Are Ananias and Sapphira in heaven?

Christ pays our debt in full - our debt of suffering. "The stroke" that was due to us.

The result of paying that debt "in full" (Matt 18:34-35) of suffering on a finite being is that they are "destroyed both body and soul" Matt 10 and they are "exterminated" -- sin and sinnners are "no more".

But when Christ pays that debt of suffeirng (since it is finite and not many infinities) He as an infinite being continues after "paying the debt of suffering in full".

His payment is not only for OUR SIN but "for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2.

Not in a "grocery story" where food purchased is taken away from the store owner. But in an "atonement model" where God Himself SUFFERS on our behalf paying the debt of suffering we ALL owe (God was IN CHRIST reconciling the WORLD to Himself) 2Cor 5.

So under substitionary atonement the LAW is satisified in terms of penalty. But the LAW must ALSO be satisified in terms of "exterminating the sinner" - for that reason we must be "born again" and we must "put to death the deeds of the flesh" Romans 8:5-15

 

HI BOB,

You fall into the same trap as those saying that all sins, past present and future are all paid for but in a different way. You make the atonement, in relationship to the ‘sin debt’, an exact replica of model that you criticize the Calvinist for using. You criticize what you call a ‘grocery store model’ and then develop one of like kind for your own ideas. I see no distinction, in principle, between the way others develop that 'grocery store' model you say you disagree with, and the way you develop your own idea concerning the sin debt and the annihilation of the wicked.

HP: The atonement did not speak ‘directly’ to any individual sin, nor did it speak individually to anyone’s particular debt of sin owed. It was directed to the law and its penalty called for, to be able to set aside its demands under certain conditions. It only speaks directly to an individual's sin as we take advantage of the offer of grace by the fulfilling of the conditions God has laid down.

I can see nothing in Scripture that the atonement changes, as far as the fate of the wicked, apart for making the possibility of a pardon a living reality in this present world. The same penalty for sin that applied without any atonement, still applies to the wicked subsequent to the atonement, i.e., eternal separation from God. In this the Calvinist is absolutely Scripturally correct and in line with the clear teachings of the Word of God.

( Here is a note for all those on the list that feel because two different words are used in the same text that two different notions are involved.
The terms "Scriprally" correct, and "teaching of the Word of God," are to be seen and understood as referring to the same thing.)

HP: The sinner that has not accepted the grace of God via repentance and faith, will not be exterminated in any eternal sense according to Scripture. The sinner and his desires will last for eternity in a living hell, but their ‘way’, i..e, the means by which that are necessary to carry out their desires will indeed be found to have been annihilated. Their torment will be in part to have those wicked and selfish desires for eternity, but will not possess the means necessary to fulfill them, just as the rich man in hell found not a drop of water to quench his thirst.

The notion that the wicked will not suffer an eternity in hell is at direct antipodes with the clear teachings of Scripture.

 

I have been debating "the distinction you say you don't see" with Calvinists for quite some time now.

In the grocery store model they claim that it is all done - so after the cross no sin debt. That means they can not apply what was done to ALL or else ALL would be saved "Universalism".

But I argue that this is ATONEMENT not a grocery store and atonement (see Lev 16) means you need BOTH the Atoning Sacrifice (Lamb slain) AND you need the unique and specific work of our High Priest (Lev 16) that Hebrews says started AFTER the Cross!

In Heb 4 we see that it is an individual and spefic work of Christ for each one of us. IF we come to HIM then we do find mercy and acceptance in times of need. IF we do NOT then we are not forgiven!

COMPLETE atonement according to Lev 16 needs BOTH the Atoning Sacrifice of the CROSS and the continued ministry of Christ for the individual that follows! Therefore my view DOES allow that the sacrifice was for ALL MANKIND (not the limited gospel limited atonement model of Calvinism) - but then each member of mankind must encounter the savior one-on-one individually.

