I was talking to a friend about the different views of the atonement in Free Grace circles. We came around to the issue of potentiality versus actuality. What did the cross actually accomplish? What did it potentially accomplish?
I came up with an illustration for the differences of opinion that exist in Evangelical circles.
Imagine if poisonous snakes escaped from a pet store and bit everyone at the mall. Thankfully, there is a vaccine. It took years of research and millions of dollars, but a vaccine was developed. But who in the mall would get it?
In the Calvinist view, only the elect get the vaccine. Theoretically, there’s enough for everyone, but only the elect actually get it.
In the Arminian view, the vaccine is potentially available to all, but only believers actually get it.
In our Free Grace view…the story is a little more complicated.
In the Free Grace view I am defending, I have to change the scenario a little. It turns out, to be cured, you need more than one vaccine. In fact, you need three separate vaccines. Who gets them? It depends. The first vaccine is given to everyone in the mall, whether he wants it or not. The second vaccine is only given to people who meet a condition. And the third vaccine is only given to people who have received the first two vaccines and who also meet two more conditions.
Make sense so far?
Let me translate that into theological terms. Everyone agrees we’re all sinners (Rom 3:23). Everyone agrees if something isn’t done, we’ll be lost forever. So Jesus died on the cross for sin. But what did the cross achieve? And who gets the benefits?
Calvinists say there is one big benefit of the cross—i.e., salvation—and only the elect get it.
Arminians say there is one big benefit of the cross—i.e., salvation—and while it is potentially available to everyone in the world, only believers actually get it.
Admittedly, some Free Grace people take the Calvinist view of the atonement, while others take the Arminian view. The Free Grace view I defend differs from both. It begins by stating there is more than one benefit of the cross. And crucially, the different benefits are given to different people under different conditions.
For example—
First, there is the removal of judicial condemnation. Jesus took away the sin of the world (John 1:29). He did that for everyone, not just for some. He did it actually, not potentially. It is a done deal. No one in the world will ever be judicially condemned for sin. Jesus took it away.
Second, there is the gift of eternal life. That benefit is only given to believers (John 3:16-18). It is potentially available to all, but only believers get it.
Third, there is ongoing fellowship forgiveness. That is potentially available to all believers, but only those who walk in the light and confess their sins get it (1 John 1:7-9).
Those are three benefits, given to different people, under different conditions. There may be other benefits of the cross, but those are the main three. Do you see how this view differs from what we’ve inherited from the Reformation?
I think it is time for the Free Grace movement to rethink the Biblical evidence about the cross’s benefits. We need to ask some basic questions, such as: How many benefits are there? To whom are they offered? How do you get each one? Are there different conditions? Are the benefits conditional or unconditional? Permanent or temporary? For this life or the next?
Wouldn’t you benefit from a study of the cross’s benefits?
Phil
Interesting. Thank you. This issue seems to be at the hub of different theological systems (and opinions and arguments). Most of the blogs I read on Patheos deal with this issue even if it is not directly addressed. Would like to read more about it.
Austin Decker
Part 1
I think this a good blog that summarizes the GES position.
I also think Free Gracers and Partaker’sTheology need to rethink or spend more time clearly explaining the benefits of the cross.
With that said, I do not think John 1:29 takes away judicial condemnation for everyone’s personal sins. I think Jesus only took away the sin of the world. That means Christ took away the sin barrier that blocked the way to spending eternity with God because of the sin blockade. There was no way for men to be saved without Jesus’ sacrifice. Now there is a way through faith in Jesus alone to save you from all your sins (past, present, and future). That’s what John 1:29 is getting at. If Jesus took away all (every) the personal sins of the world, then no one wouldneed forgiveness or to be saved. No one could be naturally (or judicially) condemned for the sin of unbelief, but yet, they still are according to John 3.18.
Austin Decker
Part 2
We know that because Jesus judicially condemns people for the sin of unbelief because of John 3:18. It is clear that Jesus/God is doing the condemning based on verses 17 and 19. Call it natural condemnation or something else, but it is clear from John’s usage of condemnation that men are condemned to eternal conscious torment because of the sin of unbelief as Dr. Wilkin indicates in the Grace New Testament Commentary.
