ALL THE SINS OF ALL MEN?
Here is a question for any who believe that Christ has made atonement for every sin that was ever committed i.e. universal atonement (as opposed to Particular Redemption). What about the souls who are now in hell?
.
Let me develop the theme, with a series of questions.
A soul dies in unbelief of the truth and immediately is damned in hell for evermore, without God and without hope. (The decree is terrible, I confess, but it is true and it is just.) Does that soul keep on sinning? Either it does or it doesn’t.
.
IF THE SOUL DOESN’T KEEP ON SINNING IN HELL…
.
What does the soul acquire in hell that prevents it from sinning?
The Holy Spirit, with His sanctifying graces, is not in Hell
Is the conscious soul in hell required to glorify God as it was on earth?
Does the conscious soul in hell consciously do so?
Does it consciously do so perfectly 100%, 100% of the never ending eternity?
If it does, how? (Again, in the absence of the Spirit of God who enables holiness)
If it doesn’t, is this ommission a sin?
If it is a sin…then the soul keeps on sinning in hell
.
SINCE THE SOUL DOES KEEP ON SINNING IN HELL…
.
Did Christ die to atone for these hell produced sins?
If He did, was it to produce faith and repentance for them?
If so…does such faith and repentance save?
(Obviously not, unless you believe in the Second Chance heresy)
Since it doesn’t, what was His purpose in dying for and atoning for these ongoing eternal sins when He has otherwise forgotten to be gracious to the souls in hell?
If Christ did not make atonement for these ongoing eternal sins, then He did not make atonement for all the sins of all men i.e. He limited his atonement for sins.
.
Any come back on this line of thinking on my part?
Is this thinking flawed?
Are there some straw men here?
If so, show me where.
I raised this matter elsewhere on another blog, but the implications were largely ducked, while another argued that the soul does not keep sinning in hell, because there is no law in hell and where there is no law, then there is no sin.
But if the soul is required to glorify God perfectly in hell, surely the requirement itself is a law and its failure constitutes sin.
.
From a convinced Particular Redemption man
posted by Colin Maxwell at 4:14 AM
6 Comments:
Good point. All of the doctrines of grace flow logically from Biblical revelation. To come up with any other view requires a distortion of the character of man and God as taught in Scripture.
Jesus Christ died for all of the sins of all the people that come to saving faith in Him. Why anyone would insist that He died for the sins of people being punished in hell is a mystery to me. This would mean his atonement failed for them and mans' choice trumped the choice of Jesus or possibly that he had no idea who would come to faith and had to make a universal atonement. What about Rom. 8:29-30 is so difficult to understand?
God does not ask us to abandon reason when study his Word.
March 03, 2008 8:46 AM
Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. He died not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world.
Jesus came to save His people from their sin.
Obviiously, the Lord died for the sins of those whom He had chosen before the foundation of the world. Christ was the Lamb slain before the foundtions.
Jesus died for Abraham. Abraham, of course was righteous by faith, and the future forgiveness of His sisn was yet to be. david was the same. Peter was the same. Paul was different, he looked back to the crucified Christ for his remission.
How do the sinners who never believed fit in here?
They don't.
Howvere, many in Church, scholars even say they do, becasue Jesus died not only for our wins, but for the sins of the whole world. And He left the forgiveness, which He made available for every person in the world, up to us to ask for it, while we stand on neutral ground.
This is the non-reformed view. And they believe this is the greatest love, and it shows forth a greater Savior, then the one who died for only those elect ones.
This was an excellent post. thanks. I'll have to kick this around with some of my Non-reformed brothers. I guess a little arguing is good for the soul.
March 03, 2008 9:25 AM
Good post...
Is it more loving for God to let everyone of fallen man try and secure his own salvation making it dependent on his own choice, or is it more loving that God ensures that some will be saved, making sure they make the choice?
Did God send His Son to die, so that He could be loved, or did God send His Son to die because He loved?
Does God rescue people that do not love Him, or does He wait till they love Him to rescue them?
March 03, 2008 1:56 PM
Hi all,
I suppose this argument is really an extension of the argument as to whether or not, Christ died for the unpardonable sin. If He did - why is it unpardonable? The argument makes the link between Christ's death and His willingness to forgive on the basis of His death. Some non Calvinists have Christ suffering and yet have the Father withholding the fruit of that suffering - applying this misnomer even to the scenarios already pointed out i.e. where there is clearly no forgiveness to be offered or had.
As Jazzycat also points out, we have it again when it is said by the non Calvinists that He died for souls already in hell. There is a definate weakness in their argument there. Better to keep with an atonement that actually atones than a vague mushy type one that fails.
* He shall see the travail of His soul and be SATISFIED *
March 04, 2008 1:56 AM
Hey brother,
I would like to address your questions at my blog in a future post from an Arminian perspective. Would you mind if I did that? I would let you know when the post got up so you could respond if you like either at my site or as a follow-up post here. If you don't mind please drop me an e-mail and let me know (safehaven220@gmail.com). I won't do it unless I hear from you first.
God Bless,
Ben
March 18, 2008 12:16 PM
Ben
Feel free to go ahead, although I will be away over Easter.
Regards,
March 18, 2008 2:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home