The powerless Arminian Jesus

[Mercy_Shown]

This is telling God who He is, what He will not do. Now that is hubris. It is unscriptural uses fallacious language to inflame and degrade. There is no magic pill in Reformed theology and there is no class of people in God's election.

No, I am telling humans who God is post. I did not post this to God.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

I still don't understand how Christ can die for all the sins of an unbeliever who ends up in hell. For what sin debt are they paying?

If Christ paid the penalty for every one of their sins, there is no more penalty to pay.

Did the currency of the cross not cover the debt? Did Christ's suffering and death not satisfy God's wrath?

"Christ paid your debt," I am told, "but you have to accept it." The logic doesn't hold up. Let's say that I owe $100. If I don't accept that Steve paid that debt, he nevertheless paid the full $100. How can I owe a debt that no longer exists?

"But by not accepting it," someone might say, "you are effectively insisting that you pay it yourself." The logic still doesn't hold. If I go to Steve with $100, he would rightfully ask, "What's this for?"

"My debt," I say.

"What debt?" he would ask. "It was paid."

I think this is a common mistake many Christians make. They think people pay for their sins by spending eternity in hell. But if we are sticking strictly to the transaction model, it would be unfair for someone to pay an aternity of suffering for just a lifetime of sin.

Indeed Jesus did pay for the sins of the whole world. John 1:29 states, "The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

So why is there eternal destruction for some people? What is the basis for their verdict? John 3:19 states, "The [basis of the] judgment (indictment, the test by which men are judged, the ground for the sentence) lies in this: the Light has come into the world, and people have loved the darkness rather than and more than the Light, for their works (deeds) were evil."

As you can see, their evil deeds are not the basis of the judgment for even born-again Christians can and do commit evil deeds. The difference is their love of darkness, their love of their evil deeds. In essence, they choose to be disconnected from the light which is the life of Christ and without life one suffers eternal destruction.

As the text says, the basis of the indictment is that men loved darkness more than light and though all sin was defeated at the cross and the gift of God was eternal life many turn toward the dark they love and remove themselves from eternal life.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I think this is a common mistake many Christians make. They think people pay for their sins by spending eternity in hell. But if we are sticking strictly to the transaction model, it would be unfair for someone to pay an eternity of suffering for just a lifetime of sin.

And I expect those Christians would probably point out the common mistake that you are making here, namely, your assumption that the damned cease sinning in hell. I expect they would say something like, "The damned are paying an eternity of suffering for an eternity of sin."

But that's not what I would say. I reject the doctrine of eternal conscious torment, so this is someone else's fight.

Indeed, Jesus did pay for the sins of the whole world.

We both agree that Jesus died for the whole world, sir. Our disagreement is over the hidden premise that it means the whole world "without exception"—that is, every single person—a premise that I do not accept because (a) nobody has provided any good reason to believe that and (b) I am aware of several good reasons to reject it. So much for that premise.

A different hidden premise which I accept, because it is supported by a wealth of scriptures, is that it means the whole world "without discrimination"—that is, both Jew and Gentile, slave and free, king and peasant—for God's sheep are found throughout the world, in every nation, tribe, people, and language (for God does not show favoritism). However, in every case it was for the sheep alone that Christ laid down his life, sheep that are in different pens in all the world. He did not lay down his life for the goats, to whom he will say in the end, "I never knew you."

So, why is there eternal destruction for some people? What is the basis for their verdict? John 3:19 states, "The [basis of the] judgment (indictment, the test by which men are judged, the ground for the sentence) lies in this: the Light has come into the world, and people have loved the darkness rather than and more than the Light, for their works (deeds) were evil."

Proving a doctrine from a single proof-text is a terrible idea. According to the whole testimony of scriptures, the basis for judgment is the holiness of God which lays bare our sin, first by the Word of God but ultimately on that final day. And there are many ways we can describe the condemnation of the wicked but in every case it is sin—including the fact that they hid from the light with a preference for darkness, which is also sin. With flaming fire the Lord will "mete out punishment on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thess 1:8). And it is predictable that they eschewed light and preferred darkness, for their evil actions were shameful and light exposes it. And light, of course, is a metaphor for righteousness—again, the holiness of God—and darkness is a metaphor for lawlessness, which is sin (1 John 3:4; e.g., 2 Cor 6:14).

But if their wicked deeds, evil thoughts, shameful lusts, love of darkness, and unbelief are all sin, and if Christ fully paid the penalty for all their sin, whose atoning sacrifice removed their sin guilt and satisfied God's just wrath (1 John 2:2), then what are they doing in hell?