Though we disagree on the matter, and it affects the content of saving faith, this is still a good blog. I look forward for more GES writings on the subject.
-Austin Decker, the Free Grace friend in the blog, and Animated Bible and Theology.
Leo Z
Sin is not the issue with regards to eternal condemnation. No one is eternally condemned for sin because judicially, Jesus’ death on the cross atoned for the sins of all men (1 John 2:2). He paid it all for all. At the cross, Jesus also took away the sin of the world as a barrier between God and man as God’s sacrificial Lamb (John 1:29). By virtue of His crosswork, the basis for eternal salvation was established. God was now able to offer eternal salvation to man. It is clear that without the cross, no one can be and will be saved.
At the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) unbelievers of all ages will have their day in court before their judge (Jesus). First their works are judged as not sufficient enough to keep them away from eternal condemnation. Secondly their names are not in the Book of Life, hence their destination – the Lake of Fire.
No one is sent there because of their sin because it’s penalty was dealt with by the judge Himself, Jesus, at the cross. They are headed for the LoF because they don’t possess “life”, God’s life, everlasting (eternal) life. Notice, there is not a mention of sin at the final judgment by the judge. Their unbelief is the cause for them not having eternal life. Not having eternal life is the reason for their condemnation.
Leo Z
Just to add on the sin of “unbelief” was covered at the cross, all sins were paid for in full for all. Unbelief is not what condemns people eternally, not having everlasting life does, it is the reason.
You can say “unbelief” is the sinful act that “caused” people not to have eternal life. Not having eternal life is the “ground” for eternal condemnation in the Lake of Fire.
Leo Z
Jesus’ overall judicial payment of the penalty for all sins (past present and future) for all men (1 John 2:2) is not the same as the ongoing practical forgiveness of sins needed for the believer’s continued fellowship with God in the present (1 John 1:8-9). Two different and distinct things.
Leo Z
Austin, don’t know how long you’ve been doing those animated pieces on the net. I ran into them recently, I think they are great !
Janelle
While this is very interesting, it raises one question. Why, if everyone is forgiven of their sins and not judicially condemned, would God send those who don’t have faith in Christ to hell? He can’t be justly punishing them for their sins, if Jesus’ death has dealt with that even for unbelievers, right?
A view of annihilation could maybe work with the above outline, where no one is sent to hell for their sins, but those without the gift of eternal life just go *poof* and don’t exist anymore. But I don’t think that’s what you’ve argued elsewhere?
Austin Decker
I have a question for Leo Z. How do you interpret John 3.17-19? Especially verse 18?
Janelle brings up an interesting point. Hodges attempted to answer that question in his proportion video/article, but still, I wasn’t convinced. Even with sin in the pictur, it is still hard to justify why God would send people to eternal conscious torment. Without sin, it makes no sense to me. Just because they don’t share God’s life? That’s why he sentences people to pure torture? That is the place he would send them? They get to go where Satan goes? Hard to justify if people are not sent their because of their sins.
Tim_A
Great Article. God bless.
Anon
Too complicated and judging by the responses …. basically theological hairsplitting.(like the Pharisees did).
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2 Corinthians 11:3 KJV
https://www.raystedman.org/daily-devotions/2-corinthians/the-simplicity-of-christ
Leo Z
Reply to Austin Decker: (John 3:17-19): v.17 starts with the word “FOR”, meaning it expounds the thought of the previous verses which speaks of believing in Jesus for eternal life. (v.14-16). (v.17-19), simply states that whoever believes in Him is not condemned and those who do not, remain condemned and remain in DEATH (v.18). The more the reason and need for people to receive LIFE, ETERNAL LIFE only found in Him. And this life is appropriated only by believing in Him. No SIN issue mentioned there. It’s all about, believing and not believing in Him. Jesus repeatedly said that those who believe in Him will not perish but have eternal life (salvation) (John 3:16; 6:47), will never be condemned because they have passed on from the state of death into life (John 3:18; 5:24). Whosoever believes in Him, receives eternal life and their name are then written into the Book of Life. Conversely, those who don’t have this life, are not in The Book. When it is opened in the final judgment day, those who are not in it are consigned to the Lake of Fire, a mere formality of an inevitable conclusion. No mention of sin there as the issue (Rev 20:11-15). That is what Scripture says and unless it says otherwise, I stand by it.
