PDA

View Full Version : The deadly consequences of denying limited atonement !



beloved57
June 16th, 2017, 03:24 AM
2 Tim 3:5

Having a form of godliness, butdenying the power thereof: from such turn away.

By Limited Atonement I mean that Christ Saving Death was and is for only some of mankind in the eternal purpose of God in Christ Jesus. God hath sovereignly limited the efficay of His Sons Death to save only some, hence leaving the rest to perish in their sins ! Rom 11:7

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Now what did the Election obtain ? This 2 Tim 2:10

10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

They obtain Salvation which is in Christ Jesus with Eternal Glory !

Now, once anyone denies limited atonement, that Christ's saving death was only for some and not for all without exception, and doeth falsely teach that Christ's death was for all without exception, yet knowing that all without exception shall not obtain Salvation with Eternal Glory which is in Christ Jesus:

Then they are guilty of denying that Salvation is 100 % conditioned on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. There's no way around that fact. Either Christ's Saving death was only for some, and all of that some are saved, or it was for all without exception, and in some degree Salvation is conditioned upon man, something he must do. Once that element of what man does enters the equation to make Salvation a reality, Salvation is no more 100% conditioned on Christ alone, which deny's the power of the Gospel !Hence the deadly consequences of denying limited atonement !

patrick jane
June 16th, 2017, 03:49 AM
Made up

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 03:57 AM
Made up

If what you say is true then everyone is OK. If what he says is true then you are hell bound.

patrick jane
June 16th, 2017, 04:01 AM
If what you say is true then everyone is OK. If what he says is true then you are hell bound.1 John 2:2 KJV -

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 04:10 AM
Whole world means not restricted to the nation of Yisrael, but to all nations, but obviously not all people.

patrick jane
June 16th, 2017, 04:12 AM
Whole world means not restricted to the nation of Yisrael, but to all nations, but obviously not all people.ALL that believe

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 04:14 AM
ALL that believe

You are a barren fig tree that cannot bear the fruit of true praise and worship.

patrick jane
June 16th, 2017, 04:22 AM
You are a barren fig tree that cannot bear the fruit of true praise and worship.Your whole demeanor is nasty. You "have fun" on TOL judging and telling others they are wrong and going to hell, you twist the scriptures to fit your mindset.

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 04:27 AM
Your whole demeanor is nasty. You "have fun" on TOL judging and telling others they are wrong and going to hell, you twist the scriptures to fit your mindset.

I warn you to repent. I warn you that you have no oil in your lamp. I confirm that you are under judgement and that you need to flee from the wrath to come. I warn you in love and yet I am the bad person? I warn and expect abuse and still I warn...madness or grace?

patrick jane
June 16th, 2017, 04:31 AM
I warn you to repent. I warn you that you have no oil in your lamp. I confirm that you are under judgement and that you need to flee from the wrath to come. I warn you in love and yet I am the bad person? I warn and expect abuse and still I warn...madness or grace?I warn you to repent and believe Paul's gospel that came straight from the Lord Jesus Christ, you are submerged in a false doctrine, I'll pray for your lost soul.

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 04:42 AM
I warn you to repent and believe Paul's gospel that came straight from the Lord Jesus Christ, you are submerged in a false doctrine, I'll pray for your lost soul.

Your prayer just bounces off the ceiling. Just as your memories of the opportunities and warnings you were given will bounce around your head as you weep and gnash your teeth in the eternal Lake of Fire.....why didn't I listen? why did my pride hold me back? why didn't I take heed?

Tears of repentance now would mean no tears of despair then...

patrick jane
June 16th, 2017, 04:48 AM
Your prayer just bounces off the ceiling. Just as your memories of the opportunities and warnings you were given will bounce around your head as you weep and gnash your teeth in the eternal Lake of Fire.....why didn't I listen? why did my pride hold me back? why didn't I take heed?

Tears of repentance now would mean no tears of despair then...:rotfl:

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 04:49 AM
:rotfl:


ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων

patrick jane
June 16th, 2017, 04:52 AM
ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντωνI forgot your penchant for always having the last word. Pride

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 05:07 AM
I forgot your penchant for always having the last word. Pride

It's the last laugh you need to worry about:



"He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: Yah Veh shall have them in derision."

patrick jane
June 16th, 2017, 05:48 AM
It's the last laugh you need to worry about:



"He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: Yah Veh shall have them in derision."You think God does your bidding, classic delusion

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 05:55 AM
2 Tim 3:5

Having a form of godliness, butdenying the power thereof: from such turn away.

By Limited Atonement I mean that Christ Saving Death was and is for only some of mankind in the eternal purpose of God in Christ Jesus. God hath sovereignly limited the efficay of His Sons Death to save only some, hence leaving the rest to perish in their sins ! Rom 11:7

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Now what did the Election obtain ? This 2 Tim 2:10

10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

They obtain Salvation which is in Christ Jesus with Eternal Glory !

Now, once anyone denies limited atonement, that Christ's saving death was only for some and not for all without exception, and doeth falsely teach that Christ's death was for all without exception, yet knowing that all without exception shall not obtain Salvation with Eternal Glory which is in Christ Jesus:

Then they are guilty of denying that Salvation is 100 % conditioned on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. There's no way around that fact. Either Christ's Saving death was only for some, and all of that some are saved, or it was for all without exception, and in some degree Salvation is conditioned upon man, something he must do. Once that element of what man does enters the equation to make Salvation a reality, Salvation is no more 100% conditioned on Christ alone, which deny's the power of the Gospel !Hence the deadly consequences of denying limited atonement !

Hope this thread gets back on topic.

Nanja
June 16th, 2017, 07:20 AM
2 Tim 3:5

Having a form of godliness, butdenying the power thereof: from such turn away.

By Limited Atonement I mean that Christ Saving Death was and is for only some of mankind in the eternal purpose of God in Christ Jesus. God hath sovereignly limited the efficay of His Sons Death to save only some, hence leaving the rest to perish in their sins ! Rom 11:7

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Now what did the Election obtain ? This 2 Tim 2:10

10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

They obtain Salvation which is in Christ Jesus with Eternal Glory !

Now, once anyone denies limited atonement, that Christ's saving death was only for some and not for all without exception, and doeth falsely teach that Christ's death was for all without exception, yet knowing that all without exception shall not obtain Salvation with Eternal Glory which is in Christ Jesus:

Then they are guilty of denying that Salvation is 100 % conditioned on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. There's no way around that fact. Either Christ's Saving death was only for some, and all of that some are saved, or it was for all without exception, and in some degree Salvation is conditioned upon man, something he must do. Once that element of what man does enters the equation to make Salvation a reality, Salvation is no more 100% conditioned on Christ alone, which deny's the power of the Gospel !Hence the deadly consequences of denying limited atonement !


Succinctly stated!

If Christ's Atonement wasn't Limited, there would be no need for the Gospel of Grace 2 Tim. 1:8-9 which declares that God had chosen / elected and predestinated only a portion of humanity in Christ, to be holy and without blame before Him in Love, to have forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His Grace Eph. 1:4-7.

