Le Sabot Post-Moderne

I might add that it's also important to note that whoever killed Jesus, His love was strong enough that He was able to forgive them. You have, of course, already made note of that fact. However, I think it's something that's much more worthy of emphasis than the exact identity of the people who killed Christ.

Disco, I am so pleased to be able to say that I have something where you and I agree completely and wholeheartedly! I couldn't have said it better myself (and it's not often I say that!).

Of course, Jesus wasn't a _culprit_ in his own death...

John-

Absolutely, and thanks for pointing that out. Bad choice of words. I'll change that as soon as I get a sec. :) There's always the danger when a site has both a lighthearted tone and religious content. The last thing I want to do is speak lightly of something or Someone holy.

Autmom-

Thanks. I'm marking this day on my calendar. ;)

So the only folks not suspect are the unelect reprobate. Wow...never thought of it as a sin I wanted to be guilty of....

Wouldn't you say that John 3:16 and other passages like it are reason enough to say that the unrepentant world as a whole is part of the reason for Jesus' death, even if it's not intended to atone for the sin of those who are reprobate? I don't think you can easily read scripture so that God's love for the world will line up exactly with God's saving love for the elect.

Oh, and you left Judas out except by including the Jews. But there's a special sense in which Judas and the priestly and other Jewish leaders were behind this that isn't true of other Jews, who would still be responsible in a different sense.

As for Jesus being a "culprit" in his own death - inasmuch as he "laid down his life" he sort of was. The only difference is He a) knew the what the implications of His death would be, and b) was alone in intending His death for good. I suppose "culprit" implies "culpability" and therefore "guilt", of which Christ had none. But he was responsible for His death in the He willingly, and obediently, followed the path to the cross. He could have saved himself at any time, but He was responsible to see it through. To deny his responsibility in going to the cross is to imply that he was led thre against his will and a victim of others' actions which he could not control, and this would deny the deity of Christ, if you ask me.

I did not question intentions, but thought that the title of the post could be misleading.

Autmom -- I think the point was about the word "culprit" and its root in culpability, not about the fact that Jesus was willing. It's just that another word such as "responsible" would work better than "culpable" if the discussion includes Christ's and the Father's own role.

Hmmm....Valerie, I think Jeremy is onto something. I wonder if it would be Calvinistically Correct ;-) to suggest that the sins of every man put Jesus on the cross but not every man's sins were atoned for in His sacrifice? I can't think of a problem with saying that and it seems to escape the conundrum you propose, which ISTM can't *possibly* be right.

Oh, just let me be a little ironic for a minnit, willya? ;^)

I think to say that not every man's sins were atoned for at the cross is to cheapen the suffering (both physical and spiritual) of Christ. John 3:16-18 says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (17)[Read especially this verse:] For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. (18) Whoever believes in him is not condemned..."
Now I know there's a fair amount of Calvinists here who will argue only a certain few ever get the chance to be "called" to salvation, and I haven't argued this point since my high shcool days so I'm rusty, but I will say that these verses I quoted here are in red letters in my Bible, meaning they are the words of Christ and last time I checked, Calvin's words are not only not in red letters, they aren't even in the Bible, so...
I choose to believe, based on God's word, that all men's souls were purchased on Calvary. It's just that not everyone has chosen to go home with their rightful owner. God wants us to make sure as many of his purchases make it in the bag as possible. It has nothing to do with, "Oh, but it isn't fair if not everyone has a chance." It's a matter of Jesus paid with his blood for those souls; God wanted to save the whole world (verse 16) and "Your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost." Matt 18:14. Or put another way, "...He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9
But I'm just a charismatic with a Baptist upbringing, what do I know?

Well, this argument could go on forever (it's been going on for 2000 years -- Calvin wasn't the first to raise this issue) so I don't want to pursue it here, but let me just say that Calvinists also believe our view based on our understanding of scripture, and not just because "Calvin said it." In fact, Calvin's words don't even play any kind of confessional role in any Calvinist church I've ever seen -- we just think he did a lot of good biblical interpretation.

Okay, one more shot, I just have to ask, Autmom --

what are all those atoned-for people doing in Hell? On what basis are they condemned?

Pentamom - I agree that it's too lengthy of a discussion, and I'll admit to not being well versed enough in the subject, to be able to hold down my end of the argument, so let's not hash it out here. (I'm really not as argumentative as I sound sometimes, really :))
But as for the "atoned-for people in Hell," they are those who didn't accept the gift. I can buy a gift for someone and they could, using their free will, reject it. But don't try to say I didn't buy the gift and extend it to them. Kinda like that. Jesus paid for our sins, offered us the gift, but if we throw it on the ground and walk away, we don't have that gift do we? I know I'm likening it to a lot of different things here, but that's the best way I can describe it other than the direct way I stated earlier.
I'm glad at any rate that predestination is not a salvation issue (meaning our salvation is not dependent on this doctrinal issue). We agree on that, don't we?

If Jesus paid the debt, how can the Father continue to exact it from us? It shouldn't matter whether we "accept" it or not -- I mean we do need to, but a person's acceptance of the debt doesn't change whether the creditor has been paid, does it?

I don't expect you to agree or to settle this here, but that's an important piece of the Calvinistic view -- if Christ satisfied the debt for a man, then it would be unjust for the Father to continue to say it was owed, and that's a biblical principle.

And yes, we certainly do agree that a certain view of predestination doesn't determine salvation. But predestination is spoken of in the Bible, so if you don't believe in it in some sense, that would be a problem. :-)

Argh, correction -- "person's acceptance that the debt has been paid doesn't change whether the creditor has been paid..."