Why the crucifixion?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Helen, Oct 28, 2005.

  1. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    If, as I am being told again and again by the Calvinists here, Christ did not die to take away the sin of the world, did not suffer crucifixion to atone for ALL sin for all time, but that people still go to hell for their sins, then why, please, was Christ crucified?
     
  2. timothy27

    timothy27
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ was crucified to pay the debt of sinners, as sinners our debt is paid if we accept him as our saviour. If you do not you will die for that debt. Christ out of his own mouth said I shall do this thing, not for the WORLD, but for those you have given me. The power of the atonement is sufficient for all the sins of all the world, but efficacious for the elect.
     
  3. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,180
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Well, let's see. Here is a novel thought! Let's look at what the Scriptures say!

    1 Corinthians 15:3 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;"

    Galatians 1:4 "Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:"

    Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"

    1 Peter 2:24 "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."

    1 John 3:5 "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin."

    1 John 4:10 "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

    Revelation 1:5 "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"

    It is simply amazing what you can learn by actually reading the bible!
     
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The basic concept of the atonement make as much sense as saying that I am angry with you so I will hit my thumb with a hammer and everything will be OK.
     
  5. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even the question is asked in a misleading way. Why cannot we have honest straightforward discussion without misrepresenting what someone else believes. Helen, is that really too much to ask?

    But like Thomas says, the Bible is clear on this.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I think you will find both Arminians and Calvinists sayhing that people go to hell for their own sins if they do not accept salvation. Rev 20 is a good place to see the wicked suffering based on what they did.

    The difference is that Arminians would argue that Christ took on the debt of all mankind at the cross.

    Lev 16 shows this when it defines God's concept of "Atonement" in the day of Atonement. The "goat of the sin offering" has placed upon it all the sins of all the people and is then killed as a substitutionary atoning sacrifice.

    1John 2:2 says that God made Christ the "Atoning Sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world" NIV.

    But the individual must believe, confess, repent etc (which are also gifts offerred to all via the Gospel where Christ supernaturally draws ALL MANKIND unto Him John 12:32).

    If the wicked sinful person does not accept that way of escape - then they are forfeit the grace that would have been theirs - they reject the way of escape God has provided and they suffer for their own sins.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    1.If people go to hell for not believing in Christ, by your own yardstick either Christ did not pay for the sin of unbelief or unbelief is not a sin or in double jeopardy for sin. Which of these do you believe?

    2. If you believe Christ did not pay for the sin of unbelief, then you agree that Christ did not atone for ALL sin, don't you?

    3. Where does the Bible link the definition of "world" and "all people without exception" together with the atonement?

    The reason Calvinist's limit the atonement's scope is because they understand the extensional fallacy.

    Christians who deny special redemption typically appeal to the “pantos” passages of Scripture. But this confuses extension (referent) with intension (sense). A universal quantifier has a standard intension, but a variable extension. And that follows from the nature of a quantifier, which is necessarily general and abstract rather than specific and concrete marker. That’s what makes it possible to plug in concrete content. A universal quantifier is a class quantifier. As such, it can have no fixed range of reference. In each case, that must be supplied by the concrete context and specific referent. In other words, a universal quantifier has a definite intension but indefinite extension. So its extension is relative to the level of generality of the reference-class in view. Thus, there is no presumption in favor of taking “all” or “every” as meaning everyone without exception. “All” or “every” is always relative to all of something.

    "World" has at least 7 different points of reference in John's writing alone. It is up to the person who believes in general atonement to justify his assumption that "world" means "everybody without exception" and not another definition each time it appears.

    4. 1 John 2:2 is a case of parallel language. Rather than attaching an assumed meaning of "world" to the text, the Calvinist looks to see how John himself defines his terms.

    First, in 1 John, there is a parallel passage @ 1 John 5:19 in which we are told the "world" lies in the power of the evil one, yet, immediately beforehand, John himself says that Christians are not under his power. Thus, in the letter itself, John trades on multiple meanings for "world."

    The exact parallel for 1 John 2:2 is John 11:51, 52. John's own language tells us how he defines "world," with reference to the atonement.

    Jn. 11:51-52
    he prophesied that
    Jesus
    would die for
    the nation
    and not for the nation only
    but also
    that he would gather together in one
    the children of God scattered abroad.

    1 John 2:2
    And
    He Himself
    is the propitiation for
    our sins
    but also
    for (those of)
    the whole world.