1 Pet. 1:1-2; 18,19
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

And Rom. 9:11
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;

Rom. 8:28-29
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Positively 100% of all the Election of Grace Christ died, shed His Blood for, have been Saved by that Fact alone!

But those who remain in unbelief that Christ's Atonement was Limited, it's evidence they are condemned already John 3:18, 36.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 08:01 AM
What if?.... Limited Atonement and Unlimited Atonement represents a false dichotomy based upon a false beginning premise because few understand Hamartiology at its foundation.

Jesus didn't die for some OR all men. He was made (poieo) sin (hamartia, singular anarthrous). This means He died for the sin state of being of all mankind for all ages, but that it is only efficacious unto salvation for those whom He has sovereignly foreknown.

What if?... Both "sides" of this modern binary are wrong by degree as Perspectivism, etc. Calvin and Arminius... both wrong.

Some? Yes. All? Yes. Simultaneously true. A paradox like many other false dichotomies of modern doctrine.

(Shrugs) Carry on, warring from the ditches on both sides of the road of truth.

beloved57
June 16th, 2017, 08:04 AM
Succinctly stated!

If Christ's Atonement wasn't Limited, there would be no need for the Gospel of Grace 2 Tim. 1:8-9 which declares that God had chosen / elected and predestinated only a portion of humanity in Christ, to be holy and without blame before Him in Love, to have forgiveness of sins according to the riches of His Grace Eph. 1:4-7.

1 Pet. 1:1-2; 18,19
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

And Rom. 9:11
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;

Rom. 8:28-29
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Positively 100% of all the Election of Grace Christ died, shed His Blood for, have been Saved by that Fact alone!

But those who remain in unbelief that Christ's Atonement was Limited, it's evidence they are condemned already John 3:18, 36.

Amen Sister!

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

beloved57
June 16th, 2017, 08:06 AM
What if?.... Limited Atonement and Unlimited Atonement represents a false dichotomy based upon a false beginning premise because few understand Hamartiology at its foundation.

Jesus didn't die for some OR all men. He was made (poieo) sin (hamartia, singular anarthrous). This means He died for the sin state of being of all mankind for all ages, but that it is only efficacious unto salvation for those whom He has sovereignly foreknown.

What if?... Both "sides" of this modern binary are wrong by degree as Perspectivism, etc. Calvin and Arminius... both wrong.

Some? Yes. All? Yes. Simultaneously true. A paradox like many other false dichotomies of modern doctrine.

(Shrugs) Carry on, warring from the ditches on both sides of the road of truth.
Did you read the points in the Op and understand them?

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 08:19 AM
Yes. :)
Atonement is simultaneously Limited and Unlimited. Christ was made (poieo) sin (hamartia, singular anarthrous).

He died for the sin condition of all mankind, and it is only efficacious for those who are granted repentance (the noun), etc.

Simul.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 08:22 AM
The unconditional and unilateral Abrahamic Covenant of faith AND the conditional and bilateral Mosaic Covenant of law were both fulfilled and personified in Christ.

Simul.

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 08:30 AM
Yes. :)
Atonement is simultaneously Limited and Unlimited. Christ was made (poieo) sin (hamartia, singular anarthrous).

He died for the sin condition of all mankind, and it is only efficacious for those who are granted repentance (the noun), etc.

Simul.

I'd love to see you turning right and left simultaneously. :rotfl:

Eagles Wings
June 16th, 2017, 08:31 AM
The unconditional and unilateral Abrahamic Covenant of faith AND the conditional and bilateral Mosaic Covenant of law were both fulfilled and personified in Christ.

Simul.
Good to see you posting, PPS.

daqq
June 16th, 2017, 08:31 AM
What if?.... Limited Atonement and Unlimited Atonement represents a false dichotomy based upon a false beginning premise because few understand Hamartiology at its foundation.

Jesus didn't die for some OR all men. He was made (poieo) sin (hamartia, singular anarthrous). This means He died for the sin state of being of all mankind for all ages, but that it is only efficacious unto salvation for those whom He has sovereignly foreknown.

What if?... Both "sides" of this modern binary are wrong by degree as Perspectivism, etc. Calvin and Arminius... both wrong.

Some? Yes. All? Yes. Simultaneously true. A paradox like many other false dichotomies of modern doctrine.

(Shrugs) Carry on, warring from the ditches on both sides of the road of truth.

If you investigate the way in which that phrase from 2Cor 5:21 can be utilized in the Septuagint, as per sacrificial offerings, it may become apparent that what Paul may actually be saying is that "he made an offering for sin", (αμαρτιαν, a sin offering, εποιησεν, he made, he did, he performed), instead of "became sin" or "was made sin".

Example:

Exodus 29:36 LXX
36 και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας ποιησεις τη ημερα του καθαρισμου και καθαριεις το θυσιαστηριον εν τω αγιαζειν σε επ αυτω και χρισεις αυτο ωστε αγιασαι αυτο

και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας = and the calf of the sin-offering
ποιησεις = you shall perform / make / do / offer / sacrifice

Exodus 29:36 LXX Brenton English Translation
36 And thou shalt sacrifice the calf of the sin-offering on the day of purification, and thou shalt purify the altar when thou dost perform consecration upon it, and thou shalt anoint it so as to sanctify it.

Hamartia is sometimes used not just for saying "sin" but also "sin-offering", (as is also true for the equivalent Hebrew word). The question therefore becomes; is Paul the Pharisee of Pharisees using more of a Hebrew minded sense in 2Cor 5:21? It does make a difference in our understanding because there is no sin in Messiah and he certainly did not "become sin for us" in the way that most of the mainstream imagines it in modern times when reading that statement from Paul.

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 08:51 AM
If you investigate the way in which that phrase from 2Cor 5:21 can be utilized in the Septuagint, as per sacrificial offerings, it may become apparent that what Paul may actually be saying is that "he made an offering for sin", (αμαρτιαν, a sin offering, εποιησεν, he made, he did, he performed), instead of "became sin" or "was made sin".

Example:

Exodus 29:36 LXX
36 και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας ποιησεις τη ημερα του καθαρισμου και καθαριεις το θυσιαστηριον εν τω αγιαζειν σε επ αυτω και χρισεις αυτο ωστε αγιασαι αυτο

και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας = and the calf of the sin-offering
ποιησεις = you shall perform / make / do / offer / sacrifice

Exodus 29:36 LXX Brenton English Translation
36 And thou shalt sacrifice the calf of the sin-offering on the day of purification, and thou shalt purify the altar when thou dost perform consecration upon it, and thou shalt anoint it so as to sanctify it.

Hamartia is sometimes used not just for saying "sin" but also "sin-offering", (as is also true for the equivalent Hebrew word). The question therefore becomes; is Paul the Pharisee of Pharisees using more of a Hebrew minded sense in 2Cor 5:21? It does make a difference in our understanding because there is no sin in Messiah and he certainly did not "become sin for us" in the way that most of the mainstream imagines it in modern times when reading that statement from Paul.

The correct translation of Cor 5:21 is: " For He hath made him sin in our behalf, who knew no sin; that we might become the justness of Elohim in him".

