Types, Antitypes, and Universalism

[Paidion]

But, I'm not aware of anywhere that says that he can't pay for his own sin.

I'm not aware of any scripture that says that sin can be paid for at all by anybody.

To me this legalistic type of thinking is entirely absent. There is plenty in the Old Testament where wrongdoers are put to death. But that fact doesn't imply that they "paid" for their wrongdoing. People say that Jesus "paid" for the sins of the world, but where do you find that? We do read that He is the means of mercy, not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2 ).

I read in the New Testament that Jesus died to deliver us from sinning, and I have quoted the passages which affirm this many times in this forum . Until we are delivered, we have a "sin-sick soul". Jesus is the great healer!

God wants people who are actually righteous. He isn't interested in having people who are merely positionally righteous.

Many of those who think Jesus "paid" for their sins, past, present, and future, assume that they can go on sinning the rest of their lives and still be accepted by God and escape judgment — a position arrived at by interpreting particular passages in Romans a certain way, while ignoring Romans 2 which tells us that we will all be judged by our WORKS, as well as other scriptures that clearly tell us the real purpose of the magnificent sacrifice of Christ—that of delivering us from sin itself. Christ appeared on this earth to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

[steve7150]

I'd respond by asking the ECT advocate where he gets that in scripture. The closest scripture comes to something like that is the idea that only Christ can pay for someone else's sin because he was sinless. But, I'm not aware of anywhere that says that he can't pay for his own sin.

Doug

dwilkins







I can't think of a verse but i thought one of the principals of Jesus dying for our sins was because we could not pay for our sins. In the OT salvation came through faith as well as in the NT. No one ever paid for their sins as they needed someone greater to help them gain justification in the eyes of God.
However even if a person can't pay for his sins i could see a punishment for sin for the sake of justice , not necessarily as an action for salvation.

[steve7150]

People say that Jesus "paid" for the sins of the world, but where do you find that? We do read that He is the means of mercy, not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2 ).






Doesn't it say in Phil 2 "the debt is paid in full" referring to the sin debt?

[dwilkins]

I'd respond by asking the ECT advocate where he gets that in scripture. The closest scripture comes to something like that is the idea that only Christ can pay for someone else's sin because he was sinless. But, I'm not aware of anywhere that says that he can't pay for his own sin.

Doug

dwilkins


I can't think of a verse but i thought one of the principals of Jesus dying for our sins was because we could not pay for our sins. In the OT salvation came through faith as well as in the NT. No one ever paid for their sins as they needed someone greater to help them gain justification in the eyes of God.
However even if a person can't pay for his sins i could see a punishment for sin for the sake of justice , not necessarily as an action for salvation.

If you take a step back and look at your argument I think that you'll see you are referring to people who want to be justified. And, I think you are basically right that in order to be justified you have to have someone else justify you. But, since the wages of sin is death, if you don't want someone to release you from that then you could just pay your debt personally. The question then becomes what is "death"?

Doug

[Michelle]

Many of those who think Jesus "paid" for their sins, past, present, and future, assume that they can go on sinning the rest of their lives and still be accepted by God and escape judgment — a position arrived at by interpreting particular passages in Romans a certain way, while ignoring Romans 2 which tells us that we will all be judged by our WORKS, as well as other scriptures that clearly tell us the real purpose of the magnificent sacrifice of Christ—that of delivering us from sin itself. Christ appeared on this earth to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

Paidion, do you personally know any of the many of those who think this? I've never actually talked with a person who his happily sinning because they assume Jesus paid for their sins - past, present, and future. Most people I talk with are grieved by sin. I am grieved by sin, but am far from righteous yet.

[Paidion]

Paidion, do you personally know any of the many of those who think this?

Indeed I do! I know several of them. One of them declared, "I sin every day!" It almost sounded like a boast. Then he said, "But my sins are forgiven, past, present, and future." Why throw that "future" in there, if they don't think they can sin with impunity? Indeed, I personally, was one of those many. From age 16-24, I was a Calvinist who believed in the predestination of every individual to either heaven or hell, and I believed in what I called "eternal security" (by which I actually meant "unconditional security"). Not only that, but I considered it my mission to convince everyone else of the same.

