Craig, 
Not only do the TV preachers teach false but many churches as well. 
Amen, we are to die unto ourselves! 

Let me get a little clearer picture of what you're saying.  Obviously, you're not saying that God brings bad stuff on us - to teach us a lesson, are you?  Rather, you're using the Romans 8:28 "God causes all things to work for our good" (paraphrase) theology, correct?

We belong exclusively to God, in Christ.  We have been transferred from the domain [Greek: authority] of darkness into the Kingdom of God's dear Son.  He has been given to the assemblies (his body) as head over all things!  There is no Christian that turns himself over to Satan by has bad behavior; rather he turns himself over to discipline [judgment].  E.g. 1 Corinthians 10 and other instances where Paul, not the men themselves, delivered people over to Satan: for the destruction of their flesh that they might live in the Spirit on the day of the Lord [the consummation at his return].  This, of course, is not something we readily accept because of the way justification by grace has been taught.  Our justification does not justify walking by the flesh.  :-)

All this being the case: what does it mean when bad stuff happens?  Well, it means that it has been permitted.  The agent may be completely evil (Satan in the case of Peter, and Job; or relatives in the case of Joseph) but it is for some good that God is going to work, in spite of it.  Sickness is a work of the Devil, yet Paul preached the Good News because of it in one place.  I think that most Christians make everything totally back and white.  So that anything that's bad is Satan and anything—they, leaning on their own understanding—determine to be good is attributed to God.  I believe that's far too simplistic and it actually leads to a problem because Satan is then seen as having power to do as he pleases in a Christians life.  Evil may be allowed to touch us but we are completely responsible to first, submit to God, and then to resist it!  If we don't, then Satan will not flee.

So, I'm not sure I have all this completely clear in my understanding, but what I am absolutely clear about is that Satan has been completely stripped of his power and authority over Christians at the cross.  Jesus is Lord and we completely belong to him and to the Father; we are the Father's inheritance and He ours!  Also I am completely clear about the fact that nowhere in the New Covenant is it taught that a man's misdeeds delivers them over to Satan's authority (Paul always did it at the initiative of Christ) and it was for discipline.

How that plays into Satan's holding some captive to do his will (as it's written someplace), I'm not real clear on.  But it is clear that deception plays a big role in the state of the assemblies in modern Christianity.

Rob, you continue:

Paul, on the other hand, was a complete genius.  Paul knew enough to get away from the established church FOR YEARS before he started doing any serious ministry.  Paul waited for God to teach him.  And thank God he did because we would still be under the burden of Law had he not.

Yes, Paul said that he didn't receive the Good News he proclaimed from men but by a revelation of Jesus Christ.  That Damascus Road experience forever affected Paul's view of what "the church" was.  To touch people was to touch the very real and physical members of Christ's body to Paul.  He got it!  We do well if we renew our minds to that fact as well!  :-)  We are the [Greek: Holy of Holies] temple of God, and Christ is being made complete in our hearts through faith.  When we all fit together appropriately then we will see the full manifestation of the Son of God in our midst.

Rob, continues:

Most churches are teaching that God brings suffering on you in order to teach your sinner butt a lesson.  That's certainly not anything Paul ever taught but modern Christianity is loaded with that kind of reasoning.  Why?

This is back to an oversimplification, in my understanding.  Suffering [as in 1 Corinthians 10] can be a result of sin…but suffering is not always a result of sin.  In fact we are promised in 1 Corinthians 5 that we are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake that the life of Christ might be manifest in our mortal bodies.  This isn't a "lesson" as in punishment, it is a part of a process that delivers us from our self—from an hope of self dependence—with respect to actually living the Christian life!

Rob, you continue:

We think he's talking about losing our job, or getting into a car accident, or not winning the lottery, or burning supper.  We figure that our circumstance is what the bible is describing.  This is classic "Circumstance Theology".

Exactly, this worldview comes from the presupposition that God exists for us and not we for Him.  It also ignores all those verses like "It is through much persecution that we must enter into the Kingdom of God."  And, "All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution."  Most don't, because most aren't actually relating to genuine Christianity but to the religion that has that name.