Get this, "HE MADE HIM SIN." Not He made him a sin offering.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 08:57 AM
I'd love to see you turning right and left simultaneously. :rotfl:

Atonement is by/from God, who is non-spatial. I cannot turn both left and right simultaneously, but He certainly can. Just like He can provide Limited Atonement within Unlimited Atonement.

Is anything too hard for God? No. Yet a seeming paradox to us.

daqq
June 16th, 2017, 08:57 AM
The correct translation of Cor 5:21 is: " For He hath made him sin in our behalf, who knew no sin; that we might become the justness of Elohim in him".

Get this, "HE MADE HIM SIN." Not He made him a sin offering.

If you would like my rendering of that passage I can give it but rest assured it does not agree with what you do in your house.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 08:58 AM
Good to see you posting, PPS.

Good to see you're still here contending for the truth once delivered to the saints. :)

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 09:07 AM
The correct translation of Cor 5:21 is: " For He hath made him sin in our behalf, who knew no sin; that we might become the justness of Elohim in him".

Get this, "HE MADE HIM SIN." Not He made him a sin offering.

Yes, of course He was not made "the" sin, as condition and state of being by nature.

That's why hamartia is singular anarthrous instead of singular articular. He was made every quality, characteristic, aspect, and functional activity of mankind's sin state of being. He wasn't made the sin condition.

Few English speakers have any real comprehension of Greek anarthrous nouns, instead creating such false dichotomies and binaries of doctrine from limited understanding.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 09:12 AM
The limited and unlimited facets are merely aspects of atonement; just as synergism (appropriately understood) is merely an apsect of monergism.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 09:13 AM
The correct translation of Cor 5:21 is: " For He hath made him sin in our behalf, who knew no sin; that we might become the justness of Elohim in him".

Get this, "HE MADE HIM SIN." Not He made him a sin offering.

Hamartia, singular anarthrous.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 09:16 AM
If you investigate the way in which that phrase from 2Cor 5:21 can be utilized in the Septuagint, as per sacrificial offerings, it may become apparent that what Paul may actually be saying is that "he made an offering for sin", (αμαρτιαν, a sin offering, εποιησεν, he made, he did, he performed), instead of "became sin" or "was made sin".

Example:

Exodus 29:36 LXX
36 και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας ποιησεις τη ημερα του καθαρισμου και καθαριεις το θυσιαστηριον εν τω αγιαζειν σε επ αυτω και χρισεις αυτο ωστε αγιασαι αυτο

και το μοσχαριον της αμαρτιας = and the calf of the sin-offering
ποιησεις = you shall perform / make / do / offer / sacrifice

Exodus 29:36 LXX Brenton English Translation
36 And thou shalt sacrifice the calf of the sin-offering on the day of purification, and thou shalt purify the altar when thou dost perform consecration upon it, and thou shalt anoint it so as to sanctify it.

Hamartia is sometimes used not just for saying "sin" but also "sin-offering", (as is also true for the equivalent Hebrew word). The question therefore becomes; is Paul the Pharisee of Pharisees using more of a Hebrew minded sense in 2Cor 5:21? It does make a difference in our understanding because there is no sin in Messiah and he certainly did not "become sin for us" in the way that most of the mainstream imagines it in modern times when reading that statement from Paul.

This actually beautifully depicts the singular anarthrous construct of hamartia. :)

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 09:20 AM
If you would like my rendering of that passage I can give it but rest assured it does not agree with what you do in your house.

If you ever agreed with the doctrine that I have. I would check my doctrine.

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 09:23 AM
Yes, of course He was not made "the" sin, as condition and state of being by nature.

That's why hamartia is singular anarthrous instead of singular articular. He was made every quality, characteristic, aspect, and functional activity of mankind's sin state of being. He wasn't made the sin condition.

Few English speakers have any real comprehension of Greek anarthrous nouns, instead creating such false dichotomies and binaries of doctrine from limited understanding.

If Messiah was not made sin on behalf of sinners then sin was not punished in the flesh and we* are not the justness of Elohim in Him. Perish the thought.

we* the redeemed.

jsanford108
June 16th, 2017, 09:30 AM
You are a barren fig tree that cannot bear the fruit of true praise and worship.

Sounds like a "works parable"....


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 09:39 AM
Sounds like a "works parable"....


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Said one of the goats...

daqq
June 16th, 2017, 09:43 AM
This actually beautifully depicts the singular anarthrous construct of hamartia. :)

It's good to see you back even though we disagree on some other things. You always read what people write and respond intelligently according to your understanding of the scripture; which is quite rare these days on internet forum boards. And, yes, I agree with your response: one sacrifice upon one occasion for all those willing to receive the Testimony and wash their robes in it. :)

Eagles Wings
June 16th, 2017, 09:51 AM
Said one of the goats...

We may consider one unregenerate, and even that with caution.

daqq
June 16th, 2017, 10:01 AM
Yes, of course He was not made "the" sin, as condition and state of being by nature.

That's why hamartia is singular anarthrous instead of singular articular. He was made every quality, characteristic, aspect, and functional activity of mankind's sin state of being. He wasn't made the sin condition.

Few English speakers have any real comprehension of Greek anarthrous nouns, instead creating such false dichotomies and binaries of doctrine from limited understanding.

:thumb:

beloved57
June 16th, 2017, 10:04 AM
Yes. :)
Atonement is simultaneously Limited and Unlimited. Christ was made (poieo) sin (hamartia, singular anarthrous).

He died for the sin condition of all mankind, and it is only efficacious for those who are granted repentance (the noun), etc.

Simul.

I dont know what you talking about. It sounds like however you dont believe Salvation is 100 % conditioned on the Person and Work of Christ. Do you believe that in some way Salvation depends upon what man does ? Yes or No

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 10:17 AM
If Messiah was not made sin on behalf of sinners then sin was not punished in the flesh and we* are not the justness of Elohim in Him. Perish the thought.

we* the redeemed.

And yet... I clearly - via scripture and the mention of the Greek anarthrous noun construct - insisted He was indeed made sin on behalf of sinners and punished in the flesh for we - the Redeemed - to be the justness of Elohim in Him. (Not hamartia singular articular; but hamartia singular anarthrous.)

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 10:23 AM
I dont know what you talking about. It sounds like however you dont believe Salvation is 100 % conditioned on the Person and Work of Christ. Do you believe that in some way Salvation depends upon what man does ? Yes or No

Salvation is 100% predicated upon the Person and Work of Christ.

And faith (pistis, the anarthrous noun) has within it all the qualitative characteristics and functional activity of all works therefrom.

There will be works if there is faith. Those works are the noun coming forth by the delegated power of God.

No work from/by man contributes to salvation. But faith and its works on behalf of others do save us. The verb cannot be separated from the noun, but must be from that source alone.

It is of faith that it might be by grace. We have access by faith into the grace wherein we stand.

beloved57
June 16th, 2017, 10:30 AM
pneu


Salvation is 100% predicated upon the Person and Work of Christ.

Saying that sounds to me like you believe that Sinners Christ died for are still lost. Or it sounds like you dont believe that Christ died for individuals personally at all.

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 10:30 AM
We may consider one unregenerate, and even that with caution.

They make a different sound. Goats never become lambs. The lost sheep are still sheep.

beloved57
June 16th, 2017, 10:34 AM
Salvation is 100% predicated upon the Person and Work of Christ.

