Tasted Death for every Man !

[Hopeful]

It doesn't fit with the assertion which you responded to in the first place, that brightfame52 had said to me:

Can you explain why your position has changed?

It didn't.
Jesus died so all men could be free of sin.
He was successful.
But not all men want that freedom so have ignored the free gift available to them.
I don't see why you don't understand that?
Perhaps it is a matter of syntax...or something.
Perspective, maybe?

He died for all men.

 

[Serving Zion]

It didn't.
Jesus died so all men could be free of sin.
He was successful.
But not all men want that freedom so have ignored the free gift available to them.
I don't see why you don't understand that?
Perhaps it is a matter of syntax...or something.
Perspective, maybe?

He died for all men.

What effect does His death have for those that don't receive the gift?

 

[brightfame52]

Thanks for asking! I only understand it to mean that everyone will be saved. I haven't formed an understanding of how it might be tangible though, so that's all I mean by it.

Okay, we arent talking about the same thing. Please read the OP, Im very clear on what my objective is for Heb 2:9

 

[Serving Zion]

Okay, we arent talking about the same thing. Please read the OP, Im very clear on what my objective is for Heb 2:9

But why did you feel it is necessary to make those points? What are you trying to prove by them? That's my question. You can already see that I have understood the points.

 

[Hopeful]

What effect does His death have for those that don't receive the gift?

The gift of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, has no effect.
The gift sits unused.
But it is still there for them if they repent of sin in the future...before they die.

 

[Serving Zion]

The gift of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, has no effect.
The gift sits unused.
But it is still there for them if they repent of sin in the future...before they die.

The question is asking about those who don't receive the gift, so it has to mean that they are those who die without receiving it. If they received it in the future "before they die" as you have said, then they wouldn't be part of the group that didn't receive the gift.

So I'm only asking about those who don't receive the gift: if you say it has no effect for them, how can you say that He has tasted of death for them?

 

[Butch5]

I fail to see a remedy to a problem.
If the problem you cite is death, nothing we do short of repentance from sin and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins and the reception of the Holy Ghost can cure death.
By being reborn, this time from God's seed, we can live forever.
The vessel we live IN is of no importance.

The point isn't a remedy. It's that there is no price that was paid. We can't pay God for sins.

It is Adam's sin that brought death. We can't have an impact on his deed.
But we can be reborn of God's immortal seed.

No, we can't. But again the point is that there isn't a price we can pay. People sin and they die.

Who cares?
This time on earth is temporary.
Live for the eternity and let the small stuff slide off your back.

Time on earth isn't temporary. Those who receive life at the Resurrection will be on earth for eternity. But again, the point is that if a price was paid the sinners debt would be wiped out and he should not die.

God's words referred to the second death.
Paul's, to physical death, the first death...brought on by our own sins.
Christians can die the first death with Christ at their "immersion" into His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:3-7), and live forever.
BTW, those reborn of God don't commit sin.
God's seed bearing liars and thieves is as likely as a peach tree bearing strawberries.
Can't happen.

Really, where do you see that? There is only physical death. Everyone dies once, that is the first death. Then comes the Resurrection, those raised to life will live, those raised to condemnation will die again, that is the second death.

But the whole point is that if one's sins were paid for to God the sinner shouldn't die, yet he does.

 

[Hopeful]

The question is asking about those who don't receive the gift, so it has to mean that they are those who die without receiving it. If they received it in the future "before they die" as you have said, then they wouldn't be part of the group that didn't receive the gift.

So I'm only asking about those who don't receive the gift: if you say it has no effect for them, how can you say that He has tasted of death for them?

The gift is on the table, and all they have to do is accept it.
The blame for their destruction will be on their own heads.
To suggest otherwise makes God the villain for not forcing men to live eternally.

 

[Hopeful]

The point isn't a remedy. It's that there is no price that was paid. We can't pay God for sins.

No, we can't. But again the point is that there isn't a price we can pay. People sin and they die.

Time on earth isn't temporary. Those who receive life at the Resurrection will be on earth for eternity. But again, the point is that if a price was paid the sinners debt would be wiped out and he should not die.

Really, where do you see that? There is only physical death. Everyone dies once, that is the first death. Then comes the Resurrection, those raised to life will live, those raised to condemnation will die again, that is the second death.

But the whole point is that if one's sins were paid for to God the sinner shouldn't die, yet he does.

They don't die if they quit committing sin.
That is the result of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection from the dead, on earth, to show that sin doesn't have control of those who refuse to commit sin. (Among other things)
Jesus paid for everyone, but not everyone will get on the bus.
Their sins were paid for but the payment wasn't accepted by those given the freedom.

 

[Serving Zion]

The gift is on the table, and all they have to do is accept it.
The blame for their destruction will be on their own heads.
To suggest otherwise makes God the villain for not forcing men to live eternally.

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[Butch5]

They don't die if they quit committing sin.
That is the result of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection from the dead, on earth, to show that sin doesn't have control of those who refuse to commit sin. (Among other things)
Jesus paid for everyone, but not everyone will get on the bus.
Their sins were paid for but the payment wasn't accepted by those given the freedom.

