Tasted Death for every Man !

[Butch5]

Yes. The Old Testament sacrifices that foreshadow Christ and His sacrifice teach us the innocent lamb was sacrificed, so as to pay for the sin of the guilty,


The price of sin is death. The evidence of death is the blood.

The innocent animal paid the price for the sin of the person.



JLB

The animal didn't pay the price. That's why they had to do it every year. Paul said the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sins. That was just a picture of what Christ would do.

 

[JLB]

The animal didn't pay the price.

The animal didn’t die and shed its blood in the place of the person?

Your joking, right?


Of course sacrifices continued throughout the year as people sinned.




JLB

 

[Butch5]

The animal didn’t die and shed its blood in the place of the person?

Your joking, right?


Of course sacrifices continued throughout the year as people sinned.




JLB

Yes, the animal died. However, it didn't take away sins.

 

[JLB]

Yes, the animal died. However, it didn't take away sins.

Of course not. No one said it did. It atoned for (covered) the sin but didn’t take it away.


The only point I was making is that the innocent animal paid the price for the guilty person.


Surely you agree.

 

[Butch5]

Of course not. No one said it did. It atoned for (covered) the sin but didn’t take it away.


The only point I was making is that the innocent animal paid the price for the guilty person.


Surely you agree.

What price was paid?

 

[JLB]

What price was paid?

Blood. The evidence of death.


The soul that sins must die.




JLB

 

[Fastfredy0]

If I say all of the trees on the earth, am I excluding any trees?

Dictionary definition of ALL: used to refer to (1) the whole quantity or (2) extent of a particular group or thing
Thus, when you refer to ALL trees you could be speaking of:
1) every tree without exception
2) every type of tree (elm, apple, oak, etc.)
Thus, if there were 10 elm, 10 apple and 10 oak true and ALL was from (2) all groups then ALL could mean 1-10 elm + 1-10 apple + 1-10 oaks tree
or if ALL was per the dictionary definition (1) then ALL would refer to 10 elm +10 apple + 10 oak.

Yes, Roman's 5:18 does mean all without exception. If it doesn't, Paul's analogy Falls apart. Death came to all men through Adam and justification of life comes to all men

If ALL men without exception are justified then ALL men without exception go to heaven.
Since we know ALL men without exception go to heaven we know ALL in the verse does not mean EVERY MAN WITHOUT EXCEPTION; rather, EVERY MAN WITHOUT DISTINCTION (from all groups)
Aside: I grant that ALL in the verse refers to ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION for the first occurrence of ALL as in ALL are in ADAM

The reason you're having to say all doesn't mean all in the passage is because you're approaching it from the idea of Penal Atonement.

NO ... I am saying it because other scripture can be used to determine if ALL is without exception or without distinction.

Penal Atonement is a Reformation doctrine.

I think you are on a tangent. I thought we are just talking about the meaning of the word ALL and not penal atonement. (Maybe I am lost as the rest of your post seems to be about atonement and my reference to Romans 5:18 was to illustrate the use of the word ALL.)

 

[Butch5]

Blood. The evidence of death.


The soul that sins must die.




JLB

Ok, the penalty is death. The animal died but the sin wasn't taken away. What was paid?

 

[jaybo]

It is not possible to 'fool God' as he is omniscient. Theology 101

If you're going to respond to my post, why not include all of what I wrote?

"If a person is trying to fool God by just mouthing some words, He knows that they are hypocritical."

Integrity 101

 

[jaybo]

Ok, the penalty is death. The animal died but the sin wasn't taken away. What was paid?

Under the Old Covenant, the price for the sin that was committed was (in this case) the substitutionary death of the animal.

 

[Hopeful]

Ok, the penalty is death. The animal died but the sin wasn't taken away. What was paid?

The sinner who bought-brought the sheep as his atonement cost paid the price of the lamb, goat, oxen.
Only Jesus could "take away sin" from the world.

 

[Butch5]

Dictionary definition of ALL: used to refer to (1) the whole quantity or (2) extent of a particular group or thing
Thus, when you refer to ALL trees you could be speaking of:
1) every tree without exception
2) every type of tree (elm, apple, oak, etc.)
Thus, if there were 10 elm, 10 apple and 10 oak true and ALL was from (2) all groups then ALL could mean 1-10 elm + 1-10 apple + 1-10 oaks tree
or if ALL was per the dictionary definition (1) then ALL would refer to 10 elm +10 apple + 10 oak.

Unless I specify a group all is without exception. Even if I specify a group it still means all in the group without exception. Either way it is the totality. If I say all trees, I don't mean two of each kind of tree.

If ALL men without exception are justified then ALL men without exception go to heaven.
Since we know ALL men without exception go to heaven we know ALL in the verse does not mean EVERY MAN WITHOUT EXCEPTION; rather, EVERY MAN WITHOUT DISTINCTION (from all groups)
Aside: I grant that ALL in the verse refers to ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION for the first occurrence of ALL as in ALL are in ADAM

The passage doesn't say all men are justified. It says justification of life came to all men. Just because it came to all men doesn't mean all men are justified. Not everyone accepts it.