And faith (pistis, the anarthrous noun) has within it all the qualitative characteristics and functional activity of all works therefrom.

There will be works if there is faith. Those works are the noun coming forth by the delegated power of God.

No work from/by man contributes to salvation. But faith and its works on behalf of others do save us. The verb cannot be separated from the noun, but must be from that source alone.

It is of faith that it might be by grace. We have access by faith into the grace wherein we stand.

Those Christ died for dont need Faith of anykind to save them from Gods Wrath. See they whom He died for are reconciled to God, made right with Him, while they are being enemies and hating God ! Rom 5:10

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Faith plays no part in this !

Eagles Wings
June 16th, 2017, 10:53 AM
They make a different sound. Goats never become lambs. The lost sheep are still sheep.From your own testimony, it seems you sounded, looked liked and smelled like a goat at one point in your life.

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 11:00 AM
From your own testimony, it seems you sounded, looked liked and smelled like a goat at one point in your life.

I was atheist, but I was not a goat. A goat does not become a sheep. A vessel formed for dishonour does not become a vessel of honour.

Nang
June 16th, 2017, 11:21 AM
If Messiah was not made sin on behalf of sinners then sin was not punished in the flesh and we* are not the justness of Elohim in Him. Perish the thought.

we* the redeemed.

Yes.

As I understand the Atonement:

Jesus' human nature was without sin. He was a just Man, totally sinless, who vicariously took upon Himself the full penalty for sin and guilt . . death.

The Just for the Unjust.

His death was the death of death, legally and spiritually . . applied to free those chosen for pardon and redemption.

("The Death of Death in the Death of Jesus Christ" John Owen)

The discussion is one of sufficiency and purpose; quality not quantity.

Eagles Wings
June 16th, 2017, 11:22 AM
I was atheist, but I was not a goat. A goat does not become a sheep. A vessel formed for dishonour does not become a vessel of honour.No "kidding".

Point is, you can't prove anyone here is a goat, and so ought not say such things to people.

Nang
June 16th, 2017, 11:28 AM
Ha!

I went to Webster's but "punner" cannot be found.

However, I know one . . .

:cool:

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 11:46 AM
No "kidding".

Point is, you can't prove anyone here is a goat, and so ought not say such things to people.

I don't need to prove anything to anyone. I speak as I find and I recognise the spirits at work in people by the fruit of their words. This what I am called to do and I shall do so until the day that I die.

Epoisses
June 16th, 2017, 11:49 AM
2 Tim 3:5

Having a form of godliness, butdenying the power thereof: from such turn away.

By Limited Atonement I mean that Christ Saving Death was and is for only some of mankind in the eternal purpose of God in Christ Jesus. God hath sovereignly limited the efficay of His Sons Death to save only some, hence leaving the rest to perish in their sins ! Rom 11:7

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Now what did the Election obtain ? This 2 Tim 2:10

10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

They obtain Salvation which is in Christ Jesus with Eternal Glory !

Now, once anyone denies limited atonement, that Christ's saving death was only for some and not for all without exception, and doeth falsely teach that Christ's death was for all without exception, yet knowing that all without exception shall not obtain Salvation with Eternal Glory which is in Christ Jesus:

Then they are guilty of denying that Salvation is 100 % conditioned on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. There's no way around that fact. Either Christ's Saving death was only for some, and all of that some are saved, or it was for all without exception, and in some degree Salvation is conditioned upon man, something he must do. Once that element of what man does enters the equation to make Salvation a reality, Salvation is no more 100% conditioned on Christ alone, which deny's the power of the Gospel !Hence the deadly consequences of denying limited atonement !

The vast majority of Calvinists i.e. Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, Episcopal etc. are moderate or 4-point Calvinists meaning they reject limited atonement and understand that Christ's sacrifice had a universal or unlimited aspect. The Calvinists on this forum are the fringe and hyper-Calvinists who are rejected and shunned by their own kind. B57 is an uber hyper-delusional!

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 11:56 AM
[COLOR=#333333]pneu



Saying that sounds to me like you believe that Sinners Christ died for are still lost. Or it sounds like you dont believe that Christ died for individuals personally at all.

In the explicit context that no one has received - according to lapsed chronological time in this life - the end of their faith, then no one is saved. Yet all who are foreknown and predestined to be conformed to the Son have been saved from the foundation of the world.

Anyone who is of the household of faith is saved. Yet no one is saved, having gone through the final judgment and being clothed upon with immortality and incorruptability.

The lost are saved already... but not yet.

Christ died for sin; and in that, He died for all who are the elect very personally. No need for false modern dichotomies. We are at once sinner and saint. Wholly and individually saved, but not yet so.

Just as I am, by partaking of the divine nature in hypostatic union with Theanthropos, communing with God from time into timelessness before He created by His Logos, who is the eternal and uncreated Son.

Time is not relative to election.

Nang
June 16th, 2017, 12:00 PM
The vast majority of Calvinists i.e. Reformed, Presbyterian, Anglican, Episcopal etc. are moderate or 4-point Calvinists meaning they reject limited atonement and understand that Christ's sacrifice had a universal or unlimited aspect.

I do not know the accuracy of your self-proclaimed statistics, but the 4-pointers are not orthodox Reformers, but a synergistic sect called "Amyraldians."

Their views of Universal Atonement does not stand the scrutiny of Holy Scripture.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 12:03 PM
Those Christ died for dont need Faith of anykind to save them from Gods Wrath. See they whom He died for are reconciled to God, made right with Him, while they are being enemies and hating God ! Rom 5:10

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Faith plays no part in this !

You're mistaking the verb pisteuo for the noun pistis. Faith is not believing. That's a verb.

This is what English speakers do continuously; substituting verbs for their corresponding nouns, and misunderstanding the most common Greek verb for "doing" as being predicated upon its base as an interrogative relative pronoun indicating a specific quality of action AS the act.

Faith (the noun) is the precise means by which God accomplishes the salvation of mankind according to His own eternal mind and will.

There is no sequence of time for the timeless God.

Epoisses
June 16th, 2017, 12:04 PM
I do not know the accuracy of your self-proclaimed statistics, but the 4-pointers are not orthodox Reformers, but a synergistic sect called "Amyraldians."

Their views of Universal Atonement does not stand the scrutiny of Holy Scripture.

In any denomination of Christianity the moderates outnumber everyone by vast degrees and numbers. Most people just sit in the pew and worry about their taxes and who is going to win the basketball game.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 12:05 PM
Yes.

As I understand the Atonement:

Jesus' human nature was without sin. He was a just Man, totally sinless, who vicariously took upon Himself the full penalty for sin and guilt . . death.

The Just for the Unjust.

His death was the death of death, legally and spiritually . . applied to free those chosen for pardon and redemption.

("The Death of Death in the Death of Jesus Christ" John Owen)

The discussion is one of sufficiency and purpose; quality not quantity.

Amen. Hence my reference to hamartia singular anarthrous.

HI, NANG! God bless you, my friend. 🙂

Nang
June 16th, 2017, 12:13 PM
Amen. Hence my reference to hamartia singular anarthrous.

