The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[quietthinker]

One offering[His Death] he hath perfected for ever !

Now those whom God, by means of the death of Christ, sanctifies and perfects forever, shall have the following spiritual blessings to their favor Heb 10:15-18

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.817

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Now Vs 16 Promises inward sanctification, consisting of His Law [which is spiritual] by His Spirit being put into the inward parts See Jer 31:33

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Now this is the result of Christ's death that permanently sanctified them Heb 10:10 that word sanctified hagiazó: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify, to purify internally by reformation of soul:

And thats why God fufills His Promise to " I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them"

Those Christ died for must experience, by the virtue of His death a purification internally, a renewal as indicated here Titus 3:5

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Its also the setting apart of our minds, emotions and will to do the will of God, we are given the Spirit of Life Rom 8:2, for Christ the Mediator of the Covenant, upon His death and resurrection for us [the elect] sends into us a life giving Spirit 1 Cor 15:45

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.ESV

This brings to pass the blessed effects of His death sanctifying them internally, hence being permanently sanctified by His one and only tasting of death, which ensures those blessings Heb 10:16 !

So, understand, you who ignorantly insist that Christ's death was for all without exception, then you must explain why all without exception do not experience the blessings of Heb 10:16 ! You are saying that Christ's death failed to produce those blessed results, which is contrary to scripture !

Jesus is the one who fulfilled the Covenant. In him all nations are blessed. Gods laws are written in his mind and on his heart.

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, understand, you who ignorantly insist that Christ's death was for all without exception, then you must explain why all without exception do not experience the blessings of Heb 10:16 ! You are saying that Christ's death failed to produce those blessed results, which is contrary to scripture !

I gave my explanation. Did you read it?

 

[quietthinker]

Isn't death inevitable no matter what? I think so. Solomon made this point in the book of Ecclesiastes. A man may be a fool; but he will die. A man may be wise; but he will also die. In his view, death robs life of meaning. Eternal life, on the other hand, gives this life significance. What we do now can affect our existence then.

Thus Solomon lays out, in heart wrenching detail, the problem. Death trivializes our history. By contrast, Jesus lays out the answer to Solomon. Death is inevitable, but the Father is willing to sustain a man's life forever if he believes in his son.

Death in the sense that the scripture understands it is described as the second death....a death from where there is no resurrection.
The first death is known as a sleep from which all who 'die', both good and bad will be resurrected....that's why it is referred to as a sleep.

Those who die the second death do so because they refuse life....that is their trajectory....it is not something imposed on them.

 

[brightfame52]

Jesus is the one who fulfilled the Covenant. In him all nations are blessed. Gods laws are written in his mind and on his heart.

You still dont get it do you ?

 

[brightfame52]

I gave my explanation. Did you read it?

I already responded to you, did you read it ?

 

[Tong2020]

As you may already know reconciliation is the restoration of friendly relations. Whether we are talking about individuals, families or nations, reconciliation takes place when two enemies decide to make peace, end the hostilities, and establish harmonious relations.

Perhaps it goes without saying that until both parties cease hostilities, the war continues, peace has not yet been established. One side might make an overture of peace, temporarily declaring a ceasefire, but reconciliation hasn't taken place until the other side has accepted the offer or conditions that make for peace.

The New Testament concern is the enmity between God and man, and the question is, what will it take to bring peace between God and man? While the Reformers mistakenly understood this in terms of God's justice, the New Testament understands peace with God in terms of God's mercy. The Cross was not payment for sins, as some suppose. Rather, the New Testament understands the Cross to be a form of propitiation -- an appeasement of God's wrath.

Suppose a little girl, while playing in the house, accidently overturned a very expensive vase, destroying it. This makes her father very angry. And though her father punishes her, he remains angry and will not speak to her. The question is, what will it take to soften her father's heart and restore the relationship? She goes out into the garden, picks a flower, and brings it to her father. Her overture gives expression to her heartfelt desire to reconcile. Obviously her flower doesn't pay for the vase or bring the vase back. But it represents something true and right about her daughter's attitude. On that basis, her father's anger is appeased.

