PSA: What is Implied in Christ's Substitution; What Death Did He Die?

[Arial]

I think what is bothering you is that you think 2 Pt 2.1 teaches universal redemption as if that means all are saved.

Well, it would, if it says, as you say it is saying, that Jesus forgives even unbelief.

Being redeemed does not mean eternal salvation. It simply means being purchased out of the slave market (of sin).

What exactly do you think Jesus came to do? What good would it do to purchase( everyone?) out of the slave market if their sins still cling to them like glue and more are added daily?

Also, we are not saved if all our sins were paid for.

How then are any to be saved? What is it that keeps us from God and eternal life if not our sins?

Salvation is accepting God's offer of salvation, not the removal of sins (Mark 3.28).

Mark 3:28 "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin:--30, for they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit,"

Could you please do an exegesis and commentary on the above scripture so I can know how you possibly arrived at it being a proof text for salvation being accepting God's offer of salvation. And that salvation is not the removal of sins.

The payment of sins (redemption) puts you no closer to salvation.

Without it, there is no redemption, and if there is no redemption, there is no salvation.

How about you give us your answers to the questions posted in the OP title? PSA: What Is Implied In Christ's Substitution; What Death Did He Die.( PSA: Penal Substitionary Atonement.)


I would like to know where Scripture says that salvation is accepting God's offer of salvation also.

 

[Eleanor]

I think what is bothering you is that you think 2 Pt 2.1 teaches universal redemption as if that means all are saved. Being redeemed does not mean eternal salvation. It simply means being purchased out of the slave market (of sin). Also, we are not saved if all our sins were paid for. Salvation is accepting God's offer of salvation, not the removal of sins (Mark 3.28). The payment of sins (redemption) puts you no closer to salvation.

Au contraire. . .

It means bought back from God's condemnation on sin with Jesus' ransom on the cross, redeemed by the cross from God's damnation on sin.

 

[EddieM]

Au contraire. . .

It means bought back from God's condemnation on sin with Jesus' ransom on the cross, redeemed by the cross from God's damnation on sin.

There are not eternal consequences to sin. All sin has a temporal effect. Look at the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin, nothing eternal is mentioned. Sin broke our fellowship with God with their sin, but not our relationship. Also, look at the Great White Throne judgment. The word sin does not appear.

 

[EddieM]

To that I might add the question, "How long is eternal life?"

Eternal, but you don't get salvation from the removal of sins. You will not find in the Judgment Seat of Christ (better translated "Rewards Ceremony" or at the Great White Throne the word sins.

 

[EddieM]

Au contraire. . .

It means bought back from God's condemnation on sin with Jesus' ransom on the cross, redeemed by the cross from God's damnation on sin.

[On my view,] nobody is eternally condemned for their sins. Christ paid for all sins. That includes the sin of unbelief.

[Mod edit]

 

[EddieM]

Would you agree that if Jews were not allowed to purchase Gentiles, Saint Peter couldn't say Jesus bought the Heretic?

No, I don't see the connection, maybe you could spell it out in a little more detail.

 

[EddieM]

If sin was imputed to Christ, I'm out of here!

I do know that the believers sins were not imputed to themselves. This is what i have been saying, 2 Cor 5.19 tells us that the sins of mankind are not imputed to the person committing them, but they were all paid for by Christ.

God made Jesus to be sin for us... 2 Cor 5.21

 

[Carbon]

[On my view,] nobody is eternally condemned for their sins. Christ paid for all sins. That includes the sin of unbelief.

[Mod edit]

Universalism is not taught in scripture. Sorry.

 

[Eleanor]

There are not eternal consequences to sin. All sin has a temporal effect. Look at the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin, nothing eternal is mentioned. Sin broke our fellowship with God with their sin, but not our relationship.

"Dying (spiritually, loss of eternal life), you shall die (physically)." (Ge 2:17)

Spiritual death ends in eternal damnation, unless one is born again of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:3-5).

Also, look at the Great White Throne judgment. The word sin does not appear.

Prophetic riddles (Nu 12:6-8) are not the source of doctrine.

 

[Arial]

Eternal, but you don't get salvation from the removal of sins.

Can you get salvation without the removal of your sins? I would like to know exactly what it is you think Jesus is saving us from and for?

 

[Carbon]

Can you get salvation without the removal of your sins? I would like to know exactly what it is you think Jesus is saving us from and for?

Yes, it may be interesting to hear what he has to say on this.

 

[Arial]

Universalism is not taught in scripture. Sorry.