It's not about "getting on the bus". If there's a debt and it's paid, the sinner shouldn't have to pay it also. If death is a payment to God for sin, which is how many see it, and Jesus paid it, then the sinner shouldn't have to pay it also. If, as many claim, Jesus death paid a sin debt to God for the sinner the debt is paid and the sinner has no further obligation. However, the sinner still dies, thus paying again an already paid debt. It doesn't work and it doesn't make sense. Thus, it isn't a debt. Jesus didn't pay a sin debt to God. That idea, in Penal Atonement, just doesn't work

 

[Hopeful]

That doesn't answer the question.

The gift was given, but they refused it.
The sacrifice was made, for all men, but men have to accept it for it to function on their behalf.

 

[Hopeful]

It's not about "getting on the bus". If there's a debt and it's paid, the sinner shouldn't have to pay it also. If death is a payment to God for sin, which is how many see it, and Jesus paid it, then the sinner shouldn't have to pay it also. If, as many claim, Jesus death paid a sin debt to God for the sinner the debt is paid and the sinner has no further obligation. However, the sinner still dies, thus paying again an already paid debt. It doesn't work and it doesn't make sense. Thus, it isn't a debt. Jesus didn't pay a sin debt to God. That idea, in Penal Atonement, just doesn't work

If you don't file for a tax refund, you don't receive it.
If you don't accept God's love, you won't receive it.

We have a part to play in the administration of the gift of Jesus Christ.
We have to receive it.
The damned had a door to freedom but wouldn't open it.
That is their fault.

 

[Butch5]

If you don't file for a tax refund, you don't receive it.
If you don't accept God's love, you won't receive it.

We have a part to play in the administration of the gift of Jesus Christ.
We have to receive it.
The damned had a door to freedom but wouldn't open it.
That is their fault.

That's not the issue. Whether we die or not isn't an option. Everyone dies. If that death was paid for we wouldn't die. It has nothing to do with receiving anything. If there was a debt to be paid and it was paid, man wouldn't die. Even Christians who claim their debt is paid still die. If their debt was paid they wouldn't die.

 

[GodsGrace]

It doesn't negate the action of giving though, which is the context of having used the word "gift". Why have you opposed me here?

Only if you hold that atonement is made through a Penal Substitution Atonement doctrine, (which is not consistent with scripture).

I don't think it necessarily has no effect even if they remain guilty. You should listen to the points I made before refuting them.

Hi SZ....
I'm not going to debate this with you because I don't like the Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement...
however, a case could be made for it using at least a couple of verses I could think of off-hand.
One would be re God's wrath for those that do not accept Jesus...
and the other would be how Jesus became sin for us - also when He felt abandoned on the cross.
IOW,,,I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't consistent with scripture.

This is from Morrison:

#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory​

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The Reformers, Specifically Calvin and Luther, took Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and modified it slightly. They added a more legal (or forensic) framework into this notion of the cross as satisfaction. The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of imputed righteousness is postulated.

This theory of the Atonement contrasts with Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in that God is not satisfied with a debt of justice being paid by Jesus, but that God is satisfied with punishing Jesus in the place of mankind. The notion that the cross acts upon God, conditioning Him to forgiveness, originates from Anslems theory, but here in Penal Substitution the means are different. This theory of the Atonement is perhaps the most dominant today, especially among the Reformed, and the evangelical.

source: https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/

 

[Serving Zion]

The gift was given, but they refused it.
The sacrifice was made, for all men, but men have to accept it for it to function on their behalf.

I see that you still haven't seen the question because you are only seeing the doctrine, so perhaps it will help if I can show the question as a purely logical expression in a graphic:

• What effect does the death of Christ have for the unsaved?

 

[Serving Zion]

Hi SZ....
I'm not going to debate this with you because I don't like the Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement...

Why on earth did you approach me then?

however, a case could be made for it using at least a couple of verses I could think of off-hand.

I dispute that claim, and you should already have known that.

One would be re God's wrath for those that do not accept Jesus...

Can you please show that scripture?

and the other would be how Jesus became sin for us

You don't think that is explained by Matthew 26:59-68?

also when He felt abandoned on the cross

Can you prove that? I don't recall those particular words being said. I remember that He called to mind the prophecy of Psalms 22 in those moments to bring about the fulfilment of that scripture (Luke 24:44).

IOW,,,I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't consistent with scripture

Well it is clear that you haven't considered the scriptures that it is inconsistent with (nor have you asked to see them), and I can see that you have been conditioned by the views of PSA to only be able to comprehend the scriptures according to the context of it.

 

[Butch5]

Penal Atonement isn't a Biblical concept simply because it's a logical contradiction and therefore not possible

 

[Serving Zion]

Penal Atonement isn't a Biblical concept simply because it's a logical contradiction and therefore not possible

Yes, the truth always makes good logical sense, which is one way to identify truth from error. Problem with that approach though is intellectual dishonesty. When someone believes their salvation depends on the belief of a certain doctrine, then the doctrine itself must be guarded from the truth - hence, the "twisting" of scripture.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, the truth always makes good logical sense, which is one way to identify truth from error. Problem with that approach though is intellectual dishonesty. When someone believes their salvation depends on the belief of a certain doctrine, then the doctrine itself must be guarded from the truth - hence, the "twisting" of scripture.

I find that all the time. Sometimes I wonder how the Reformers ever came up with this idea. After all it is illogical.