HI, NANG! God bless you, my friend. ��

Thank you and welcome back. You have been sorely missed!

jsanford108
June 16th, 2017, 03:36 PM
Said one of the goats...

Oh yeah?! Well your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries!

How do you know I am a "goat?" How do you know I am anything? How do you know I am even existing in flesh? How do you know I am not a sentient program existing solely in cyberspace?

You seem to enjoy judging and casting stones. Which is interesting as that goes against the teachings of Christ.

And lastly, you say that goats can't become lambs; then you say that you were never a goat. All your labels are predicated on your own version of religion, which is in essence, what Truster says is fact. You have made your own version of God, and made yourself its highest priest.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Evil.Eye.<(I)>
June 16th, 2017, 03:49 PM
Oh yeah?! Well your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries!

How do you know I am a "goat?" How do you know I am anything? How do you know I am even existing in flesh? How do you know I am not a sentient program existing solely in cyberspace?

You seem to enjoy judging and casting stones. Which is interesting as that goes against the teachings of Christ.

And lastly, you say that goats can't become lambs; then you say that you were never a goat. All your labels are predicated on your own version of religion, which is in essence, what Truster says is fact. You have made your own version of God, and made yourself its highest priest.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Jsan... that deserves a BOOM! As in Boom... that... just... happened.

Yup!


https://youtu.be/Eyp4Sdq6i0s

Eagles Wings
June 16th, 2017, 04:05 PM
I don't need to prove anything to anyone. I speak as I find and I recognise the spirits at work in people by the fruit of their words. This what I am called to do and I shall do so until the day that I die.If you think you have special insight into the state of another's eternal destiny, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Nope. No way.

jsanford108
June 16th, 2017, 04:12 PM
Jsan... that deserves a BOOM! As in Boom... that... just... happened.

Yup!


https://youtu.be/Eyp4Sdq6i0s

Haha. Thanks. You crack me up EE. It is always enjoyable when you show up to a thread. Keep it up, friend.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Truster
June 16th, 2017, 04:19 PM
If you think you have special insight into the state of another's eternal destiny, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

Nope. No way.

You seem to think that you have authority over what I say and do.

Nope. No way.

Eagles Wings
June 16th, 2017, 04:39 PM
You seem to think that you have authority over what I say and do.

Nope. No way.No mention of authority.

beloved57
June 16th, 2017, 05:38 PM
You're mistaking the verb pisteuo for the noun pistis. Faith is not believing. That's a verb.

This is what English speakers do continuously; substituting verbs for their corresponding nouns, and misunderstanding the most common Greek verb for "doing" as being predicated upon its base as an interrogative relative pronoun indicating a specific quality of action AS the act.

Faith (the noun) is the precise means by which God accomplishes the salvation of mankind according to His own eternal mind and will.

There is no sequence of time for the timeless God.
You reject the truth!

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 06:37 PM
You reject the truth!

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

Not at all. I just don't project lapsed chronological time upon the timeless God and confuse durative sequentiality for monergistic sovereignty.

Unlimited Atonement and Limited Atonement are both silly terms in the context of Calvinism and Arminianism.

Atonement is Limited. Just as it is Unlimited. Jesus didn't die for some OR all men. Singular anarthrous hamartia.

meshak
June 16th, 2017, 08:26 PM
Haha. Thanks. You crack me up EE. It is always enjoyable when you show up to a thread. Keep it up, friend.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

You team up with sleazy Christian?

Epoisses
June 16th, 2017, 08:49 PM
Not at all. I just don't project lapsed chronological time upon the timeless God and confuse durative sequentiality for monergistic sovereignty.

Unlimited Atonement and Limited Atonement are both silly terms in the context of Calvinism and Arminianism.

Atonement is Limited. Just as it is Unlimited. Jesus didn't die for some OR all men. Singular anarthrous hamartia.

LOL you would make a great used car salesman - this car is top of the line from 1972!

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 16th, 2017, 09:54 PM
LOL you would make a great used car salesman - this car is top of the line from 1972!

Anything beats speaking univocally of God and man from one's own arrogance.

There is Unlimited Atonement for singular anarthrous hamartia. There is Limited Atonement in regard to individuals and their granted repentance (the noun).

This isn't hard, except that modern western English speakers are at the mercy of their nominal understanding that excludes what is innate to the Greek language and gets conceptualized into shallow false dichotomies rather than pursuing the ministry of reconciliation that Believers are given in Christ.

jsanford108
June 16th, 2017, 10:03 PM
You team up with sleazy Christian?

I like EE. I may not always agree with him, but that doesn't mean I can't like him.

Besides, even if he was sleazy (which I have not seen evidence of; nor would I apply such a label unmerited), why would that matter? Christ ate with sinners. He kept company with them. The only people who didn't like it were the Pharisees.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

meshak
June 16th, 2017, 10:13 PM
I like EE. I may not always agree with him, but that doesn't mean I can't like him.

Besides, even if he was sleazy (which I have not seen evidence of; nor would I apply such a label unmerited), why would that matter? Christ ate with sinners. He kept company with them. The only people who didn't like it were the Pharisees.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

You have no discernment of what is evil or not.

Lon
June 16th, 2017, 11:51 PM
The only people who didn't like it were the Pharisees.


He liked some of them. I believe He loved them all. :e4e:

beloved57
June 17th, 2017, 12:16 AM
Not at all. I just don't project lapsed chronological time upon the timeless God and confuse durative sequentiality for monergistic sovereignty.

Unlimited Atonement and Limited Atonement are both silly terms in the context of Calvinism and Arminianism.

Atonement is Limited. Just as it is Unlimited. Jesus didn't die for some OR all men. Singular anarthrous hamartia.
You don't believe the truth. Faith plays no part in a sinner being reconciled to God. It occurred while they were enemies and unbelievers hating God Rom 5:10, it was solely by Christ death!

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 17th, 2017, 01:30 AM
You don't believe the truth. Faith plays no part in a sinner being reconciled to God. It occurred while they were enemies and unbelievers hating God Rom 5:10, it was solely by Christ death!

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

Says the Secular Determinist...

And you still don't understand faith as a noun, while referring to believing as the verb.

Plus, it really makes no sense for HyperMegaMondoUltraSupraLapsarians to be trying to convince others of anything in this regard if election is sequential.

If I "don't believe the truth", it shouldn't matter. I'm either elect or not, so my believing is irrelevant; yet that's your entire focus.

Truster
June 17th, 2017, 01:48 AM
He liked some of them. I believe He loved them all. :e4e:

If He loved them all then He was loving the sons of Satan. John 8:44

You cannot accept that most are vessels fitted for destruction and that many go in at the wide gate.

beloved57
June 17th, 2017, 03:13 AM
Says the Secular Determinist...

And you still don't understand faith as a noun, while referring to believing as the verb.

Plus, it really makes no sense for HyperMegaMondoUltraSupraLapsarians to be trying to convince others of anything in this regard if election is sequential.

If I "don't believe the truth", it shouldn't matter. I'm either elect or not, so my believing is irrelevant; yet that's your entire focus.

