Quote:
|
Oh? Justification by works wasn't something an early church member like, say, Paul had to deal with? Docetism wasn't something someone like, say, John specifically rebuked?
|
The Apostles dealt with Judaism, Gnsoticism, and other groups who taught falsely. And that is the exact point that you seem to miss. They dealt with it! If any Church supported and abode in such error, then they would no longer have been accepted as a Church of Jesus Christ. Were the Docetists considered a part of the Church? No! They were a heresy! If a heretic was to come into your Church and deceive some members, would that make your entire Church a heretical Church? No, that wouldn't. At least not as long as the leadership are in ignorance or willing to deal with it. You have to separate the indicidual from the entire group, which you apparently have a problem with (Predestination).
Quote:
|
You're assuming no one would read their Bibles... you know, a Christian's rule of faith? I never even heard of Calvin or read Augustine prior to accepting TULIP.
|
No, I am going on the fact that they would read their bibles without having them interpreted to then by teachers of any particular persuation. You don't have to hear of the men in order to be taught their doctrines.
Quote:
|
What of the heresies within the church? Galatians, Corinthians, Romans... are any of these books ringing a bell? Do you not consider the New Testament to have historical significance as well as spiritual?
|
Again, these are heresies that were confronted dealt with. These Churches were not heretical Churches. Wherever you have people you will have problems. They will buy into things like "works salvation" and Antinomianism. I have had to deal with these things in all of the Churches I have started. Most of those people did not stick around long. Some did, but I still preached the truth. Some repented, some didn't and eventually left or fell. Just because they are present does not mean they are a part of the Church. And if they are it does not mean they would not repent when confronted. The early Church continued with such confrontations, which is very evident in their writings. The Roman Church wrote to the Corinthian Church and gave instruction and encouragement. The Fathers wrote plenty! The presence of error in those times goes without saying. But that all the Churches werein agreement on doctrine is written in several places. This does not mean that they did not have trials, temptations, and dealings with these teachings coming into their Churches. But in the end they came out with truth.
Quote:
|
He didn't merely "allow" it, He predestined it! Acts 4:27-28. Would you say it was not God who punished Israel merely because Assyria (for example) was the secondary cause with which God predestined to punish Israel? Really? Lol.
|
Of course He predestined it! But what did He predestine? Atonement! An acceptible sacrificial offering! The taking away of the sins of men! Yes, this included all mentioned in Isaiah. But this does not change anything. He did not predestine a punishment for sins or a payment for sins.
God will use situations for His own glory, but He does not always cause them to happen. Some things are predestined, others are not. I don't think you would believe that murders, rapes, child molestations, and others things happen because of predestination. So would should we believe that everything else has to be? God did not have to cause evil men to do harm to Israel. Without His protection it was just going to happen naturally. It is not always about having a predetermined destiny, but about having God with us on our journey.
Quote:
|
What does propitiation mean, Mr. Lyndon?
|
The Greek word hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Arc. Hilasterion can be translated as either "propitiation" or "expiation" which then imply different functions of the Mercy Seat. Propitiation literally means to make favorable and specifically includes the idea of dealing with God’s wrath against sinners. However, this is not a proper understanding of atonement as given in the OT. Expiation literally means to make pious and implies either the removal or cleansing of sin.
The literal translation actually should read, "He is the Atoning sacrifice for our sins".
Quote:
|
Do I still need to ask for you to post Scripture? Have you not yet gotten it through your head?
|
I don't see what is so hard about going to a web site. But you tell me exactly which of these many subjects you want scripture for and I will post some.
Quote:
|
In His pleasure in bruising His Son who took on our sins! That's the point of Romans 3:25-26. God would have been unjust if He had forebeared OT saints sins without punishing them. Hence, He was shown to be just when Jesus became propitiation for their and our sins, because it was rather Jesus who was punished.
|
You completely miss the point of Atonment. It was never to punish sins, but to remove them. If sins are taken away, then there is nothing to punish. Sins in the life of a person when they die will bring punishment upon them. But it is never the sin that is punished, but the sinner. We know that the blood of bulls and goats could not truly take away sins. This was only a temporary solution until Christ, who would truly take away sins (yet not literally, but only referring to our being completely cleansed and forgiven). And notice the scripture says, "Bulls and goats", referring to the personal sacrifice and the yearly sacrifice. There was no punishment on the cross. Jesus HAD TO BE an acceptible sacrifice unto the Father, and the scapegoat - neither of which were punished in any way. The sacrifice unto the Lord was killed, which had to be acceptible and not ever rejected. It was the scapegoat that carried away the sins of men, which was not harmed at all. Punishment was not involved in Atonement! Jesus was not punished by God, but only wrongly by men.
Quote:
|
So you interpret "all" as "all [men without exception] rather than "all [men in Christ]"? Who does the love of Christ compel? Who is Paul writing to?
|
Well lets see... He was writing to the Church, so I will guess the Church? Duh! And this proves what? It doesn't matter who he is talking to! What matters is who he is talking about - "ALL men". NOT "all of them"! This is a desperate twist that cannot be supported. John 3:17 says that "God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved". Who did He not send His Son to condemn? Who did He want to save? The world. The world are the ones who have condemnation upon them. You "elect" would not! Yet it is the desire of God to not condemn, but to save the world. Then in 1 John 2:2 we are told that He is the atoning sacrifice for not only our sins, but for the WHOLE WORLD. This is were "All conceivable men" come into the scriptures, as the whole. And as I said before, world can only refer to men, and it cannot refer to a particular group.
Quote:
|
What? How did you derive that from the text? By what reasoning did you use to show "they which live" are not "they which died with Christ"?
|
Again you miss the point of what I am saying. I only said that those who live are not all He died for. there is no limitation here on who He died for. It does not say He died only for they which live. You have to read this into it.
Quote:
|
What does Romans 6:8 say?
|
No problem with it! But the carnal mind is overcome by grace, and able to receive by its draw on hunger. Which by the way is another scripture I have used. Matthew 5:6 "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." I don't understand why nothing ever says something like, " Blessed are the elect..."or "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst, because they are elect"? This always has to be read into scriptures. Then you can say you have a lot of scripture to support your views. Hog wash!
Quote:
|
That last one is an assumption. John 6 and 10 indicate otherwise, as I have said. Also, not everyone has heard the gospel. Are you an inclusivist?
|
John 12:32 "When I have been lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people toward me."
I think we can agree that not every person on earth WILL be drawn unto Jesus. But it certainly does not say, "I will draw the elect unto me"! This is a great assumption. You are changing the what the scripture specifically says concerning what JESUS will do. But the question is not about who He will draw as much as it is about who CAN be drawn. Only the hungry can be drawn and filled. Only those who receive him in repentance by faith, via free will. This only shows mans participation to make this something they can be a part in. It does not change the fact that He will still drawn on all men after He was lifted up on the cross, into Heaven, and His name by preachers of the gospel. As He continues to be lifted up, men will be drawn unto him.
Quote:
|
Blah blah blah. You can't propagandize me, I see through your baseless teaching. You really feel bold enough to tell me that a man in the flesh can submit to and please God?
|
You just cannot get of the path you are on of misinterpreting what I say! It is not a man in the flesh that "submits and pleases" God! It is a man in the flesh that comes to his last hope and is emptied of self. The flesh is very low at this time, and the gospel of grace begins a work in him, and the spirit draws upon him. This is a work of God complete, with only the choice of the man to receive and repent! HUGE DIFERRENCE! But you have to paint some false ugly picture of my view in order to make yours somehow look better in your own mind.
Linear Mode