... [E]ven born-again Christians can and do commit evil deeds.

We do, and we confess them and repent and are forgiven. That is because God canceled the record of the charges against his sheep who believe, which stood against us and condemned us, taking it away and nailing it to the cross. In other words, those sins were punished on the cross of Christ, whose atoning sacrifice removed our guilt and fully satisfied God's just wrath.

The wicked goats neither confess their sins nor repent or seek forgiveness, because they love their sin and hate God. Their record of indebtedness was not taken away and nailed to the cross, for Christ died for the sheep and they are not his sheep.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

We both agree that Jesus died for the whole world, sir. Our disagreement is over the hidden premise that it means the whole world "without exception"—that is, every single person—a premise that I do not accept because (a) nobody has provided any good reason to believe that and (b) I am aware of several good reasons to reject it. So much for that premise.

A different hidden premise which I accept, because it is supported by a wealth of scriptures, is that it means the whole world "without discrimination"—that is, both Jew and Gentile, slave and free, king and peasant—for God's sheep are found throughout the world, in every nation, tribe, people, and language (for God does not show favoritism). However, in every case it was for the sheep alone that Christ laid down his life, sheep that are in different pens in all the world. He did not lay down his life for the goats, to whom he will say in the end, "I never knew you."

It is not a hidden premise. It says what it says and is repeated in 1 John 2:2 Because it goes against the beliefs of some, they decide it doesn't mean what it says. This is not the only case in which I have seen this.

The oft-heard refrain is, "Oh, I know it says that, but you have to understand that it doesn't mean what it says, it means this other thing." And here's a good reason to believe it: The bible says so. He laid down his life for the whole world knowing that the whole world would not accept his gift of eternal life. But he did it anyway. He did it for whoever would believe in him which was open to all.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Proving a doctrine from a single proof-text is a terrible idea.

Dismissing even a single text of the bible is a terrible idea, especially when it is our savior speaking. He is the truth.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Proving a doctrine from a single proof-text is a terrible idea. According to the whole testimony of scriptures, the basis for judgment is the holiness of God which lays bare our sin, first by the Word of God but ultimately on that final day. And there are many ways we can describe the condemnation of the wicked but in every case it is sin—including the fact that they hid from the light with a preference for darkness, which is also sin. With flaming fire the Lord will "mete out punishment on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thess 1:8). And it is predictable that they eschewed light and preferred darkness, for their evil actions were shameful and light exposes it. And light, of course, is a metaphor for righteousness—again, the holiness of God—and darkness is a metaphor for lawlessness, which is sin (1 John 3:4; e.g., 2 Cor 6:14).

The light is Jesus Christ and the darkness is separation from Him. Those who do not know him are the ones that love the darkness. Darkness is not sin, it is what hides sin, whereas light exposes sin. When you read the texts you quoted you will notice that "who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" are descriptors and not the object of the punishment. It is the fruit of the darkness these individuals love.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

If grace changes a man without the man's choosing, so that he now instinctually seeks God, that is a form of force.

Incorrect. Force implies resistance, so using the word force when dealing with the doctrine of irresistable grace is question-begging (i.e., you are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove). You will need to use a different word, one that does not beg the question.

Or continue begging the question. That is an option, too—not one to be proud of, but definitely an option.

[A] dead person cannot choose to live ... We were dead in our sins and trespasses but God made us alive.

Who did God make alive? Who is Paul talking about in Ephesians 2:5? Who is no longer dead? Absolutely everyone? Or those being saved?

 

[Mercy_Shown]

We do, and we confess them and repent and are forgiven. That is because God canceled the record of the charges against his sheep who believe, which stood against us and condemned us, taking it away and nailing it to the cross. In other words, those sins were punished on the cross of Christ, whose atoning sacrifice removed our guilt and fully satisfied God's just wrath.

The wicked goats neither confess their sins nor repent or seek forgiveness, because they love their sin and hate God. Their record of indebtedness was not taken away and nailed to the cross, for Christ died for the sheep and they are not his sheep.

Their sins were also paid for on that cross. "Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world." I know you claim that it was only the sins of the saints but 1 John 2:2 says, "... not our sins only but the sins of the whole world." How rich of a gift did God pour out upon this world?

The Pharisees also believed in the exclusivity of their salvation and relationship with God, but they were also wrong.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It is not a hidden premise. It says what it says and it's repeated in 1 John 2:2

Obviously, it says what it says. That was neither a helpful nor meaningful reply. Every English-speaking person in the world must agree on what it says because it's right there.