In other words, the New Testament answers to the question, what will it take to appease God's wrath and to gain his good will and favor? How can peace be established between God and man?

According to Jesus, the cross would be like the time when Moses raised a serpent on a stake. Only those who willingly bowed down at the stake were healed. According to Paul, the cross represents God's righteous indignation against the sins of Israel, and ultimately, against the sins of all mankind. Peace between God and any particular individual is only possible if the individual bows down before the cross to acknowledge an identification with the meaning of the cross. Reconciliation takes place when an individual agrees to the premise, "that was me on the cross. I deserve to die. I deserve to be punished for my sins. I deserve the wrath of God. I deserve to be forsaken."

God was reconciling with man through Jesus Christ, while we were still enemies (Romans 5:10) -- during a time when God was passing over our sins. (Romans 3:25, 2 Corinthians 5:19) We can get into the details of this idea if you like, but to say for now that, according to the New Testament, God made the overture of peace, publicly submitted for consideration, and one is free to accept the terms of reconciliation or reject it. To gain the favor and good will of God, one must confess his sins and accept God's offer of reconciliation, honestly, and with contrition. One must face the cross and confess, "I deserved that. And I agree with all that it implies."

On this basis, then, God is willing to declare, "this person is right with me. This act conforms to the will of God. This person is no longer my enemy." Paul, in his writings, has coined the term "justified" to indicate this state of being "right with God."

According to Paul, evidence of justification is faith (Hebrews 11) and according to James, evidence of faith is action. (James 2) Justification then, is the result of reconciliation when an individual, accepts God's offer of reconciliation by placing faith and trust in his son Jesus Christ.

God has made this offer to all of humankind to accept or reject. Those who accept it are declared "right with me" or "justified."

<<<The New Testament concern is the enmity between God and man, and the question is, what will it take to bring peace between God and man? While the Reformers mistakenly understood this in terms of God's justice, the New Testament understands peace with God in terms of God's mercy. The Cross was not payment for sins, as some suppose.>>>

Payment for sins, it is.

Hebrews 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

<<<Rather, the New Testament understands the Cross to be a form of propitiation -- an appeasement of God's wrath.>>>

Yes also, as propitiation, as atonement for sin — an appeasement of God’s wrath.

Now while the matter of reconciliation of God and man is spoken in scriptures, my take is that reconciliation is different from propitiation or atonement or appeasement.

<<<Justification then, is the result of reconciliation when an individual, accepts God's offer of reconciliation by placing faith and trust in his son Jesus Christ.>>>

Paul said we were justified by the blood of Christ, that is, by His death. And when was that? It was when we were still sinners, that is, when we were enemies, that Christ died for us.

Tong
R4280

 

[CadyandZoe]

<<<The New Testament concern is the enmity between God and man, and the question is, what will it take to bring peace between God and man? While the Reformers mistakenly understood this in terms of God's justice, the New Testament understands peace with God in terms of God's mercy. The Cross was not payment for sins, as some suppose.>>>

Payment for sins, it is.

I am aware of these scriptures, of course. The thing you need to ask yourself is this. Did God pay for our sins or did he forgive our sins? Please think a long time on this question and if you do, I think you will need to think about other related questions also.

1. Is it moral for a judge to put an innocent man to death for the crime of another man?
2. What does God say about the sins of the fathers?
3. Does God condone the punishment of a son for the sin of his father?
4. Doesn't God declare that a man shall die for his own sins? Deuteronomy 24:16
5. Is the basis for salvation justice or mercy? Colossians 1:14
6. If sins are forgiven (mercy) why would they need to be punished (justice)?
7. Is justification granted on the basis of justice or is it granted as a gift of grace? Romans 3:24
8. According to Paul, what is the stated purpose of the cross? Romans 5:10
9. Does a voluntary death, meant to satisfy a ransom demand, necessitate a substitutionary punishment?
10. Is propitiation a matter of justice or a matter of conciliation?
11. Who actually forgives sins, The Father or the Son?
12. Did Jesus die for our justification or was he raised for our justification? Romans 4:25

Yes also, as propitiation, as atonement for sin — an appeasement of God’s wrath.

13. Is propitiation and atonement the same thing? I don't think so.

Paul said we were justified by the blood of Christ, that is, by His death. And when was that? It was when we were still sinners, that is, when we were enemies, that Christ died for us.

Paul also says that we were justified by grace through faith? If are justified by grace, then we are not justified by substitution. The cross, then, is an overture to reconciliation, which is an act of grace on the part of Jesus, and those who wish to reconcile with God place faith in Jesus Christ and his death on the cross as the signal act of acceptance.

The complete thought is something like this, we are reconciled to God when we accept the implications of the cross for our own life, having believed in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. blood >> reconciliation >> justification.

 

[Tong2020]

I am aware of these scriptures, of course. The thing you need to ask yourself is this. Did God pay for our sins or did he forgive our sins? Please think a long time on this question and if you do, I think you will need to think about other related questions also.

1. Is it moral for a judge to put an innocent man to death for the crime of another man?
2. What does God say about the sins of the fathers?
3. Does God condone the punishment of a son for the sin of his father?
4. Doesn't God declare that a man shall die for his own sins? Deuteronomy 24:16
5. Is the basis for salvation justice or mercy? Colossians 1:14
6. If sins are forgiven (mercy) why would they need to be punished (justice)?
7. Is justification granted on the basis of justice or is it granted as a gift of grace? Romans 3:24
8. According to Paul, what is the stated purpose of the cross? Romans 5:10
9. Does a voluntary death, meant to satisfy a ransom demand, necessitate a substitutionary punishment?
10. Is propitiation a matter of justice or a matter of conciliation?
11. Who actually forgives sins, The Father or the Son?
12. Did Jesus die for our justification or was he raised for our justification? Romans 4:25

<<<Did God pay for our sins or did he forgive our sins?>>>

Those scriptures I cited, wherein the death of Christ was spoken of as a ransom and as a redemption, tells me that the death of Christ is a payment for sin. For whose sins did He pay for is another matter.

Forgiveness of sin is different from paying for the penalty of sin.

The former is the NOT taking offense of the wrong doing or of the sins done against God any longer; the taking away of the offense, the sin.

The latter is taking upon oneself of the penalty of the offense. Considering the Scriptures, Peter speaks of this, that it is not with silver or gold that Christ paid off the penalty, but paid it off with His priceless precious blood.

<<<1. Is it moral for a judge to put an innocent man to death for the crime of another man?>>>

According to the Law of Moses, No. It is one thing to make judgement like that, but what Jesus did is another thing, that is, freely taking the penalty of death for the guilty sinner. Just to make that clear, take for example the penalty as being a fine to pay up. Jesus paid that up for him.

<<<2. What does God say about the sins of the fathers?>>>

What?

<<<3. Does God condone the punishment of a son for the sin of his father?>>>

If the son is willing, like Jesus, there is nothing in the Law of Moses that is against that. To the contrary, Jesus by that, demonstrated what Love is. And that He said fulfills the law.

<<<4. Doesn't God declare that a man shall die for his own sins? Deuteronomy 24:16>>>

Yes. So? Does that say that one could not give his life for another? Do you know what Jesus teach concerning that?

<<<5. Is the basis for salvation justice or mercy? Colossians 1:14>>>

Basis for salvation? What I know is this:

Salvation is of God, by God, by grace, through faith in God and in Him whom He sent, the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, according to the counsel of His will and of course, His nature.

<<<6. If sins are forgiven (mercy) why would they need to be punished (justice)?>>>

Please see my discussion above re forgiveness, payment for the penalty of sin.

Mercy also has some difference with forgiveness.

<<<7. Is justification granted on the basis of justice or is it granted as a gift of grace? Romans 3:24>>>

It is God who justifies, and that, according to the counsel of His will. It is grace.

<<<8. According to Paul, what is the stated purpose of the cross? Romans 5:10>>>

This is exactly the reason why in one of my post here and in another thread, I ask that we first have to look into what Christ accomplished at the cross. For what Christ had accomplished are the purposes of His death. What is said in Rom.5:10 is just one.

