Hell: did Jesus die for those burning..?

Hi everyone,Would you say Jesus Christ's redeeming work saves *in and of itself*? By that I mean people only go to heaven because of Christ's completely satisfactory death and perfect law-keeping alone. That is, the difference between salvation and damnation is the work of Christ alone. Therefore, if you accept this then the work of Christ ensures salvation for all whom Christ represented.What do you think?Atonement means reconcilation, right?But if people for whom Christ died go to hell then his atoning blood didn't achieve reconciliation !! Furthermore, do you agree that propitation means to appease ?Then God is appeased with everyone for whom Christ died, right? Finally, to redeem means to pay the price for a possession so as to rescue.Do you agree? Because if you agree then all whom Christ redeemed are rescued from hell ! Amen !Afterall, people don't go to hell whose sins are forgiven? OK? Otherwise Jesus and them are both being punished. That's double punishment !! That's evil (Prov 17:15).Indeed, Jesus saves His people (only) from their sins (Mt 1:21)! Comments?

Hi anti-paradoxIf it is 'particular redemption' you are referring to we chatted a little on the topic in a thread called Propitiation and the red heifer and a little in the thread called atonementThat is not intended to close down any discussion but simply to say we may have already made a start.

Not to over simplify all this, but it seems to me that the reccouring theme soteriologically is the presence or non-presence of the Holy Spirit in a persons life. Can we say that when the Holy Spirit departs the ashes metaphorically dry up and cease to have their effect on sin? This is caused by doing 'despite' unto the Spirit of Grace and in its finality is trodding under foot the blood of Christ as though it was dust (were ashes). I am also reminded of the thread in which the concept of looking eye to eye (as it were) with God was dealt with. The conscience of a Sinner is such that they cannot look eye to eye. The relationship is faulty. The blood cleanses the conscience of those who desire to have the relationship restored. Those who have no desire to retain God in their knowledge would not accept the cleansing if offered. They don't want to walk with God. Sure God has sought reconciliation; but Jesus said it clearly, "Yet they would not that He should rule over them." This is the key as to why people are cast into Hell and really nothing more. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)BTW. The Red Heifer teaching is excellent if you have missed it. God Bless,-Robert

RobertW: Can we say that when the Holy Spirit departs the ashes metaphorically dry up and cease to have their effect on sin? Robert, are you saying that that what begins in the Spirit can be thwarted by the flesh? Wow.Joh 10:28 And I give eternal life to them, and they shall not perish to the age, never! And not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand. RobertW: The blood cleanses the conscience of those who desire to have the relationship restored.Rob, are you saying that some people dead in their sins can seek after God? Incredible.Rom 3:11 there is not one seeking God.RobertW: Sure God has sought reconciliation...Reconciliation is past tense, Rob. His people's sins were imputed to Christ at the cross!Rom 5:10 For if while being enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life; RobertW: "Yet they would not that He should rule over them." This is the key as to why people are cast into Hell and really nothing more.Rob, are you saying that God doesn't determine eternity? Amazing.Rom 9:18 So, then, to whom He desires, He shows mercy. And to whom He desires, He hardens.

Hey anti, you seem to be stating the case for reformed theology? I put a question mark at the end of that sentence because, really I’m asking if in fact you are of the reformed view a.k.a. Calvinism. Thank you and God Bless!

Anyone not wanting to wade through the red heifer in our thread here can find it extracted into a pdf by Gary Sims on his mybiblebase.com site as The Red Heifer

---Sermonindex: Scripture clearly shows that Christ died for ALL. Sermonindex, are you saying that some *blood-bought* people burn eternally? John 10:14,28 I lay down My life for the sheep … and I give eternal life to them, and they shall not perish to the age, never! ---Sermonindex: Also Scripture states that God desires ALL to be saved. Sermonindex, are you stating that a husband should desire harlots in the same manner as he loves his wife?Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the assembly and gave Himself up on its behalf...Why must a husband love all the harlots? He must love the harlots because his motto is God's motto (Eph5:25). If "God" desires ALL, husbands must say: “Honey, I want you to know I love ALL the women in the world." ---Sermonindex: If God determined Eternity and choose who He wanted to spend Eternity with Him then that would be ridicilous plainly put. Wow. There it is. Think about what sermonindex just said. Sermonindex believes that God is powerless. For Sermonindex, the eternal "God" does not determine eternity.On the other hand, the Bible says that God has not only determined eternity but:Eph 1:11 ALL THINGS according to the counsel of his own will.But to Sermonindex, that’s “ridiculous plainly put”. For Sermonindex “God” does not determine. “God” does not choose. Sermonindex says the eternal God does not determine eternity.

