GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Theology Forum / Re: Eternally Secure
« Last post by SwordMaster on Yesterday at 05:47:53 PM »
Dear 4WD,

Do you know what Universalism is? Here is an example in you own words:

>Jesus had paid the ransom for the sins of every single person who has lived, who is living now, and who will ever live.

Think about it. None are ransomed. Some are ransomed. All are ransomed.

Christ is said to have been a ransom for his people -“The Son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many,” Matt. 20:28. Notice, this verse does not say that He gave His life a ransom for all, but for many. The nature of a ransom is such that when paid and accepted it automatically frees the persons for whom it was intended. Otherwise it would not be a true ransom. Justice demands that those for whom it is paid shall be freed from any further obligation. If the suffering and death of Christ was a ransom for all men rather than for the elect only, then the merits of His work must be communicated to all alike and the penalty of eternal punishment cannot be justly inflicted on any. God would be unjust if He demanded this extreme penalty twice over, first from the substitute and then from the persons themselves. The conclusion then is that the atonement of Christ does not extend to all men but that it is limited to those for whom He stood surety; that is, to those who compose His true Church.


Barnabas...do you know how the atonement works? By your posts you demonstrate that you do not. Your erroneous conclusion is based upon ignorance of the atonement, both the atonement under Moses and the atonement in Christ, for they both operate in the same way, the ONLY difference is that Christ's atonement is eternal...meaning that He only had to die one time, it does NOT mean that once it has been applied to a person that they are saved for eternity.

 ::preachit::

22
Theology Forum / Re: Eternally Secure
« Last post by SwordMaster on Yesterday at 05:45:07 PM »
Red demonstrated himself once again...

Quote
Sword Master~

Quote
but I might add that God also created us in His physical image. God has a body as demonstrated when He showed Moses His backside...He is demonstrated in the Scriptures to have hands, arms, legs, a head and a face


It's all most impossible to reason with men, who have very little spiritual insight and with men who will argue, just to be arguing.  So, God had a physical image before he created man, and use that, to create man after?


So...you demonstrate yet once again that you don't take the WHOLE Word of God into account, but only what your false bias tells you to take into account.

Quote
Cannot you simply agree with others and leave it be, and only comment on the things that you know to be in error?  You are showing a serious problem in your theology by saying that God, who is an Spirit, had also a physical image that he use to create man after!

Actually, you are in serious error by denying what the Scriptures clearly and plainly teach. What...you think He used to look like just a wisp of smoke floating around in eternity past?

Quote
NOT because he had one of the above, only to help us to comprehend him, according to our limited understanding, and use of expressions.  Please, you must do better than this, if you are going to be a SwordMASTER.  I'll come back and address the rest later, the Lord willing.

Red, I don't want to argue with you.

The Scriptures demonstrate that God has a body...most likely like Christ's glorified spiritual body. You don't have to understand it, you just have to accept what the Scriptures teach...or not...

Exodus 33:18-23
 18   Moses said, "Please show me your glory."
 19   And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD.' And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
 20   But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live."
 21   And the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock,
 22   and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by.
 23   Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen."

The facts are: God has a face and therefore a head with eyes and a mouth (for He also speaks), He has hands and He has a back, we will see Him one day and we will see that He has made us in His "physical" image. Take it or leave it, but leaving it demonstrates what kind of a person you are when it comes to rightly dividing the Word of truth.

Blessings!


23
Churches of Christ Forum / Re: Unmerciful Servant or no? Thank you.
« Last post by e.r.m. on Yesterday at 05:41:33 PM »
Notreligus, Chosenone, MeMyself,

Thank you all. It lets me believe I'm not crazy or evil for having such thoughts. Unfortunately,  I can't tell that to my family. That may be a thread longer than baptism. But my family is very nice and giving, including to my brother, which is why they can't see me not giving to him in this way "as a christian should".

Also if I don't include him, that would make things blow up, with him and with everyone.
24
Theology Forum / Re: Eternally Secure
« Last post by SwordMaster on Yesterday at 05:36:31 PM »
Barnabas said...

Quote
If all men's unbelief has been paid for then then all sin has been forgiven - there is nothing left to forgive and we would then have universalism.