At teachers college, I studied with a group of Mennonite Christians. We were studying First John, which didn't seem to fit my theology too well, but I was able to talk around the passages such as:

And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. (1 John 3:5-9)

So I continued trying to convince those people of "eternal security" and "predestination to heaven or hell." Some of those studying with me, called me by name, and then asked, "Where do you find that in the Bible?" My answer: "Why you find it on every page!"

A few years later, when I began to read second-century Christian literature, believing that those writers were in a better position to understand the works of Peter and Paul that we are 2000 years later, I was "hit between the eyes" with the truth. I repented of that false teaching, and gradually I learned the truth about salvation, that it was provided to deliver us from sin, and not merely as a ticket for a free ride to heaven.

The year prior to teachers college, I attended Winnipeg Bible Institute for a year. Of course I was spouting my Calvinist beliefs to everyone who would listen. Erwin Lutzer and I were both in first year. He wasn't convinced. A few years later after I had repented of this false teaching, I went back to the Bible school for a special event. I met Lutzer on the steps. He had received theology degrees from Moody. He held out his hand and shook mine, saying, (using my surname), "C----, you were right!" I was shocked! Each of us had reversed his position! I couldn't utter a word. But on a later occasion, at a Bible school reunion, I reminded him of the meeting on the steps, and affirmed that it was he who had been right.

[Michelle]

Interesting...I wonder if this might be an answer to another thread about calvinist vs. arminian practical application.

[dwilkins]

Though I'm pretty sure I don't agree with Paidon's current theological paradigm I think his method for breaking out of Calvinism is very powerful. One of the reasons that Reformed theologians (and thus most Protestants) pay no attention to the Patristic writings is that they challenge a number of assumptions such as eternal security. Protestants tend to be willingly ignorant on the topic (sometimes simply attributing these writings to the evil Catholics to keep from paying attention to them). I don't think the Patristics were right about everything, and they were nutty about some things. But, once you realize that none of them had heard of any of elements of Calvinism and that all of them assumed uncomplicated free will it will change your way of thinking about scripture.

For anyone interested, I'd start with the Didache, a sort of new believers class. You'll notice a significantly different way of looking at their relationship to God than what we pitch today.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html

http://reluctant-messenger.com/didache.htm

Doug

[RICHinCHRIST]

The OT is full of types and shadows of great and important doctrines of the church, and the corresponding antitypes are in the NT. Where, in the OT, do we find any judgement that would be a type for universalism? They all seem to be decidedly against it, with some people saved and others irrevocably destroyed.

The story of Jonah could be seen as a type of a postmortem reconciliation. Jonah was cast away from the presence of The Lord (Jonah 2:3-4), and Jonah himself spoke of this judgment as if God through him into the Pit, which was a term used for Sheol, the abode of the dead. Even the word aionios is used in the LXX and Jonah said he endured the aionios (forever) judgment, but God delivered him up out of the Pit after the temporal nature of that judgment.

[jriccitelli]

Without commenting on your example Rich, I do like the example you gave, I’m sure that is what Homer was asking for.
Without even looking up the Jonah example I would first note that there is a difference between a type and an illustration. I believe that adding meaning to a type that is not expressly defined by the NT writers as a type is eisegesis, although ‘not altogether wrong’ (but something I don’t want to be dogmatic about), as in the case of the ‘many’ Christological types. Joseph being an example of a person who ‘seems’ to be a type of Jesus yet is never mentioned as a type by reference by NT writers. Joseph can be understood as being an ‘illustration’ of Christ, as ‘most all’ of the OT is an illustration, and a book that is predominantly full of various examples (just defining terms, as suggested).

Anyways, having said that I have no comment on whether Jonah is a type or not, only that it was a good answer (and because I just ran out of time again).