Ask a Theist!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-12-2011, 10:11 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
@SecularStudent
I know because of the miracle that was my conversion. I was not only agnostic, but I was heavily leaning towards atheism. An old pastor of mine ask me what it would take for me to believe again. Jokingly I said a miracle. I told him that if I was going to ever believe again then God Himself would have to make me believe.

@Erxomai
I believe in unlimited limited atonement.

unlimited atonement - the sacrifice is for all and anyone can accept it
limited atonement - the sacrifice is only for the elect
unlimited limited atonement - the sacrifice is sufficient for all but only given to the elect

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 10:16 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(19-12-2011 10:11 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  @Erxomai
I believe in unlimited limited atonement.

unlimited atonement - the sacrifice is for all and anyone can accept it
limited atonement - the sacrifice is only for the elect
unlimited limited atonement - the sacrifice is sufficient for all but only given to the elect

I understand that the sacrifice is for the elect, but isn't it assumed there had to be a payment for sin?

I'm asking, where did the payment go?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 10:19 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(19-12-2011 10:16 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(19-12-2011 10:11 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  @Erxomai
I believe in unlimited limited atonement.

unlimited atonement - the sacrifice is for all and anyone can accept it
limited atonement - the sacrifice is only for the elect
unlimited limited atonement - the sacrifice is sufficient for all but only given to the elect

I understand that the sacrifice is for the elect, but isn't it assumed there had to be a payment for sin?

I'm asking, where did the payment go?

Imputed righteousness for the elect.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 10:21 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(19-12-2011 10:19 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(19-12-2011 10:16 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(19-12-2011 10:11 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  @Erxomai
I believe in unlimited limited atonement.

unlimited atonement - the sacrifice is for all and anyone can accept it
limited atonement - the sacrifice is only for the elect
unlimited limited atonement - the sacrifice is sufficient for all but only given to the elect

I understand that the sacrifice is for the elect, but isn't it assumed there had to be a payment for sin?

I'm asking, where did the payment go?

Imputed righteousness for the elect.

I'm either not asking the question correctly, or I'm not catching how your answer answers my question.

My question is based on an assumption that if a payment is made then a debt was owed. Are you saying the Elect were owed the debt so the blood sacrifice appeased the Elect?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 10:30 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
Hmm, my brain must not be processing this morning.

I'm still not sure what you're asking, but I'm going to try and answer it.

God created sin so that Jesus would have a purpose. His purpose was to atone for the sins of all humanity. God chose which humans would receive the atonement. Those that received the atonement had Jesus' righteousness imputed upon them.

The debt was the sins of all humanity.
The payment was Jesus' sacrifice.
The recipient of the payment was the elect.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 10:48 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
It's probably because I'm going one step beyond.

I understand all this:

The debt was the sins of all humanity.
The payment was Jesus' sacrifice.
The recipient of the payment was the elect.

Maybe, I'm actually a step behind.

A blood sacrifice, in any religion I'm aware of, means that the person offering the sacrifice has somehow grieved the deity and it's rule system.

So, if I'm a Hebrew, and I've broken a commandment, my understanding is I've created a situation where I owe a debt to God because I have affronted his Holiness. The sacrifice of something living pays the death debt for that sin. I've paid that debt to...God?

So, when Jesus died to pay for your sins, who was he paying? I know the elect received the benefit, but who received the actual payment? Was it to appease God?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 11:02 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
As I understand it, the blood sacrifice was needed because of the nature of sin. The result of sin is death. So, in order for their to be life, a death has to be paid. Since Jesus was perfect, His sacrifice grants eternal life.

The payment was for Himself. Yes, He sacrifice Himself to Himself. But, I think you can grasp the Christian understanding of the Trinity. While They are the same, They are distinct Beings. Three exists as One, and the purpose of the Son was to atone for the sin of humanity, so that the elect would become one with God (Father, Son, HS) upon their death.

So, Jesus' payment was for God (Trinity).
Also, I try to explain the Trinity here.

You know... I sat and thought for a long time about how to explain the Trinity. I was trying and trying to form a coherent, clear, and accurate interpretation of what I understand, but it's actually pretty difficult to put into words.

I'm not even sure if this is going to make any sense, but here goes...

So, lucid dreaming. If you've never had a lucid dream then you will probably be even more lost at the end of this. Anyway, you know when you're having a lucid dream you KNOW that you're dreaming and you're aware that you're asleep in your bed. However, the weird part is you know that you're also in a dream.

You know that you're separate from your dream self but you're also your dream self in your dream. You know that your actions from your real self are separate from your dream self, but your dream self's actions are directly influenced by your real self.

You are self aware of both beings and you are in complete control of both beings; however, the dream self acts separate and on its own from the real self; yet you are in control of its actions even though it is self sufficient.

Lucid dreaming is one of the coolest experiences ever, and that "feeling" you have about your real self and your dream self is the only coherent explanation for the Trinity I can come up with.

Yeah... probably just lost of bunch of you... meh, sorry about that if I did.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 11:14 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
Thanks, that hit the spot.

I could have made it easier by tossing out jargon, but I like to understand the thought, not the label.

So your answer seems to me to align with Anselm's Satisfaction Atonement, rather than a Ransom or Moral theory.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 11:16 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(19-12-2011 11:14 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Thanks, that hit the spot.

I could have made it easier by tossing out jargon, but I like to understand the thought, not the label.

So your answer seems to me to align with Anselm's Satisfaction Atonement, rather than a Ransom or Moral theory.

Honestly, I have never looked into any of those. : /

I guess I need to read up on them.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2011, 11:58 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
@ Kingschosen

So you're saying that god created sin so that he can sacrifice himself to himself so that he can persuade himself to bend a rule that he created to be broken and then we're guilty for breaking it?

Christianity failed to come up with a such imaginative devil but when they finally got it right they decided to call it god. You must understand why i feel so much better the way I am right now.

I couldn't say what your supernatural experience was, but I'm afraid a miracle couldn't cut it in my case. If such a god can find a way to corrupt me, I guess that's what would take to make me submit.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: