Arminians' Dilemma

[meshak]

As I said in another thread, maybe "big words" are being used because "small words" are insufficient. Yet you refuse to hear the good news and teaching. Everything we say could be found in a good study bible. If you don't like our big words, why don't you go get a good study bible and use it?

Nope, thanks. I don't need big words to understand Jesus' simple salvation. I am secure in Jesus' word.

Jesus is for mainly for humble people like me. I feel secure without big words Jesus does not endorse puffed up faith.

I will not mess up with Jesus' simple salvation.

You don't seem to realize how chaotic Christianity is. You need to open your eyes to see the reality of it instead of treating like elephant in the room.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I know that the blood of bulls and goats can't remove sin!!! LOL

Again, it would help if you actually knew what "sin" even is, and in all its grammatical forms. It's not hard. I teach it constantly.

You could never face that your entire foundation needs to be dug up and repoured according to the actual meanings of scripture.

 

[Epoisses]

Again, it would help if you actually knew what "sin" even is, and in all its grammatical forms. It's not hard. I teach it constantly.

You could never face that your entire foundation needs to be dug up and repoured according to the actual meanings of scripture.

HAHAHA. I got drunk the other night. I'm gonna go kill a goat! LOL

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I'm not sure we are all apt, but I'm glad to see online courses and discussion as well as churches that are taking up the ball and challenge with it. We can at least 'listen' and 'ask' when we come across those who have a better understanding. I've a bit to brush up on, but it is no dishonor to simply say "that's a bit above my pay-grade at the moment. Can you please explain this to me a bit more clearly?"

I'm guessing that you sadly don't get that response very often though?

Sadly, not often.

 

[Aletheiophile]

Nope, thanks. I don't need big words to understand Jesus' simple salvation. I am secure in Jesus' word.

Jesus is for mainly for humble people like me. I feel secure without big words Jesus does not endorse puffed up faith.

I will not mess up with Jesus' simple salvation.

You don't seem to realize how chaotic Christianity is. You need to open your eyes to see the reality of it instead of treating like elephant in the room.

Wow..."for humble people like me." Humility does not point out humility.

How can you assume that I don't see the chaos of Christianity???? Reconciliation is the call of those in Christ. That is why pure doctrine is so necessary.

 

[Aletheiophile]

I'm not sure we are all apt, but I'm glad to see online courses and discussion as well as churches that are taking up the ball and challenge with it. We can at least 'listen' and 'ask' when we come across those who have a better understanding. I've a bit to brush up on, but it is no dishonor to simply say "that's a bit above my pay-grade at the moment. Can you please explain this to me a bit more clearly?"

I'm guessing that you sadly don't get that response very often though?

I like you! b

 

[Epoisses]

How many goats does it take if I cheat on my wife?

Just ask PPS. He thinks goat blood can atone for sin.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

OMG you're the dumbest smart person I ever met!!!

LOL. You're an educated moron!

HAHAHA. I got drunk the other night. I'm gonna go kill a goat! LOL

This is the inevitable devolving of a topic when one has no clue what Greek articular and anarthrous nouns mean in English, and they've built their entire foundation on the sand of their own false autonomy that isn't even what their own first language means.

You're likely drunk right now, and not on the Spirit.

 

[meshak]

Wow..."for humble people like me." Humility does not point out humility.

Humble mean low education and low IQ. You guys seem to be competing with those quality.

How can you assume that I don't see the chaos of Christianity???? Reconciliation is the call of those in Christ. That is why pure doctrine is so necessary.

by reading your posts. You are not much different from your opposers, in the bottom line. Pot kettle...

 

[Epoisses]

This is the inevitable devolving of a topic when one has no clue what Greek articular and anarthrous nouns mean in English, and they've built their entire foundation on the sand of their own false autonomy that isn't even what their own first language means.

You're likely drunk right now, and not on the Spirit.

Alright smart guy with the universal goat atonement!!!

It never gets old. LOL

 

[Epoisses]

Just so you know. The old covenant was a shadow of the cross. It didn't atone for one single sin. Did you know that?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Just so you know. The old covenant was a shadow of the cross. It didn't atone for one single sin. Did you know that?