If I may ask you, where does it say in Scripture that sin is the reason for people being sent to the Lake of Fire in the final day of judgment?
Leo Z
Annihilation as Janelle suggested does not apply anywhere in this because it is not biblically taught and supported.
Torment? Pure torture (as you mentioned)? Eternal punishment for the rebellious unsaved man? In what form, mental? physical? The degree of punishment, is it the same for all of the unsaved? Scripture is not at all very clear and explicit about it. I believe God will deal with that in His just way. However, it is clear in Scripture, the unsaved will go to the Lake of Fire that is their destination (Revelation 20:11-15). There will be conscious torment.
In my estimation, to be ETERNALLY CONSCIOUS that one is ETERNALLY SEPARATED from God and not have and experience the abundance of life that He freely offered, because of the rejection of His Son is PURE TORMENT enough. Eternity is a long time to be in that state of constant thought. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in eternity (the idiomatic expression for great despair, sorrow and regret) because of their decision not to believe in Jesus for the life everlasting that He offered in their lifetime. There will be many “I could have, I would have and I should have..believed”, but a little too late..
Janelle
Hi Leo,
If you’re interested in the Annihilation versus Eternal Conscious Torment debate, you should find a copy of Edward Fudge’s book “The Fire That Consumes”. It’s an extremely detailed book that argues that annihilation is the proper Biblical understanding of hell, and says the problem is that Christian tradition went wrong when it started incorporating non-Biblical philosophical ideas into it (e.g. immortality of the soul).
It was the book that changed my mind from thinking of hell as eternal conscious torment to seeing it as annihilation. Yes, there’s still one or two verses in Revelation that are tricky to interpret, but I’m convinced the rest of scripture is so clear that I’d rather trust the weight of all the clear references of “eternal death” and “eternal destruction” everywhere else in scripture, than the two verses in Revelation which is a very difficult book to interpret at the best of times I also think annihilation fits better with God’s justice and goodness than eternal torment.
But at least, it could be good to see what you think of Fudge’s arguments and see if you agree or disagree with him and why.
Leo Z
Thanks Janelle, I’ll definitely look into it.
Austin Decker
Is unbelief a sin in John 3:18? Especillay when cross referenced with John 3:36? Even Lazar and Wilkin say unbelief is a sin.
Leo Z
Yes, I too agree. Unbelief is a sin. I never said it wasn’t. I said that in my posts above. It is the sinful act that CAUSES people to NOT RECEIVE AND HAVE eternal life as it is freely offered by God.
Here are some questions. Did Jesus atone for ALL the sins of ALL men at the cross? Yes He did (1 John 2:2). Does ALL, include the sin of unbelief? Yes it does. So how can that sin still be an issue if Jesus’ cross work was and is sufficient to atone for ALL sins including unbelief. If His cross work did not atone for unbelief then His cross work was not 100% sufficient and complete. I am glad that IT IS NOT SO.
Leo Z
Once again, here’s the crux of the matter. The Bible is clear, sin is not the issue at the final judgment day of unbelievers (Revelation 20:11-15). Not mentioned there. The REASON why unbelievers are sent to the Lake of Fire is because they DO NOT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, not because of unbelief, the CAUSE.
Cause and Effect are two different things. The CAUSE was atoned for, the EFFECT is a different story all together. People still NEED LIFE, ETERNAL LIFE to get out of condemnation and death. People need to believe in Jesus for it.
John 3:36 still makes the same point, he who believes in Jesus has everlasting life, he who does not, shall not see life and remains in God’s wrath (condemned and in death) as stated in John 3:18. He who believes in Him shall have eternal life and have passed on from death to life.
This may seem like semantics and hairsplitting for some. No, it’s Scripture and rightly diving it
Austin Decker
“If I may ask you, where does it say in Scripture that sin is the reason for people being sent to the Lake of Fire in the final day of judgment?”
Wilkin says that in his commentary on John 3:18. So my answer is John 3:18.
