If I am elect. Can I commit genocide…?Yes. That is the unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
It is the only sin God does not forgive. Not because he can’t and not because his sacrifice did not suffice, but because he, with broken heart, allows us to walk away from him.
I can ask back to you.
If I am elect. Can I commit genocide and God looks the other way?
A just judge would to require the penalty to be paid twiceChrist actually saved everyone. He extends the grace to everyone.
Some reject the gift he bought for them. That is their choice.
If I go before a judge and you are convicted of murder and I arrange with the judge to receive your punishment for you. The judge accepts and sends me to the electric chair.
You come in the next day, and the judge says, “Good news, your sentence has been paid by Jon, you are free to go, and you reply back, I don’t accept that. I don’t believe he could do that, I want no part of it.” Do the judge sentences you to death.
Did I save you…actually. Yes I did.
Did you reject the gift and thus were punished as well making my death in vain. Yes.
But Jesus death is not in vain even if he only saves one soul.
what definition of Christian are you using: mere mental assent of some basic facts: or being indwelt by the Holy Spirit and a follower of the Lord and Savior?If I recall correctly, Calvinists believe that God actually creates people to send them to hell. I have a huge problem with this. For one, it contradicts the Bible. (2 Peter 3:9). If this is true, it also makes God a bully. And if this is true, why should someone be a Christian if they are going to go to hell no matter what they do? …)
Yes it was paid for.If I am elect. Can I commit genocide…?
No, It is impossible
and back to my more realistic point
Lets say I rejected Christ for over 40 years and then came to belief:
Was my sin of unbelief paid for on the Cross?
Lets say I rejected Christ for my entire life and died rejecting Christ
Was my sin of unbelief paid for on the Cross?
Thank you for that excellent connection Kliska.It’s Passover, so this gives us the timely opportunity to point out that Jesus is the Passover lamb. Not only was the Lamb sacrificed, but His blood must be applied on the doorposts. You can have a completed sacrifice and if the blood is not applied, then death will still happen. The fact that some don’t enter the new covenant in His blood does not lessen the completed sacrifice.
You seem to think that the punishment for sin is to have blood drained from the body.A just judge would to require the penalty to be paid twice
God is perfectly just
Either the sinner will pay for their sins or Christ did; but not both.
**
Is there anyone in Hell whose sins were paid for by Christ?**
I would say no one.
I think you would say everyone.
Some of this is because (some of) us protestants neglect the “Christ as victor” side of the Sacrifice and atonement, IMO.You seem to think that the punishment for sin is to have blood drained from the body.
No the punishment for sin is eternal separation from God. Christ offered himself in love for us which conquers the chasm of death and his resurrection (which the Calvinist seems to not think much of) is the real moment of victory. Christ overcomes death because we cannot.
Christ was not being punished by God. He was not punishing himself. He was giving himself in love for us. It was about love conquering death, fear, sin.
I seem to hear the Calvinist think, Christ was just a huge human sacrifice, like a goat in the temple but bigger.
No…no…no… Christ, was the passover lamb, but it is about so much more than the physical attributes of that.
Perhaps your right. I did not believe that way as a Protestant but it seems some do.Some of this is because (some of) us protestants neglect the “Christ as victor” side of the Sacrifice and atonement, IMO.
nope: We agree Christ conquered death.Some of this is because (some of) us protestants neglect the “Christ as victor” side of the Sacrifice and atonement, IMO.
Agreed: the blood of the Sacrifice Lamb actually accomplished exactly what was intended…It’s Passover, so this gives us the timely opportunity to point out that Jesus is the Passover lamb. Not only was the Lamb sacrificed, but His blood must be applied on the doorposts. You can have a completed sacrifice and if the blood is not applied, then death will still happen. The fact that some don’t enter the new covenant in His blood does not lessen the completed sacrifice.
Isaiah 53You seem to think that the punishment for sin is to have blood drained from the body.
No the punishment for sin is eternal separation from God. Christ offered himself in love for us which conquers the chasm of death and his resurrection (which the Calvinist seems to not think much of) is the real moment of victory. Christ overcomes death because we cannot.