<<<9. Does a voluntary death, meant to satisfy a ransom demand, necessitate a substitutionary punishment?>>>

I don’t know exactly what you meant there.

May I ask, when scriptures says “Christ died for us”, what is your understanding of that?

And when scriptures says “Christ died for our sins”, what is your understanding of that?

<<<10. Is propitiation a matter of justice or a matter of conciliation?>>>

Propitiation is matter of appeasement, not of justice.

<<<11. Who actually forgives sins, The Father or the Son?>>>

God.

<<<12. Did Jesus die for our justification or was he raised for our justification? Romans 4:25>>>

Romans 4:25 is not saying anything about Jesus’ death, as being for our (those being saved) justification, but that Jesus was raised because of or on account of our (those being saved) justification.

It is God who justifies. And He justifies freely by His grace. One is justified by faith.

Tong
R4287

 

[Tong2020]

13. Is propitiation and atonement the same thing? I don't think so.

Not exactly. They are closely related.

Propitiation
1: the act of gaining or regaining the favor or goodwill of someone or something : the act of propitiating
:APPEASEMENT

2: something that propitiates or appeases

specifically : an atoning sacrifice

atoned; atoning

intransitive verb
: to make amends : to provide or serveas reparation or compensation for something bad

transitive verb

1: to make reparation or supply satisfaction for : EXPIATE —used in the passive voice with fora crime that must be atoned for

obsolete : RECONCILE

May I ask, when scriptures says of Jesus as “the propitiation for our sins”?

Paul also says that we were justified by grace through faith? If are justified by grace, then we are not justified by substitution. The cross, then, is an overture to reconciliation, which is an act of grace on the part of Jesus, and those who wish to reconcile with God place faith in Jesus Christ and his death on the cross as the signal act of acceptance.

The complete thought is something like this, we are reconciled to God when we accept the implications of the cross for our own life, having believed in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. blood >> reconciliation >> justification.

<<<If are justified by grace, then we are not justified by substitution.>>>

It is God who justifies. And He justifies freely by His grace. One is justified by faith not by “substitution” (whatever you meant that”.

<<<The complete thought is something like this, we are reconciled to God when we accept the implications of the cross for our own life, having believed in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. blood >> reconciliation >> justification.>>>

I do not have the same thoughts.

Tong
R4288

 

[brightfame52]

One offering[His Death] he hath perfected for ever !

The bestowed blessings of Heb 10:16

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

This actually corresponds with and is in harmony with the Spiritual renewing of Titus 3:5

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;818

Thats when new spiritual principles are implanted in us to commence us unto spiritual actions ! This is what effects our conversion, so all for whom Christ died, He Sovereignly provides for and effects their conversion, Peter said in a sermon Acts 3:26

26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

The risen Christ is responsible for the conversion of those He died for !

 

[CadyandZoe]

<<<Did God pay for our sins or did he forgive our sins?>>>

Those scriptures I cited, wherein the death of Christ was spoken of as a ransom and as a redemption, tells me that the death of Christ is a payment for sin. For whose sins did He pay for is another matter.

The difference between ransom and punishment is this. Punishment is any pain, suffering, or loss inflicted on a person because of a crime or offence. Ransom, on the other hand, is the money or price paid for the redemption of a prisoner, or for goods captured by an enemy. Punishment is an act of justice; ransom is an act of mercy.

The cross is not understood as suffering for offences; the cross is understood as the release of captors, i.e. release from bondage to sin. John 8:34-36, Galatians 3:13, Titus 2:14

Forgiveness of sin is different from paying for the penalty of sin.
The former is the NOT taking offense of the wrong doing or of the sins done against God any longer; the taking away of the offense, the sin.
The latter is taking upon oneself of the penalty of the offense. Considering the Scriptures, Peter speaks of this, that it is not with silver or gold that Christ paid off the penalty, but paid it off with His priceless precious blood.

While the word "offence" can refer to a feeling of anger, it can also refer to a crime or the act of an enemy. The question is whether "forgiveness" in the New Testament sense, refers to conciliation or absolution or both. More narrowly, is the purpose of the cross to bring absolution or conciliation? Rather than absolution as you suggest, Paul argues that the cross brings conciliation. The question isn't "what punishment is fitting for the sins of man?" Rather, the question is, "what will it take to assuage the enmity between God and man?"