“It is the sinful act that CAUSES people to NOT RECEIVE AND HAVE eternal life as it is freely offered by God.”
John 3:18 says the sinful act CAUSES people to be CONDEMNED. There is no difference between a reason and a cause. They can be interchanged in any example which is the same logic GES uses against Calvinist, but they do not see the same logic contradicts their view of the atonement. unbelief is a sin. Unbelief (sin) is the reason and cause of people being send to hell. Therefore, it is common sense and only logical to say that sin sends people to hell.
Austin Decker
“Did Jesus atone for ALL the sins of ALL men at the cross? Yes He did (1 John 2:2). Does ALL, include the sin of unbelief?”
He was the satisfaction (Propitiation) for all the sins of the world according to 1 John 2:2. You are reading your theology into the text without understanding other positions. The text never says “atone.” And atone isn’t the same thing as propitiation. You are also repeating everything Hodges, Wilkin, and Lazar say. I’ve spent much time talking to them, and they haven’t been able to answer me yet. Wilkin avoided my emails and just sent articles that don’t answer me. Lazar said he would try and response and yet just wrote a blog that didn’t interact with my view nor did it give commentary on John 3:18.
Austin Decker
“Once again, here’s the crux of the matter. The Bible is clear, sin is not the issue at the final judgment day of unbelievers (Revelation 20:11-15). Not mentioned there. The REASON why unbelievers are sent to the Lake of Fire is because they DO NOT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, not because of unbelief, the CAUSE.”
There is no difference between a reason and a cause. The two words can be interchanged in any illustration and it works just fine. Jody Dillow pants this out in detail.
Please give me an illustration where they are not the same and they can’t be switched out and the illustration not make sense?
Brady
Of course, unbelief is a sin, when one disobeys God they sin. God tells He wants ALL people to believe in Him. See John 6:28-29(“Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”) and 6:40(“And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life”) and John 3:36 (“He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe{OBEY} the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”)
Brady
Read Zane Hodges article “The Sin of Unbelief” Austin Decker says, ” There is no difference between a reason and a cause. They can be interchanged in any example which is the same logic GES uses against Calvinist, but they do not see the same logic contradicts their view of the atonement. unbelief is a sin.”
First, I would think Zane Hodges would most certainly KNOW the definitions of the words he uses, “reason” and “cause”. He would NOT use them to confuse us but to show and explain WHY in his article called “The Sin of Unbelief”.
Also, as we all should know words are better defined/explain when we see/ use them in the context of what’s being said. Sooo, I do believe Zane did an excellent job of doing just that in his article “The Sin of Unbelief”.
Austin Decker
I’ve read Zane’s article many many times. His logic doesn’t work. Nor does his illustration. Jody Dillow brought this out first Final Destiny Chapter 59. You can switch the words in Hodges article and it works both ways. Therefore, there is no difference.
jon tretsven
Hi–Thought provoking article, thanks. I just wanted to add to your excellent illustration of the snake bite. You wrote, “Who in the mall would get it?”
“In the Calvinist view, only the elect get the vaccine. Theoretically, there’s enough for everyone, but only the elect actually get it.” [And they will demonstrate their election by persevering until the end, otherwise they will demonstrate they were not elect].
“In the Arminian view, the vaccine is potentially available to all, but only believers actually get it.” [And they can still lose their life even if they believed if they don’t persevere until the end].
Daniel Miller
I must agree with Janelle. I think we are all in agreement and no one disputes that Jesus’ sacrifice was enough to not just cover, but completely remove our sins past, present, and even future. but if not the unbeliever’s sin being the issue since it was removed, than what reason would a Just God have for condemning them? I would also like to understand the context of this verse after reading this view “unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24) Jesus also reaffirms this statement by saying because I told you this already and you don’t believe, therefore you will die in your sins.” I could be wrong, but it seems that this verse contradicts this view that unbelievers will not come under eternal condemnation for sin.
Leo Z
Daniel, yes, you are correct ALL sins, past, present and future of ALL men (even unbelievers) had been dealt with judicially by the cross work of Jesus (1 John 2:2; 2 Peter 2:1). His atoning, substitutionary, and sacrificial death was 100% sufficient. That made sin no longer an issue in the final day of judgment for unbelievers at the Great White Throne (Revelation 2:1). Like I said the issue then is not having your name in the Book of Life. No eternal life means no eternal salvation from the Lake of Fire.