    John himself is seen to define the scope of the atonement for us with respect to "the world" to be "the children of God scattered abroad," not all men without exception.

    5. God can be said to redeem the whole world through Christ the same way that He says He redeems all Israel through returning only a remnant into the land in the OT after their exile. Only Judah and Benjamin and some Levites returned along with a few stragglers from the other tribes said to be of "indeterminate" origin. Most of the other tribes (those from the North) did not return and were completely dispersed and not heard from again and are said to still be in exile (when certain texts were written) because they had never repented of the sins of their fathers and only persisted in them while in exile. Here, the portion is spoken of in terms of the whole.

    In a similar way, in atoning for the sins of persons from every tribe tongue and nation, Christ is said to atone for the sins of the world itself. The world in this case in the eschatological world. Through their redemption, the world's sins are paid, for they are the ones through whom God will, on the last day, be seen to have saved the world.

    6. This is always rather ironic in evangelism, because Arminians end up, in practice, telling folks to believe Jesus died for them in order to be saved, which tacitly involves alleging that a person must believe a particular theory of the atonement for salvation. Calvinists, if they preach consistently with their theology, will say that Christ died for sinners and that we must repent and believe in Him. Believing Christ died for you in particular is a result of coming to saving faith in Him and being saved, not a requirement for being saved. Nowhere in Scripture, do we find an evangelistic sermon in which the hearers are told to believe Christ died for them in particular.


    That's true, and in Numbers we are told the law of the sacrifice is the same for all classes of people. "All the people" on this day refers to the Jews native to the land and any strangers with them who have been circumcised and are thus in the covenant. In Jewish theology, it came to include proselytes, the Ninevites who repented, and the Jews in Ethiopia, and anyone else brought into the covenant, but never all people in the world without exception who are outside of the covenant. Thus, its scope is always with reference to the covenant people of God, not all people in the world, including those outside the covenant.

    The picture is thus 1:1. The Old Covenant pictures the sacrifice for the covenant people on the day of atonement. In the New Cov. the sacrifice is for the covenant people on the day of atonement.

    [ October 28, 2005, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Just like it is up to those who try to charget that in the Bible "god does not really mean God" when it comes to Christ -- to "prove those charges", so also it is up to those who DO NOT believe God "SO LOVED THE WORLD" to prove those charges!.

    Just like those who argue that there is no real millennium must "prove" such charges - it is up to those who claim that it is wrong to suppose that "God is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" -- to prove it.

    Just like those who argue that Christ did not really rise bodily from the dead -- must prove such charges -- so it is up to those who argue that we should not believe that "HE is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for our sins only but for the WHOLE WORLD" NIV 1John 2:2 to prove it.

    Just like those who charge that that God did not really create the world in six days and rest on the seventh day -- must prove those charges SO those who deny that "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the World" 1John 4:14 must prove those charges.

    The burden of proof IS ALWAYS on the ones denying the clear statement of scripture!

    Obviously.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    If you pay attention to the difference between the "Goat" and the "High Priest" that God teaches us about in Lev 16 - you will not make the leap into univeralism OR into the error of limited atoning sacrifice where God only dies for the one's He arbitrarilyl selects.

    It is simple - just believe God!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gene, in another thread, I questioned whether unbelief was a sin or not. This may sound strange, but Paul makes a real point of saying that sin is defined by the law and made active in its effect by knowledge of the law. There is no law given regarding belief on Christ in the Bible. We are told that the only way to salvation in through belief, but that is pointing to the road, not a command to take it. Belief is a choice. Unbelief leads to horrid consequences, but I don't see the Bible defining it as a sin.

    However, I'm willing to ignore that possibility for the sake of this discussion, because there is something more important on my mind here. Let's start with some of the material in your post. You stated, and I have no disagreement with it, that the law of sacrifice in the OT was for the Jews/Hebrews/Israelites and those with them who had been circumcised, including those you also mentioned but not including the world outside of that.

    However it did apply to all those in the Israelite camp. There was no requirement that they be repentant or even believers. The atoning sacrifices by the priests covered everyone.

    In the New Testament Paul says a mystery has been revealed to him: that God's grace extends not just to the Jews, His elect, but to the Gentiles as well (Col 1:26-27, Eph. 3:6, etc.).

    If we then go to Hebrews, we see what appears to be the extent of this. I am quoting from the NIV right now, but feel free to correct me if they have translated it wrong. In chapter 2, verse 9, we see that Jesus "suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone." Immediately following that 'everyone', though, is the statement, in verse 10, "In bringing many sons to glory..."

