues infinitely, either in quality or length (or both). It is an infinite dying, since the wages of sin is death.

But I admit, this is way beyond me to understand. I deal with it tentatively.

 

[makesends]

Sin brings its own consequence. The wages of sin is death but that doeth does not provide God with a good and sinless human creature like the one He made, the one with which He originally started.

FWIW, the worth of every (each) person is only God's to assess, and, I think, is entirely related to God's intended (and accomplished) use of him. It is not that the sinner has stolen a pure creature of value from God —i.e. ruined something God intended for other purposes.

But there is something in what you said there, I think, related to the idea of God 'returning' ("restoring") all things to himself in the death of Christ that I dearly want to understand. (This even goes to the argument for Total Depravity and particularly for Limited Atonement.)

Vengeance and retribution are about wrath. What are we saved from? Answer: sin and wrath. Those not saved go off to the LOF where they suffer the just recompense for their sin: wrath. They've suffered a lifetime due to sin. When that life is over - having denied the offer of salvation - they stand before God in judgement (they all fail) and, lacking the shed blood of Christ as their covering, go to the LOF and suffer God's wrath - from which they would otherwise have been saved.

God metes out His justice but that does not repay Him the loss and offense He has suffered. They only way that happens is in/through/by Christ. The blood of His Son pays God back. The blood of a sinner is worthless. I might as well bring the tractor owner a bucket of manure. That would be worth more than the life of a God-denying, Christ-denying, self-elevating sinner.

Ok, understood, and agreed, to a point. So that is what you mean by the sinner does not pay for his sin. We ARE agreed that he does indeed suffer torments in the LOF, in keeping with the crime. And yes, I get what you mean concerning the English figure of speech, "you will pay for that!" I'm just not so sure that is not payment for the crime, in the Greek too. It is in Spanish. But I don't know enough to say it is in the Greek/Koine language user's mindset, so I will relent for now. Thank you for your patience.

 

[Josheb]

The offense again the Almighty is not loss of commodity, but a breach of justice, purity and maybe most importantly, truth. It is cosmic treason...

The two, loss of commodity and breach of justice, purity, and treason are not mutually exclusive conditions.

It is appointed for man to die once and face judgment. All sinned and fell short of God's glory and the wages of sin is death. What would have happened if God had, not by His grace, selected some for salvation, if no gift of eternal life had been offered?

 

[Josheb]

I'm just not so sure that is not payment for the crime, in the Greek too.

It is payment for the crime. It is not repayment of the debt.

 

[Josheb]

FWIW, the worth of every (each) person is only God's to assess,

God has revealed His assessment to us.

Genesis 6:5
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Jeremiah 10:12-16
It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain, and brings out the wind from His storehouses. Every man is stupid, devoid of knowledge; Every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; For his molten images are deceitful, and there is no breath in them. They are worthless, a work of mockery; In the time of their punishment they will perish. The portion of Jacob is not like these; For the Maker of all is He, And Israel is the tribe of His inheritance; The LORD of hosts is His name.

Psalm 130:3
If You, LORD, were to keep account of guilty deeds, Lord, who could stand?

Romans 3:23
...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...

...and, I think, is entirely related to God's intended (and accomplished) use of him.

Sure. The two conditions are not mutually exclusive of one another. God has taken what is otherwise worthless and rotting due to disobedience and made it valuable.

Psalm 8:3-6
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained; what is man that You take thought of him, and the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God, and You crown him with glory and majesty! You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet...

There is nothing good, righteous, or holy about sinners. In Christ, we are made other than we are.


To what does Gehenna refer?

 

[makesends]

God has revealed His assessment to us.

Genesis 6:5
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Jeremiah 10:12-16
It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, And He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain, and brings out the wind from His storehouses. Every man is stupid, devoid of knowledge; Every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; For his molten images are deceitful, and there is no breath in them. They are worthless, a work of mockery; In the time of their punishment they will perish. The portion of Jacob is not like these; For the Maker of all is He, And Israel is the tribe of His inheritance; The LORD of hosts is His name.

Psalm 130:3
If You, LORD, were to keep account of guilty deeds, Lord, who could stand?

Romans 3:23
...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...

Sure. The two conditions are not mutually exclusive of one another. God has taken what is otherwise worthless and rotting due to disobedience and made it valuable.

Psalm 8:3-6
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained; what is man that You take thought of him, and the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God, and You crown him with glory and majesty! You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet...