Rob, you continue:

In fact, if it weren't for the mainstream church, there would be ZERO persecution in my life.  My ideas are at enmity with accepted doctrine.  I honestly believe God is good and it makes them mad.  I believe God protects me from physical harm and I'm told I'm crazy.  I believe that God, through Jesus, made a way for us to live a life completely free from personal sin.  NOBODY believes that one.

So, see…there is persecution!  :-D  I see myself in the same situation as Joshua and Caleb.  Walking in the midst of a people who are perishing in the wilderness; it is important to realize the they were completely as peace with this situation because they worshipped God genuinely and only wanted his will to be done.  They did not grow bitter over the years because "if it weren't for all you, 'I' could have been in the promised land 40 years ago!"  There are people out there Rob (Malcolm Smith, Dan Stone, Major W. Ian Thomas, etc.); it's just that they are not "popular" and on "TV."  :-)  God has reserved for himself a remnant.   :-)  He always has.

Rob, you end with the statement:

We kinda have to put ourselves in the environment of the first century church in order for us to relate to what was being taught.  Unless we do, we will be confused about the doctrine of suffering.

That's really impossibility: we don't know what we don't know.  :-)  Rather  we just have to really trust in the One who was there in person, and depend upon the fact that He said the Spirit of God would lead us into all the truth (that being Christ himself of course).

Your brother in Him,
Craig

Yeah, I know that there are extremes in every area.  It would never have occurred to me to say "God took away my car" if I was in an accident.  I just ask such people for an example from the scriptures.  :-)

On the other hand I also know how uncomfortable the statement of Job is for the faith camp.  ;-)  "The LORD gives and the LORD takes away, blessed be the name of the LORD."  Even though the testimony of scripture is that Job didn't sin when he said that, many take offence at the statement.  Me?  I embrace it and learn from it.  Job saw no secondary causes.  Job didn't believe that Satan had any authority over his life unless the Lord had given it to him...and indeed He had.  The statement is not negative if you keep in mind that it is the same thing as saying "This evil may have been permitted but God is absolutely good and cannot do evil...so I submit to Him in the midst of this circumstance and worship him (e.g. lay down all my reasoning and inability to understand it all)."

I've spoken to the weather myself in the past and so I know the Lord does those things through us.  We are sons in training and really have been given dominion of this planet.  We do not know who we were created to be nor who we really are in Christ...but when He comes, we come and then we will marvel at Him in one another.

All I'm saying is that I'm at the place where I cannot just make it all black and white like some teachers do...especially faith teachers.  Romans 1 is still there and clearly tells us that the "anger" (interpreted as "wrath") of God is reveal from heaven against "all" ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.  When we look at our world we will see that but many attribute everything to the Devil.  Also judgment begins in the house of God, that judgment is real and can clearly be seen affecting the lives of people...especially those who use justification to justify walking by the flesh.  :-)

All these things are also commonly denied.  We are completely safe from God's anger...if we confess our sin as being sin and bow before Him and His word and acknowledge the fact that because of what He has done in Christ we have no excuse of our sins.   We just didn't abide in Him and rebuilt what we had once destroyed [in the words of Galatians].  God is always faithful and just to cleans us from "all" our sins if we just don't attempt to justify them.  Anyway, judgment and it's relationship to grace is the subject of another of my blogs where I speak to the fact that our debt is "forgiven" not "paid."

Great talking with you Rob!  Really!
Craig

Persecution is God's discipline.  If we are receiving persecution we are right where we want to be.  If we are not receiving persecution, we have let something slip.

Did God bail out Jesus time and time again?  Yes.  How many times did Jesus simply walk through a crowd that wanted to kill Him?  If we have been baptized into Christ, we have put on Christ.  If we have put on Christ, God doesn't see us as filthy sinners who need a right-good drubbing.  If we have put on Christ in baptism then when God looks at us all He sees is Jesus.

