Why the crucifixion?

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

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.