There is nothing good, righteous, or holy about sinners. In Christ, we are made other than we are.

Very good. My point, nevertheless, remains. It is because of God and for God and by God we are made and live, and for no other reason. Only what he has in mind for us, is what we are. And you have not said otherwise.

To what does Gehenna refer?

Depends who's reading, haha! But my objectors have said that "Hell" is 'the grave', but the torment is in the LOF, so they don't like me to conflate the two. I personally don't care much, what is spoken of as long as it is scriptural and contextually understood by the participants in the conversation, beyond a real curiosity of what happened to Christ upon his physical death, and a desire to better answer those who don't think anyone goes "straight to Hell, (or Heaven)".

As you probably would guess, sometimes what I think of scripture would be called sacrilege to those who think only in the King's English. I wouldn't be much surprised if a lot of the terminology God uses is couched in terms of what the Jews were used to, being 'common knowledge'. (I expect, for example, that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus the Beggar, is not doctrinally reliable concerning a 'great gulf' across which one can see and yell to the other side, or even that there is really such a thing as Abraham's Bosom (but only a place, or possibly a concept, named that by humans), or that any particular person is of the sort of authority as Abraham is given in the story. I suspect it was just a story with a point or two to make, and no more useful (nor less) than the parables.) Do we have any other scriptural support of the notion that such a conversation between the rich man and Father Abraham (or anyone else, other than maybe Christ, preaching to "the spirits in prison") ever took place?

 

[makesends]

The two, loss of commodity and breach of justice, purity, and treason are not mutually exclusive conditions.

It is appointed for man to die once and face judgment. All sinned and fell short of God's glory and the wages of sin is death. What would have happened if God had, not by His grace, selected some for salvation, if no gift of eternal life had been offered?

Not that I put much stock in 'what-if', because what does not happen could not have happened, as far as I know —it certainly DID not happen— but I say that if that had happened, God would have suffered no loss.

 

[Josheb]

Very good. My point, nevertheless, remains. It is because of God and for God and by God we are made and live, and for no other reason. Only what he has in mind for us, is what we are. And you have not said otherwise.

That is true, but it was not the original point.

Depends who's reading, haha! But my objectors have said that "Hell" is 'the grave'...

No, Gehenna was the trash pit outside Jerusalem.

As you probably would guess, sometimes what I think of scripture would be called sacrilege to those who think only in the King's English. I wouldn't be much surprised if a lot of the terminology God uses is couched in terms of what the Jews were used to, being 'common knowledge'. (I expect, for example, that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus the Beggar, is not doctrinally reliable concerning a 'great gulf' across which one can see and yell to the other side, or even that there is really such a thing as Abraham's Bosom (but only a place, or possibly a concept, named that by humans), or that any particular person is of the sort of authority as Abraham is given in the story. I suspect it was just a story with a point or two to make, and no more useful (nor less) than the parables.)

Certainly. One of the first and foremost principles in sound exegesis is to understand the text as the original author and his original audience would have understood it. Jewish culture was unique. Another basic concept is to use scripture first to understand scripture. Every NT author used the OT and most, if not all of them were former Jews). That is the inherent context for all were ad in the NT.

Do we have any other scriptural support of the notion that such a conversation between the rich man and Father Abraham (or anyone else, other than maybe Christ, preaching to "the spirits in prison") ever took place?

You mean other than the fact Jesus never lies?

 

[Josheb]

Not that I put much stock in 'what-if', because what does not happen could not have happened, as far as I know —it certainly DID not happen— but I say that if that had happened,

You do understand both God and Paul employed, "What if...."?

The answer to the question asked is: All humanity would be lost. Not only would all humanity be lost but God's effort to make elect would have failed.

God would have suffered no loss.

Scripture says otherwise.

 

[makesends]

That is true, but it was not the original point.

No, Gehenna was the trash pit outside Jerusalem.

Certainly. One of the first and foremost principles in sound exegesis is to understand the text as the original author and his original audience would have understood it. Jewish culture was unique. Another basic concept is to use scripture first to understand scripture. Every NT author used the OT and most, if not all of them were former Jews). That is the inherent context for all were ad in the NT.

You mean other than the fact Jesus never lies?

Ha! Well, it isn't a lie to tell a story where the audience knows it is a story. Preachers tell stories like advertisers to get people to listen. Nobody is fooled.

My conscience doesn't bother me when I play, "I Doubt It".