Incorrect, and the Scripture teaches, as I gave you yesterday, that Christ did die for the sins of the whole world...therefore you are in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what the Spirit has recorded for us in the Scriptures. You are teaching false doctrine. The atonement applies only to those in covenant with God, it is a covenant gift, therefore only those who are participating in the covenant has the atonement applied to their lives, just as you have already been shown now a few times but take your bias over what the Scriptures teach...

I John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have [covenant] fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

All men are not walking in the light, therefore your accusation of universalism is false.

Quote
It is not quite apparent to me why the text of John 3:16 should be an argument against limited atonement. The passage does not say Jesus died for everyone, but only that the Father gave his Son for ALL THOSE WHO WOULD BELIEVE.

Let's look at it again for the benefit of the readers...

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

The world here is used metaphorically for all humanity. God does not care about the physical world as much as He does about people. Christ dying upon a cross does not help the physical world any at all - therefore it is quite apparent that the world stands for humanity here. Christ died for humanity so that whosoever will who desires a relationship with God can come to Him.

Quote
It says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES in HIM shall not perish but have eternal life." Right?


Wrong...according to the Greek it says that whoever believes in Him SHOULD NOT perish but have everlasting life. Translations that say "shall not" are interpreted according to calvinistic bias and are incorrect.

Quote
In fact, this teaching comes full circle and devastates all of the other doctrines of grace.


Not so, you seem to espouse a perverted teaching on grace.

Quote
Although claiming to believe in Total Depravity, the teaching of the so-called four-point Calvinists is really that man still has the moral ability to turn to God on his own without regenerating grace (a grace purchased on the cross) effectively destroying total depravity, even though the Bible plainly teaches that no one seeks God unless first born again (1 John 5:1; John 6:37, 39, 44, 63-65; Rom 3:11. 1 Cor 2:14, John 1:13; John 3).

Negative...pure speculative nonsense. I John 5:1 does not teach anything close to what you claim. You misinterpret John 6:37 because you don't understand the Greek grammar and the translators choose not to add it. The passage states that those who continually come to Christ, meaning those who are walking with Him in relationship, will remain in Him and He will not cast them out. No where in that verse does it say that YOU can't walk away from Him. In fact, none of the passages in John 6 do you clearly understand, for none of them support your claim. See the thread "The Nature of Eternal Life" where all of those passages have been more accurately translated. None of them support your claim.

Rom. 3:11 is a quote from Psalms that is in prose, that is, a figure of speech, called exaggeration. It is meant to emphasize that hardly anyone seeks after God and it is not to be interpreted as literal like you have done. You buck solid principles of biblical interpretation here, and that leads you into error. The Scriptures support that people have in the past, and do today, seek Him all on their own. I Cor. 2:14 does address this issue, and you demonstrate the fact that it is true by your post. John 1:13 nor the entire chapter of John 3 supports any of your claims...it seems like you either do not understand the passages you posted, or you are regurgitating them from some calvinistic web site.

Quote
That is to say, natural fallen man has the ability and desire (in some cases) to believe in Christ without regenerating grace. It is teaching a "conditional" election since it depends completely on God's foreknowledge of whether or not we will have faith, even though the Bible plainly teaches that election is not conditioned on something God sees in us and that faith is a divine gift (Eph 2:5-8).


False information yet again. Neither Eph. 2:5-8 nor any other passage in the Scriptures teach that faith is a gift from God in order for you to believe, that is nonsense that calvin came up with because he was forced to from his other false ideologies concerning Scripture. No one is given a "gift" of faith unless it is the spiritual gift of supernatural faith, which is only given to those already in the body of Christ (I Cor. 12). Election IS conditional, and God gives us that condition here...

Ephesians 1:4
even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love

In plain English, that means that God chooses those who are in Christ...He does not choose people to be in Christ, He chooses those who have entered into Christ and are abiding in Him of their own free will.

Quote
So in effect WE end up choosing God with our autonomous free will in this scheme, not the other way around.


This is because that is the truth which the Scriptures teach...the calvin's nonsense ideas void of the leading of the Spirit.

Quote
Those who deny limited atonement are also surreptitiously semi-pelagian in all the other doctrines of grace as well.


Tell me...do you even know what you are saying? I really don't think you do...explain pelagianism for us.....

Quote
Salvation becomes the work of man, rather than a monergistic divine work of grace.