There are indeed consequences to our actions.  The law of sewing and reaping has never been repealed.  However, I resist the doctrine that says God is the source of pain in our lives.  If you can survive in that kind of environment then more power to you.  I tried to live that way once upon a time and it did not serve me well.  All I know is that when the full measure of my sin had caught up with me, I did not flee to God for punishment but for rescue.

Rob

Lara,

Yes, God defines Fatherhood.  We should not define God in terms of how our earthly father was and we should used a negative earthly father experience provide an excuse for us not to relate to our heavenly one.  :-)  I've not much patience with the "poor me, victim" thing.  ;-)  I didn't have an earthly father at any point in my life...so what!  I have the best One there is now!!!

Rob,

I head someone question the concept of "debt" about ten years ago but it didn't really sink in until I began to look at why it would be necessary for God to judge someone if they continue in sin--after all it is said, "our debt for past, present, and future sins has been paid in full."  The logical conclusion of that paradigm is universalism and license.  If you do a word study on all things debt, payment, paid, bought, buy, ransom, redeem, wage, forgive, forgiven, and forgiveness, you will find a surprise!

The payment of a ransom is not the payment of a debt...it's the price of redemption.  Look up the things that we are redeemed from!  Colossians is the nail in the coffin for the concept of "payment of debt!"  It tells us clearly that our debt has been forgiven.  No difference you say!  It is the difference between someone paying off your mortgage and your mortgage debt being forgiven!  Forgiveness of debt is the release of that debt, the letting go!  Jesus is the sacrifice for the sin of the world he isn't the payment of the debt.  The debt is forgiven by having been nailed to the cross.  It is a HUGE difference.  It makes complete sense out of 1 Corinthians 10 and Hebrews 10!  It also makes sense out of 1 John 1:9 and how that it is written to believers not to unbelievers as some exchanged life ministries teach--they are bound by the "debt" paradigm and so they say 1 John 1:9 has to have beeb written to unbelievers because Jesus has "paid the debt" for all our sins.  He has not!  God has provided one sacrifice for sin, once for all time.  That sacrifice must be received to be benefited from.  Not only that, but we must confess our sin as being sin so that God has a right to "forgive" and cleans us.  If we will not confess it as sin then there no longer remains a sacrifice for it as Hebrews 10:26 says and judgment is then our only mercy of God left!!!  So, do the word study and just read what it actually says instead of what the traditions say it says.  :-)  There is a big difference between forgiveness of debt and payment of debt.  :-)

Sincerely,
Craig

I think I'm starting to understand.  If the sacrifice for sin paid the debt in full (past, present, and future) then God would have to undo the sacrifice for there to "remain no more sacrifice for sins".  For God to hit the "Undo Key", He'd have to be a liar because in that case, the whole "once for all" thing goes away.  The fact is that God is able to reserve Jesus' sacrifice to only those who believe.  But then the whole repayment issue resurfaces.  If I stop believing Jesus' sacrifice was for the payment of my sins, then I lose the payment.

Yikes!  I hate thinking that hard!

Okay.  Let me back up and take another run at this: Jesus "paid" the ransom but He did not pay the debt.  We have been bought with a price but the debt can still be re-activated? - it's simply dormant for a time?

Now it's starting to sound like not such a good deal...  Are you saying that at any point during eternity (a ludicrous concept) that God could pull my ticket and demand payment for the debt?  (By the way, there is no "point during eternity" since there is no "during" or "duration" of eternity.  There can be no point of time in eternity either.  Also, God is not given to random and arbitrary actions.  So my question is probably a very bad one indeed...)  But if all that could happen... no...  I give up...  I got nothin'.

I'm starting to like this theology.  It's consistent with everything else I know about the cross.  I gotta say, it's really subtle, though.  I'm not sure how this one will fit on me.  Can you give me more teaching along this line?  Help me out by giving examples of how this can be employed to better my life.  I like it but I'm not sure how useful it is.

Rob

:-)  Yeah, it seems subtle.  If I kidnap you Rob, and your wife gives me my billion dollars, she is not paying a debt...she's paying a ransom, I'd release you and it would be the price of your redemption.  We were ransomed (redeemed) from a number of things: our futile way of life inherited from our forefathers, etc.  It's written that "in Him" is "redemption, the forgiveness of our sins."  Also, that God--through him--provided one sacrifice for all time, for our sins.