Look at you, still being hostile to the Truth !

popsthebuilder
June 17th, 2017, 05:19 AM
It is so very sad to witness people arguing so vehemently, yet still missing the point.
None know who is elect for sure but GOD, but everyone wants to claim they are and everyone else is dead. Then people are actually rejoicing in the flawed opinion that many are fitted for destruction, still missing the point.

So; anybody; tell me what the elect were actually chosen for prior to the formation of the earth if salvation is available to all? I'll give you a hint; it isn't to condemn any.

Sad

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Nanja
June 17th, 2017, 05:56 AM
Look at you, still being hostile to the Truth !

He's a perfect example of a charlatan IMO!

oatmeal
June 17th, 2017, 06:20 AM
2 Tim 3:5

Having a form of godliness, butdenying the power thereof: from such turn away.

By Limited Atonement I mean that Christ Saving Death was and is for only some of mankind in the eternal purpose of God in Christ Jesus. God hath sovereignly limited the efficay of His Sons Death to save only some, hence leaving the rest to perish in their sins ! Rom 11:7

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Now what did the Election obtain ? This 2 Tim 2:10

10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

They obtain Salvation which is in Christ Jesus with Eternal Glory !

Now, once anyone denies limited atonement, that Christ's saving death was only for some and not for all without exception, and doeth falsely teach that Christ's death was for all without exception, yet knowing that all without exception shall not obtain Salvation with Eternal Glory which is in Christ Jesus:

Then they are guilty of denying that Salvation is 100 % conditioned on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. There's no way around that fact. Either Christ's Saving death was only for some, and all of that some are saved, or it was for all without exception, and in some degree Salvation is conditioned upon man, something he must do. Once that element of what man does enters the equation to make Salvation a reality, Salvation is no more 100% conditioned on Christ alone, which deny's the power of the Gospel !Hence the deadly consequences of denying limited atonement !

Atonement is has been made available to all, however, not all have decided to confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in their heart that God has raised him from the dead. Romans 10:9-10

Epoisses
June 17th, 2017, 06:53 AM
Atonement is has been made available to all, however, not all have decided to confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in their heart that God has raised him from the dead. Romans 10:9-10

The atonement is not Obamacare that has suddenly been made available to all people. All people currently receive the benefits of Christ's atonement whether they believe or not. Belief or faith is one of the benefits of the atonement aka the faith of Jesus Christ. So why are some ultimately saved and multitudes lost? The saved pleased God and the lost were disrespectful to his mercy and grace.

popsthebuilder
June 17th, 2017, 08:32 AM
The atonement is not Obamacare that has suddenly been made available to all people. All people currently receive the benefits of Christ's atonement whether they believe or not. Belief or faith is one of the benefits of the atonement aka the faith of Jesus Christ. So why are some ultimately saved and multitudes lost? The saved pleased God and the lost were disrespectful to his mercy and grace.
How do they please GOD without changing from their former self?

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

jsanford108
June 17th, 2017, 09:15 AM
If He loved them all then He was loving the sons of Satan. John 8:44

You cannot accept that most are vessels fitted for destruction and that many go in at the wide gate.

So God did not love the world, as stated in John 3:16?




Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

jsanford108
June 17th, 2017, 09:16 AM
If He loved them all then He was loving the sons of Satan. John 8:44

You cannot accept that most are vessels fitted for destruction and that many go in at the wide gate.

Silly me. I forgot. You have your own version of God. Mohammed did, too. He just went around condemning everyone who didn't agree with his version. He even said that those who disagreed would never be able to become lambs. And that they are meant for destruction. Of course, he called them "infidels." Not "goats."


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Truster
June 17th, 2017, 10:00 AM
So God did not love the world, as stated in John 3:16?




Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Messiah was talking to Nicodemus who was a Pharisee. As such he, along with the rest of the nation, were expecting the consolation of Israel. Messiah was declaring that the relationship of love was now to be extended to all the other nations and not exclusively to Israel.

Taking any verse out of its context is really dangerous. I was taught to check on all the circumstances surrounding the verses, before making a judgement as to what it means. John uses the term world in his epistles as well and if you read them you will see that he means all the other nations in each case.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 17th, 2017, 10:11 AM
Look at you, still being hostile to the Truth !

I'm not hostile in the least. And you're not purveying the truth. So...

Just so you'll know... I'm a pure Monergist. That means I'm not a Calvinist.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 17th, 2017, 10:14 AM
He's a perfect example of a charlatan IMO!

LOL. HyperMegaSupraLapsarians are the reason so many despise authentic Monergism.

Zeke
June 17th, 2017, 10:44 AM
Lucky for man the intellectual I that dreams up theology and salvation mazes has no immortal gate key, And is fools gold like all separatist teaching! Where can you go that Spirit isnt there, church or bar, hell or heaven, Once you obey luke 17:20-21 2Cor 3:6 becomes apparent as should 1Cor 13, let the heathen rage on with denominational divisions Moses would be proud of. Spirit brings grace and truth that has no laws of matter that fences or restrains God from doing the impossible according to man.

Truster
June 17th, 2017, 12:03 PM
Lucky for man the intellectual I that dreams up theology and salvation mazes has no immortal gate key, And is fools gold like all separatist teaching! Where can you go that Spirit isnt there, church or bar, hell or heaven, Once you obey luke 17:20-21 2Cor 3:6 becomes apparent as should 1Cor 13, let the heathen rage on with denominational divisions Moses would be proud of. Spirit brings grace and truth that has no laws of matter that fences or restrains God from doing the impossible according to man.

I'm almost sure that you had something in mind when you typed that, but it seems you coded it in gibberish.

beloved57
June 17th, 2017, 01:11 PM
I'm not hostile in the least. And you're not purveying the truth. So...

Just so you'll know... I'm a pure Monergist. That means I'm not a Calvinist.
Yes you are hostile to it, you don't receive it. Also I don't care what you are lol!

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

popsthebuilder
June 17th, 2017, 01:40 PM
Messiah was talking to Nicodemus who was a Pharisee. As such he, along with the rest of the nation, were expecting the consolation of Israel. Messiah was declaring that the relationship of love was now to be extended to all the other nations and not exclusively to Israel.

Taking any verse out of its context is really dangerous. I was taught to check on all the circumstances surrounding the verses, before making a judgement as to what it means. John uses the term world in his epistles as well and if you read them you will see that he means all the other nations in each case.
All

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Nanja
June 17th, 2017, 03:04 PM
LOL. HyperMegaSupraLapsarians are the reason so many despise authentic Monergism.


Not a laughing matter 1 Cor. 3:18.

I'm not concerned with, or impressed by religious categories associated with any man's belief structure.

That's not Spiritually profitable, but God's Words are 2 Tim. 3:16.

My priority is being saturated in the Truth through the Spirit's Sanctifying Work in me, comparing scripture with scripture 1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:13; John 16:13.

Ps. 25:5
Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.

Lon
June 17th, 2017, 03:46 PM
If He loved them all then He was loving the sons of Satan. John 8:44

You cannot accept that most are vessels fitted for destruction and that many go in at the wide gate.
No, I accept that, Truster.

