Some people's sins payed for twice?

Karen123 · May 24, 2002

Hey you all :wave:

,

I've got a question. Now I'm not personally a Calvinist but someone I know posed to me a pretty good question.
Arminian doctrine believes Jesus' blood was shed for ALL, not just for the elect. So, everyones sins are payed for, but if someone choses not to accept Christ and they go to hell, THEY are paying for their sins after Jesus has already paid for them. It seems like two people are paying in that case, for one persons sins. How is this just?

Got any ideas? :scratch:

Explainations or theories anyone?

Just wondering,
Karen

JohnR7 · May 24, 2002

>>How is this just?

It just shows that Calvin and Arminian doctrine does not stand up to logic and reason.

Jesus dies for the redeemed. Whosoever is willing to come and be restored, let them come. We are to be a new creation in Christ. As Jesus showed us the way we are to go and sent us the Holy Spirit to be our helper.

Many are called, but few are choosen.

Karen123 · May 25, 2002

I see what your saying JohnR7, but how do you interpet the following verse then?

Romans 5:18 (KJV) says
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon ALL men unto justification of life.

Isnt this saying Christs blood payed for all?
If you take a semi-Arminian stance, any thoughts on this people?

ZiSunka · May 25, 2002

That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. People don't pay for their sins by going to hell! Sins can only be paid for by blood, not by mere death.

It works this way. Man and God have a covenant, a blood contract, in which both must perform according to the contract. If either party fails to complete the terms of a blood covenant, the other party has the right to kill the one who failed. Sin is a failure to abide by the terms of the blood covenant, thus, death is the payment for sin, and the one who sins must die at the hands of the one who doesn't.

Now the Good News. Instead of demanding our blood and then killing us, God allowed himself to substitute for us, taking the death we deserve, shedding blood and dying in our place. He allowed us to demand his blood, to kill him, even though we are the ones who break the covenant by sinning. What a wonder! The one who kept the blood covenant volunteered to die for us! The one who never sinned, loved us so much that he died in our place.

So, mere human death means nothing in regard to payment for sin. Cancer, heart disease, auto accident, those are nothing. Sin can only be atoned through the blood of Christ.

Christ died for all, but many refuse to accept his death as payment for their sins. But since they cannot atone for their own sins, they never get redeemed, and they go to hell.

darkwoof · May 26, 2002

Originally posted by lambslove
Christ died for all, but many refuse to accept his death as payment for their sins. But since they cannot atone for their own sins, they never get redeemed, and they go to hell.

Affirmed. Christ's innocent blood paid for all. But when gifts comes your ways you can choose to accept or deny it. Mankind is born with sin, and our blood is worthless towards redemption. No one can pay for his sin by his own blood.

Candidus · May 26, 2002

Karen,

Where in the Scripture is it said that any sin was paid for? That would be a good place to start with.

Andrew · May 26, 2002

but if someone choses not to accept Christ and they go to hell, THEY are paying for their sins...
-------------------------------------------------

Karen, in the first place, your above sentence is flawed in the sense that :

1) this doctrine is not Biblical ie ppl dont go to hell to pay for their sins, but becos they slapped off God's hand of grace.

2) if that were possible then it wld mean that after ppl have paid for their sins in hell, they cld go up to heaven? so all men will go to heaven? then Christ died in vain.

think of it this way: if a man on death row rejects the Presidential pardon, he will still hang. has freedom been offered to him? yes, but it is not received.

JOhnPreparer · May 28, 2002

One and for all, the sins that we have, have being fully paid by Jesus Christ through His blood..... that came from the verse: He die for us, while we are yet sinners.

So he paid one only lah.... not twice, but only the people don't want to accept Him... well, they loss the priviledge and the benefit of eternal life loh... he he...

Jesus came to save sinners... clearly stated in the bible.... We are sinners, we are saved through Him.

YES for JESUS

Reformationist · May 28, 2002

Originally posted by Karen123
Arminian doctrine believes Jesus' blood was shed for ALL, not just for the elect. So, everyones sins are payed for, but if someone choses not to accept Christ and they go to hell, THEY are paying for their sins after Jesus has already paid for them. It seems like two people are paying in that case, for one persons sins. How is this just?