But what does it mean when it says that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of "the whole world"?

The very moment you begin answering that question, you are leaning on the hidden premise (that it means the whole world "without exception"). That is when it comes out. And since I am calling that premise into question, you must make a case for it exegetically.

And here's a good reason to believe it: The Bible says so, [that] he laid down his life for the whole world ...

Here is an excellent case in point. The Bible says (1) that Christ laid down his life for the sheep, and (2) that he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

This makes sense on the view I presented, that it is the whole world "without discrimination," such that his sheep are among both the Jews and the Gentiles alike.

But it is contradictory on the view you presented, for he laid down his life either for the sheep or for every single person. It cannot be both.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Dismissing even a single text of the bible is a terrible idea, especially when it is our Savior speaking. He is the truth.

And every reader—except you, apparently—can see that I did not dismiss the text but included it.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The light is Jesus Christ and the darkness is separation from Him. Those who do not know him are the ones that love the darkness. Darkness is not sin, it is what hides sin, whereas light exposes sin. When you read the texts you quoted you will notice that "who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" are descriptors and not the object of the punishment. It is the fruit of the darkness these individuals love.

Instead of just reasserting your claim, please deal with the scriptures I used to undermine your claim. Since it addressed all of that, there is no need for me to repeat it.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Their sins were also paid for on that cross. "Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world." I know you claim that it was only the sins of the saints but 1 John 2:2 says, "... not our sins only but the sins of the whole world." How rich of a gift did God pour out upon this world?

The Pharisees also believed in the exclusivity of their salvation and relationship with God, but they were also wrong.

Here, once again, you are merely reasserting your claim without bothering to engage any of the scriptures I provided.

 

[Arial]

The oft-heard refrain is, "Oh, I know it says that, but you have to understand that it doesn't mean what it says, it means this other thing."

That is not actually the refrain you hear. It is how you doctor what you hear instead of paying attention to,or giving any credence to, what is said. Even though in ordinary reading you would acknowledge and even do yourself, exactly what is being done in the refrain you hear. I.e. if you read in a novel, "The whole world had the flu." you would not for one second think that meant every individual in the world, but that it was a worldwide event.

One might think that whole world in 1 John 2:2 meant Jesus paid for all the sins of every individual if they did not take into consideration anything else on the subject in the Bible; or if they used it for a proof text against limited atonement because they did not like that word limited; or if they just believed what was comfortable to believe and replaced follow through logic with a manufactured resolution, never looking beyond it. I.e. "God gave man free will so He could have people who choose Him, even though He knew most people, having seen the light would choose darkness anyway." There become blinders then that does not even recognize that this has created the truly limited and weak atonement that puts all the weakness onto God, presents Him as a bit insane in fact---doing the same thing over again hoping for a different result.

Whereas in Reformed theology, the atonement does exactly what God intended it to do. Save His people.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

Here, once again, you are merely reasserting your claim without bothering to engage any of the scriptures I provided.

This is nonsense. I directly rebutted your definitions of light and darkness. Here it is again:The light is Jesus Christ and the darkness is separation from Him. Those who do not know him are the ones that love the darkness. Darkness is not sin, it is what hides sin, whereas light exposes sin. When you read the texts you quoted you will notice that "who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" are descriptors and not the object of the punishment. It is the fruit of the darkness these individuals love.

You are asking for a test-by-text rebuttal, a thing that you do not do yourself. But since you asked.

Exhibit 1: And light, of course, is a metaphor for righteousness—again, the holiness of God—and darkness is a metaphor for lawlessness, which is sin (1 John 3:4; e.g., 2 Cor 6:14).

1 John 3:4 says, "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness" This does not comment on sin being a metaphor for darkness. Darkness hides sin. i.e. people have loved the darkness rather than and more than the Light, for their works (deeds) were evil. (1John :19) Light exposes deeds. John 3:20 For every wrongdoer hates (loathes, detests) the Light, and will not come out into the Light but shrinks from it, lest his works (his deeds, his activities, his conduct) be exposed and reproved.