Beloved,Initial arguments in this thread are not leading towards Reform theology, they were leading towards the reverse UNIVERSALISM This is a deadly trend that is even now trying to invade the Church! Robert, are you saying that that what begins in the Spirit can be thwarted by the flesh? Wow. Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;. (Hebrews 3:7-13)Rob, are you saying that some people dead in their sins can seek after God? IncredibleYour point of reference is all wrong. The Holy Spirit is constantly striving with man on this earth and sinful men are resisting. This was the message of Stephen in Acts 7. People cannot "always resist the Holy Ghost" unless He is "always striving." The Children of Israel resisted what God was constantly trying to do in drawing the near to God. Example: Perhaps you have resisted the Spirit of God. Perhaps you are in the habit of resisting the Spirit. You resist conviction. In preaching, when something has been said that reached your case, your heart has risen up against it and resisted. Many are willing to hear plain and searching preaching so long as they can apply it all to others; a misanthropic spirit makes them take a satisfaction in hearing others searched and rebuked; but if the truth touch them, they directly cry out that it is personal and abusive. Is this your case? (C.G.F.) "If thou seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find Him, if thou seek Him with all thy heart and all thy soul." (Deuteronomy 4:29) Reconciliation is past tense, Rob. His people's sins were imputed to Christ at the cross! Friend, you are making arguments from the perspective of eternity; we live in real time. in behalf of Christ, then, we are ambassadors, as if God were calling through us, we beseech, in behalf of Christ, 'Be ye reconciled to God;' (II Corinthians 5:20)Rob, are you saying that God doesn't determine eternity? Amazing.To follow out the reasoning you propose here would be to indict God as the Father of lies. As Leonard Ravinhill said, "Were 1000 babies foreordained by God to go down the John last night?" That's Calvin 1000 times over. Universalism is another refuge of lies. This system varies in some of its minor points, but in one great leading feature it remains ever the same--it always denies the justice of endless punishment. However much the advocates of Universalism may differ from each other in the less important points, they all agree that all men will ultimately be saved; that sin does not deserve an endless punishment; and that it would therefore be unjust in God to inflict it. (C.G.F. O.E. 1848).

Therefore, if you accept this then the work of Christ ensures salvation for all whom Christ represented.For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:16,17)And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."If Christ came as a representative for the whole world, then the outworking of the original post is UNIVERSALISM.

If Christ came as a representative for the whole world, then the outworking of the original post is UNIVERSALISM.Hi RobertI can see why you are wanting to guard against universalism, but if Christ's death was not representative and substitionary for the whole race are you not heading for particular redemption/limited atonement?

but if Christ's death was not representative and substitionary for the whole race are you not heading for particular redemption/limited atonement?Hi Bro. Ron,I certainly do not believe in limited atonement. My comments are based on the outworking of the rest of the original post.What do you think?Atonement means reconcilation, right?But if people for whom Christ died go to hell then his atoning blood didn't achieve reconciliation !! Furthermore, do you agree that propitation means to appease ?Then God is appeased with everyone for whom Christ died, right? Finally, to redeem means to pay the price for a possession so as to rescue.Do you agree? Because if you agree then all whom Christ redeemed are rescued from hell ! Amen !Afterall, people don't go to hell whose sins are forgiven? OK? Otherwise Jesus and them are both being punished. That's double punishment !! That's evil (Prov 17:15).Indeed, Jesus saves His people (only) from their sins (Mt 1:21)! Key in on this one quote:Then God is appeased with everyone for whom Christ died, right? Now look at this quote:Do you agree? Because if you agree then all whom Christ redeemed are rescued from hell ! Amen !If I am missing something here I certainly apologize openly and candidly! It looks to me like what is being said that if Christ died for all then all are saved. I'll listen to any help I can get to change that thought. It was my initial thought yesterday when you broke in, but I just went on with it because the subject was becoming very edifying. Then the challenges to what are quite basic evangelical points. (oh why did I say that :-? )God Bless,-Robert

I brought this question from the other thread so we could continue here at Bro. Greg's request. Please help me to understand your thinking here, In your opinion, would it be accurate to say; though the blood of Christ is necessary for forgiveness in God's economy, it is applied to those who never heard the Gospel and even to those who reject Christ?I agree with and second Bro. Ron's question as the two threads certainly seem to infer this.