Got any ideas? Explainations or theories anyone?

Just wondering,
Karen

Karen, think about it from this perspective:

What is the result of "accepting" Christ? Eternal life with Him, right. And, the glorification of our bodies that we "know" sin no more.

So, what is the result of "not accepting" Christ? Eternal damnation. Or, and I'm not familiar with the scripture on this, damnation for a millenium and then the "white throne judgment" and then oblivion, or more damnation.

Anyway, it's not pleasant.

So, "accepting" Christ has an effect on our lives, as does "not accepting." In other words, it's effectual. Now, ask yourself, "does it accomplish that which God sets out to accomplish?" There are three answers to this: Yes, no, and God does not have an agenda with respect to this so He is ambivilant. I don't think many Christians would say God is ambivilant regarding His creation. So, we are left with "yes" and "no." If you say "no, it does not accomplish that which God purposed for it" then you are saying that God is not omnipotent and does not have the power to affect His Will. If you say "yes, it does accomplish that which God purposed for it" then you are saying that the salvation of those that "accept" God never fails. Those are always redeemed.

Now, and this is very important, who is subject to who in the above scenarios? Is God's ability to affect salvation contingent upon the decisions we make and therefore God is dependant upon, or subject to, our decisions? Or, are we, the created being, subject to God's Will? Is our salvation contingent upon that which God wills?

If you understand that we, as a creation, are subject to the sovereign Will of the Creator then our salvation is not about a decision we do/don't make. Even if you believe in the doctrine of "previent grace" you restrict your ability to make the "free will decision" upon God giving the grace necessary to separate ourselves from our sinful nature long enough to make an unhindered decision.

As above, if you understand that God is effectual in His redeeming call to salvation then you understand that the only reason that everyone is not saved is because that effectual call is not intended for everyone, and some are left to their fallen nature, from which they would not, of their "own free will," depart.

The sacrifice of Christ was effective. It effectively reconciled (notice the past tense) those that the Father gives Christ, to the Father. And, it effectively did not save all those who were created for the purpose of destruction.

God's effectual grace, in the form of Jesus' death, was not intended to aquire salvation for everyone, else it would have been effective in everyone and everyone would have been saved.

God bless.

ScottEmerson · May 28, 2002

The idea of sins twice relates specifically to whether Christ's atonement was limited or not - "Christ paid for the sins of the elect, the lost pay for their own sins."

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that Christ's death was "sufficient" to save everyone for whom he died - therefore, it must pay the price for all who died. It ignores both the nature of God and the nature of man created in God's image. There is no problem in saying that Christ's death was universal, but that free, responsible individuals have to accept that free gift. There is, therefore, no double payment.

Here is the problem, according to Jeck Coutrell:

"[those who follow this argument commit an error] in speaking of Christ's death in quantity. The divine Christ is infinite; his suffering was infinite. Quantitative speculations are out of place, because the effects or benefits of Christ's death are unlimited, infinite. This is true simple because of who Christ is - the Son of God."

A human being must accept the benefits of the free gift of the atonement.

Reformationist · May 29, 2002

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that Christ's death was "sufficient" to save everyone for whom he died - therefore, it must pay the price for all who died.

I don't see this as a problem nor do I see the correlation between "everyone for whom He died" and "all who died." If I took ten people to the movies and paid for their tickets that in no way implies that I am paying for everyone who came to the movies.

It ignores both the nature of God and the nature of man created in God's image.

In what way? On the contrary, I believe this is a perfect example of God's sovereignty and that our salvation, or adoption to righteousness, is about His glory rather than ours. God picked out a people for the glory of His Son. He did not send His Son for the glory of His creation. Please explain what you mean.

There is no problem in saying that Christ's death was universal, but that free, responsible individuals have to accept that free gift.

I agree, EXCEPT, prior to His death there was no such thing as a "free, responsible individual" (excepting Adam prior to the fall) so this is a moot point. And, I agree Christ's death was universal, in the respect that it wasn't limited to one people, place, or time, nor was it based upon the merit of the recipient.