Another half-truth. Salvation is entered into by faith...by you choosing to believe in Christ...and entering into Christ the new covenant where salvation abides. Once in Christ, the Spirit does His work that is by grace. The doctrine you are espousing perverts grace and makes it the all-in-all of everything, and that is sin.

Quote
Some may argue that God's grace works together with man, but the problem with this is that it still leaves the final decision for salvation in the hands of man.

It is only a problem to false calvinistic teachings that are not in accordance with Scripture, for this is exactly what the Scriptures teach.

Quote
Faith, apart from Christ's work on the cross, precedes saving grace in this view, contrary to everything the Bible teaches (ROM 9:16; John 1:13).

Again...it seems like you are just regurgitating this stuff from some calvinistic web site...either that or you do not know how to interpret the Scriptures. Romans 9:16 you are taking out of context (nothing new for calvinists), and when it is correctly interpreted according to its context, it does not say what you think it means. Neither does John 1:13...again...your claim is demonstrated as false.

Quote
God's grace would take us part of the way to salvation leaving man's will to make the final decision.


Yes, that is what the Scriptures teach. Everytime you read the word "believe" in John, when it pertains to eternal life, it is in the Active voice, meaning that YOU are the one believing, God is not giving you belief. If it was in the Middle voice, meaning that the belief is coming from outside of the person, then you would have a point. The fact that the grammar places belief in the Active voice discredits your claim and demonstrates it to be false teaching.

Quote
So, according to those who claim that the atonement is unlimited (indefinite) there is no divine election in the final analysis, but only humans electing God even though we all know that it is God that chooses us (John 15:16).

Wrong again. Atonement is unlimited and the Scriptures demonstrate that...you try to pit one passage against another in a war-like fashion, and when you do that, you break perhaps the most important principle of biblical interpretation there is...God does NOT contradict Himself, ever. If there is a contradiction, it is found in your false interpretation, not in the Scriptures. John 15:16 is addressing the apostles...NOT everyone who is ever saved. You break another rule of biblical interpretation, taking a passage intended for a specific entity and then generalizing it for all humanity. You are following in the footsteps of calvin, and you are heading down the broad way, not the straight and narrow.

Quote
The biblical teaching is that God, before the foundation of the world in His eternal counsels, knew and determined to whom He would apply the benefits of the atonement? (2 Timothy 1 9, Titus 1:2; Eph 1:4,5)

Yes, this is correct...but not according to the twist that you place upon the subject. The benefits of the atonement was determined before time to be applied to those who abide in Christ...

   
Quote
"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." John 6:39 (emphasis mine)

Yes, it is God's will that Christ should not lose anyone...you read into the text that this means He will not lose anyone...and when you do that you add to the Word of God. I would be careful there, unless you want God to add to you the plagues of Revelation.

Quote
What does "that of all He has given Me I lose nothing" mean except that God, in His eternal councils had already determined who would be written in the book of life and that Jesus Christ came to earth in time to carry out their eternal redemption.

I just told you...and your interpretation above is from the carnal mind void of the leading and teaching of the Spirit.

Quote
God the Father elects certain individuals and the Holy Spirit regenerates them
.

Negative, that is not how the Scriptures teach salvation and eternal life. A person is regenerated when they come to faith and enter into covenant with God in Christ, and the moment they enter into Christ they receive all of the gifts God has accorded to man, through His covenant...regeneration being one of them.

Quote
Before we get to 1 John 2:2 lets familiarize ourselves with some other biblical texts on this crucial issue:

We don't have to, because I John 2:2 is crystal clear to those who are not reading the Scripture through calvinistic rose-colored glasses, having their calvinistic bias re-interpret them...

Quote
First Take a look at these passages of Scripture:

"Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Revelation 5:9 (emphasis mine)

my comment: did Christ redeem everybody by His blood in this passage? the entire world or a limited number? Doesn't it say that He purchased men FROM every tribe???

Are you paying attention to what you are saying, or are you just regurgitating this from somewhere else again? Just because Christ died for a universal atonement does not, by any stretch of a coherent imagination, mean that all men are saved, and that is what you are confused about.

Quote
"...and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption." Heb 9:12

my comment: was everybody's redemption eternal? through His blood He obtained eternal redemption - for whom? all men? then why aren't they all saved? If all men's redemption is eternal then we must become universalists.