Christ was not being punished by God. He was not punishing himself. He was giving himself in love for us. It was about love conquering death, fear, sin.
I seem to hear the Calvinist think, Christ was just a huge human sacrifice, like a goat in the temple but bigger.
No…no…no… Christ, was the passover lamb, but it is about so much more than the physical attributes of that.
There’s more the to the Christ as Victor model than the fact that He conquered death.nope: We agree Christ conquered death.
Some Catholic theologians have attacked the specific teaching of Substitutionary Atonement, but most have a very similar idea built into their theories even if called by a different name, at least as far as I’ve seen.the issue is the the Catholic Church rejects the Substitutionary Atonement side of the Atonement
Yes, and we have to apply that blood to be “passed-over.” That’s through faith, which is an actual choice man makes, or does not make. That’s were we differ as well in the idea of “irresistible grace” vs. “enabling grace.”Being “covered by the blood” actually saved, not potentially saved.
I guess I did not realize Calvinist believed in human sacrifice. How is what you are describing different than human sacrifice of you don’t believe that?Agreed: the blood of the Sacrifice Lamb actually accomplished exactly what was intended…
Being “covered by the blood” actually saved, not potentially saved.
Nope:I guess I did not realize Calvinist believed in human sacrifice. How is what you are describing different than human sacrifice of you don’t believe that?
It seems that if the shedding of blood is required, then anyone would do. Maybe Jesus could cover a large number but surely any man could cover any one man?
This is frankly absurdity but seems what you describe.
…
According to Romans 5, Jesus died for “all men” The Calvinist would say “some men” .Nope:
All other men would be under the penalty for their own sins.
Only the “Lamb without blemish” can stand in the place of sinners.
Christ had no human father: therefore Christ was not under the “Federal Headship” of Adam
Romans 5
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
The penalty of sin is death under the wrath of God
Jesus paid that penalty for whosoever will believe in Him…
What is your understanding of propitiation?
"Having dealt with the linguistic level, let’s kick it up to the theological level. What does propitiation mean theologically? Those who would argue that the idea taken literally is more suited to pagan than to Christian theology are correct. Pagan deities might literally feel passions like anger, but Christian theological had established long before the time of Trent that God does not literally have passions (see Aquinas on this point). As a result, when God is described as being angry or hating something, such as sin, there is a figurative component to the language (again, see Aquinas on this point).Nope:
All other men would be under the penalty for their own sins.
Only the “Lamb without blemish” can stand in the place of sinners.
Christ had no human father: therefore Christ was not under the “Federal Headship” of Adam
Romans 5
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.
The penalty of sin is death under the wrath of God
Jesus paid that penalty for whosoever will believe in Him…
What is your understanding of propitiation?
“18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” Romans 5According to Romans 5, Jesus died for “all men” The Calvinist would say “some men” .
How can this be reconciled?
I would like an answer on the eternal security issue. Are the elect unable to sin? Or are some sins ok but not others?
Romans 5:9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!"Having dealt with the linguistic level, let’s kick it up to the theological level. What does propitiation mean theologically? Those who would argue that the idea taken literally is more suited to pagan than to Christian theology are correct. Pagan deities might literally feel passions like anger, but Christian theological had established long before the time of Trent that God does not literally have passions (see Aquinas on this point). As a result, when God is described as being angry or hating something, such as sin, there is a figurative component to the language (again, see Aquinas on this point).
When people sin, God is not literally burning with anger, because his infinite beatitude cannot be diminished by what creatures do. Instead, as Aquinas and Catholic theology in general points out (see Ott’s discussion of this), Scripture and the Magisterium are using language with a figurative component when they speak in this way.
The same component is present when the language of propitiation is used with regard to God. To say that God has been propitiated does not mean that he has stopped burning with anger (something he was not doing in the first place) but that the person now will not experience the painful consequences of sin that he otherwise would have experienced. The sacrifice of the Mass, by bringing about this state of affairs by applying the fruits of Christ’s sacrifice, is thus propitiatory."
From: jimmyakin.com/2004/03/and_speaking_of-4.html