I think what we have here @EddieM, is a new approach of "defending" free will. A valid argument against free will is the claim that comes along with it that if Jesus paid for the sins of everyone, not just the elect, then the sins of everyone are paid for. This person, (and he would be the first I encountered) evidently recognized that there was no denying that, even if one goes to the made up caveat, "But only if you choose to believe, or accept the offer of salvation." So he has decided to put forth a whole new take on the matter. Yes, Jesus paid for the sins of everyone but it is not having your sins paid for that saves anyone. It is accepting the offer. (I only hope that in reality he recognizes that this argument is just as invalid and void of scriptural support as the other argument against TULIP. And that he is just finding entertainment in the arguing.)

Or, maybe, it is just the product of an altar call without meat or milk, and no supporting milk of the word supplied by which to attain to the meat; so we have a brand new, gospel being preached by a babe. Yet another, "other" gospel besides the one Paul preached.

 

[EddieM]

Yes, it may be interesting to hear what he has to say on this.

Can you get salvation without the removal of your sins? I would like to know exactly what it is you think Jesus is saving us from and for?
Arial asked the above questions. It is not a part of his post. Below is his "answer" to that and @Carbon's question. {edit by admin}
You are asking a purely hypothetical question. I don't generally address those. Your questions presupposes that Christ did not take all sins upon Himself. It assumes that the sins are imputed to us when 2 Cor 5 is rather clear on this issue. In other words, too many doctrines would break down.

We are being saved to eternal life.

 

[Eleanor]

...

 

[Rescued One]

I do know that the believers sins were not imputed to themselves. This is what i have been saying, 2 Cor 5.19 tells us that the sins of mankind are not imputed to the person committing them, but they were all paid for by Christ.

God made Jesus to be sin for us... 2 Cor 5.21

I hadn't heard of double imputation. I only thought Jesus' righteousness was imputed to us. Thank you for inspiring me to look at this from another perspective.

 

[Rescued One]

I think what is bothering you is that you think 2 Pt 2.1 teaches universal redemption as if that means all are saved. Being redeemed does not mean eternal salvation. It simply means being purchased out of the slave market (of sin). Also, we are not saved if all our sins were paid for. Salvation is accepting God's offer of salvation, not the removal of sins (Mark 3.28). The payment of sins (redemption) puts you no closer to salvation.

I can't folllow your posts anymore. They don't make sense.

 

[Arial]

You are asking a purely hypothetical question.

There is nothing remotely hypothetical about the questions.

Your questions presupposes that Christ did not take all sins upon Himself.

There is nothing presuppositional about it. The Bible is very clear that Jesus did not pay the debt for all sin. You can't ignore the fact that unbelievers die in their what? Sin. You say he even paid for unbelief!

John 8:24 "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Is 13:11 I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant, and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.

The presupposition --- and it is a big one----is that he did take the sins of all the people in all the world in all time, past, present, future upon himself and paid for them. It absolutely denies the meaning of the word PAID. It is a result of not bothering to apply even the instinctive means of hermeneutics we use in interpreting everything we read or hear, to the Bible. It is from carelessness and complacency with the very words of God.

It assumes that the sins are imputed to us when 2 Cor 5 is rather clear on this issue.

Who said our sins are imputed to us? They are our sins. Adam's sin is imputed to us in the way of federal headship. Just as Christ's righteousnes is imputed to the believer via federal headship. Both our sin and the sin of Adam that made us sinners, were imputed to Christ to take the penalty as our substitute. He died. And he rose again, defeating for the believer the power of sin to kill or condemn. We too will be raised to life in the resurrection of the dead.
You are leaving a lot of my posts unresponded to. Of course you are not required to respond to them, but given that you pick a couple here and there and leave the rest dismissed, I can only guess that you don't know how to respond to them. You have not even answered the very first question I asked when I answered your question on what justification I was referring to (and that is in the thread on Justificaiton). You stated there were two justifications and I asked what the second one was. Still waiting.

In other words, too many doctrines would break down.

Too many doctrines would break down if what????? What doctrines would that be?

 

[Arial]

I can't folllow your posts anymore. They don't make sense.

That is because it is a different gospel that bears no resemblance to the true gospel.

 

[Arial]

I hadn't heard of double imputation. I only thought Jesus' righteousness was imputed to us. Thank you for inspiring me to look at this from another perspective.

I do know that the believers sins were not imputed to themselves. This is what i have been saying, 2 Cor 5.19 tells us that the sins of mankind are not imputed to the person committing them, but they were all paid for by Christ.

I doubt seriously if any one, and certainly no Reformed, have ever said that our sins are imputed to us. And Paul is writing that letter to believers, not unbelievers. The believer does not have his sins counted against him because Jesus has paid for them.

 

[EddieM]

Universalism is not taught in scripture. Sorry.

[Posted edited by moderator for compliance with the Rules & Guidelines.]
​

It [is] frustrating when I [am described as a universalist despite having said] that I do NOT believe in Universalism [Rules-violating content removed]. You have missed about 4 things I have been saying, based on your reply above.