Again, the same answer as above. You are not thinking for yourself...this is carnal reasoning from men in the past void of the Spirit of God. The atonement does NOT save anyone...the atonement only cleanses from sin and is the basis for God's forgiveness so that we can enter into God's presence for life. Salvation is not in the atonement, if you understood the atonement then you would understand that your argument is pointless and moot, completely in error...

Mark 12:24
Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?

Quote
"...who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds." Titus 2:14

My question: IN this passage did Christ redeem all men from iniquity or just some? the second half of the verse also narrows the redemption to a particular people, not all people.

You are once again reading the verse through your bias rather than letting the verse speak for itself. The passage does not say nor allude to that Christ died only for a select few, which again would make the Scripture contradict itself...it says "in order to..." in the Greek grammar, meaning that Christ died for all so that those who would come to Him He could have for His own possession.

Now we come to the famous text that our "four-point" brothers put all their weight upon as teaching an unlimited atonement:

    "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2

Quote
At first glance I must admit that this appears to be a pretty good text to back up their argument but upon closer examination, it falls apart.


Negative, it does not fall apart, and in going further you again violate another principle of biblical interpretation...

Rule Nine – The most obvious meaning of any passage will usually be the correct one. If the most obvious meaning is in contradiction to other passages of Scripture, or if the wording of the passage makes little sense, then a more deeper evaluation of the passage is required.

Here you choose to dismiss the most obvious meaning and go forward to twist that meaning into something that fits your bias, not the Scriptures. The meaning is clear, it is not in contradiction to other passages, as your twist upon verses in the past have been, therefore we need go no further with this passage...but you did anyway...

Quote
The problem is that if the four-pointers read this verse the way they intend to then we must also conclude that the whole world's sins have already been atoned for (believers and unbelievers) and thus all will be saved (universalism).


You keep using the strawman argument that unlimited atonement equates to universalism, that is, that all men are saved...and your strawman has been thoroughly debunked and burned at the stake upon which it stood. Salvation is not in the atonement, and the benefits of the atonement are ONLY given to those who are in covenant relationship with God...

I John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Walking in the light is a metaphor for walking in obedience to God's commandments of the new covenant (I John 3:23-24; I John 2:10).
The fellowship addressed in the verse is the word koinonia, meaning covenant fellowship or covenant relationship.
Only those in covenant relationship with God have the application of the atonement in Christ to their lives...period. That is what the Scriptures teach.

Nothing else you have said means anything...they are all empty words void of truth.

I hope that helps you to have a desire to learn the Scriptures and study them all, along with learning how to study the Scriptures according to correct biblical principles of interpretation...for every rendering of Scripture you gave in this post violated one or more of those principles, and with every violation the passage violated become corrupt in your interpretation.

Blessings!


25
Theology Forum / Re: Study: On the Doctrine of Man
« Last post by 4WD on Yesterday at 05:36:15 PM »
It's not hard to understand, McLees, if you don't ascribe to Original Sin.

AMEN!

But now comes the argument of what innocent means when you ascribe to Original Sin.
Adam was not innocent for as you can see he did obey God to name all the animals. Innocence is voided when Adam did "right"

I have no idea what you are even talking about there.
26
Theology Forum / Re: Study: On the Doctrine of Man
« Last post by 4WD on Yesterday at 05:34:51 PM »
How does this impact the Doctrine of Imputation found in 2 Corinthians 5:21?

2 Corinthians 5:21 (KJV)
21  For he hath made him
[to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

If it is the acts of sin that make man a sinner, or in the case of Adam, if it was the act of disobedience (eating the prohibited fruit) that made Adam a sinner, then we could not have the Doctrine of Imputation which is core to our redemption and salvation.

The Scripture above in Corinthians says God made Him [Christ] sin (it does not say 'the acts of sin' but actually made Christ sin, it does not say "acts" of sin. It says God made Him sin. God imputed the sin nature that Adam was created in (sin comes from sinner), and Adam (and the rest of us through Adam) was made the righteousness of God (does not say righteous "acts" of God). It is a nature-swap, NOT an act-swap.

No it is not a nature-swap, nor an act-swap.  It is a propitiation for all of the sins committed by all mankind.  The sin-nature of man, if you wish to call it a sin-nature remains alive and well even in the saved.  Nothing was "swapped".  Jesus' sacrifice is payment given for the debt owed.  It is our debt and it is real, not some "imputed obligation".
John said:

John 1:29 (KJV)
29  The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.