    Here 'everyone' and 'many' are juxtaposed and are obviously meant to refer to different things. He tasted death for everyone, but only 'many' are brought to glory.

    In chapter 3, we read the interesting
    "Today, if you hear his voice,
    do not harden your hearts
    as you did in the rebellion
    during the time of testing in the desert,
    where your fathers tested and tried me
    and for forty years saw what I did."

    A bit further on in that passage it is obvious that God is referring to those who did not enter the Promised Land. So the writer to the Hebrews is pleading with those who are not saved that, when they hear His Voice, they not harden their hearts. Yet Calvinists say that those who are spiritually dead are incapable of hearing His Voice. Yet the writer to the Hebrews is pleading with obviously unsaved people not to harden their hearts as their ancestors did and thus were left to die in the wilderness!

    These same ancestors, by the way, had also been covered daily, monthly, yearly, by the sacrifices made by the priests. These rebels had been atoned for consistently and faithfully.

    In chapter 6, we read that the Jews are the heirs of what was promised. This is the same as the "his own" of John 1, is it not? I did a study on the term 'elect' in the New Testament a couple of years ago and came to the conclusion that that term is used almost entirely to refer to the Jews and not to converts to Christianity. The study is on my husband's website here: http://www.setterfield.org/elect.htm

    At the end of chapter 6 of Hebrews, the writer refers to the fact that Jesus has become a high priest forever.

    In chapter 7, we read "Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first forhis own sns and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself."

    Once for all. All of whom? The Gentiles are included, and if the picture presented by old Israel is correct, then the fact of believing or not believing, of obeying or not obeying, does not enter into the efficacy of the sacrifice.

    In chapter 9, we read, "He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption."

    once for all

    That phrase keeps coming up.

    And if Jesus tasted death for us all because of our sins, then the reason we will taste death -- those who do -- will not be because of their sins. For they have been atoned for. Once for all.

    They will taste death -- be in hell -- because they refused to believe on Christ. That is the clear message of John 3:16-18. Jesus Himself said He fulfilled the law. On the cross, He proclaimed "It is finished!" -- a financial term used in the cancellation of debts.

    It was not partly finished. It was finished.

    And if it was finished, it does not need to be done again. Justice has been satisfied, the law fulfilled, and all sin from all time atoned for.

    THAT does not mean that everyone will accept that atonement, however. And although God incredibly, graciously, is willing to forgive all sins (and forgiveness is different from atonement), there is one He cannot forgive: when that atonement is spurned.

    The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, according to Jesus. In Romans 1 Paul tells us that God's anger is being poured out by those who suppress the truth. That means they CAN see it, for you cannot suppress something you cannot see! This, then, is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees saw the truth of Jesus and suppressed it, calling Him demon-possessed. That is only one example of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

    It is when people PREFER their sins to Christ's sacrifice that they end up in hell. But the sins are simply the outworking of the heart that becomes hardened against the truth. The sins themselves have been atoned for, but the hardened heart, that refusal of the truth that all men can see, THAT is what condemns men to hell.

    The sins were taken care of by Christ. He opened the way for us -- the curtain was torn in half. It is our choice whether or not we believe or turn from belief and prefer ourselves.

    This is what the Bible is saying that I can see. This is one reason I am strongly opposed to the Reformed doctrines. They do not appear to be biblical.
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In Matt 18 and Ezek 18 the debt is completely forgiven by the extension of grace from the Sovereign king. But in both examples the exact debt owed is "returned" when the slave refuses to show real gratitude for the real forgiveness received by really forgiving others as he was forgiven.

    Even if you want to ignore the part about debt "returned" -- the point is that the suffering is based on the debt owed.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bob, I think there is a difference between something being forgiven, which is a personal thing, and something being atoned for, which is a legal thing.
     
  13. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    I mis-typed a phrase two posts above and I hope everyone knows the verse well enough to know it was a mis-type! What I wrote was"
    The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, according to Jesus. In Romans 1 Paul tells us that God's anger is being poured out by those who suppress the truth.

