Unfortunately, you are still confused re: my view.
I'm going to focus on just this paragraph because it seems to me that you're just repeating yourself in the rest of your post. If you want me to address a specific point, I'll do so if asked.
Rather, I'll continue to comment on your comments, in the hope that I will clarify your understanding of my view.
"Damn" means to condemn - specificially, to condemn on the basis of a finding of iniquity in an individual. It's a judgment.
I disagree. One can be judged for a number of different issues. I believe the judgment for the lake of fire is based on NOT having eternal life, which is what actually qualifies one to live with God in eternity. Simply consider the use or function of 'judges' in many different situations: dog show, car show, etc. There is no idea of iniquity. And I don't find that in the Bible regarding WHY people go to the lake of fire.
Justification means to be found to be without iniquity.
I absolutely disagree here. Justification is what God does to a believer; He declares the believer righteous on the basis of his faith. That's justification. Since you still sin (we all do) we continue to be WITH iniquity, yet as believers, we have been justified.
To forgive a debt means to no longer hold a debt against an individual. To pay someone's debt likewise means to release him from his debt. When God chose to write the Bible in human language, he agreed to be bound by the basic unspoken contract of language use: "I will abide by the agreed-upon meanings of words unless I demonstrate how I intend to use a word differently." The Bible doesn't seek to redefine any of these words. You're redefining lexical meanings of words to accommodate a theology. That's eisegesis.
I charge Calvinism of eisegesis, as clearly seen in RT's explanation of Heb 2:9.
Christ paid the debt of mankind, though RT has to deny that, in order to maintain its theological consistency. But that didn't save man. Nor forgive him. Nor justify him. Nor adopt him as sons. All of these are on the basis of faith in Christ, who paid the debt for the whole world.
Using the general definitions of the words you employ, what you're saying, in effect, is that all of the iniquities of the world have been judged in Christ and therefore we have been released from our debts, but not everyone gets to be released from our debts.
No, that is just your confusion about my view. I'm NOT saying that at all, and never have. It's just that you still don't understand, probably because you simply will not even consider that Christ died for everyone, but salvation is only for believers.
The problem is that RT thinks that Christ's death actually saves the elect. So, show me a verse that clearly indicates that, if true. Should be easy enough if the Bible does teach that.
Instead, some who have faith will be found to be without iniquity, whereas others who do not have faith will be condemned to hell on the basis of the iniquities which are found to be within them which Christ has already taken out of them but are still in them.
Wrong. It's not "some" who have faith will be found to be without iniquity. It's this: all who have faith have been declared righteous and are justified on the basis of faith (Rom 5:1).
Those who have never believed are condemned on that basis (Jn 3:18,36).
You seem to be fixating on the moment of a man's conversion as if, from the divine perspective, everything which happens to that man at that moment is temporally bound to that moment.
Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. I'm definitely not fixating on any one moment, as you think.
If a man is forgiven at that moment, he has to be forgiven on the basis only of things happening at that moment.
Absolutely wrong. Christ atoned or propitiated for the sins of the whole world, meaning everyone in humanity. That's my view, so if you want to critique it, then you have to at least accept my view and argue from my view why it's wrong. If you can prove that Christ didn't die for everyone, please proceed.
Because Christ is not being crucified for that man at that moment as a consequence of the man's faith, you can't accept that the reason that man is being saved is because Christ, on the cross, reconciled him to God. At most, Christ, on the cross, made it possible for that man to be reconciled to God at a later date.
Totally wrong. Christ reconciled the world to God (2 Cor 5:14,15,19). What is a reconciliation? It's 2 parties coming together, where both must extend their hands for a handshake, to illustrate. Because Christ died for all sins, He reconciled the world to God, propitiating God the Father, which is equivalent to God extending His hand for a handshake in reconciliation.
But unless man also extends his hand for a handshake, there isn't reconciliation. It takes 2 to reconcile; both parties that have been et enmity.
When a person believes the gospel, that is an illustration of extending the hand in a handshake of reconciliation. Which is why Paul added v.20 after v.19.
Contrarily, the fact that Christ carried the full penalty for sins on the cross, and yet at a later date one must believe in order to be forgiven, does not indicate that forgiveness and reconciliation to God are separate things from having your sins atoned for.
Actually, it DOES indicate they are separate things. Which is why you continue to be confused about my view. Paying the sin debt in full allows God to extend His hand, as it where, for reconciliation. But man must extend his hand for reconciliation. Which he does when he places is faith and trust in Christ for eternal life.
And it certainly doesn't mean that Heaven and Hell cease to be places of reward and punishment for possession or lack of justification.
Of course not. I never suggested that either heaven or hell ceases to be places of reward and punishment.
Christ, on the cross, unqualifiedly saved the saved and unqualifiedly did not save the unsaved. That's particular, efficacious redemption.
No, that's RT talking points. Please show me a verse that unambiguously SAYS that Christ's death saves people.
And that's what the OT says about atonement. There's no forgiveness-enabling element of Yom Kippur. The priest drove the scapegoat off into the wilderness, and that act took away the people's iniquity.
Actually, not really. It always was symbolic for what the Messiah was going to really do, once for all. Which is why they did it once a year, and the writer of Hebrews made a comment about it as well.
Likewise, Moses did not paint blood over every Hebrew house's doorframe, whereupon those inside were spared or taken by the angel of death on the basis of faith.
No, Moses didn't do that over every Hebrew's house. The father of each house did it. And, yes, where there was blood, there was no death.
Likewise, in a sin offering, "The priest shall make atonement, and his sin shall be" - shall be, not can be - "forgiven." So when Isaiah prophesies "The punishment that brought us peace was upon him," I read that as "The punishment that brought us peace was upon him," not "the punishment that allows people to have peace was upon him." Finished work. Not a potentiality.
One has to understand what is meant by "brought us peace". Seems you take it as saving. I take it as God's side of reconciliation.
Which is, drawing this back to the point I started with, the very English meaning of atonement. Atonement was derived from the old French words meaning "To make one." It means to reconcile. If I sin against my roommate, but then I make up for it to his satisfaction, there is no question of his still being angry at me. We are reconciled, the sin is no more, and we go on trying to live as if nothing happened.
This pretty much illustrates what I've just said up further in this post.
Just it takes 2 to tango, it takes 2 to reconcile.
When Christ rectified the separation between God and men through his death, ending our sins, there is no question of those whom he reconciled to God being damned.
Sure there is. Damnation is based on lack of saving faith. Jn 3:18,36.
They are folded into the communion of the Godhead as adopted heirs of God's kingdom.
This describes believers only.
