A Proper Concept of the Atonement

What are you talking about? Whoever said those who abide are lost? The whole point is that they are not lost. The question is on those who do not abide.

You never have proven they were ever saved. You use passages about "vines" that are not even talking about individuals (making the same mistake as Calvinists in Rom.9)

Where do you get that from? Why would an eternal being only be able to pay for at most one person or sin? I had said a sinless finite person would only be able to pay for only one "life for life". How do you figure that Christ the Creator could pay for no more?

 

As I showed in the case of Luke 12 specific debt is owed (different debt) by each individual - some more than others.

I also show that all must given an account - the legal debt is calculated "for the deeds done in the body whether they are good or evil".

I shows that the "stroke due to us" the debt we owe - was placed upon him.

I showed that the term used in Col 2 is the same as the legal bond or debt "certificate of debt" and showed by the Greek and Aramic use and definition.

Because the debt is not "infinite" but is measured and relatively greater or lesser for each individual (Luke 12) and because Christ takes "the stroke DUE to us" legally accounted as DUE us - this is the entire meaning of "substitution" -- He is placed in our place for the debt we owe - He pays.

But if all sin occurs the same debt "infinite debt - infinite torture" then an infinite being could only pay for at most one sin - and then you would be right that the Bible teaching on substitution would not fit with the idea of infinite debt owed not just by each person but -- for each sin of each person.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Explain how it is that if the debt is not "infinite for each sin committed" that "Atonement would not be able to account for all sin".

You say in your post above that this would be a problem EVEN if the debt owed is not infinite.

How is that?

"Behold I stand at the door and knock - if anyone hears AND OPENS the door I will come in and fellowship" Rev 3.

It is clear that the decision to accept salvation is with mankind.

If your argument is "Calvinism is true so given that - how can we accept salvation with our own choice being the determining factor" then -- I argue that Calvinism is error.

If your argument is "once the price is paid we should not owe and we should have universalism" then I would argue that the grocery store model does suggest that - but the Atonement model declares that BOTH the payment AND the work of High Priest must be applied to see who is saved.

IF it was just the payment - then all would have been saved at the cross - "universalism".

That only works in the grocery story if "God had gotten paid" then we would not expect HIM to be "paid again". But in Atonement GOD is the one WHO PAYS so He is the one who determines if HIS payment is to be used by the sinner since HE paid.

If I buy a car for you and then you insult me - do I still have to GIVE you the car? The answer is no. That is not a grocery store model.

But if someone buys my car from me - they can then give it to you even if you insult me. That is a true grocery model.

both Exek 18 and Matt 18 do that very thing. Matt 18 is explicit in showing "forgiveness accepted, received" and then "that same forgiveness revoked".

In each case where you have asked for the text showing the point - I have given it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:
This is a circular arugment that was stiillborn from the moment of the post. It makes no sense at all to ANSWER the problem of ETERNAL and therefore INFINITE debt owed by ONE person for ONE sin and the fact that an ETERNAL and therefore INFINITE being could only pay for AT MOST ONE -- with the circular argument offerred above.

The fact that this is the hole that both ERIC and DHK settle for is in fact "instructive" as it means -- they have no other option!

If infinite debt is the payment owed for each sin - then an infinite being could at most pay for the debt owed by one sin.

Obviously.

 

Quote:
I have shown in scripture where those who DO go off and do whatever they wish sometime after salavtion are then condemned. Your response has been that "A- we can not allow those texts to apply to us today" because that threatens security and the stability of salvation (i.e. read OSAS) or "B - those guys ABIDING IN Christ and IN the VINE of Christ are lost while ABIDING in HIM so failing to continue to ABIDE IN Him just makes them losterrr".

So "yes" I would say you are having a problem with that concept contrary to your claim in the statement above.

You are not paying any attention at all to the details in either John 15 or Romans 11.

In John 15 "abiding IN CHRIST" is in reference to branches IN the vine who do not go on to produce fruit.

Your argument is that they " are not in the vine to start with" -- no mention AT ALL is made to branches in John 15 that were NEVER in the vine and NEVER expected to produce fruit.

In Romans 11 there is NO MENTION at all of branches that were never in the vine and who are in that state "at risk of losing something". They are not even in the story at all!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bump to keep this in view for HP when he returns

 

Uh, infinity is not a definite number where you can limit it like that. Infinity times infinity is infinity. And infinite being can pay the debt of an infinite number of sins.

You still do not understand what "the vine" is in those passages. Israel is called "the vine", but were all of them saved? No. The vine is the covenant relationship. The Jews were in by inheritance, but then cut off. It is now offered to Gentiles, but if they refuse the Gospel and believe for the wrong reason like the Jews did, they too wi become hardened, and essetially rejected from the new covenant they had come so close to.

 

There you have said it. What is the disagreement? Is it in a definition of terms?
What is the substitutionary atonement (a literal payment for sins) if it is not literal, what is it? He literally paid for our sins. That is what the atonement is all about. It is pictured for us in the Old Testament where the High Priest entered once a year into the Holy of Holies and offered a goat for the sins of the nation of Israel. He took another goat, placed his hands upon it, and it symbolically took our sins into the wilderness never to be remembered no more. Blood was shed, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. And in type the other goat became our burden-bearer as Christ is now. He bore the penalty of our sins. He paid the ransom. He literally paid the penalty that God demanded. That is what the atonement is all about. The High Priest met the demands that God required at that time. And Christ met the requirements of God the Father 2,000 years ago. He took upon himself the sins of the world.

He was the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world (1John 2:1)
DHK

 

what difference does any of this make?

 

The problem is bigger than that. AS you stated in your earlier post it is an "infinite amount of torture" that is "the wage" of ONE SINGLE SIN!

If INFINITE suffering is really the DEBT owed by ONE sin - then and INFINITE being can pay at most -- the debt of ONE sin according to DHK and according to your own view of this.

And therein is the strength of your argument HP because DHK concedes your central point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Matt 10 Christ said that God destroys BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell JUST as in this life the body is literally killed.

I do not believe that a "destroyed soul" is in a state of "union" with God. I agree that it "IS no more" as the Bible says of the wicked. But "Being no more" is not the definiton of "restored fellowship with God".

So while I believe in eternal separation in that case - it is more correct to say that I believe the Luke 12 concept of exact amounts of punishment meeted out - some more and some less INSTEAD of "INFINITE torture" for every sin as you and DHK have defined it.

By having the price of ONE sin be "infinite torture" - infinite punishment - an infinite being can pay for at most "one" sin. And in that case your point would be irrefutable.

The wicked will pay the debt of torment and suffering "owed" for each sin (exactly that debt of suffering - no more, no less). Then as a result of that - they will die. God will not a work a miracle and raise them from the dead - he will leave them in that state. The resulting state of having paid their own debt of sin in full. The debt of suffering followed by death.


In Christ,


Bob

 

I agree that Christ did not simply cease to exist for all eternity. No question.

But the DEBT owed is the suffering of the second death. The END - death itself is a RELEASE from that torment.