John 8:24’s context is about freedom from sin in this life, not eternal condemnation. In the conversation, Jesus tells the unbelieving Pharisees that since they don’t believe in Him, they will physically die and still be under the slavery of sin. He continues and in verse 31, Jesus said to the believing ones that if they abide in His word they will know the truth and it shall set them free (freedom from sin’s enslavement in this life).
Leo Z
Notice the condition for freedom, abiding in His word, abiding in Him. Paul also alluded to this in Romans 8:1; 4). Believers walking and living in the Spirit and not walking and living in the flesh will experience this freedom from the domination of sin in this life and in this body of death that we live in. I thank the Lord that in the future glorification of believers, sin will be present no more.
Brady
Also, something that was NOT mentioned of the benefits of the cross was ALL the things believers are given at the very moment of believing in Christ. R. B. Thieme had a list of 36 things I believe.
Brady
The Sin of Unbelief
By Zane Hodges
Sometimes grace people do not think as clearly as they need to on important issues. The sin of unbelief—not believing in the Lord Jesus Christ for eternal life—is one of these issues. Let me address some questions that have, or might, arise on this subject.
Question: Did Christ die for the sin of unbelief?
Answer: Of course. He died for all the sins of all mankind (1 John 2:2).
Question: Then why does God send people to hell for not believing?
Answer: He doesn’t. The Bible nowhere says that.
Question: Then what does He send them to hell for?
Answer: For not having their names in the Book of Life (Rev. 20:15).
Question: But isn’t that because they didn’t believe?
Answer: Yes. But it’s still not the reason they are condemned to hell.
Question: Isn’t that double-talk?
Answer: Not at all. A cause and a reason are not the same thing. Unbelief is the cause for the unsaved not having eternal life. Not having eternal life is the reason they are condemned to hell.
Brady
Let’s say a man on parole is required to be in his home by 11 PM. One night he is visiting his aunt and stays there until 12 PM. His violation is discovered and he is sent back to prison. Why? Was it because he had a long visit with his aunt? No, not really. It was because he fell below the required standard for his parole. The visit with the aunt was the effective cause of the violation, but the violation of parole itself was the legal reason he is returned to prison.
When this man returns to prison the legal decision on which this fact is based will not require the state to make reference to his visit to his aunt! He simply violated parole.
At the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev 20:11-15) people are temporarily released (paroled!) from hell (Hades) and the issue of their permanent eternal abode becomes a legal matter in the presence of their Judge (Jesus Christ: John 5:22). They are first judged according to their works to see if these works justify their permanent release from eternal judgment (Rev 20:13). As we know, there will be no justification based on works (Rom 3:20). Next, search is made in the Book of Life to see if they qualify for release because they have eternal life. They do not and are therefore placed in an eternal abode (the Lake of Fire) in separation from their Judge forever.
Brady
Although the outcome of this whole process is a foregone conclusion, the justice of God requires the process to take place. Even in our own society, a man caught red-handed in the act of murder (or some other crime) must have his day in court. Every unsaved person will have his or her day in God’s court.
In this whole process, the Scripture text makes no reference at all to sin as such, but instead refers first to works (Rev 20:13), and next to life (Rev 20:15). Sin, as such, has no place as a determining factor at this judgment.
Why is that? It is because the Judge (Jesus Christ) is also the Lamb of God who has taken away the sin of the world (John 1:29). The Judge will not bring up an issue that He Himself has dealt with on the cross. This Judge will condemn no human being whatsoever for any sin whatsoever.
He has taken all that away.
Brady
Of course “unbelief” is a sin. When people do not the WILL of God it’s a SIN. ” And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life;” John 6:40.
Brady
Also, Austin Deckers remarks of about John 2:2 where the word “atone” is NOT mentioned is a false issue. Why, because the context is NOT addressing/mentioning it, but about “propitiation for our sins” are mentioned being addressed. You have to look elsewhere where “atonement is being mentioned/addressed. The whole Bible, in the Old and New Testament though do cover the issue of “atonement”, but that was NOT the issue there in John 2:2.