Again, if all doesn't mean the same thing in both instances Paul's analogy falls apart. He's contrasting all in Adam with all in Christ. He's not contrasting all in Adam with some in Christ. Think about it. If he wanted to say some, he could easily have said some. Why would he say all if he means some. It doesn't make sense. The plain reading makes perfect sense if we're not trying to fit it into a preconceived idea.

NO ... I am saying it because other scripture can be used to determine if ALL is without exception or without distinction.

There's no need to use other Scripture. The statement is plain. The only reason to use other Scripture is to fit it into a preconceived idea.

I think you are on a tangent. I thought we are just talking about the meaning of the word ALL and not penal atonement. (Maybe I am lost as the rest of your post seems to be about atonement and my reference to Romans 5:18 was to illustrate the use of the word ALL.)

My post about the atonement was to show that it is the perspective that you're coming from that is causing you to draw the conclusions that you are drawing. The preconceptions we bring to the text influence how we understand the text. If we approach the text with preconceptions from the perspective of Penal Atonement we're going to draw different conclusions than we will if we approach the text with preconceptions from the perspective of the Ransom model. You believe that the phrase, justification of life came to all, means that one is justified. With that preconception you are forced to redefine that word "all". Because if being justified means one is saved and not all are saved, then all can't mean all. My argument is that your preconception, that justification of life came to all, means one is justified, is incorrect. If we approach with a different preconception, Justification of life came to all, yet not all receive it, then we don't have to redefine the word all. It works perfectly fine in the text. If we have to redefine words in the text, it's not the words that are the issue, It's that we've got something wrong in our theology.

 

[Butch5]

Under the Old Covenant, the price for the sin that was committed was (in this case) the substitutionary death of the animal.

What did that pay?

 

[jaybo]

Ok, the penalty is death. The animal died but the sin wasn't taken away. What was paid?

What was paid was God's price for the sin committed under the Old Covenant. The sin was taken away by the substitutionary sacrifice. The problem was that there had to be a price paid for every single sin that was committed.

In contrast, Christ's sacrifice paid the price for all sin for all time. Amazing, incredible, and true!!

 

[Butch5]

The sinner who bought-brought the sheep as his atonement cost paid the price of the lamb, goat, oxen.
Only Jesus could "take away sin" from the world.

Right. Nothing was paid with the animal sacrifice. It was simply an illustration of what Christ would do. People talk about a price paid for sin. The price is death and everyone dies. Even those who gave the animal sacrifices died. That's the point, people die for their own sins. The wages of sin is death, everyone dies.

 

[Butch5]

What was paid was God's price for the sin committed under the Old Covenant. The sin was taken away by the substitutionary sacrifice. The problem was that there had to be a price paid for every single sin that was committed.

In contrast, Christ's sacrifice paid the price for all sin for all time. Amazing, incredible, and true!!

Not according to Paul. he said the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins.

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. (Heb. 10:1-4 KJV)

The sacrifices didn't take away sins. They were simply a reminder for Israel.

 

[Butch5]

What was paid was God's price for the sin committed under the Old Covenant. The sin was taken away by the substitutionary sacrifice. The problem was that there had to be a price paid for every single sin that was committed.

In contrast, Christ's sacrifice paid the price for all sin for all time. Amazing, incredible, and true!!

You're coming at it from a Penal perspective too. Where does it say there was a price to be paid to God? If the sin was taken away by the sacrifice, then why did the sinner die? God said, 'the soul that sins shall die'. If the animal sacrifice took away the sin, then the sinner should not have died.

 

[Hopeful]

Right. Nothing was paid with the animal sacrifice. It was simply an illustration of what Christ would do. People talk about a price paid for sin. The price is death and everyone dies. Even those who gave the animal sacrifices died. That's the point, people die for their own sins. The wages of sin is death, everyone dies.

The "price" for a sin was the cost of an animal in the OT.
The ultimate "price" for sinning was death.
We are talking about two different perspectives of "price".

 

[Butch5]

The "price" for a sin was the cost of an animal in the OT.
The ultimate "price" for sinning was death.
We are talking about two different perspectives of "price".

But again, if the price was an animal, why did the sinner die? If the price was paid the sinner shouldn't die. My point is that the sacrifices were not a payment to God for sin, but rather a reminder to Israel of their sin as Paul says in Hebreews 10. We can't pay God for sin. The wages of sin is death. Paul called the result of sin wages. Wages are something we earn not something we pay. By committing sin we earn death. All people die, even Christians.

 

[brightfame52]

serving zion

It would be good if you can confirm whether it appears to you that I have understood the points of the opening post

You nailed it !

and then tell me what you are trying to achieve by making those points because you didn't clearly state the reason for which you have thought it necessary to persuade the community to acknowledge them.

But sir, you just nailed it, and you prove that what I attended to be comprehended could be , unless you feel you have superior ability to comprehend than others in the community ! I believe if you comprehended, anyone could have. Thanks for being thorough to my post and articulating the same, would all be that way !