The Law of God is upheld ONLY if the penalty IT defines is fully met -- otherwise it is abolished. God is both JUST (satisfying the demands of the law) and the JUSTIFIER (High Priest mediation and transforming power for the sinner turned saint - adopted and born again. the New creation).

IN Christ,

Bob

 

I think that makes a good contrast to these texts.

The sinner must “repay all” the debt owed – not “some” or “eternally less”.

In the model of eternal suffering the sinner is always an “eternity” away from paying ALL that is owed.

Sin and Sinners are “exterminated” not “perpetuated”

Is 13:9 – sinners are exterminated from the land.

Quote:
Isaiah 13
Quote:
Isaiah 13:9
Behold, the day of the LORD is coming,Cruel, with fury and burning anger,To make the land a desolation;And He will exterminate its sinners from it.



God’s plan does not allow for sinners – eternally enabled to sin against God.

Quote:
Gen 3
Quote:
22 Then the LORD God said, ""Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever''

23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

Death is ended.
"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." (1 Cor. 15:26)


[b]The Lake of FIRE IS the 2nd death Rev 20:18 – So it too ends.[/b]


The wicked are “consumed” they are “destroyted”.

The same concept of Kill and “Destroy” applied in the real world to real saints really being killed by real wicked people is applied to BOTH the body and the soul in hell fire in Christ’s warning .

In Matt 10 Christ goes from the idea of “Kill” to the even MORE complete idea of “Kill and destroy” in the sequence above. This progression is seen clearly as Luke relates the same teaching below.

Rev 20:9 “Fire DEVOURED the wicked”
Rev 11:18 “Destroy those who Destroy the earth”
2Thess 1:9 The wicked pay the “penalty of eternal Destruction”

Ps 21:8-10 “devoured” – “Destroyed”

[/quote]

=======================================================

The wicked will “be no more”

The wicked are “consumed”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Bob, the OP of this thread is: Are Ananias and Sapphira in heaven? It is not about the SDA doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked. If you wish to discuss such doctrine please start another thread, otherwise post to the topic at hand. Thanks.
DHK

 

"Christ never suffered..." Do you limit God as to what He can and cannot do? Of course he can suffer the literal payment for our sins. Who, besides you, says that he cannot. He is onipotent is he not? Don't take Christ's divinity away from Him. Don't limit Him to just being a man. He wasn't. It is true that he experienced those sufferings as man would suffer them. But He was still God at the same time. Being God He was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Being God he suffered the penalty for all the sins throughout all the ages of all mankind. Being God He had that capability; he is omnipotent. Oft times durinng his three years in his ministry Jesus showed us glimpses of his deity--in his miracles, in his words, in the Mount of Transfiguration, and so on. He was no ordinary man. He was and is God. For that very reason alone He could take the penalty for man's sin literally upon himself. Remember that time is man-made, or to put it another way, made for the sake of man. When God created the universe, the sun, the moon, the earth, and the earth rotating around its axis and circling around the sun, that automatically created time as well. Before then, there was no time. Thus Christ dying in 29 A.D. has no bearing in eternity. There is no time in eternity. This is quite philosophical and difficult for many to understand. But we confine ourselves to time. Christ, the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, is not confined to time. There was nothing, therefore, prohibiting Him from literally dying for all the sins of mankind.

It is not simply a case of satisfying the demands of the law, God's law, (which He did), He satisfied all the demands of God himself. That is what 1John2:1 teaches. "And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world." That rules out Calvinism. It says that he satisfied the legal demands of God as the Judge, and we as the sinners (guilty and convicted).

The wages of sin is death--separation from God for all eternity. That is true for all mankind of all ages. Eternity mens exactly what it says: forever and ever. Those who refect Christ as Saviour will be judged at the Great White Throne Judgement and will be cast into the Lake of Fire and there will be tormented day and night foreever and ever. Ther Bible can't get much plainer than that. Are you going to contradict those words?

You have yet to demonstrate that your beliefs are consistent with what the Bible teaches.