The word "sin" that the Lamb of God takes away is in the singular, meaning ONE SIN - the sin nature of man. The Doctrine of Imputation is preserved.

Has your sin nature been taken away?  In reading Romans, chapter seven, it is clear that Paul didn't consider his sin nature taken away.
27
Theology Forum / Re: Study: On the Doctrine of Man
« Last post by sonofHilkiah on Yesterday at 05:25:28 PM »
It's not hard to understand, McLees, if you don't ascribe to Original Sin.

AMEN!

But now comes the argument of what innocent means when you ascribe to Original Sin.
Adam was not innocent for as you can see he did obey God to name all the animals. Innocence is voided when Adam did "right"
28
Theology Forum / Re: Study: On the Doctrine of Man
« Last post by sonofHilkiah on Yesterday at 05:19:54 PM »
How does this impact the Doctrine of Imputation found in 2 Corinthians 5:21?

2 Corinthians 5:21 (KJV)
21  For he hath made him
[to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

If it is the acts of sin that make man a sinner, or in the case of Adam, if it was the act of disobedience (eating the prohibited fruit) that made Adam a sinner, then we could not have the Doctrine of Imputation which is core to our redemption and salvation.

The Scripture above in Corinthians says God made Him [Christ] sin (it does not say 'the acts of sin' but actually made Christ sin, it does not say "acts" of sin. It says God made Him sin. God imputed the sin nature that Adam was created in (sin comes from sinner), and Adam (and the rest of us through Adam) was made the righteousness of God (does not say righteous "acts" of God). It is a nature-swap, NOT an act-swap.

No it is not a nature-swap, nor an act-swap.  It is a propitiation for all of the sins committed by all mankind.  The sin-nature of man, if you wish to call it a sin-nature remains alive and well even in the saved.  Nothing was "swapped".  Jesus' sacrifice is payment given for the debt owed.  It is our debt and it is real, not some "imputed obligation".
John said:

John 1:29 (KJV)
29  The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.


The word "sin" that the Lamb of God takes away is in the singular, meaning ONE SIN - the sin nature of man. The Doctrine of Imputation is preserved.
29
Churches of Christ Forum / Re: Unmerciful Servant or no? Thank you.
« Last post by e.r.m. on Yesterday at 05:15:25 PM »
notreligus,
Quote
I don't think you have the forgiveness problem.   Your brother is the one who can't forgive.   I don't feel real comfortable stating this, but it might be that your relationship is an embarrassment to your brother and he thinks it is a reflection on your family as a whole.
You nailed it. This sister did not have a pretty face, but her other qualities more than made up for that. For Narcissists it's all about image. My dad got to know her. He saw her merits and approved of her.

Quote
Your choice for a wife and mate is your business, not his.   But you can't control him.   Is your family really pressuring you to have him directly involved in the ceremony?   I know my first thought is that I wouldn't want someone involved with the ceremony who was against the marriage.   I don't think your wife-to-be would be happy of  about it, but have you asked her?   If she does not object then let him participate.   Hopefully the fact that your and your wife-to-be are willing to overlook his objections will be a Christ-like witness to him.   That's really all you can do.   It's not fair that this burden is placed on you, but you do the right thing and that burden will be placed where it belongs - on your brother's heart.
As I mentioned that relationship didn't work out. My fiance is a different sister. My brother approves of my fiance, as does everyone else. My family sees the situation as I'm the Christian, he's not, so I have to set the example. I do see their point. What I think they don't see is his unlikeliness to take it as an example, but as his just deserves. "Now that I have a winner" in his words. I believe he would take offense if excluded though. My fiance knows all this and generally is ok with him participating as long as he doesn't act like that.
30
Churches of Christ Forum / Re: Unmerciful Servant or no? Thank you.
« Last post by MeMyself on Yesterday at 05:14:33 PM »
I think you should do what your gut is telling you. You can't trust your brother.  That is not a forgiveness issue on your part, but an issue of being wise and discerning.

If your family doesn't like it, tell them that is their right, you respect their opinion, but you feel differently and would like them to respect you and your opinion.

I have a brother I have no contact with. I feel I am doing my part to obey the Word when it says "So far as it depends upon you, be at peace with everyone".  There are just some people that are best left alone in order to live a peaceful life and wish them one as well.

Good luck, God bless and congratulations on the upcoming wedding!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10