Colossians 2 says what it says.  The debt that was against us was nailed to the cross and our sins were forgiven.  If I paid off your mortgage and nailed your house title to your front door you would say that "Craig paid my debt."  You would not say "my debt was forgiven."  If I was the owner of the Mortgage Company and I nailed the title to your front door you would say "Craig forgave my debt."  You could not say that I paid it.

The sacrifice provided is an eternal one (from everlasting to everlasting); accepting it provides one with the forgiveness of sins; trampling the blood of the covenant underfoot and continuing in our sins puts us in a place where we must be judged because we are not "owning" or sins and appealing to the sacrifice that was provided.  This, in my understanding, justifies why certain people in the scriptures were judged in the flesh so that they might live in the spirit on the day of the Lord.  It also explains how a person--given a certain level of experience and walking in God's power and grace--could walk away and it would be impossible for them to come to a change of mind again: they have trampled the blood of the covenant with full understanding and knowledge of what they are doing (a very special case).

You just have to do the Bible study and pull out all the suggested verses and then say that they are "all" true and all of them together are truth.  There are only two verses in the whole New Testament that speak to the payment of a debt and those are in Corinthians, and are associated with the payment of a ransom (the price of redemption).

The significance of this is just to understand why Paul felt it necessary to deliver several people over to Satan that they be judged in the flesh "so that" they might live in the spirit on the day of the Lord.  The question is "if the debt is paid off for eternity then why are they being judged in the flesh?"  The answer is: the debt has been forgiven because an eternal sacrifice has been provided.  As long as holds fast to that sacrifice they are eternally secure.  If they give themselves over to sin then their only hope is that they will be judged in the flesh because the sacrifice does not apply to willful, habitual sinning.

This also makes sense out of all the verses that warn about sowing to the flesh and continuing in habitual sinning.  It also, makes sense out of 1 John 1:9.  If an eternal debt has been paid then why would it be necessary to confess our sins?  The confession of sins is "saying the same thing as" God about our missing the mark.  God's response is forgiveness (not payment) and cleanings because an eternal sacrifice has been provided.  If we don't "own" our sins then there is no sacrifice that applies to them.  Thus Jesus saying that Father will not forgive us our debts if we do not forgive (release!) the debts of others!

Do not be deceived, no one who will not forgive will be forgiven...they will at best be judged in the flesh for their own debt because they would not forgive the debt of another.  That is the message of the parable.  No one's debt was paid except by the guy that refused to "release" the debt of another.

For me this is much more wonderful than some cold legal transaction where Father can accept me because his Son paid off my debt to him.  Rather Father forgives my debt because He has provided a sacrifice for it in the form of his only begotten Son.  He forgives my debt!  Mercy rather than obligation on God's part!

Anyway, show me one verse where we are told "he paid a debt that I could never pay?"  Show me one verse where it says "through the cross he paid our debt."  There isn't one.  The debt was nailed to the cross and the debt was forgiven.  Our trespasses are forgiven.  It's mercy not the fulfillment of an obligation of God's part.

Fire all your guns at once and explode into space!  Dare to ferret out what the scriptures are actually saying and see if it's the same as our traditions.  :-)  Did you take the time to look them all up Rob?  :-)

From Vines online:

Remission, Remit

1aphesis (Noun)

"a dismissal, release" (from aphiemi, B), is used of the forgiveness of sins and translated "remission" in Mt. 26:28; Mr. 1:4; Lu. 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Ac. 2:38; 5:31 (AV, "forgiveness"); 10:43; 13:38, RV (AV, "forgiveness"); 26:18 (ditto); Heb. 9:22; 10:18. See FORGIVE, B, and A, No. 1.

2paresis (Noun)

"a passing by of debt or sin," Ro. 3:25, AV, "remission" (RV and AV marg., "passing over"). See PASSING OVER. Note: No. 2 is a matter of forbearance, No. 1 a matter of grace.