I'm not one who has a problem exchanging banter with corrupt border officials between Colombia and Ecuador, in order to sneak something across for which I know I could never pay what they would demand (of their own authority) for such a thing. It's part of "the game"; they know it and I know it. The fact that it may be Bibles doesn't make it right nor does the fact that it might be priceless art make it wrong.

 

[makesends]

You do understand both God and Paul employed, "What if...."?

Paul and God had the authority to do so. As I have always said, only God thoroughly knows the contingencies. We can only speculate, except where God has told us "what if".

The answer to the question asked is: All humanity would be lost. Not only would all humanity be lost but God's effort to make elect would have failed.

A categorical error. God cannot fail, and furthermore, the 'given that...' in the 'what if...' did not happen.

makesends said:
God would have suffered no loss.

Scripture says otherwise.

Where does scripture (or logic) say God would have suffered loss? God has no needs. What can he lose?

 

[Ladodgers6]

@Carbon stated,
"Limited atonement. Christ died to redeem only those the Father gave him. His sheep, the elect chosen in the COD."

Joshed asked earlier in the thread,


With the prior two statements in place, the goal of this thread is to state why I hold to a .5 when dealing with limited atonement. What exactly does it look like?

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?

Exactly right! I 100% agree with you. The Arminian or synergistic view holds that Christ only makes salvation possible not effectual; meaning that men/women are given a choice and not forced to believe. But this position runs into a lot of problems. How does any man/women come to make this decision? What causes this decision to be made to believe? This is where Partial Regeneration takes place. But note that the Synergistic camp teach that this Partial Regeneration is not effectual in saving anyone. Which confuses the matter even further, because what is the cause then?

When I was an Arminian very long ago, I struggled with this dilemma. Because the Synergistic position insist that fallen man/women must be involved in saving themselves, it must be their own free-will not a coercion to believe. But this reasoning is not only lacking but very misleading and convoluted. Here's why, those who believe are not coerced into believing, they come willingly by God calling them out of the darkness into his marvelous light. They can hear God's voice and come forward and follow. By the Holy Spirit that regenerates their minds and hearts they hear, understand and believe by the bearing of the truth in the Holy Spirit. This is not the power of fallen man/women but by the power of God! Only God can resurrect the dead! And it is by His blood that we are purchased!
​

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

Excellent well put! I will admit here, that I too, presented silly arguments in an effort to not agree with the Calvinist when I was an Arminian. Instead of having a personal bias with no Scriptural evidence to back up such claims. One such return to the resources (Scripture), and do their home work. Which I finally did, because if ones wants the truth, seek it, don't suppress it.

This 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.

Indeed!

Some, try to push the issue of a believer's acceptance or rejection (by believing or not believing) of the atonement as being ultimately determinative of their reception of the atonement's benefits. But this view suffers from making the atonement hypothetical. Jesus' statement, "It is finished," only applies to a hypothetical sacrifice that only becomes actual when the person believes. This seems highly problematic and overly biased by an obvious libertarian understanding of faith and personal acceptance (note the ability to do otherwise when framing the issue as "believing or not believing").

In short, because I hold to PSA, I see myself as holding to a key piece of the biblical position, but it also has a strong element within it that lends significant weight toward the Calvinistic position. For if Christ was an actual substitute (and not a hypothetical one), then this lends weight toward the atonement being limited in scope to the elect (or one then faces the double jeopardy objection). Of course, the assumption of universalism is unbiblical.

The Free-Will position has perverted the Gospel making it into another gospel. The Synergistic or Unlimited Atonement view teach that every man/woman come to a ballot booth in who to choose. This is by its vey nature a man made religion. All mankind are already under condemnation in the first Adam. Unless God intervenes and saves us no one is saved or wants to be saved. When the Gospel is preached God's sheep will hear his voice and believe. His Son's blood, suffering, crucifixion, resurrection purchases those whom God gave to the Son to save (John 8, 10; Isaiah 53). Christ descended with a purpose to do his Father's will.​

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

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 can resonate with your thoughts here, because I too went through this, when I was an Arminian becoming a Calvinist. But I'll share this with you. It is either by Grace Alone or not. It wasn't until I finally got to this question that I finally understood Paul who claimed to be the chiefs of sinners! For even when we believe and becomes Saints in Christ it is nothing we do that saves or will save us, but only the sheer Grace of God Alone that saves wretched sinners like me and you. So for me, it is clear that I am saved in Christ because of God's sheer Grace and Mercy Alone!​

 

[makesends]

How does any man/women come to make this decision? What causes this decision to be made to believe?