<<<1. Is it moral for a judge to put an innocent man to death for the crime of another man?>>>
According to the Law of Moses, No. It is one thing to make judgement like that, but what Jesus did is another thing, that is, freely taking the penalty of death for the guilty sinner. Just to make that clear, take for example the penalty as being a fine to pay up. Jesus paid that up for him.

The question concerned morality, and I'm glad you mentioned the Law of Moses in this context because it gives me an opportunity to point out the difference between morality and law. Many of the laws of Moses don't apply to Gentile peoples, but the law of Moses illustrates general principles concerning what is right and good for all men.

The question centers on the death penalty, which in my estimation is significantly different than a parking ticket. And while it might be tempting to explain the cross in economic terms, e.g. paying a fine for another person, we do well to remember that the Jewish authorities unjustly took the life of Jesus. In addition, I think we can easily see the difference between a man who gives his life attempting to rescue an innocent child from danger, and a man who gives his life so a criminal might escape justice. Jesus wasn't rescuing innocent life.

Yes. So? Does that say that one could not give his life for another? Do you know what Jesus teach concerning that?

Our focus is on the moral principle of punishment. According to the passage in Deuteronomy it is immoral to punish a man's son for the crimes of his father and the principle applies whether the son volunteers or not.

Salvation is of God, by God, by grace, through faith in God and in Him whom He sent, the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, according to the counsel of His will and of course, His nature.

We are on the same page here. And I am aware of the argument that Jesus' vicarious atonement is an act of grace on his part. And we are saved by that particular act of grace on the basis of our faith in that act. I understand that. But I don't think this idea comes from the New Testament, but we inherited this idea from an earlier time in Church history. In order to track this down, we need to remind ourselves whether salvation is predicated on the Father's act of grace or the Son's act of grace?

It is God who justifies, and that, according to the counsel of His will. It is grace.

If it is grace, then how is it satisfaction?

May I ask, when scriptures says “Christ died for us”, what is your understanding of that?

Vicarious atonement takes place when someone dies "instead of" someone else. This is not what the New Testament means by Christ died FOR us. Rather, the statement indicates that Christ died on our behalf.

And when scriptures says “Christ died for our sins”, what is your understanding of that?

The phrase "for our sins" is shorthand for the more complete idea that God sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Propitiation is matter of appeasement, not of justice.

That's right, which is why the cross is a matter of appeasement, not of justice. Jesus wasn't satisfying justice at the cross, he was reconciling the world to God at the cross.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Not exactly. They are closely related.

Agreed. A propitiation is the thing being offered; while atonement is the condition or status of the final result. Jesus offered his life as a propitiation for our sins -- the offering. The father promises to accept the offering provided that Jesus' followers have the proper inwardness -- contrition, penitence, honesty, faith, hope, love and etc. Another way to say this is, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved . . ."

In other words, atonement takes place when both sides agree to the terms of reconciliation.

May I ask, when scriptures says of Jesus as “the propitiation for our sins”?

The idea of propitiation comes from the worship of God (or the gods), whereby we ask the question, "what must we do to gain God's favor? What must we do to establish friendly relations such that he will bless us and favor us?" The New Testament understands propitiation as the means to reconciliation with God, because the sins of man are a cause of enmity between God and man. For this cause, Jesus Christ volunteered to become a demonstration of God's righteousness. Romans 3:6 Jesus points out that the cross will assuage God's anger in similitude to when Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. John 3:14. Just as all those who looked at the bronze serpent lived; all those who look at the cross will live.

In other words, the terms of reconciliation are this. One must look at the cross and agree, 1) I am a sinner, 2) I deserve what this cross implies, 3) because of my sins, this innocent person had to die.

It is God who justifies. And He justifies freely by His grace. One is justified by faith not by “substitution” (whatever you meant that”.)