Forgive, Forgave, Forgiveness

1aphiemi (Verb)

Primarily, "to send forth, send away" (apo, "from," hiemi, "to send"), denotes, besides its other meanings, "to remit or forgive" (a) debts, Mt. 6:12; 18:27,32, these being completely cancelled; (b) sins, e.g., Mt. 9:2, 5,6; 12:31,32; Ac. 8:22 ("the thought of thine heart"); Ro. 4:7; Jas. 5:15; 1Jo. 1:9; 2:12. In this latter respect the verb, like its corresponding noun (below), firstly signifies the remission of the punishment due to sinful conduct, the deliverance of the sinner from the penalty Divinely, and therefore righteously, imposed; secondly, it involves the complete removal of the cause of offense; such remission is based upon the vicarious and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. In the OT atoning sacrifice and "forgiveness" are often associated, e.g., Le. 4:20,26. The verb is used in the NT with reference to trespasses (paraptoma), e.g., Mt. 6:14,15; sins (hamartia), e.g., Lu. 5:20; debts (see above) (opheilema), Mt. 6:12; (opheile), Mt. 18:32; (daneion), Mt. 18:27; the thought (dianoia) of the heart, Ac. 8:22. Cp. kalupto, "to cover," 1Pe. 4:8; Jas. 5:20; and epikalupto, "to cover over," Ro. 4:7, representing the Hebrew words for "atonement." Human "forgiveness" is to be strictly analogous to Divine "forgiveness," e.g., Mt. 6:12. If certain conditions are fulfilled, there is no limitation to Christ's law of "forgiveness," Mt. 18:21,22. The conditions are repentance and confession, Mt. 18:15-17; Lu. 17:3. As to limits to the possibility of Divine "forgiveness," see Mt. 12:32, 2nd part (see BLASPHEMY) and 1Jo. 5:16 (see DEATH). See FORSAKE, LAY, Note (2) at end, LEAVE, LET, OMIT, PUT, No. 16, Note, REMIT, SEND, Note, (1), SUFFER, YIELD.

2charizomai (Verb)

"to bestow a favor unconditionally," is used of the act of "forgiveness," whether Divine, Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13; or human, Lu. 7:42,43 (debt); 2Co. 2:7,10; 12:13; Eph. 4:32 (1st mention). Paul uses this word frequently, but No. 1 only, in Ro. 4:7, in this sense of the word. See DELIVER. Note: Apoluo, "to let loose from" (apo, "from," luo, "to loose"), "to release," is translated "forgive," "ye shall be forgiven," Lu. 6:37, AV (RV, "release," "ye shall be released"), the reference being to setting a person free as a quasi-judicial act. The verb does not mean "to forgive." See DISMISS, RELEASE.

3aphesis (Noun)

Denotes "a dismissal, release" (akin to A, No. 1); it is used of the remission of sins, and translated "forgiveness" in Mr. 3:29; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14, and in the AV of Ac. 5:31; 13:38; 26:18, in each of which the RV has "remission." Eleven times it is followed by "of sins," and once by "of trespasses." It is never used of the remission of sins in the Sept., but is especially connected with the Year of Jubilee ( Le. 25:10, etc.). Cp. the RV of Lu. 4:18, "release" (AV, "liberty"). For the significance in connection with remission of sins and the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, see A, No. 1. See DELIVERANCE, LIBERTY, RELEASE, REMISSION. Cp. the different word paresis, "a passing over, a remission," of sins committed under the old covenant, Ro. 3:25. The RV should be used here. This passing over, or by, was neither forgetting nor "forgiving;" it was rather a suspension of the just penalty; cp. Ac. 17:30, "the times of ignorance God overlooked," RV; see also, e.g., Ps. . 78:38.

Craig

The significance of this is just to understand why Paul felt it necessary to deliver several people over to Satan that they be judged in the flesh "so that" they might live in the spirit on the day of the Lord.  The question is "if the debt is paid off for eternity then why are they being judged in the flesh?"  The answer is: the debt has been forgiven because an eternal sacrifice has been provided.

God's not judging those who are "delivered unto Satan" - not according to this verse, anyway.

