Sozo,
Since you so enthusiastically agree with godrulz cancer-cure analogy, I have some questions.
Second, this analogy shifts the means of salvation from the actual "cure" to the hapless cancer patient, who is too sick and weak to have the wherewithal to acquire the cure from the doctor. The analogy belies the claim that the "cure" is sufficient to save. It's not. Men become their own savior's by relying on that which scripture denounces as a means of salvation: Work and effort. That leaves us with a cure that is no cure at all, that is, until the afflicted somehow takes up his own bed and goes to get the cure. Of course, this all contradicts the claim that there is no "cancer" anymore anyway, since Jesus died for all men's sins and there is no more any guilt.
Earlier, Hilston asked: So are you claiming that everyone in hell, and going to hell, already has all their sins forgiven?
Hilston asked: What are we saved from?
In your "new car" analogy, I pointed out that you had asked the wrong question. The question is: Does everyone own a new car? If you truly purchased it in their behalf, the answer would be yes. But in actuality, since you put a stipulation on the ownership of the car, they don't really own it, which means that you really didn't buy the car for them. It isn't really their car until they've met your demands. You're basically holding the new car hostage until you get what you want, which is the keys to their old car. So the price you paid for the car does nothing for the people who want to keep their old keys. It accomplishes nothing apart from what must be added by turning in one's old car keys.
Isn't it true then, on your view, since all sin has been paid for and "having your sins forgiven is not what saves you", that we no longer need to tell the world that their sin will send them to hell?
Please help me understand your view of these things.
Since you so enthusiastically agree with godrulz cancer-cure analogy, I have some questions.
Yes, but the cure actually can do nothing if the cancer patient has no means of acquiring it. It is an impotent, insufficient potential salvation, i.e. no salvation at all.
First of all, to what does the "cancer" allude? It can't be sin, since all sin has been paid. So what exactly gets cured by the doctor?
Second, this analogy shifts the means of salvation from the actual "cure" to the hapless cancer patient, who is too sick and weak to have the wherewithal to acquire the cure from the doctor. The analogy belies the claim that the "cure" is sufficient to save. It's not. Men become their own savior's by relying on that which scripture denounces as a means of salvation: Work and effort. That leaves us with a cure that is no cure at all, that is, until the afflicted somehow takes up his own bed and goes to get the cure. Of course, this all contradicts the claim that there is no "cancer" anymore anyway, since Jesus died for all men's sins and there is no more any guilt.
"Fault" implies sinful culpability, and I thoght you said all men's sins had been redeemed by Christ's blood.
The "if" contingency renders the "cure" insufficient to accomplish that for which it was intended. If the doctor makes enough "cure" to save the entire world's cancer, but the entire world has no means of acquiring it, the cure will not save a single life. It is intrinsically insufficient.
Earlier, Hilston asked: So are you claiming that everyone in hell, and going to hell, already has all their sins forgiven?
But you said, "Having your sins forgiven is not what saves you." So are you saying Christ died for the forgiveness of all sins, but nonetheless, there are sins unforgiven? Please explain.
But if the provision has been made, there is no guilt for sin. The price has been paid, regardless of whether or not they want to "pay their own way." If Jesus went ahead and paid their way in advance, there is no "paying their own way." Their payment would be refused. And if they have to accept the payment to make it count, then there really was never a true provision, only a potential provision, which is no provision at all.
This is puzzling. You describe guiltless, sinless men (i.e. Jesus died for their sins) who are still dead and going to hell if they don't turn in their old car keys?
Right. So, those in hell are there for not making the trade, not because of any sins they committed, since Christ's death paid for all their sins, right?
Maybe someone likes having their sin forgiven, but would still rather keep their own life. What have they done to deserve eternal separation from God and torment in hell? Especially considering that all their sins are paid for.
I'm just asking questions to better understand your view of the atonement. On my view, there are zero losses. God saves each and every one He chose to love and sent His Son to die for. There will be no one in hell for whom Jesus died, and they go to hell for their sins, and are punished eternally for their sins.
Hilston asked: What are we saved from?
But I thought you said "Having your sins forgiven is not what saves you." So Christ's payment for our sin doesn't save us, yet, here you say we are saved from sin. That suggests there are a bunch of people in hell whose sins are forgiven, but still they will be tormented and punished for eternity -- for what, exactly?
If sin is disobedience to God's commands and if Jesus commanded the people to believe in Him (He even called that doing the work of God), then not believing would be a sin, right? Why didn't Jesus die for that sin, too? Godrulz says it's a different kind of sin. But isn't that then an admission that Jesus' death is insufficient to redeem men from all their sins?
That doesn't seem to make sense, if the Holy Spirit comes after the sacrifice of Christ, which means that all sins are forgiven. Why would the Holy Spirit convict the world concerning sin after Jesus' death paid for all sin?
That shouldn't be true anymore, since Christ's death paid for all sins. Now, by your statements, death comes from not trading in the old car keys. Sin has nothing to do with it, right?
That can't be right. You said death, "separation" from God, is the result of not trading our life for His. It has nothing to do with sin, especially given the fact that all sin has been already paid for. Should I may scratch that verse out of my Bible, because you said all sins have already been paid for and "having sins paid for does not save you."
Seems to me, by what you're saying, that salvation is not really in Christ, but in ourselves, our own decision to turn in the old keys. In other words, Christ's work is impotent until we agree to the terms, which means everything He did is insufficient. It hasn't really accomplished anything. We must first add our own works to the equation in order to catalyze the potentiality of salvation. Without the catalyst, Christ's work is just an impotent, insufficient token that doesn't really accomplish anything.Originally posted by Sozo
But, there is good news (gospel), Jim!!!
The free gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus!
The good news, Jim, is that it is all about Jesus. He is the redemption center. When you come to Him, you receive ALL (is that pantas, or something else), that God has prepared for those who love Him. God demands that we deny ourselves (turn in the old keys) obey Christ (get the new keys), and that salvation (the car) is found in no other.
In your "new car" analogy, I pointed out that you had asked the wrong question. The question is: Does everyone own a new car? If you truly purchased it in their behalf, the answer would be yes. But in actuality, since you put a stipulation on the ownership of the car, they don't really own it, which means that you really didn't buy the car for them. It isn't really their car until they've met your demands. You're basically holding the new car hostage until you get what you want, which is the keys to their old car. So the price you paid for the car does nothing for the people who want to keep their old keys. It accomplishes nothing apart from what must be added by turning in one's old car keys.
Isn't it true then, on your view, since all sin has been paid for and "having your sins forgiven is not what saves you", that we no longer need to tell the world that their sin will send them to hell?
Did you say "Forgiveness of sin is found"? I thought all sin was paid for already. How can "forgiveness of sin be found"?
Please help me understand your view of these things.