If I understand Calvinist teaching correctly, the penal theory of the atonement is the basis of the necessity for a limited atonement. Obviously, if Christ suffered the penalty for all of mankind's sins, and since the atonement definitely secures the salvation of those for whom Christ died, then this leads to universal salvation for all mankind, which is contrary to scripture. Therefore the atonement is limited.

In my view, the atonement remains as an offer for all mankind. The question at issue is whether the death of Jesus on the cross is limited to the elect. The answer to that question centers on the meaning and intent of the cross. The NT understands the cross in terms of an offer of reconciliation. And the offer of reconciliation is clearly made to all mankind.

Therefore I conclude that cross was not Christ being punished instead of mankind, but rather, the cross is Christ's offer of reconciliation on our behalf and in order for any particular individual to achieve reconciliation, one must confess Jesus Christ and believe in him.

 

[brightfame52]

Christ died for us ??

Rom 5:8

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Now here when Paul writes " Christ died for us" it refers to the very same group here later in the epistle Rom 8:33-34

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Yes, it refers to God's Elect Vs 33 and Christ died for them 34 and makes intercession for them !

And so the consequences must be the same, it is God that Justifieth Vs 33 which is the same result following Rom 5:8 with Vs 9

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood or that fact that He died for us, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Also the same benefit of those Christ died for in Rom 8:33 of not having any charge against them, must apply to those that Christ died for in Rom 5:8, yes they were sinners, but no sin charges were imputed to them legally, they having been charged to Christ legally, sin cannot be Justly charged to the sinners and the sinners Surety at the same time , that is a perversion of Justice and what is right !

But the Us Christ died for is God's Elect !

 

[BarneyFife]

Another popular Myth in the religious world today, is the Jesus Christ died or gave His Life for everyone in the world without exception, but the problem with that, is there is not one shred of scripture evidence that states that.

The scripture however does say that He died for His Sheep or His Church as per Jn 10:11,15

11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Eph 5:25

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

His People Isa 53:8

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. cp Matt 1:21

Now, are all without exception His Sheep ? No

Are all without exception His Church ? No

Are all without exception His People ? No

For surely the seed of the serpent Gen 3:15 cannot be of His Sheep, His Church, or His People.

So why does the religous world proclaim that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception, when they have no scripture proof ? Because it is a Myth.

No, I think it is because of this "shred of evidence":
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29)

You see, there's this thing called "common grace." It's not the same as "saving grace." If God were exactingly just, and without mercy, the first time a person (whether ultimately saved or lost) had a sinful thought, they would immediately expire; drop dead. Jesus died not just for "His sheep," but also so that all may be extended a probation so that they would have a chance to be born again and become one of "His sheep."

 

[brightfame52]

No, I think it is because of this "shred of evidence":
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29)

You see, there's this thing called "common grace." It's not the same as "saving grace." If God were exactingly just, and without mercy, the first time a person (whether ultimately saved or lost) had a sinful thought, they would immediately expire; drop dead. Jesus died not just for "His sheep," but also so that all may be extended a probation so that they would have a chance to be born again and become one of "His sheep."

You are being told the Truth.

 

[BarneyFife]

You are being told the Truth.

What is truth?

 

[BarneyFife]

@brightfame52

Is John 1:29 not part of the truth?

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<Did God pay for our sins or did he forgive our sins?>>>

Those scriptures I cited, wherein the death of Christ was spoken of as a ransom and as a redemption, tells me that the death of Christ is a payment for sin. For whose sins did He pay for is another matter.

The difference between ransom and punishment is this. Punishment is any pain, suffering, or loss inflicted on a person because of a crime or offence. Ransom, on the other hand, is the money or price paid for the redemption of a prisoner, or for goods captured by an enemy. Punishment is an act of justice; ransom is an act of mercy.

The cross is not understood as suffering for offences; the cross is understood as the release of captors, i.e. release from bondage to sin. John 8:34-36, Galatians 3:13, Titus 2:14

<<<Punishment is any pain, suffering, or loss inflicted on a person because of a crime or offence. >>>

Yes. Punishment is a penalty inflicted on an offender. It may be in various forms which are a disadvantage, suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution.