RC Sproul deals with this in a very clear way, that exposes the irrationality of 'libertarian free will'. If people are not compelled to do or choose anything, but do so only on their own, how are they able to make a decision at all? The 50-50 nature of this scenario puts it up to determinism of mere chance, which is self-contradictory nonsense. If they are not forced to think about it, they will say that THEY are the ones who decide according to what they want, which, they are shocked to learn, is why Calvinism can blame the sinner for their sin. THEY choose according to their desires.

But where did they get those desires? Yep. They will storm and scoff, but every time they tell you where or how, then the child's question "why" keeps them backing up another step. In the end, they know that they are caused to do what they do, and they DO CHOOSE, and that, of their own corrupt (or regenerated) desires and inclinations, which are caused by what came before that, and in the end of reasoning, i.e. at the beginning of creation, GOD.

I've begun to almost feel sorry for them as they squirm and wiggle to avoid the obvious. And THAT's just from REASONING! Then they try to win by Scripture, and when that fails them their structure, they quit listening.

 

[Ladodgers6]

RC Sproul deals with this in a very clear way, that exposes the irrationality of 'libertarian free will'. If people are not compelled to do or choose anything, but do so only on their own, how are they able to make a decision at all? The 50-50 nature of this scenario puts it up to determinism of mere chance, which is self-contradictory nonsense. If they are not forced to think about it, they will say that THEY are the ones who decide according to what they want, which, they are shocked to learn, is why Calvinism can blame the sinner for their sin. THEY choose according to their desires.

But where did they get those desires? Yep. They will storm and scoff, but every time they tell you where or how, then the child's question "why" keeps them backing up another step. In the end, they know that they are caused to do what they do, and they DO CHOOSE, and that, of their own corrupt (or regenerated) desires and inclinations, which are caused by what came before that, and in the end of reasoning, i.e. at the beginning of creation, GOD.

I've begun to almost feel sorry for them as they squirm and wiggle to avoid the obvious. And THAT's just from REASONING! Then they try to win by Scripture, and when that fails them their structure, they quit listening.

Amen to that, I love Sproul. They have a humanistic religion reasoning that God is all Love and will not punish people for their sins or even send people to hell. This is why they deny PSA. That God the Father punished God the Son in our place for sin to redeem us from the curse of the Law. Some even deny original sin, and that Christ received God's wrath in our place. The innocent for the wicked. They call this absurd or comic child abuse.

I was debating a guy on another forum, where he stated there is no punishment because there's no law language in Scripture. I said if that's true then this is good news for serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, child abusers, adulterers, racists and so forth. There's nothing to fear! He re-thought what I said. And said he has to re-think his position. I said that's good, because justification, condemnation, judgement, sin, righteousness, punishment, reward is legal language.

And as far as Free-Will Calvin did not deny it but taught that all sinners have a Free-Will because they choose to sin willingly, nobody coerces them to sin. The will or the heart will always choose what it wants. And the hearts of fallen sinners is corrupt and fallen; it is carnal. And here lies the problem that they will struggle with. Because not until God regenerates the Heart they will not believe and trust God.​

 

[Josheb]

Ha! Well, it isn't a lie to tell a story where the audience knows it is a story.

Amen!

 

[makesends]

And as far as Free-Will Calvin did not deny it but taught that all sinners have a Free-Will because they choose to sin willingly, nobody coerces them to sin. The will or the heart will always choose what it wants. And the hearts of fallen sinners is corrupt and fallen; it is carnal. And here lies the problem that will struggle with. Because not until God regenerates the Heart they will not believe and trust God.​

I have a hard time understanding how one can go no further in their reasoning than the notion that the choices by free will are not determined according to God's decree. But then, I don't even see how the Reformed/Calvinist finds it a mystery. To me it is simple and obvious, that God determined all things, but is so above us that our choices are only free in the sense that our fickle hearts and silly minds always choose according to whatever we want most [at that moment of choice].

When I see how easily minds are changed by our passions and circumstances etc, (which passions and circumstances are THEIR claim to 'free will') and particularly the chemical and/or physical mental influences, I wonder how in the world they can think that THEY are the masters of what they decide. Cause-and-effect always prevails, and God is at the beginning of all cause.

But I have to say that I have, particularly on this site, come to see that not all Reformed/Calvinists define 'free will' as I do —(that "Our choices are real, with real, even eternal, consequences."). These say that one is free, within certain bounds; "The will is free to do as it will, but it always wants what is contrary to God." It only differs from the Arminian notion by degree of bondage to sin.

