Who did Jesus give Himself a ransom for ?

preacher4truth

Well-known member
God paying in full doesn't mean instant salvation.
The sin debt was paid in full. The ransom was paid at the time of the cross; Colossians 1:8-15. At that moment the ransom was paid in full, and salvation for all of His was instantly achieved by that one offering.
We are still lost all the while paid in full until we hear the gospel and get saved.
We experience this salvation in time, yes, but it was already paid for in full at the cross. I'll do my best to present my argument from Scripture.

We were saved with Him at the time of the Cross, died with Him there, buried with Him, were raised with Him, seated with Him &c. Note Ephesians 1-2; Colossians 1:8-15. This all took place at the cross. You're applying this ransom paid, this transaction, to those who are lost and will never be saved as well. Ransom cannot be divorced from all it entailed at the Cross. Thus, the ransom was only paid for the aforementioned, not the world at large. It does not and can never apply to those who will never be saved.

They, "those who are perishing," did not die with Him, weren't buried with Him, weren't raised with Him, they weren't made alive in Him there, they were not seated in the heavenlies there with Him as all the elect were, as witnessed in these texts, at the time of the cross, to be experienced by those to whom it was applied, in time.
So why would it have to count those who don't accept it?
Exactly! But you're the one who teaches this, I do not. You do understand this, correct?

The ransom paid counts only for the elect, not the world at large. Scripture demonstrates this. Those who are not saved and will not be saved have not had their sins paid for in full as you and others teach.

Everywhere in Scripture the debt paid is in reference to us, those who are saved. Again, this took place at the cross &c.

Now, bear with me, back to the list of things you mentioned to me in our dialog. I want to address this.

Part of the reason you teach we are saved "after we become followers," and "because we accepted," and "because we humbled ourselves," and "because we inclined ourselves to hear" is due to conflating a regenerated person with doing things that cause salvation. You also have a mixture of ongoing sanctification here pre-salvation.

We are not saved because of anything we have done, this is the language of 2 Timothy 1:17; 1 Corinthians 1:26-31; Ephesians 2:4ff &c. Grace is unmerited favor. THAT is the Gospel in a nut shell. You continue to say it is because of something we have done, showing you are not fully understanding the fall of man, nature of God and salvation. This does not mean you are not saved, we are not saved via knowledge, you're simply making a common mistake.

Soli Deo Gloria my friend. Have a blessed time in church, God bless!
 

Ladodgers6

Well-known member
The sheep are the already inclined to listen to God
See Kam you are using conjecture instead of Scripture. Allow me to explain, look at these passages and ponder upon them.

John 10:24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.

Some Jews asked Jesus to tell them plainly if he is the Christ. And how did he reply?
 

Ladodgers6

Well-known member
What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and foreight his soul.

At this point that is an extrapulation.

But IMO .... Jesus was not a soul salesman.

Who is buying and trading the souls of men? (probably not men)

Rev 18:13

Anyway ....... this is not going anywhere.
It doesn't go anywhere, because you will not admit the obvious.
 

CookedGoose

Well-known member
A person can refuse to follow through after a ransom is paid. Why would it have to be different for scripture? Christ died for all doesn't have to mean all will get saved.
It's a conflict to claim Christ eliminated judgment for every single person because God would no longer have grounds for judging even 1 person.

An unlimited atonement is no different than a universal atonement (aka universalism).
 

Rockson

Well-known member
It's a conflict to claim Christ eliminated judgment for every single person because God would no longer have grounds for judging even 1 person.
But aren't you being presumptuous in thinking you get to make the rules? If God says they need to repent and embrace the Lordship of Christ in order for the benefits of salvation to apply to them even though he's made the way clear for them to be justified, then who are you to say it can't be this way?

 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
There's no reason to think He didn't. And what harm does it do?



But Libertarian means they could have accepted. So Christ died for all. God didn't work off of Foreknowledge, let alone foreknowledge of those who would reject. Foreknowledge only reveals that God didn't work off of Foreknowledge.



I have gone out of my way to accommodate you and you have not moved an inch. I have explained in great detail why it must all be paid in full and can't be paid in part.

You appear to be frozen to the spot, no amount of blowtorch applied to your tootsies will move you, but I have tried, really I have.



Have a good night RG, I have to knock off now, God bless everyone.
You have gone out of your way to dodge my question. Why pay the ransom for some who prefer to remain captive?
 

CookedGoose

Well-known member
It's a conflict to claim Christ eliminated judgment for every single person because God would no longer have grounds for judging even 1 person.
If God says they need to repent and embrace the Lordship of Christ in order for the benefits of salvation to apply to them even though he's made the way clear for them to be justified,
1 Jesus died for/atoned for/propiated the sins of/eliminated judgment for every single person.
2 But you have to believe for it to count.

1 and 2 conflict with each other because non-believers fall into the category of every single person.
If #1 is true #2 can't be true, and vice versa.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
You have gone out of your way to dodge my question. Why pay the ransom for some who prefer to remain captive?
I wanted to say something, but I'm tired of helping them. They don't use the point to change, but to go after Calvinists with the point...

If a Calvinist can believe the point, it shouldn't be used as a sword against Calvinists...
 

Rockson

Well-known member
Irrelevant since the car has still been paid for.
Transferring the actual car to that person may be a different thing though.

It seems CookedGoose you're insisting as well that atonement would mean one would be automatically justified before God. You might be tempted to keep that way of thinking as you think it would back up your Calvinsim but scriptures says though we have access by faith into his grace, or by applying our faith by repenting, believing and receiving the grace of God, in our lives it becomes realized. Doesn't mean their atonement wasn't actually achieved. So one must apply their faith to make what God already provided actually in real terms become theirs. Atonement is the grounds for our justification but to actually be justified faith MUST be applied. Rom 5:1

Such is why the claims that non-Calvinists believe in universalism fails to be true.
 

CookedGoose

Well-known member
I don’t have to accept the car 🚗 or drive the car 🚘, that’s my choice to receive the gift 🎁
Nonetheless the seller can no longer lay claim against it.
In other words if Christ died for every single person, grounds for judgment have been eliminated. God can no longer judge.
 

Rockson

Well-known member
They don't use the point to change, but to go after Calvinists with the point...
Just a suggestion Rev, if you'd like to create a more peaceful board why not say we go after the arguments of Calvinists. We are not going after Calvinists. You've always been one that seeks to give people the benefit of the doubt. Continue on my friend. :)
 

Christian

Well-known member
Just a suggestion Rev, if you'd like to create a more peaceful board why not say we go after the arguments of Calvinists. We are not going after Calvinists. You've always been one that seeks to give people the benefit of the doubt. Continue on my friend. :)
good suggestion btw !
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Just a suggestion Rev, if you'd like to create a more peaceful board why not say we go after the arguments of Calvinists. We are not going after Calvinists. You've always been one that seeks to give people the benefit of the doubt. Continue on my friend. :)
Good point, sorry...
 
Top