2 Corinthians 6:14 says, "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" Again we have a text that does not say that darkness is sin nor that righteousness is light. The righteous come into the light because the light shows what his works are: wrought by God. But he who practices truth [who does what is right] comes out into the Light; so that his works may be plainly shown to be what they are—wrought with God [divinely prompted, done with God’s help, in dependence upon Him]. John 3:21


Now I would expect the same detailed responses to the texts I quote.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

That is not actually the refrain you hear. It is how you doctor what you hear instead of paying attention to,or giving any credence to, what is said. Even though in ordinary reading you would acknowledge and even do yourself, exactly what is being done in the refrain you hear. I.e. if you read in a novel, "The whole world had the flu." you would not for one second think that meant every individual in the world, but that it was a worldwide event.

A novel and the bible are two very different things. Ith the bible I take the word at face value unless it is obviously hyperbole, a metephore, or a simile. In this specific case, I think it is pretty evident what the bible says even going so far as to point out two specific classes of people. i.e. Christians or "us" and "The whole world." My approach is to start off with the exact meaning of the text and then examine if there are any indicators that it is used as a figure of speech. I try to avoid accommodating my bias by dismissing the direct meaning of a text without cause.

One might think that whole world in 1 John 2:2 meant Jesus paid for all the sins of every individual if they did not take into consideration anything else on the subject in the Bible; or if they used it for a proof text against limited atonement because they did not like that word limited; or if they just believed what was comfortable to believe and replaced follow through logic with a manufactured resolution, never looking beyond it. I.e. "God gave man free will so He could have people who choose Him, even though He knew most people, having seen the light would choose darkness anyway." There become blinders then that does not even recognize that this has created the truly limited and weak atonement that puts all the weakness onto God, presents Him as a bit insane in fact---doing the same thing over again hoping for a different result.

Or more likely they are correct and it fits into the rest of the scriptures.

John 7:17
If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Romans 10:9-10
Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

John 1:12-13
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Whereas in Reformed theology, the atonement does exactly what God intended it to do. Save His people.

Whether reformed or not, it is the same atonement. The only difference is not found in the atonement it is found in whether or not there is a choice to be made or a simple reprogramming of the heart on selected individuals.

 

[Arial]

It is not a hidden premise. It says what it says and is repeated in 1 John 2:2 Because it goes against the beliefs of some, they decide it doesn't mean what it says. This is not the only case in which I have seen this.

The oft-heard refrain is, "Oh, I know it says that, but you have to understand that it doesn't mean what it says, it means this other thing." And here's a good reason to believe it: The bible says so. He laid down his life for the whole world knowing that the whole world would not accept his gift of eternal life. But he did it anyway. He did it for whoever would believe in him which was open to all.

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ou14rs only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Propitiation: The act of appeasing the wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person.

Col 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has take it away, nailing it to the cross.

This of course was written to those in Christ by faith---believers. What you have is this, put in human terms: Someone offering to pay a debt and the indebted either accepting or rejecting the offer. Therefore you have Jesus not actually appeasing the wrath of God or paying a debt, even though scripture says He did both of those things, but Jesus merely offering to pay the debt, even though he actually gave His actual life and suffering to propitiate and pay. You do not have an actual propitiation and you do not have an actual payment. And the proof of God accepting this payment and propitiation is in His resurrection and ascension.

 

[Mercy_Shown]

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ou14rs only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Propitiation: The act of appeasing the wrath and conciliating the favor of an offended person.

Col 2:13-14 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has take it away, nailing it to the cross.

This of course was written to those in Christ by faith---believers. What you have is this, put in human terms: Someone offering to pay a debt and the indebted either accepting or rejecting the offer. Therefore you have Jesus not actually appeasing the wrath of God or paying a debt, even though scripture says He did both of those things, but Jesus merely offering to pay the debt, even though he actually gave His actual life and suffering to propitiate and pay. You do not have an actual propitiation and you do not have an actual payment. And the proof of God accepting this payment and propitiation is in His resurrection and ascension.

This would be true if the Damned were dying for their sins. But they are dying because they love darkness more than light. Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. Not just some sins but sin. This is founding Romans 8:3
Those that die eternally die in their sins not for their sins.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Now, I would expect the same detailed responses to the texts I quote.

All right, let's take a closer look at your rebuttal.

I had said, "Light, of course, is a metaphor for righteousness—again, the holiness of God—and darkness is a metaphor for lawlessness, which is sin," a claim that was drawn from 1 John 3:4 and 2 Corinthians 6:14.

And your rebuttal of this claim began by saying that 1 John 3:4 does not support that sin is a metaphor for darkness—"This does not comment on sin being a metaphor for darkness"—which frankly left me dumbstruck because this rebuts a claim that I wasn't making. The relationship of metaphor is asymmetric (i.e., elephant being a metaphor for memory does not suggest that memory is a metaphor for elephant). There is little else for me to do with this beyond highlighting your futile straw man.