Here is the problem, according to Jeck Coutrell:

"[those who follow this argument commit an error] in speaking of Christ's death in quantity. The divine Christ is infinite; his suffering was infinite. Quantitative speculations are out of place, because the effects or benefits of Christ's death are unlimited, infinite. This is true simple because of who Christ is - the Son of God."

This arrogantly makes the assumption that those that believe in limited atonement base it on a belief of inadequate ability on Christ's part. Limited atonement, as I understand it, is the belief that His intent, and therefore the result, was specific rather than any limit to His divinity.

A human being must accept the benefits of the free gift of the atonement.

We obviously have different views on the depraved nature of fallen man that shapes our views on God. I would phrase this particular sentence differently:

"To mature, a Christian must accept the benefits of the unmerited gift of reconciliation."

God bless.

Me4him · May 29, 2002

Originally posted by Karen123
Hey you all ,

I've got a question. Now I'm not personally a Calvinist but someone I know posed to me a pretty good question.
Arminian doctrine believes Jesus' blood was shed for ALL, not just for the elect. So, everyones sins are payed for, but if someone choses not to accept Christ and they go to hell, THEY are paying for their sins after Jesus has already paid for them. It seems like two people are paying in that case, for one persons sins. How is this just?

Got any ideas? Explainations or theories anyone?

Just wondering,
Karen

Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death;

Heb 9:22 and without shedding of blood (death of sinner) is no remission. (of sin)

Le 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood:
(and to shed their blood means their death)

Ro 3:23 For all have sinned,

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation (subtitute) for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

In the same way, Adams sin is passed down on "all people", so is Jesus's righteousness extended to "All people", but many reject his righteousness.

We're "all sinner", and all sins have been "paid for", so God can't judge between us on that basis, the difference is between those who accepted "Salvation" and those who "refused it".

Condenation isn't for "being a sinner", but for "remaining a sinner". (rejecting Jesus)

ScottEmerson · May 29, 2002

Originally posted by Reformationist

I don't see this as a problem nor do I see the correlation between "everyone for whom He died" and "all who died." If I took ten people to the movies and paid for their tickets that in no way implies that I am paying for everyone who came to the movies.

But there is not a condition in many of the cases of all, such as Christ died for "all." That would be akin to you saying that I paid for ALL tickets - you'd have paid for 100% of them.

In what way? On the contrary, I believe this is a perfect example of God's sovereignty and that our salvation, or adoption to righteousness, is about His glory rather than ours. God picked out a people for the glory of His Son. He did not send His Son for the glory of His creation. Please explain what you mean.

Click to expand...

God picked out a group of people - in the same way that He chose Israel (the group, not the individuals, since some of Israel were unrighteous), He chose the Church. He sent His son for all.

I agree, EXCEPT, prior to His death there was no such thing as a "free, responsible individual" (excepting Adam prior to the fall) so this is a moot point. And, I agree Christ's death was universal, in the respect that it wasn't limited to one people, place, or time, nor was it based upon the merit of the recipient.

Click to expand...

Do you have scripture to say that we are not free.

This arrogantly makes the assumption that those that believe in limited atonement base it on a belief of inadequate ability on Christ's part. Limited atonement, as I understand it, is the belief that His intent, and therefore the result, was specific rather than any limit to His divinity.

Click to expand...

He just says that many people who believe in limited atonement do so by speaking of it in quantity, instead of quality, which is Biblical.

We obviously have different views on the depraved nature of fallen man that shapes our views on God. I would phrase this particular sentence differently:

"To mature, a Christian must accept the benefits of the unmerited gift of reconciliation."

Click to expand...

I still believe that God is sovereign. Where we disagree is on whether man has a choice or if he doesn't.

Reformationist · May 29, 2002

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
That would be akin to you saying that I paid for ALL tickets - you'd have paid for 100% of them.

Yes. 100% of those that I bought. Not 100% of those that were bought. And, as Jesus is the only way to heaven, if He didn't buy it, it didn't get bought.