You state that but your logic is wrog. Thus yoir conclusion is wrong. In your assumptions you do away with the deity of Christ, and limit Christ as to what he can or cannot do. Shall I ask you, Who are you to limit God? BTW, has it ever occurred to you why Christ suffered "more than any other human? I have heard of others sufferings that would seem to be greater than the sufferings of Christ as far as physical torture is concerned. If you read how some of the saints such as Adoniram Judson was tortured, or Rirchard Wurmbrandt, or many of the First Century Christians, and how they suffered and died; also what sufferings the Christians went through at the hands of the RCC Inquisitors. Can I really say that all of these saints actually suffered physically less than Christ. It may not be so. Why did Christ suffer so much more than others. The thieves on the cross suffered crucifixion too. What was different about theirs than the crucifixion of Christ. It was a common mode of execution? Why do we say that Christ suffered more than any other individual? Surely others have physically suffered more.
The reason is that this man, left the glories of Heaven, being God made himself flesh, and as God died an inhuman death that he didn't deserve. He was perfect--perfectly man and perfectly God--both at the same time. That is what made the suffering so painful and aweful. The Divine Son of God and the Pefect Son of Man hung on the cross and literally shed his blood for all humanity.

This is where your logic breaks down. You keep saying (with no evidence) that Christ would have had to pay an eternal death for everyone. The Roman Catholics believe something similar. Why do you when you know it is heresy? There is no time with God the Father. There is no time in eternity. Only with man is there time. Why are you trying to confine God the Son, who died for the sins for all mankind to time, to the fact that the earth rotates around its axis. What does the earth rotating around its axis or around the sun have to do with Christ dying for the sins of all mankind. It has nothing to do with it. But you confine him to these mundane earthly events, which will someday be burnt up with all the rest of the universe.

And why not? A penalty for sin had to be paid. Christ paid the penalty for our sins with his own precious blood. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. It is the blood of Jesus Christ that cleanses us from all sin. That sounds pretty clear to me. It is what the Bible teaches.
DHK

 

I Corinthians 11 says that when we are judged, we are chastized that we might not be condemned with the world. Apparently the church there was not partaking of the Lord's Supper properly, and so some of the saints were getting sick and dying over it.

I would imagine this at least leaves open the possibility that Annanias and Saphira made it, though I don't think I would offer to be handcuffed to either of them on the day of judgment.

 

Maybe you can clarify that for me. HP is arguing that the DEBT OWED can not be PAID by Christ because it IS ETERNAL TORMENTING and not just for ONE Lost soul but for BILLIONS of lost souls. So ONE ETERNAL being could AT MOSt pay the price of ONE ETERNAL debt.

AM I missing anything so far??

Or are you arguing that HPs point and all your responses to that point should go somewhere else?

OR are you saying that you don't see any connection at all between DEFINING the debt owed and the claim that Christ as our substitutionary atoning sacrifice PAID the debt owed??

Please clarify.

Because I must have missed something there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:
You cannot escape the literal logical end of the ‘literal payment theory’s’ argument you are espousing. A satisfaction being made to the demands of the penalty of the law, and the setting aside of that penalty being accomplished in relationship to an individuals actual sins by the fulfilling of certain conditions, are NOT notions synonymous with the idea of the literal payment theory you are setting forth.

DHK -

Is this where I post my previous post "again" that points out that HPs entire argument is BASED on "defining what is OWED" - and then your innexplicable statment that "what is owed" should not be discussed here???

 

To put it eve more bluntly --

I am offering a solution that ALLOWS for the subtitutionary atoning sacrifice to BE ACTUAL PAYMENT while ALSO allowing for HP's insistence that PAYMENT made be actually WHAT IS OWED and not some stripped down token replacement.

Why offering a solution to that debate you are already fully engaged in - appears to be out of order on this thread is beyond me IF your existing debate is within bounds.