If I am missing something here I certainly apologize openly and candidly! It looks to me like what is being said that if Christ died for all then all are saved.Hi RobertDon’t be too quick with your apologies. ;-) Let’s see where we are going. There’s a kind of connection between 5 point Calvinism (FPC) and Universalism here. (oh, they’re going to love me for that!) in that the FPC believes that the salvation of the redeemed is inevitable ; the Universalist says the same. They only differ on ‘who are the redeemed?’ Granted this is fairly major difference. The FPF says the ‘redeemed’ are those who were unconditionally elected, whereas the Universalist says the ‘redeemed’ is everybody.The puritan John Murray wrote a book entitles ‘redemption accomplished and applied’. I love the title. It makes the point that redemption has to be applied for the sinner to benefit even though it was earned outright in the Atonement. The FPF would generally say that the ‘application’ takes place in regeneration. As you know FPFs see regeneration as an inward, invisible, sovereign work of God’s Spirit which ultimately manifests in repentance and conversion. So for the FPF regeneration is not the response of God to repentance and faith but rather their cause. Even so they see that the accomplished redemption must be applied. I am less that 20% FPF so I hope fully paid up members will put me right as necessary; they are not usually shy. ;-) From my perspective, the redemptive work of the cross had the whole race in view. However the ‘redemption accomplished’ only becomes of benefit when applied, as Murray’s title suggests. This was my point with the Red Heifer posts. This remarkable ceremony produced a reserve of ‘instant’ cleansing, so that the addition of water (the Spirit) ‘applied’ the cleansing made fully available through the Sin Offering. I think we must say that Christ was the representative of the entire human race, again from a non FPF position, in a similar way that Adam was the representative of the entire race. Isaiah tells us All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isa 53:6 KJV) I’m not supposed to approve of the Message but frequently I find that the paraphrase has exactly captures a sense which has eluded the more ‘accurate’ translations; We're all like sheep who've wandered off and gotten lost. We've all done our own thing, gone our own way. And GOD has piled all our sins, everything we've done wrong, on him. (Isa 53:6 MSG) The verb means to ‘meet together’. God caused all our sins to ‘meet together’ on Him. It is vivid picture; all sins… past, present, future… gathered together and laid upon the world’s sin-bearer. all sins, all mine, all yours, all his, all everyone’s!However, as with the Red Heifer the ‘sinner’ is only benefited when the ‘finished/accomplished’ work is specifically applied. Oswald Chambers has been accused of Universalism because he constantly stresses the 'redemption accomplished' but I don't believe it. The ashes of the Red Heifer could be kept indefinitely, in principle, but only when the re-constituted Sin Offering was applied by sprinkling was the process of cleansing for the contaminated person activated.

This remarkable ceremony produced a reserve of ‘instant’ cleansing, so that the addition of water (the Spirit) ‘applied’ the cleansing made fully available through the Sin Offering.Bro Ron,I have to admit, when I looked at the Red Heifer post I was amazed at how God has used you to put a piece in the puzzle (as it were) in this great mystery. I believe God revealed that to you by His Spirit and that is quite different than doing normal exegesis. I was very excited almost like I had been privy to some scientific breakthrough or something.The reason for the excitement is that it fills the gap of the role of the Holy Spirit. I always knew that the issue soteriologically was mans response to the Holy Spirit. I just couldn't put it all together. Why? I was missing the Red Heifer! To think I have spent so much time in Hebrews and missed that. Praise God anyhow!Oh that Calvin and Luther could have heard this! That makes everyone rethink their soteriology; at least in terms of propitiation, etc..The Holy Spirit is striving with man to cooperate with Him in making appropriation of the atonement. When man resists this gift, He is committing his/her greatest sin. It all makes sense now. why there would be no forgiveness for blaspheming the Holy Spirit and all that. If a person quenches and resists and grieves the Holy Spirit away, how will the blood be appropriated? They are getting it with both barrels so to speak; cause for one they can't be drawn to repentance and for two the atonement can't be appropriated in their lives. Excerpt From "The Conviction We Need":Charles Finney comments on this in his message titled, ‘The Spirit Ceasing To Strive.’ Here he writes, “It should always be understood that whenever the Spirit can really be said to "strive" with an individual, that individual must be resisting. But what is intended by his striving? This striving, then, I would observe, is not a physical striving, but a moral influence, persuading, reasoning and convincing.” Moreover, Finney describes the great danger for those who continually resist. He continues, “One word more. When the Spirit strives men are in great danger of putting off submission day after day till at length the Spirit leaves them. They try to think about religion, but do not come to the point. Ah! They do not know the infinite danger they are in of being left amidst all this palavering (idle chattering). Ah! "While thy servant was busy here and there, behold the Spirit was gone." They must wait till they have done this thing or that thing, and thus they go on; day after day the Spirit strives with them till at length he takes his flight. You should reflect that every moment you are resisting, you are in infinite danger of his leaving you. "My Spirit shall not always strive." (Genesis 6:3) God Bless,-Robert

I beleive this is part of the mystery of our faith, will be revealed in time, and that His peace indeed passeth understanding...

---Philogos:It is vivid picture; all sins… past, present, future… gathered together and laid upon the world’s sin-bearer. all sins, all mine, all yours, all his, all everyone’s!It is a vivid picture; all sins .. past, present, future… And for Philogos what does all this bloody-death accomplish *in and of itself*? Nothing. For Philogos, “God” did no more for those going to heaven that to hell. Philogos denies the gospel in Col 1:20:Col 1:20 and through Him making peace by the blood of His cross, to reconcile all things to Himself; For Philogos ALL things represented at the cross were not reconciled. Philogos says reconciling “Jesus” cannot reconcile ALL things represented.

Also, Philogos, are you saying that Jesus will not intercede forever for all those He shed blood for?Heb 7:22,25, 27 forever living to intercede on their behalf. For He did this once for all, offering up Himself.

Hey Anti-paradox. Instead of asking all these questions, why don't you just say what you came here to say? I understand straight talk much better than all these word games. What is it you want others to agree with you on? Sincerely, Dian.