Brady
also, Austin Decker seems to question the word “ALL”, whether ALL covered / include the sin of unbelief. There are plenty of Scriptures where Scripture says makes plain there is NO sin that was not covered. The fact that Scripture never ever makes or hints there is ANY “sin” that is NOT covered should speak for itself.
Vince
Janelle and Austin, I think it’s clear that Jesus meant that the sin of unbelief is not included in the sins He died for. If it were, then Jn. 3:18 would be false and unbelievers would not be condemned, but instead in Heaven.
Belief is what makes His payment for all other sins take effect in one’s life.
Unbelief is what keeps His payment for all other sins from taking effect in one’s life.
Brady
I have “seen” NO Scripture where it says ANY sin was NOT cover. As one reads passages where sin is dealt with by the CROSS, it’s NOT limiting but says it as ALL sins are covered. And if Scripture does NOT tell us that a CERTAIN “sin” is NOT covered then it is WRONG to say the sin of unbelief is NOT covered Let Scripture be your ONLY thing telling what and ONLY to believe. Vince says, “Belief is what makes His payment for all other sins take effect in one’s life.” But Scripture tells us Jesus on the CROSS is what ACTUALLY makes the payment. BELIEF in Christ does the saving/giving unbelievers eternal life.
Leo Z
A reply to Austin Decker on his last reply to my post. (Part 1)
My final post on this subject. It’s obvious our views on it are not in sync. Let’s just agree that we disagreed and reasoned with each other in peace and civility. First, it’s sad that you include Hodges, Wilkin and Lazar in our discussions. Your discussions and communications with Wilkin and Lazar is between you and them. If I agree with their views, it’s only because my study of Scripture affirms their views (those that I’ve studied to date anyway). If I run across something which Scripture doesn’t affirm then know that I will disagree with them. *It’ll be a sad day when I would just parrot other people’s views (as you’ve alluded to) without first running it’s veracity by God’s Word. *I believe that the latter comment is good advice and beneficial practice for everyone.
Leo Z
A reply to Austin Decker on his last reply to my post. (Part 2)
1. You say that John 3:18 says (your words, caps mine) “THE SINFUL ACT [I take that as UNBELIEF] CAUSES PEOPLE TO BE CONDEMNED”. Actually the verse says man is ALREADY CONDEMNED. He is already in a state of death and condemnation without Christ’s eternal life, and God’s wrath REMAINS in him because of unbelief (John 3:36). Big difference in “to be condemned” and “already condemned”. Condemned, dead men NEED LIFE, ETERNAL LIFE. He needs it to pass on from death to life and forego judgment (John 5:24). If he never believes in Jesus, he STAYS CONDEMNED, DEAD and REMAINS under God’s wrath. Jesus came to save the world, not to condemn a world that ALREADY STANDS CONDEMNED (John 3:17).
If as you say, Bob Wilkin holds the view that the sin of unbelief condemns people to the Lake of Fire (as you do) and he states so in his commentary on John 3:18, then he and I are not in agreement. Only he can comment on that to be true or not.
Leo Z
A reply to Austin Decker on his last reply to my post. (Part 3)
2. Jesus’ death on the cross (be it defined and termed as propitiation, satisfaction, atonement, payment) has the same bottom line effect. That is, that God’s just demand for the judicial penalty due for ALL of man’s sin (including unbelief) was PAID IN FULL, SATISFIED by Jesus at Calvary’s cross. No more outstanding payment remains for mankind to pay on any account of sin. God will not exact and demand judicial payment for any sin committed anymore, because Jesus already paid for it ALL. Where does it say unbelief was not covered? Bible translations use either “atone” [NIV, MEV, NLT] or “propitiation” [ESV, NASB, NKJV] for 1 John 2:2. The thought and concept conveyed, however, is the same. To atone and propitiate conveys the same thought and concept.
I find it very sad when people think that Jesus’ death only paid for some people’s sin, Equally sad, is what you are saying that He paid for all sins, except one; the sin of unbelief which He will deal with later in the future final judgment day. Where in Scripture are these supported?