 

In response to some of the recent posts by DHK, and others, isn’t it wonderful that in spite of all the logic or lack thereof, and in spite of all the disagreement as to the penalty for sin or the nature of the atonement, that the precious blood of Jesus Christ can reach down to each one of us and cleanse every spot and save us to the uttermost! Right doctrine or sound logic has no power, in and of itself, to atone for the punishment of , or forgive us for, even one sin. Right doctrine will save no one. Any and all that are saved will be saved as an indirect blessing of God setting aside the penalty for sin on our behalf. I for one am eternally grateful for that condescension of Divine Mercy and Grace!

I can only say, in regard to Ananias and Sapphira, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

 

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

If you are unable to discuss the OP without bringing SDA heresy of the annihilation of the wicked then please do not post in this thread. That is not what this thread is about.
DHK

 

In this post I requested a substantive response to the actuall subject from DHK --

Now this is the "easy part" -- but what response is posted from DHK "instead"??

innexplicably DHK said

AS I mentioned - I am more than happy to conclude that DHK is totally out of line discussing the DEBT owed by the sinner with HP (in a strict sense of the OP title) but IF we ARE going to allow that discussion then THE SOLUTION to the problem (which is what I am offering ) is not ALSO out of bounds!

How much more obvious can this point be?

What am I missing here?

Even HP has agreed that THIS is the salient point in his argument!!

How far out on that limb is DHK willing to go??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
The question of Annanias and Sapphira being in heaven or not in heaven (thus its default--hell), centers around the atonement, which we have been discussing. Either a person is eternally secured with God or a person is eternally separated from God. The question of the annihiliation of the wicked does not enter into this question. If you want to discuss that doctrine start another thread.
DHK

 

Bob,
Unless you do not understand my above post here it is again:

The wicked are not destroyed. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever in the lake of fire which also will last forever and ever. There is eternal torment for the wicked contrary to your above post. Again, if you want to discuss the annihilation of the wicked do it somewhere else.
DHK

 

DHK in case you did not understand my post - here it is again.

IF the DEBT OWED is key to the debate that you and HP are having when discussing the topic "DID Christ PAY the DEBT that the sinner owes" then how in the world can a post that deals with DEFINING what that debt IS - be "off topic".

I have no doubt that my "view" differs with yours as to the "definition" -- but how in the world - do you get to "The definitoin of what is OWED is not within the bounds" of this debate over whether Christ DID pay the DEBT that we OWE!!

Even HP admits that this point is central to his argument.

How can you take the position that it is "another topic" when in fact it is the CENTER upon which HP's argument hinges??

 

If the debt owed is "finite" and cumulative for all mankind - then it can be measured and paid "exactly".

If the debt owed is "infinite" for even ONE sin - then "by definition" an infinite being could only pay for AT MOST one sin.

I "show" in Luke 12 and in other places that the debt is measured, finite and has a relationship so that one person owes much while another does not.

This goes straight to HP's argument. This is the point I am trying to address. Your "take that subject some place else" makes no sense at all once you allow the debate that HP has raised. Your claim could only work if you dissallow the entire discussion on "Did Christ actually pay the debt that WE OWE as sinners".

Step 1 - "define the debt"
Step 2- "SHOW" how that debt is paid in atonement.

HP keeps coming back to the "definition of the debt" to make his case and his argument is irrefutable if you fail to get the right definition.

That is where your argument struggles on this point - even though I agree with you that Christ paid the actual debt - you have conceded HP's point by agreeing to the very definition that refutes your position.

I am not embracing that conflicted position and I am showing a solution to the problem that gets to "The definition" for what is OWED that HP keeps bringing up.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

Thank you, Heavenly Pilgrim. That is one of the best posts I've read all day!

 

Unnecessary attack on moderators (and others) are not tolerated.
Since there is another thread started on the atonement this one will be closed, as it has veered off onto that topic anyway.

For what it is worth my personal opinion on the OP, is that Ananias and Sapphira were believers that were judged by God for their hypocrisy with a physical death. This is not much different than the believers in Corinth (1Cor.11:30) who were also judged by both sickness and death for abusing the Lord's Supper. They were believers that encountered the chastening hand of the Lord.
DHK