You still think sin is the merely the verb and the resulting act/s. You have no idea what the truth is.

"One single sin." Sin as an individual act is not hamartia/hamartiai. Wrong word altogether, much less not knowing the difference between articular and anarthrous Greek nouns.

You have no idea how wrong you are. None. You don't know what "sin" is.

 

[Epoisses]

You still think sin is the merely the verb and the resulting act/s. You have no idea what the truth is.

"One single sin." Sin as an individual act is not hamartia/hamartiai. Wrong word altogether, much less not knowing the difference between articular and anarthrous Greek nouns.

You have no idea how wrong you are. None. You don't know what "sin" is.

You're beaten so badly. OMG!! I'll tell you what we'll go get some goats and offer em' up and then head to Vegas!! PARTY TIME!!

 

[Lon]

Just so you know. The old covenant was a shadow of the cross. It didn't atone for one single sin. Did you know that?

Hebrews 10:4, I agree, regarding the offerings as a foreshadow.
Hebrews 10:5 goes on to say, however, 'that is why it had to be offered every year.'
(what PPS is getting at with his discussion of 'sin' verses 'sins of that year')
So, it isn't exactly what you are thinking here, they had no choice prior to Christ's fulfillment. JohnTB's commentary in John 1:29 was the fulfillment of Yom Kippur, a sacrifice once and for all.

Hebrews 10:8 says they 'were' required by law to sacrifice bulls and goats. but Hebrews 10:9 the one once-and-for-all had done away/replaced the former.

So, you are correct that the first foreshadowed the second, but It wasn't that the blood took sin away, but that "God" took them away in both instances (one the foreshadow of the latter).

 

[meshak]

Aleth,

I have heard so many posters boast how high their IQ is.

GM used to mock posters who don't agree with him as non-intellectual. Now he is in the position of not so intellectual talking with you and PPS.

I know Jesus is not impressed with that kind of witnessing.

 

[Aletheiophile]

Aleth,

I have heard so many posters boast how high their IQ is.

GM used to mock posters who don't agree with him as non-intellectual. Now he is in the position of not so intellectual talking with you and PPS.

I know Jesus is not impressed with that kind of witnessing.

????? I'm not boasting about my IQ. I'm appealing to the authority of the great scholars and theologians that have come before me. Big difference. I am nothing without them.

 

[Nang]

If you do not believe that God died, you are not even a Christian!

To reject the death of God is to either reject the death of Jesus or to reject that Jesus was/is God. Either way, you're disqualified as a Christian.

You might want to give this more thought, considering the scriptural revelation of the unique hypostatic union of the two natures manifested in Jesus Christ, who was fully Man as well as fully God.

 

[Lon]

If you do not believe that God died, you are not even a Christian!

To reject the death of God is to either reject the death of Jesus or to reject that Jesus was/is God. Either way, you're disqualified as a Christian.

God cannot die, but the Christ who died on the Cross was God.

You might want to give this more thought, considering the scriptural revelation of the unique hypostatic union of the two natures manifested in Jesus Christ, who was fully Man as well as fully God.

Nang is correct. See here a short explanation. Deuteronomy 32:40

 

[Samie]

No, you don't. You don't know what words mean. I've tried to help you and you just want to persist in your false concepts.

What false concepts when I just quoted Jesus own words? He said He will reward every man when He returns. What's false with it?

No. Because you don't know the difference between eternal (aidios) and everlasting (aionis). Eternity is timeless and spaceless, so it isn't "from" "to".

Oh sorry. I should have used "from everlasting to everlasting" instead of "from eternity to eternity" since you take issue that the two phrases do not mean the same. But here's Scriptures:

KJV John 3:15-16 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 15 ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ' ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

Seems like eternal and everlasting are interchangeable since "eternal" in v15 and "everlasting" in v16 are both from the same Greek αἰώνιον, adjective normal accusative feminine singular no degree, from αἰώνιος. I'm just beginning to wonder whether you really are what you are claiming.

 

[meshak]

????? I'm not boasting about my IQ.

Don't flatter yourself.

I am not talking about just yourself.