Rather: Matthew 5:44,45 Luke 6:27,36 In Him -Lon

oatmeal
June 17th, 2017, 03:50 PM
The atonement is not Obamacare that has suddenly been made available to all people. All people currently receive the benefits of Christ's atonement whether they believe or not. Belief or faith is one of the benefits of the atonement aka the faith of Jesus Christ. So why are some ultimately saved and multitudes lost? The saved pleased God and the lost were disrespectful to his mercy and grace.

Very good! Atonement is not Obamacare.

It was made available on the day of Pentecost for all who will believe.

Acts 2:38

Romans 10:9 is not restricted to your prerequisites. It is for all. "if you...."

You could be anybody, including those who you would not like to be saved.

I Timothy 2:4 makes little sense for God to want all men to be saved if it was not available for all men to be saved.

God does not require of anyone that they do something that they cannot do.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 17th, 2017, 07:20 PM
Yes you are hostile to it, you don't receive it.

I receive the actual truth.


Also I don't care what you are lol!

Evidently, you care plenty; enough to always be attempting to convince everyone of HyperHyperHyperHyperHyperHyperHyperHyperHyperHyper-Calvinist error.

I'll stick with authentic biblical Monergism and God's sovereignty in election, being foreknown and predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.

Amazing how you attack Monergists. LOL.

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 17th, 2017, 07:21 PM
Not a laughing matter 1 Cor. 3:18.

I'm not concerned with, or impressed by religious categories associated with any man's belief structure.

That's not Spiritually profitable, but God's Words are 2 Tim. 3:16.

My priority is being saturated in the Truth through the Spirit's Sanctifying Work in me, comparing scripture with scripture 1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Thes. 2:13; John 16:13.

Ps. 25:5
Lead me in thy truth, and teach me: for thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day.

Arguing for the sake of arguing, with nominal proof-texting.

jsanford108
June 17th, 2017, 09:16 PM
Messiah was talking to Nicodemus who was a Pharisee. As such he, along with the rest of the nation, were expecting the consolation of Israel. Messiah was declaring that the relationship of love was now to be extended to all the other nations and not exclusively to Israel.

Taking any verse out of its context is really dangerous. I was taught to check on all the circumstances surrounding the verses, before making a judgement as to what it means. John uses the term world in his epistles as well and if you read them you will see that he means all the other nations in each case.

....so when Christ said "world," He didn't mean "world," rather something else? Really?

"John uses the term world in his epistles as well and if you read them..." Do you even realize that my quote came from John? Hence, my denotation "John 3:16."

I am not quoting John 3 because it is the most well-known verse, but rather because its very words, in context, obliterated your point. Plus, it is one that anyone could identify, who may not be as well-versed in Scripture (check out that pun).


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Truster
June 17th, 2017, 10:23 PM
....so when Christ said "world," He didn't mean "world," rather something else? Really?

"John uses the term world in his epistles as well and if you read them..." Do you even realize that my quote came from John? Hence, my denotation "John 3:16."

I am not quoting John 3 because it is the most well-known verse, but rather because its very words, in context, obliterated your point. Plus, it is one that anyone could identify, who may not be as well-versed in Scripture (check out that pun).


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

You have been given spiritual facts, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of Elohim: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

beloved57
June 18th, 2017, 12:14 AM
I receive the actual truth.



Evidently, you care plenty; enough to always be attempting to convince everyone of HyperHyperHyperHyperHyperHyperHyperHyperHyperHyper-Calvinist error.

I'll stick with authentic biblical Monergism and God's sovereignty in election, being foreknown and predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.

Amazing how you attack Monergists. LOL.
You received a lie, and reject the truth.

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

beloved57
June 18th, 2017, 06:07 AM
Atonement is has been made available to all, however, not all have decided to confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in their heart that God has raised him from the dead. Romans 10:9-10

You dont believe that Jesus Christ is 100 % responsible for Salvation. Thats unbelief !

oatmeal
June 18th, 2017, 06:11 AM
You dont believe that Jesus Christ is 100 % responsible for Salvation. Thats unbelief !

So you dismiss Romans 10:9? You do not believe that people have rejected God, His word and His son and those who share God's word with people.

Your might want to rethink your conclusion.

beloved57
June 18th, 2017, 06:52 AM
So you dismiss Romans 10:9? You do not believe that people have rejected God, His word and His son and those who share God's word with people.

Your might want to rethink your conclusion.

Im fine with Rom 10:9. However that verse doesnt save you from denying that Salvation is 100% of Jesus Christ !

PneumaPsucheSoma
June 18th, 2017, 07:46 AM
You received a lie, and reject the truth.

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

Yeah, that's the garbage condescending position of most on TOL and everywhere else when someone doesn't agree wholly with one's specific tangents of doctrinal perception. I've been plenty guilty of this myself, and it's disgusting.

Go fruitlessly argue with others in condemnation. I'm in Christ for all everlasting. Expend your efforts in some way that isn't futile. Forum posturing is most often idle words, just like yours here and mine in many previous posts.

beloved57
June 18th, 2017, 08:01 AM
Yeah, that's the garbage condescending position of most on TOL and everywhere else when someone doesn't agree wholly with one's specific tangents of doctrinal perception. I've been plenty guilty of this myself, and it's disgusting.

Go fruitlessly argue with others in condemnation. I'm in Christ for all everlasting. Expend your efforts in some way that isn't futile. Forum posturing is most often idle words, just like yours here and mine in many previous posts.

No matter how you try to express yourself, you deny that Christ in His Person and Work is 100 % responsible for ones Salvation. I know this because you believe that even after Christ's death, many are still lost !

Right Divider
June 18th, 2017, 08:17 AM
1Tim 4:10 (KJV)
(4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

jsanford108
June 18th, 2017, 12:53 PM
You have been given spiritual facts, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of Elohim: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

What version of the Bible do you read/quote from? I ask because every quote and reference you provide is edited in some capacity.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

jsanford108
June 18th, 2017, 12:59 PM
No matter how you try to express yourself, you deny that Christ in His Person and Work is 100 % responsible for ones Salvation. I know this because you believe that even after Christ's death, many are still lost !

Hello friend. First off, I always appreciate how you call out Truster and Robert Hate.

Second, in relation to this thread, and your quote, do you think everyone is going to heaven?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

beloved57
June 18th, 2017, 03:05 PM
Hello friend. First off, I always appreciate how you call out Truster and Robert Hate.

Second, in relation to this thread, and your quote, do you think everyone is going to heaven?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)
Do you want to discuss the points I made?

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

Truster
June 18th, 2017, 03:30 PM
What version of the Bible do you read/quote from? I ask because every quote and reference you provide is edited in some capacity.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Are you implying that you can't understand what the verse means? I don't edit I simply correct.

jsanford108
June 18th, 2017, 05:53 PM
Are you implying that you can't understand what the verse means? I don't edit I simply correct.

No, I get what you imply.

So you "correct" the Bible? Meaning that you don't trust what is written/transcribed? Or that you, for lack of better terminology, know better?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

jsanford108
June 18th, 2017, 05:57 PM
Do you want to discuss the points I made?

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

Only the one directed towards atonement. I do not believe I have ever crossed a point made by you that I disagree with. Granted, I don't scour the forum looking for quotes I agree or disagree with.