Leo Z
A reply to Austin Decker on his last reply to my post. (Part 4)
3. Cause and Reason, although closely related words are not exactly synonymous. Here’s the meaning of the words.
CAUSE- “that which PRODUCES an EFFECT, thing, event etc.” It answers the question What? (e.g. Drunkenness is a cause of accidents). Cause is what makes something happen.
For our discussion, UNBELIEF [CAUSE] PEOPLE NOT TO HAVE ETERNAL LIFE [EFFECT].
REASON- “the explanation of why something is done or happens”. It answers the question, Why? (e.g. Illness made him lose all his assets). Reason explains why something happens.
For our discussion, NOT HAVING ETERNAL LIFE IS THE REASON FOR BEING SENT TO THE LAKE OF FIRE.
Situational example: People enter a contest to win a prize. In order to win a prize, it is stated that all of the 10 rules governing the contest, have to be met and fulfilled. The rules are then listed. Someone did not meet and fulfill rule #9. He did not win a prize. Why? The REASON is because he did not satisfy the stated condition in order to win a prize; which was, all 10 governing rules of the contest have to be met and fullfilled. Didn’t matter which of the 10 rules he failed in. Failing in rule #9 was not the issue.
Why is sin not mentioned as the reason for the unsaved being condemned – sent to the Lake of Fire in Revelation 20:11-15 ? That absence of that fact is quiet telling.
Brady
I am soooo GLAD you followed up. I wish Bob and Shawn would have too since he accused them of NOT answering or WILLING to answer him his questions on this. Actually, IT’S not THAT hard to answer correctly/Scripturally.
Brady
I have “seen” NO Scripture where it says ANY sin was NOT cover. As one reads passages where sin is dealt with by the CROSS, it’s NOT limiting but says it as ALL sins are covered. And if Scripture does NOT tell us that a CERTAIN “sin” is NOT covered then it is WRONG to say the sin of unbelief is NOT covered Let Scripture be your ONLY thing telling what and ONLY to believe. Vince says, “Belief is what makes His payment for all other sins take effect in one’s life.” But Scripture tells us Jesus on the CROSS is what ACTUALLY makes the payment. BELIEF in Christ does the saving/giving unbelievers eternal life.
EternallySaved
You are making it too complicated my friend. The Biblical truth is simple and direct:
Jesus paid for the sins of all people but the benefits for eternal salvation only go to the one who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. If they reject Him they do have to pay for their own sins for all eternity ,as if it never was done for them. I do not see how there would be any theological or logical problems with that.
Second, all forms of annihilation are unbiblical nonsense as are all forms of universalism.
Why is it so hard for people to accept the Bible truth that those who reject Jesus Christ are experience eternal conscious torture in the quantum flames of Hell? Quantum energetic flames that were designed to torment and torture fallen angelic beings and which are also applied to the lost souls and bodies of torment of the lost human souls. Its that simple and that incredible.
Alvin
We take it for just what it says, as a child would~! You must qualify it:-(
John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
Did He take it away~? Yes~! Praise the Lord~!
We take it by simple faith as a child would~!
Vince
Brady,
How do you not find Scripture that shows unbelief as a sin He did not die for? John 3:18 seems to be a pretty clear match. If Jesus died for unbelief, how could anyone be condemned for it? In other words, if nobody can be condemned by anything Jesus paid for, then being condemned by unbelief would either mean that this premise is false or that unbelief was not in the list of things Jesus died for.
What other option do you have?
Vince
Brady, Janelle, and Austin, I’m sorry. I stand corrected. After discovering Zane’s understanding of the difference between a reason and a cause, I can now see that although unbelief is the cause for not having eternal life, unbelief is not the reason for being condemned to hell. Instead, not having eternal life (or not being found in the Book of Life) is the reason.
I was overlooking the meaning of words used in the text and argument. I’m sorry for not thinking it through more.
Alvin
Also, concerning eternal corruption. The little old lady down the street who tried to be nice to everyone but didn’t believe in Jesus, the Lake Of Fire is going to be much more tolerable than the man who beats up woman and children.
The law of sowing and reaping will go on and on, they will reap corruption where the worm does not die and the Fire is not quenched~!
Matthew 11:22
“But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.