    What it SHOULD have said was
    The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, according to Jesus. In Romans 1 Paul tells us that God's anger is being poured out on those who suppress the truth.
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    If you look at the post cross "things" that continue as the driving mechanism bringing the wrath of God -- is it simply "unbelief now that all sins have been removed"?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Though unbelief and unrepentant hearts are the ways to turn away from the gift of salvation - the payment that is owed is specific to the deeds done --

     
  16. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen,
    Would you please read Romans 5:18 carefully and tell me if according to your scheme every person is justified.

    Thanks

    Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.


    Also, I'm having trouble understanding how the doctrine of imputation fits in your scheme. Do you believe that all those whose sins have been forgiven (which seems to be everybody) have also been made righteous in Christ? If not, why?

    According to Romans 8:3-4, I don't see how the two can be seperated.

    Rom 8:3-4 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

    Thanks again
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In us "Who WALK not according to the flesh"
     
  18. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Bob, I think there is a difference between something being forgiven, which is a personal thing, and something being atoned for, which is a legal thing."

    OK

    But God writes the Law. He could have written the law differently.
     
  19. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    Monergist,

    First, please don't say it is my scheme. If it is what the Bible is saying, then it is most certainly not mine, but God's! If it is not what the Bible is saying, then I am simply wrong and there is no 'scheme' involved... [​IMG]

    Next, it is not wise to take one verse out of context and try to prove a point with it. Context is a major thing and Bible should always be allowed to explain Bible. That being said, in verse 15, 'the many' died becauseof the trespass and 'the many' are the recipients of the overflow of grace coming from Jesus. In verse 16, numbers are not indicated, but Paul states that the judgment following one sin brought condemnation and then directly juxtaposes that with the fact that the gift brought justification. Justification means to be made innocent, or not guilty.

    In verse 17 there is an interesting point added. Death reigned through one man, but for those who receive God's grace and the gift of righteousness, they will reign in life through Jesus Christ. It's an interesting addition, for it does not speak simply of life vs. death, but of reigning. In addition, it does indicate that God's grace and gift of righteousness must be received, implying that there is the possibility of refusing.

    But on to the verse you mentioned. Verse 18 refers to condemnation for all men and contrasts that with the act of righteousness (Christ's) which resulted in justification and brings life, again for all men. Verse 19 goes back to referring to 'the many' who were made sinners and 'the many' who are made righteous through Christ.

    Looking at these verses together, there is no escaping that justification was provided for all men -- or at least all men who are sinners! And that is all of us, certainly!

    But there is something which denies universalism here -- righteousness is a gift, and a gift can be accepted or refused. Those who accept will reign through Christ. That is clearly stated. This, despite the fact that justification is provided for all men.

    The whole point of all of this is that it is a gift. If you accept it you die to yourself, get Christ, and your destination is heaven. If you refuse it, you have only this life on earth with your sin nature in control, you get only yourself, and your destination is hell. But the gift, as the verses in Romans 5 so clearly point out, is there for everyone and the choice is therefore theirs.

    In Romans 8:3-4 there is the explanation, which you quoted, about what has happened. But note that the righeous requirements of the law are only fully met in us who do not live according to the sinful nature, but according to the Spirit. That is because when we are born again, Christ is in us through the Holy Spirit.

    So if we put this together with the Romans 5 material you referred me to, then we have righteousness and justification provided for all men through Christ but fulfilled only in those who become His by believing on Him (John 1) and thus accepting that gift.

    As I think about this, it seems that Calvinism is more than willing to impute Adam's sin to all of us, but not Christ's sacrifice to the same number of us. However that is exactly what Paul is saying is the truth in the verses you pointed out in Romans 5.

    I read your post about monergism as you see it and I think the only point we might be disagreeing about here is that I do feel that we have been given the right and ability to choose whether we will be slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness. Both are there for us in completed form. But the choice is ours. Does that make us 'partners with God'? Only in the sense that the receiver of a gift is somehow in partnership with the giver. However the giver is fully responsible for the gift and the receiver, especially in the case of Christ and us, has done nothing to deserve or help with the gift at all. But we are allowed to receive or reject. Without that choice we cannot fulfill the reason we were created, which is to love. Love has to be a choice, a decision, or it is not love. And both the Great Commandments are to love. That is why we were created and what we were created for. And God loving through us is what brings Him glory and the blessing of a fulfilled creation.

    Bill, of course God could write the law any way He wanted/wants. However He did what He did and playing what-if games where God is concerned is not fruitful at all.
     
  20. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    The Bible says that whatever is not of faith is sin. Unbelief is not of faith - thus imho unbelief is sin.
     

Share This Page

Loading...