I agree that we should trust in the salvation promised by Christ, which I do not think Truster and Pate, do. But your phrasing in the comment about how people can be lost since Christ's death would slightly concern one, given that Scripture indicates that there are some who will refuse Christ. So, I would say that there are some who are lost and doomed for hell. However, as long as they are alive,
I believe they have a chance for salvation.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Zeke
June 18th, 2017, 06:36 PM
I'm almost sure that you had something in mind when you typed that, but it seems you coded it in gibberish.

Hi I, you never disapoint the peanut gallery with that self fools gold.

beloved57
June 18th, 2017, 09:20 PM
Only the one directed towards atonement. I do not believe I have ever crossed a point made by you that I disagree with. Granted, I don't scour the forum looking for quotes I agree or disagree with.

I agree that we should trust in the salvation promised by Christ, which I do not think Truster and Pate, do. But your phrasing in the comment about how people can be lost since Christ's death would slightly concern one, given that Scripture indicates that there are some who will refuse Christ. So, I would say that there are some who are lost and doomed for hell. However, as long as they are alive,
I believe they have a chance for salvation.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)
Rabbit trail!

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

Truster
June 18th, 2017, 11:41 PM
No, I get what you imply.

So you "correct" the Bible? Meaning that you don't trust what is written/transcribed? Or that you, for lack of better terminology, know better?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

James Strong said that all translators are traitors and he being a translator should know why. So do I and instead of relying on the arm of the flesh I use every means and ability at my disposal to check.

If you realised how stupid your questions are you'd shut up in future until you know what it is you are talking about.

Truster
June 18th, 2017, 11:43 PM
Hi I, you never disapoint the peanut gallery with that self fools gold.


You have your entire life to be a moron. Why not take today off?

jsanford108
June 19th, 2017, 08:20 AM
James Strong said that all translators are traitors and he being a translator should know why. So do I and instead of relying on the arm of the flesh I use every means and ability at my disposal to check.

If you realised how stupid your questions are you'd shut up in future until you know what it is you are talking about.

No I get it. You alter verses to fit an idea of your own. Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing. Their alterations to the Bible are extremely similar to yours.

My questions are meant to illustrate the sinister nature and consequence of altering Scripture. Combine that with the promotion of your own conceived doctrines, and you can easily see the fallacy that is "Truster's Doctrine."


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

jsanford108
June 19th, 2017, 08:27 AM
Rabbit trail!

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

I didn't see Peter Cottontail. It wasn't a rabbit trail. I simply inserted my belief, to ask what yours was, in relation to atonement. That isn't a rabbit trail; it is honest discussion.

If it isn't a discussion that you desire to have, then I can respect a decline. And I would caution against using labels, such as "rabbit trail," without demonstrating how that conclusion was reached/labeled, as that can lead to assumptions of ignorance by either party.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

beloved57
June 19th, 2017, 09:48 AM
I didn't see Peter Cottontail. It wasn't a rabbit trail. I simply inserted my belief, to ask what yours was, in relation to atonement. That isn't a rabbit trail; it is honest discussion.

If it isn't a discussion that you desire to have, then I can respect a decline. And I would caution against using labels, such as "rabbit trail," without demonstrating how that conclusion was reached/labeled, as that can lead to assumptions of ignorance by either party.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)
Its a lot of things you didn't see.

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

jsanford108
June 19th, 2017, 10:23 AM
Its a lot of things you didn't see.

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

Like unicorns? Flying turtles? Melkor?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Truster
June 19th, 2017, 10:27 AM
No I get it. You alter verses to fit an idea of your own. Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing. Their alterations to the Bible are extremely similar to yours.

My questions are meant to illustrate the sinister nature and consequence of altering Scripture. Combine that with the promotion of your own conceived doctrines, and you can easily see the fallacy that is "Truster's Doctrine."


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

You have a visceral grasp on doctrine instead of a spiritual comprehension.

Truster
June 19th, 2017, 10:28 AM
PS

Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. John 8:43

jsanford108
June 19th, 2017, 10:49 AM
You have a visceral grasp on doctrine instead of a spiritual comprehension.

Please explain spiritual comprehension.

I assure you, I can tie this back to atonement.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

beloved57
June 19th, 2017, 10:56 AM
Like unicorns? Flying turtles? Melkor?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)
More worthless invalid and foolish comments!

Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

Truster
June 19th, 2017, 11:00 AM
Please explain spiritual comprehension.

I assure you, I can tie this back to atonement.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

The fact that you ask the question means you wouldn't comprehend the answer.

jsanford108
June 19th, 2017, 11:31 AM
The fact that you ask the question means you wouldn't comprehend the answer.

Meaning you do not know of what you speak. I just want you to explain it. So that we may all know how you explain it.

If you asked me about biochemical factors that allow the synthesis of proteins, I would not dismiss you with "the fact you ask means you wouldn't comprehend the answer." I would explain it to you. Arrogance is a sign of pride. And pride comes before the fall. So, enlighten me to your explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Truster
June 19th, 2017, 11:37 AM
Meaning you do not know of what you speak. I just want you to explain it. So that we may all know how you explain it.

If you asked me about biochemical factors that allow the synthesis of proteins, I would not dismiss you with "the fact you ask means you wouldn't comprehend the answer." I would explain it to you. Arrogance is a sign of pride. And pride comes before the fall. So, enlighten me to your explanation.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)


But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of Elohim: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

jsanford108
June 19th, 2017, 11:47 AM
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of Elohim: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Seems you are now twisting Scripture to use as an excuse.

Revelation 22 warns against editing the Word of God. Yet, you have sufficiently demonstrated that you do this. You even stated yourself that you made them better.

When prompted to demonstrate how you know better than myself, or others, you simply say "we cannot understand." When asked to explain this, you dismiss it with a verse, which does not fit the scenario or circumstance that exists here. The logical and rational conclusion, due to the absence of a valid explanation on your part, combined with the evidence put forth by you, is that you are a false prophet bearing false doctrines.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Truster
June 19th, 2017, 11:56 AM
Seems you are now twisting Scripture to use as an excuse.

Revelation 22 warns against editing the Word of God. Yet, you have sufficiently demonstrated that you do this. You even stated yourself that you made them better.

When prompted to demonstrate how you know better than myself, or others, you simply say "we cannot understand." When asked to explain this, you dismiss it with a verse, which does not fit the scenario or circumstance that exists here. The logical and rational conclusion, due to the absence of a valid explanation on your part, combined with the evidence put forth by you, is that you are a false prophet bearing false doctrines.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

The word editing does not appear in the canon of scripture. If you intend to accuse me then please afford me the courtesy of being accurate.

jsanford108
June 19th, 2017, 12:15 PM
The word editing does not appear in the canon of scripture. If you intend to accuse me then please afford me the courtesy of being accurate.

What is editing other than word editing?

Let's eat some food! Let's eat some people!

All I did was word editing.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

jsanford108
June 19th, 2017, 12:21 PM
The word editing does not appear in the canon of scripture. If you intend to accuse me then please afford me the courtesy of being accurate.

At this point, I am just done. We are off topic, you have no sense of discussion, and you contribute little to it. I am sure I will meet you again on another thread.

Enjoy your position as Grand Authority of Trusterism.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)