Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
“and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”
Yes if more people or more sins were included in His sacrifice His suffering would’ve been the exact same. He would’ve paid the same price for one sin as He would for an infinite number of sins. So there’s no second payment as Mark implied it’s simply a matter of whether or not Jesus attributes His sacrifice to a person or not.
We are not agreed on several points. This one here, to me, anyway, is all a matter of terminology. She and I are agreed that for whomever Christ paid for sins, they are of the Elect, and nobody else.
Yawn....
Paid? I know that Christians are bought with the precious blood of Christ, but the vocabulary of payment seems out of place.
That seems such an unkind and inappropriate response to a verse from the holy scriptures. Truly, the verse in its immediate context does have something to say about the problems one encounters with the doctrine of limited atonement.
That's a jump in logic, as if one death is the same as a thousand deaths.
The TYPE of payment is the same. The amount is not.
I expect you mean 1 John 2:2. No. It says that HE paid for the sins; and "whole world" as in many passages, means both Jew and Gentile.
Your construction pretends that God created us after looking forward in time and realizing who would be smart enough (good enough, loving enough, whatever enough) to accept him into our hearts. The whole of Scripture demonstrates God's active pursuit of his goal.
Where did Mark imply there's a second payment? I'd appreciate you not, uh, misrepresenting, me.
Does your interpretation of that verse encompass the “whole world”? No it doesn’t it only encompasses a portion of the world. And you say I have bad hermeneutics when my interpretation coincides with the verse and tour’s does not.
You said God is particular about everything referring to those He saves.
You said that my interpretation implied a second payment. That’s what I was referring to brother. It was not my intention to misrepresent you. I don’t do that, at least not intentionally.
Maybe your view is more particular but less personal? From my view God's love is particular and personal in that He saves the person who humbles himself and repents. The view of the Reformers I think it is less personal, since God saves the person for some reason, we don't know why, because of some mysterious choice that has nothing to do with the person.
I don't think agreeing with God about our sin and confessing sin is the same thing. When you confess a sin, you have set your heart on changing your ways. While agreeing about sin is right, there doesn't need to be a willingness to change. While I don't think you specifically need to ask for forgiveness to be forgiven, but only need to confess, the intention is there to change and the desire for forgiveness is also there. The reason you confess is because you want to be forgiven.
Christ's sacrifice is the payment for sin/trespasses which cancels debt (forgiveness = cancellation of debt) when it is applied by faith alone, not by works.