Once again, there is no mention of "judgment in the flesh" not even for these blasphemers.  There is one more verse that uses the expression "judged" and "in the flesh".

Peter said that the people who are now dead were judged but not  by God.  They were judged "according to men" in the flesh. Men were the ones judging righteous people.  For example, Noah's neighbors must have judged him crazy for building an ark.

A Neglidgable Difference:
The effect of the difference between "paying off the debt" and "cancelling the debt", I don't think, is well illustrated by your argument.  Here's why:

The blessings and abundance of the kingdom of God are activated by faith.  This is why it seems that "without faith it is impossible to please Him".  In fact, without faith, you cannot even begin to approach Him.  Faith is the bridge between the carnal and the spiritual - it's how we get there from here.  Therefore, it matters very much what you believe about the kingdom.

If I believe God for forgiveness then I receive forgiveness.  If I know nothing about "deliverance" then I will never tap into that specific reality.  "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hos 4:6)  This is precisely the state of the modern American church.  Everyone is in, what I refer to as, the "Cheap Forgiveness Cycle".

10 - I sin
20 - I repent
30 - God forgives
40 - Goto 10

Nobody is being taught the truth about the sacrifice of Jesus and so they remain eternally locked in the Cheap Forgiveness Cycle.  This is the kind of religion that the Jews had BC.  The Jews had forgiveness without the power to live free from sin - the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  The Law clearly says that animal sacrifice afforded the people of God forgiveness of sin.  The book of Hebrews tells us, however, that the blood of bulls and goats could never "take away sin".  The implication is that the blood of Jesus (our Unblemished Lamb) does indeed take away our sin.  This gives credence to John the Baptist's testimony, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world".  Not only does our Unblemished Lamb afford forgiveness of sins but also He "takes them away" as well.  Here's the only qualifier - You have to believe it.

Forgiveness is received by faith.  Deliverance is also received by faith.  Healing, as well.  Prosperity too.  Faith seems to be the catalyst or nexus.  The kingdom of God is within you but without faith you cannot get the bounty of the kingdom to manifest in the natural.  Jesus walked on water (Peter too) not because He was really lightweight but because He knew how to activate the blessings of the kingdom.  He derived His supernatural ability using the very same faith God's given us.  Therefore, what Jesus did, I can do - and greater things.

You also wrote:
As long as [one] holds fast to that sacrifice they are eternally secure.  If they give themselves over to sin then their only hope is that they will be judged in the flesh because the sacrifice does not apply to willful, habitual sinning.

May I be so bold as to suggest that every sin is wilful and habitual?  It is true that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin".  And it seems to me, that the sin of unbelief is exactly what the Hebrews writer was referring to when he wrote:

Because whether we're talking about the sacrifice being a "payment of our debt" or a "forgiveness of our debt", the fact remains that if we deny the sacrifice of Jesus through unbelief then we are on our own.

Why did I turn my own life over to Satan so many years ago?  I was not a casual member of the church.  I read my bible.  I prayed.  I tithed.  What made me turn my back and walk away?

Look at the context of Hebrews 10.  The author said things like:

I walked away from God and the church all those years ago because I did NOT have full assurance of faith, I did not have an unwavering profession of faith (quite the contrary), I indeed, cast my confidence away without regard to the reward, and I was not just because of my unbelief.  God had no way of taking pleasure in me because without faith, it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6).

The world had more to offer me than the church did (and by association, God).  I fled to the world to get away from the guilt and condemnation I experienced from my "godly" lifestyle in the church.  You can go around the Cheap Forgiveness Cycle only so many times before you exhaust every last drop of willingness to repent.  (I broke down at line 20 (above)) I walked away from God because, in my experience, Jesus' yoke was not easy and His burden was not light.  I walked away because His commandments, in my opinion, were indeed grievous.  My life "in Christ" was the antithesis of everything it was supposed to be - and I knew that instinctively.  So I fled back to the world for peace and safety.  And honestly, compared to the guilt trip of religion, blatant worldliness is a blessed relief.