I said that darkness is a metaphor for lawlessness and pointed to 2 Corinthians 6:14 as an example of what I was saying (as that citation was preceded with "e.g."). There, Paul rhetorically asked, "What partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship does light have with darkness?" Give due attention to the comparative conjunction "or" that Paul uses there, wherein he is underscoring a similarity between righteousness versus lawlessness and light versus darkness. Light is a metaphor for righteousness, and darkness is a metaphor for lawlessness. (But, again, that relationship is asymmetrical; e.g., righteousness is not a metaphor for light.)

And then I pointed to 1 John 3:4 to emphasize that lawlessness is sin, which is just what the text says. So, darkness is a metaphor for lawlessness (with a reference to Paul for this point), and lawlessness is sin (with a reference to John for this point).

Again, the wicked prefer darkness to light because they love their sin and hate God who lays bare their sin by his holiness. And, again, it is God himself who is the basis for judgment, for there is no moral standard higher than his own holiness. "Sin" by definition is missing that mark.

So, my question remains: If their wicked deeds, evil thoughts, shameful lusts, love of darkness, and unbelief are all sin, and if Christ fully paid the penalty for all their sin, whose atoning sacrifice removed their sin guilt and satisfied God's just wrath (1 John 2:2), then what are they doing in hell?

 

[Arial]

A novel and the bible are two very different things. Ith the bible I take the word at face value unless it is obviously hyperbole, a metephore, or a simile. In this specific case, I think it is pretty evident what the bible says even going so far as to point out two specific classes of people. i.e. Christians or "us" and "The whole world."

How about if I said book instead of novel? Is the Bible, a book, read any differently than any other book? And don't forget how frequently you define God's attributes by comparing them to hypothetical actions of men, or human examples. "the whole world" is not hyperbole, a metaphore, or a simile. And you are using "classes" wrong. It is not pointing out two different classes of people. The "us" are the ones who receive the letter---in this case most likely Jewish Christians, as John was an apostle to the Jews. So "us" could be all believers or it could in this instance be saying not only Jews but Gentiles and in any case is both---the whole world.

My approach is to start off with the exact meaning of the text and then examine if there are any indicators that it is used as a figure of speech

That is a backward approach and highly susceptible to arriving at the wrong conclusion. One cannot actually know the meaning of a scripture if it sounds like one thing at face value, unless it is determined whether that first reading is contradicting anything else that is clear on the same subject. In this case, your rendering would contradict the meaning of propitiation, and contradict what was accomplished on the cross.

I try to avoid accommodating my bias by dismissing the direct meaning of a text without cause.

There is cause within the sentence itself with the use of the word "propitiation." You accommodate your bias by failing to consider the meaning of that word. Instead you roll it all forward into the bias, that is nowhere supported in scripture, and no one has as yet or anywhere, demonstrated that it is in Scripture, that the effectiveness of the work of Christ is dependant upon God's kindness and fairness in giving us a choice of acceptance or rejection.

Or more likely they are correct and it fits into the rest of the scriptures.

John 7:17
If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Romans 10:9-10
Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

John 1:12-13
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

None of which contain what you say short of eisegesis----confirmation bias. They are used as proof texts.

Whether reformed or not, it is the same atonement. The only difference is not found in the atonement it is found in whether or not there is a choice to be made or a simple reprogramming of the heart on selected individuals.

Nevertheless, what I stated is the Reformed view. If it is dependent of man's choice we have a different atonement than the atonement that is with specific intent. The first removes the meaning of propitiation, reconciliation, forgiveness, justification, even atonement. The second has all those things as having actually been done on the cross.

 

[makesends]

God will present every man a choice and He will make them alive enough to understand the choice. What God will not do is give one class of people the magic pill of His grace while denying it to the other and then punishing them for their sins.

As I have said before, God knows the outcome and has known it forever, but He will still cast the seed and send rain and sunshine upon it so that every man is judged by their own decision to pursue what they love.

You don't seem to see the fact that God can make creatures that are barely sentient compared to him, who deserve nothing, and make them for his own purposes —even if that purpose is for destruction, he still is just when they do what deserves destruction, just as he planned.

What seems strange to me, though, is that you equate the ability to choose, with the ability to choose unhindered or uncaused. A pervert does perverse things; it doesn't excuse him of his perversion. He is perverse —he chooses perversion.