Thus they find a mystery: How can one be absolutely free to do anything at all, but within these certain constraints? I say, "No mystery. They are not free to do absolutely anything, but only what cause-and-effect, complicated though it be, causes them to do. The precise elements of their particular impinging "chains of cause-and-effect" and direct intervention by God, are by God's decree concerning them.

And the forthcoming objection? How can God blame man? I say, as the Calvinist/Reformed already knows the answer: Who are you, O man? God has every right to do as he wishes with his clay. God is not like us.

 

[Josheb]

Paul and God had the authority to do so. As I have always said, only God thoroughly knows the contingencies. We can only speculate, except where God has told us "what if".

It is not speculation when based on what is plainly stated in scripture. There was a time when all the humans that existed were good and sinless. That is a fact of scripture. Now, none exist. That, too, is a fact of scripture. Had the good and sinless people died while still good and sinless they still needed the tree of life; the still needed Jesus, the resurrection because Jesus is the only way to the Father. All of those are facts of scripture. God made originally made all humans good and sinless and they all turned from God and became not-good and sinful. The loss was God's. All of that is also facts of scripture. From the bad and sinful people - of which all humanity is comprised - God has seen fit to save some and not others. Those are facts of scripture. How the saving of some occurs is a matter of much debate, but the fact all have sinned is not.

Given the facts of scripture one of the many logically necessary conclusions is this: Had God not acted all would remain lost in sin, and all would die without ever seeing eternal life. That is not speculation.

A categorical error. God cannot fail, and furthermore, the 'given that...' in the 'what if...' did not happen.

That is the point!

Take a deep breath. Maybe a couple. Go back and re-read the posts following the reasoning contained therein. The point (one of them at any rate) is that God does not and cannot fail. That is exactly what would have happened had God not acted if salvation were a matter of human endeavor. Salvation is not a matter of human endeavor (other than the fact that it is humans being saved). The only thing sinners bring to their salvation is the sin from which they are being saved, and even if that were not the case, God needs nothing from human flesh and that is all humans absent the Spirit have; just flesh.

makesends said:
God would have suffered no loss.

Where does scripture (or logic) say God would have suffered loss?

There are times when people ask "Where is the scripture?" because they do not know and want to know because they humbly realize there is something they may not know or have not considered. There are other occasions when people ask that question with a lack of sincerity. They're not genuinely interested in that information because their allegiance is to their already-existing beliefs and no amount of scripture will matter. It will be dismissed or explained away through doctrinal biases, such as the notion because God needs nothing. He can lose nothing. Therefore, any none-existent loss means God is not in control when God can willing lose something in time and space and later retrieve it and all of it be parts of His divine plan, will, and purpose. Either way, before the question is asked, the asker should always check for themselves before asking so as to save everyone - asker, answerer, and lurker - time and effort.

Just saying.

Psalm 119:175-176
Let my soul live that it may praise You, And let Your ordinances help me. I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek Your servant, For I do not forget Your commandments.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven............. A time to search and a time to give up as lost; a time to keep and a time to throw away. A time to tear apart and a time to sew together...

Jeremiah 50:4-6
In those days and at that time," declares the LORD, "the sons of Israel will come, both they and the sons of Judah as well; they will go along weeping as they go, and it will be the LORD their God they will seek......... My people have become lost sheep; Their shepherds have led them astray. They have made them turn aside on the mountains; They have gone along from mountain to hill and have forgotten their resting place.

Ezekiel 34:11-16
For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out. "As a shepherd cares for his herd in the day when he is among his scattered sheep, so I will care for My sheep and will deliver them from all the places to which they were scattered on a cloudy and gloomy day........ I will feed My flock and I will lead them to rest," declares the Lord GOD. "I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken and strengthen the sick; but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them with judgment.

Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Mark 2:21-22
No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. "No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins."

Luke 15:3-5
So He told them this parable, saying, "What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep and has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? "When he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

Luke 15:8-10
Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost!' In the same way, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

John 18:7-9
Therefore, he again asked them, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus the Nazarene." Jesus answered, "I told you that I am he; so if you seek me, let these go their way," to fulfill the word which He spoke, "Of those whom You have given me I lost not one."

Genesis 6:6
So the LORD was sorrowful that He had made mankind on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.