The punishment for sin is death. And “death” here, I do not refer to what the world define it to mean. I refer to it as to what the scriptures says it is. That is another deep and important subject to talk about, as I see it as would have the Christian appreciate what Jesus Christ had to suffer for the children of God.

<<<Ransom, on the other hand, is the money or price paid for the redemption of a prisoner, or for goods captured by an enemy.>>>

Yes. Ransom is a payment of a price to free someone from captivity or from punishment. It is a way for setting free someone or something.

Scriptures tells us that Christ gave His life a ransom for many (Mk.10:45). Note, for many, not for all of humanity. A ransom for what? In Heb.19:15 for one, it tells us, concerning those called (note: not all of humanity), that ransom payment was for the transgressions under the first covenant. To set them free from what then? From the penalty of sin. Not only for that, but also from guilt. And the ransom payment is? Death.

<<<Punishment is an act of justice;>>>

Yes. But also could be an act of vengeance, of retribution, of wrath.

<<<ransom is an act of mercy.>>>

It may and may be not. But for sure, Ransom is an act of setting free from a bad position to a good one. And such was of Christ’s death. It is an act of love and also of mercy.

Tong
R4302

 

[Tong2020]

Forgiveness of sin is different from paying for the penalty of sin.
The former is the NOT taking offense of the wrong doing or of the sins done against God any longer; the taking away of the offense, the sin.
The latter is taking upon oneself of the penalty of the offense. Considering the Scriptures, Peter speaks of this, that it is not with silver or gold that Christ paid off the penalty, but paid it off with His priceless precious blood.

While the word "offence" can refer to a feeling of anger, it can also refer to a crime or the act of an enemy. The question is whether "forgiveness" in the New Testament sense, refers to conciliation or absolution or both. More narrowly, is the purpose of the cross to bring absolution or conciliation? Rather than absolution as you suggest, Paul argues that the cross brings conciliation. The question isn't "what punishment is fitting for the sins of man?" Rather, the question is, "what will it take to assuage the enmity between God and man?"

What I meant to say, when I said that forgiveness “is the NOT taking offense of the wrong doing or of the sins done against God any longer; the taking away of the offense, the sin.”, is to give up or to cease to feel resentment against the offender.

<<<is the purpose of the cross to bring absolution or conciliation?>>>

<<<the question is, "what will it take to assuage the enmity between God and man?">>>

There is much purpose of the cross. And that is what we are looking at. And I think the better question is not that, but what Christ accomplished by His death.

As I said, what Christ accomplished by His death points us to the purpose/s of the cross. We read of scriptures that speaks of Christ’s death as a propitiation and also a ransom/redemption. We also read of scriptures that speaks of the blood of Christ as cleanses us from all sin, washed us from our sins. We also read of Christ as was offered to bear the sins of many. We also have scriptures that speaks of Christ as have offered a sacrifice for sins. And so on. The death of Christ certainly accomplished a lot of things, that it could be seen in a lot of different view points.

Tong
R4303

 

[Tong2020]

<<<1. Is it moral for a judge to put an innocent man to death for the crime of another man?>>>
According to the Law of Moses, No. It is one thing to make judgement like that, but what Jesus did is another thing, that is, freely taking the penalty of death for the guilty sinner. Just to make that clear, take for example the penalty as being a fine to pay up. Jesus paid that up for him.

The question concerned morality, and I'm glad you mentioned the Law of Moses in this context because it gives me an opportunity to point out the difference between morality and law. Many of the laws of Moses don't apply to Gentile peoples, but the law of Moses illustrates general principles concerning what is right and good for all men.

The question centers on the death penalty, which in my estimation is significantly different than a parking ticket. And while it might be tempting to explain the cross in economic terms, e.g. paying a fine for another person, we do well to remember that the Jewish authorities unjustly took the life of Jesus. In addition, I think we can easily see the difference between a man who gives his life attempting to rescue an innocent child from danger, and a man who gives his life so a criminal might escape justice. Jesus wasn't rescuing innocent life.

<<<Jesus wasn't rescuing innocent life.>>>

And isn’t that amazing? He gave His life for the ungodly, sinners. And for what?

Tong
R4305