God picked out a group of people - in the same way that He chose Israel (the group, not the individuals, since some of Israel were unrighteous), He chose the Church. He sent His son for all.

Yes. He chose the Church. And He sent His Son for the entire Church.

Do you have scripture to say that we are not free.

John 8:31-34
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin."

Rom 6:17,18
But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Rom 6:22
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God

Rom 8:1,2
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

Gal 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Eph 2:1
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins

Eph 2:5
even when we were dead in trespasses

Where we disagree is on whether man has a choice or if he doesn't.

I believe man has a choice, not about salvation, but how difficult his sanctification will be.

God bless.

ScottEmerson · May 29, 2002

Originally posted by Reformationist

Yes. 100% of those that I bought. Not 100% of those that were bought. And, as Jesus is the only way to heaven, if He didn't buy it, it didn't get bought.

You're missing the point. If you paid for 10% you would say, "I paid for all that I was with," not "I paid for all." The Bible says that Christ paid for all. Just everyone doesn't decide to go into the theatre - their seat is available but they refuse the ticket.

Yes. He chose the Church. And He sent His Son for the entire Church.

Click to expand...

Yep. The Church consists of ANYONE who chooses to come to the church.

John 8:31-34
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin."

Rom 6:17,18
But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Rom 6:22
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God

Rom 8:1,2
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

Gal 5:1
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Eph 2:1
And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins

Eph 2:5
even when we were dead in trespasses

Click to expand...

And your point is what? We're a slave to sin. That's agreed. Salvation lets us escape the bondage of sin. That's freedom. Do you have any verses that says we are not free to make choices? (That's a better question. Methinks you knew what I meant the first time...)

I believe man has a choice, not about salvation, but how difficult his sanctification will be.

Click to expand...

And where is your Scripture for this? What about all the passages where Israel refuses to follow God? When Joshua tells the people to choose who they're going to serve?

Reformationist · May 30, 2002

Originally posted by ScottEmerson
You're missing the point. If you paid for 10% you would say, "I paid for all that I was with," not "I paid for all."

But the Bible does make the distinction that limits those that will be saved:

John 6:37
ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVES ME WILL come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

Who will come? Only "all that the father gives to Jesus." If the "all" mentioned here is everyone then obviously everyone would come to Christ and be saved. So what's the inference here? "Those that the Father doesn't give to Christ" won't come.

Now, not just "won't" but something more descriptive:

John 6:44
NO ONE CAN COME to me UNLESS the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

So who CAN come to Christ? Is it anyone and everyone? Or is it just those that the Father draws? Now if "those that the Father draws" meant everyone why would Jesus feel the need to make the differentiation? It's obviously not everyone. That must mean that the Father doesn't "draw" everyone, right?

Now Scott, what is the Greek word for "draws" in this verse and what does it mean? Does it show a willingness to come to the Father?

Just everyone doesn't decide to go into the theatre - their seat is available but they refuse the ticket.

Well, was it God's plan that some "refuse the ticket?"

The Church consists of ANYONE who chooses to come to the church.

Agreed (except for the "chooses" part). Still, Christ died for the Church.

Do you have any verses that says we are not free to make choices? (That's a better question. Methinks you knew what I meant the first time...)

Methinks? No, I didn't know that's what you meant. And, for that matter, who ever said we're not free to make choices? I said we're not free (able) to make the decision to follow Christ prior to Him regenerating us. Now, if you'd like to discuss "effectual saving grace" vs. "previent grace" that fine, but it's a whole other matter.

And where is your Scripture for this?

Which part, the "not having a choice about our salvation" or the "having a decision as to how difficult our sanctification will be?"

What about all the passages where Israel refuses to follow God? When Joshua tells the people to choose who they're going to serve?

What about these passages? What is it that you believe they are saying?

God bless.

Some people's sins payed for twice?

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

It means 'yellow dog'

Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

I Like Traffic Lights

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Active Member

I Like Traffic Lights

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

I Like Traffic Lights

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Similar threads