Be careful lest a strictly utilitarian worldview (worldly view of the kingdom) be unwittingly held that strips temporal events of their spiritual and moral significance and loss and grief of its substance. There are tons of scripture that speak of loss, and all of those that speak of human loss are temporal expressions of divine reality. Creatures made in God's image experience loss because loss is real, not something artificial or without real consequence. If God does lose something, it is only by His design and that does not negate the loss or the obligation of the lost. A shepherd whose entire flock goes astray has lost the flock. That he retrieves all the sheep he wants to retrieve does not negate the loss, nor erase what remains of that loss. Neither does the sheep going astray as part of the shepherd's plan, for the shepherd knows those not retrieved will fall prey to the wilderness, predators, and their own folly.

 

[Josheb]

God has no needs. What can he lose?

That is a categorical error. Loss is not based on need. I have no need for my dog, but losing him I grieve the very real loss. Were I able to resurrect him that would not change the facts of loss or their intellectual, emotional, and relational effects. I have no necessity to bear children but were any of my children lost (regardless of the type of loss) grief would be the exact right response. Were I to resurrect those who'd committed suicide I might find relief from the sorrow of that loss but not the fact they disobeyed, neglected, and ignored all that I have for them. Loss is not based on need.

• God made humans good and sinless.
• As a consequence of one man's disobedience all have gone astray and they are not merely wandering around in the wilderness; they have changed ontologically to become something not created.
• God, in His wisdom and grace, retrieves, saves, and transforms some from what would otherwise by loss so violently egregious it is beyond our comprehension.
• Lacking any ability to rescue, return, and transform themselves, God, in His wisdom and grace paid for the retrieval, rescue, and transformation because it was His will and purpose to do so. Had He not done so none would be rescued, retrieved, or transformed.

Genesis 31:42
If the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the fear of Isaac, had not been for me, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed. God has seen my affliction and the labor of my hands, so He rendered judgment last night.

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

Matthew 24:22
If those days had not been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.


Facts of scripture, not speculation.

 

[Arial]

But there is something in what you said there, I think, related to the idea of God 'returning' ("restoring") all things to himself in the death of Christ that I dearly want to understand. (This even goes to the argument for Total Depravity and particularly for Limited Atonement.)

That is probably a bottomless (from our perspective) subject. It also deals with things not seen and not told by God, and the fact that we tend to look at the beginning of everything being the creation of our world, even though we know better. We have no clue what was taking place in eternity before God created our world and us. We know other things were created, even other beings. That is all we know on that score.

We know too, and only because God tells us in His word, that Satan is the instigator of mankind's fall and all that went with it as to the natural world as well as humanity. In the first chapter of Job we find an explicit encounter between God and the devil. We see Satan challenge God and God give him permission to do something. I think from this we can safely assume that Satan can't do anything unless God permits him too, and if He does permit him, it is serving a purpose.

That being said, and before I get yelled at (not by you) "What does Job have to do with the OP!", I am responding to your quoted statement, and just as your statement pertains to TD and LA----so does this. It needed a preface.

We know that through the redemption of mankind, God is restoring all of His fallen creation, more accurately, a new creation. He is creating/choosing a people to populate this new creation, and after all is said and done, these people will be incorruptible, whereas Adam was corruptible but not yet corrupted. They will be immortal, whereas in Adam, they are mortal (they can die.) They are born from above in Christ instead formed from the earth as was Adam.

Christ removes every obstacle to this happening by defeating sin and death on the cross. At the present time it still exists but it has no power over those Jesus gives Himself as their kinsman redeemer, and takes the full weight of sins legal punishment. One and done. In God's timing, when all of these elect have been gathered to the Shepherd, the risen Christ will return and not only defeat sin and death, but destroy it by the destruction of the instigator of evil, and all those who worshiped him. And the dead in Christ will rise to life, those who remain will be changed, and there will not be a single person in which dwells any evil or evil desires, and no outside source of evil. Jesus is a warrior of epic proportions!!

If that is true, and at least the process and end result are true, even if I may have ventured in places outside the lines, how is that to possibly happen and remain all of God, unless all men are on equal footing as to position before God? And in that case, how can it happen and be all of God if He does not determine ahead of time who He will give to Christ, and bring them to Christ with absolute certainty? In which case, how can He do that and with certainty, since all are equally unreconciled to Him, unless He changes something in them first---namely their hard and corrupt heart, turning them to Him instead of their being turned away from Him. If all people are not saved, and they are not, it can only be because Jesus's work on the cross was never intended to save everyone, but only those God intended to save. The ones He gives Jesus.