Every sin has been forgiven - Christian and non-Christian - past, present, and future.  Everyone has been released from his indebtedness but only those who believe can receive.  People aren't going to hell because their sins are not forgiven, hey are going to hell because they don't accept Jesus as their righteousness.  And that includes about 80% of the Christian world (if not more).

Not many accept Jesus as their righteousness.  I was in a discussion with a woman from my church who said that although the New Testament says we are righteous, we are "not really righteous" (her words) because none of us keeps the Law.

She's a good woman.  She comes to church every time the doors open.  She gives of her money and time.  She gives glory to God for His blessings but her belief about the source of "real righteousness" is keeping her from receiving God's righteousness.  Although she's real nice, knowledgeable, and dedicated to God, she stumbles at the stumbling stone of faith righteousenss.  Most people do.

You seem to indicate that if forgiveness were a debt that was "paid in full" then there would be no need for godliness.  That's a little extreme.  Because, by the same token, one could accuse you of saying, "Since Jesus forgave our debt, we don't have to live godly lives".  It's the same debate.  It's exactly what they accused Paul of preaching.  Just because someone wants to view the sacrifice as payment of the debt is no indication that they walk in licentiousness.  I don't think that "debt repayment" leads people to licentiousness any more than the "debt is forgiven" paradigm.

People who are looking for an excuse to sin will pervert whatever message they hear.  Adulterers will adulterate.  By the same token, those who accuse us of "once saved always saved" are tipping their own hands. "For wherein they judge another, they condemn themselves; for they that judge do the same things."

Rob

P.S. Let's write a book together :-)

Humm.  Rob you wrote:

Every sin has been forgiven - Christian and non-Christian - past, present, and future.  Everyone has been released from his indebtedness but only those who believe can receive.  People aren't going to hell because their sins are not forgiven, hey are going to hell because they don't accept Jesus as their righteousness.  And that includes about 80% of the Christian world (if not more).

That is the same thing as saying that all men are saved: past, present, and future. I think of it more in terms of the fact that one sacrifice has been provided for all time.  Just like Jesus was scourged for our healing once for all time.  The sacrifice has been accomplished...we must accept the gift.  A gift that is not accepted is not ours--that is how it works even in natural law.  A gift is not ours until we receive it.

As for the other comments: good catch, I logically and them together and mixed them up.  :-)

Why is it necessary for a person to judge themselves truly?  It's obvious that people even die if they don't get this right.  Owning sin and judging ones self goes along with the acceptance of Christ's redemption.  It does matter if we continue in sin...it's obvious from this an other scriptures.  Grace is give not only for justification but also for sanctification.  Not us living by rules, of course, but us walking by the Spirit rather than the flesh [what we were born with the first time].

You still didn't quote Colossians.

Colossians 2:13-15 (ESV)
13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

I'm not really sure why it seems so subtle to you and of not much significance.  I just know that it says what it says and all the parables of Jesus, Lord's Prayer, the examples previously given, and all that line up with these facts.  Nothing else comes to mind by way of explanation so I guess it's to the shelf with it for you.  :-)

I've known so many Christians who actually justify their continuance in sin because of the payment paradigm.  "I'm forgiven for all sins past, present, and future so it doesn't matter what I do."  Such a person does not see themselves as been dead to sin and alive to God in Christ...they see that as being irrelevant!  The sacrifice was made before the foundation of the world so all our sins were in the future.  :-)  That fact did not help Safariah, nor did it help the Corinthians who did not judge themselves rightly.

I won't bother to drag in the "don't be deceived" ones...you already know all those or can look them up.  :-)  I've see many apply those to unbelievers [seems silly to me, Paul wasn't written his letters to unbelievers], but that is the amazing thing to me...we are capable of justifying anything, even with the scriptures...you just have to leave some out to make things fit.  :-)

Anyway,  the river has gone dry for now.  :-)

Best regards,
Craig

Yeah Lara, some guy named Jesus said that.  ;-)  Guess he must have been James' brother, and a legalist or something?  :-)  He was in the "old" then!

Matthew 11:12-13 (ESV)
12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John,

Luke 16:16 (ESV)
"The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it."

Oh, oh!  Maybe we had better walk by the Spirit and not listen to our flesh!  No problem though!  He who effectively worked through Peter for his being a messenger to the circumcised, who worked effectively through Paul toward the Gentiles, will also work effectively through us for the purpose He has given to each...if we could just keep from trying to do things for him and trust him to do it through us.  ;-)

Craig

14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

15When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

According to verse 14, the outstanding debt consisted of the the Law (the decrees that were against us).  (That's some pretty cool reasoning right there!)

You kinda have to go along, then, with the thought that the debt's been cancelled for all of us (saved and unsaved) because the certificate of debt has been destroyed.  He blotted out that handwriting of ordinances that was against us.  It was contrary to us.  He took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross.

If the certificate of debt (that "handwriting of ordinances") has been taken out of the way then there's no contract to hold any of us to.  As surely as Jesus died on that cross, the contract is gone!  We're free!  Ding-dong the witch is dead!  This is also consistent with the "Jesus became sin for us" theology.

But like everything else in the kingdom of God, you have to believe it.  Most people (the "unchurched") will tell you that they'll go to heaven because they treat people fair and they love their kids (or some such rot).  That's a primitive form of legalism.  Then they "get saved" and change their opinion.  Now they're going to heaven because they keep the Ten Commandments (or whatever).

Jesus is the end of the Law for righteousness but only to those who believe it.  Legalism denies the reality and totality of Jesus' sacrifice.

Therefore, since there is no certificate of indebtedness, no one can be held to it (whether they're saved or lost).  Lost people are lost because they have not accepted Jesus' sacrifice for their sins (this includes a healthy percentage of people who call themselves Christians).  I was raised in the Catholic Church (a nominally Christian organization).  Catholics, with their holy days of obligation and their ritualized holiness, know nothing about Jesus as their righteousness.  I am a member of the Church of Christ and most of my brethren are under the mistaken impression that they have to "keep themselves saved" by attending church on Sunday, taking the Lord's Supper on Sunday (and only on Sunday), not use musical instruments when worshiping God, and many more such laws.  Jesus is NOT the end of the law for righteousness for these poor unfortunates.

If people are living in sin then they have not been saved from it - I don't care who they are or what they say.  Salvation is more than mere forgiveness.  Salvation means to be preserved or kept from something.  Salvation from sin means to be kept from sin.  If you're living for Satan in the name of Jesus, you ain't got your head screwed on right.  Forgiveness is only one part of salvation.

Regarding 1 Cor. 11:30-32 - This is almost the end of a discussion about the Lord's Supper.  The subject of Paul's argument appears in verse 20:

Paul told the Corinthian church that what they were doing was anything BUT the Lord's Supper.  These verses get read alot in the CoC.

Evidently, the Lord's Supper used to be a lot more than "crackers and grape juice" (as it is today).  Jude, I think, referred to something called a "Love Feast".  Maybe that's how the Lord's Supper started out - a big feast.  I think it's BECAUSE of Paul's comments that the church later reduced it to the fundamental ingredients (unleavened bread and wine (grape juice)).  So after describing the Lord's Supper, Paul says:

Now, many Christians (myself included) have turned this verse into condemnation.  But what is the "unworthy" manner Paul was describing in the previous verses?  The judgment we need to apply to ourselves, in this context, is whether we've left enough food for the rest of the congregation to eat.  That would be a rare thing in a modern Lord's Supper event.  In today's church, this would apply more to a "covered dish" party at church - not the Lord's Supper.

I know people who absolutely REFUSE to take the Lord's Supper because they don't want to take a chance on dying.  That's crazy but that's people.  They won't take the Lord's Supper because they don't feel like they're generally worthy enough.  That sounds humble on its face but it is strictly of the devil.  Paul wasn't trying to scare people away from eating the Lord's Supper, he was telling them to consider the other people around them as they eat.  This is the specific "unworthiness" he was referring to.  This is what he's telling the Corinthians to judge themselves in.  He's not telling them to judge whether they're big sinners or not.

Rob