GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
Christian Politics Forum / Re: the presumptuious nominee
« Last post by mclees8 on Today at 11:25:10 AM »
Mclees, talk about aspirations beyond the Whitehouse, don't be surprised if Obama isn't the head honcho, high muckety muck at the UN sometime soon after he is out of office.

Trump will not settle for #2
WS said...

...getting saved is a one time, singular historical event in a person's life.
You just fell in the same ditch you were trying to pull the others out of.  "Getting saved" is bad nomenclature - period. 

I don't see how.

Regeneration is a one time, singular historical event in a person's life.


The day you received your driver's license was the day that you received your driver's license...you don't continue to receive another license every day from that point forward.
Solid analogy... let's run with it.

If getting your license is a regeneration event, then salvation is driving.  You do it, more or less continuously, for a lifetime.  You will probably have a few accidents along the way, for which there will be costs to pay, and this is normal.  If however, you make a pattern of driving irresponsibly and without regard for traffic laws or the safety of other drivers, your license to drive will be forfeited, since it was issued upon the condition that you drive in adherence with traffic law, and consideration of other drivers.

Eternal life, on the other hand, which is NOT the same thing as salvation (firstly because if they were the SAME thing, then it would be either salvation or eternal life, there would not be two different names for the same thing), and when we do a topical study on both terms, it is not difficult to see that Scriptural distinction.

There are almost always two names for the same thing in Scripture.  This is a function of thinking and/or writing the Hebrew language.  Please see the linked article, discussing this phenomenon:


Note that this also applies to most of the New Testament, which despite having been scribed in Greek, was composed by Jewish men who apparently thought in terms of Semitic language, and therefore used parallelism, nearly as often as in the Old Testament.

I don't agree here, but I will check out your resource...

Eternal life is a state of being, not a one time, singular historical event.
Ok, fine, you climbed yourself back out of the ditch...

No where in Scripture are we told that we can maintain salvation, precisely because you can not maintain something that took place on one certain day, at a certain hour and minute, in a certain place...for that to happen, God would have to stop time.

Except for that place where we are told to put on salvation like a helmet and wear it around, and that it will protect us from the enemy.  Or that other place where we are told to walk it out.  Or the other place where we're told to run the race and not stop running it. 

Hrrrmmm... I do not think you are correct on this point.  Salvation (soteria) and eternal life (zoe aionios) appear to me to be pretty much identical.

Yes, at times it does seem like that because the NT writers often used the term salvation as a metonym for eternal life, but even when used as a metonym, that use does NOT change the definitions of either term.

Eternal life is maintained by faith in Christ and obedience to the same, you can find that all throughout the NT Scriptures.

There is a differentiation between salvation and eternal life, and I am not wrong just because I choose to acknowledge that Scriptural differentiation while others refuse to.
No, you're wrong because you're wrong, and sometimes because you lack grace in your speech.


And I disagree again...I am not wrong simply because I choose to make the same distinction between the two terms that the Scriptures make. Again, if you study both subjects independently according to the Scriptures, they are not the same thing, not even by their natures. Something that by nature only takes place once in a person's life, is not maintainable, yet the state of being IS maintained or not. State of being is something in the Greek (and English) that means it is conditionally present all the time, or not.

The event of getting saved from drowning at age 16 does not carry through until you are 30, it was a one time, historical event in the person's life, not a state of being. From that point on, we say that he is alive (eternal life) as long as he maintains his life through eating, drinking, etc. Again, a child is born into the world on one specific day it the history of its life...we do not say that he is "borned" every day henceforth...we say that he is alive. That is the same difference between salvation from past sin, and eternal life.

And understanding that difference is a pivotal point in one's understanding of many passages of Scripture.


End Times Forum / Re: The False Doctrine of the "Secret Rapture".
« Last post by TonkaTim on Today at 11:17:00 AM »
Are Christians in all nations?

Gotcha on the second one.

But don't forget.

While on the cross forgiving the repentant thief: Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

So what does Jesus mean by paradise?

Jesus tells us in Revelation 2:7 "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God."

And where told again "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

The tree of life is in paradise, the City of God, the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Also fulfilling all promises to father Abraham.
"8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." - Hebrews 11

If a man wants to study theology I'd definitely recommend Paul's epistle to the Hebrews.
Christian Music, Lyrics, Videos and Worship Songs / Re: Metalhead!
« Last post by Nataly87 on Today at 11:14:16 AM »
He doesn't care what I listen too. IF he really HATED that I listen to metal of all styles, he would be punishing me like no tomorrow, but he isn't so he doesn't care.
Our future, money for a house, engagement ring, bills to pay etc.
Theology Forum / Re: What grace is, and what it is not...
« Last post by fish153 on Today at 11:13:04 AM »
SM said--

>>>Unfortunately, that is not what the Scriptures teach. We do not receive anything simply because we believe, and when we take the whole Word of God into account on this, we find that believing is only a prerequisite to receiving anything from God - "for one must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."
We do not even receive salvation strictly by believing - one must enter into the covenant before he can receive salvation through faith, which is what Paul tells us in many places, including Rom. 10:8-10.<<<<

All I can say is that is complete heresy.

"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him" (John 3:14,15)

Jesus gave this as an example for good reason. Let's go to Numbers 21 where it talks about the brass serpent Moses lifted up:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived
". (Numbers 21:8,9)

The thief on the cross "looked" and believed----and he was saved. We too, when we look to Christ on the cross and believe in Him are saved. Unfortunately SM is not preaching the
Gospel--he is preaching ANOTHER GOSPEL.  We do well to avoid this and remain in the simplicity that is in Christ.

Theology Forum / Re: John 3:16..."should not," or "shall not" perish?
« Last post by Thaddaeus on Today at 11:10:55 AM »

John 3:16~"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."

Thaddaeus this post is one of many that I will post for you in particular, since it is you who holds to a strange teaching that even "Christendom overall has never embraced, and without question, and above all, the word of God will not support~that teaching is that you believe that Christ's death actually saved all men from sin and death. Without getting into many details, and to keep this relativity short, I'm only in this post going to deal with the true biblical sense that Jesus Christ meant when he spoke these words to Nicodemus, recorded by the apostle John who used the same wording in 1 John 2:1, where he wrote these words:
The text is not even relevant to your explanation.

As will be shown in the rest of your post you have absolutely no understanding of what scripture teaches regarding what Christ accomplished and wny He even came to this earth.

John 3:16 with the use of the word "whosoever" is the key active word that totally destroys your whole theological theory or philosophy. IF Christ did not save mankind and the world from sin and death He could NEVER say, whosoever believeth.  In fact, it eliminates the rest of the NT and relegates Christ to being nothing more than a normal human being who is nothing more than  a good moral teacher.

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Men like you, and others who do not believe as you do, which I assume that SwordMaster does not, also run with the sound bites of 'world" and teach a doctrine that the scriptures does not teach. In your case, you say that Christ's atonement actually saved all men from death and sin; while others like SwordMaster thinks that Christ died for all men, only to make salvation possible for all men, yet they must believe and live a life of obedience before they actually will receive eternal life in the world to come when Christ comes again.   Of course I reject both position as false.  I believe that Christ came into the world to saved his people given to him by his Father to redeem from sin and condemantion, and that he fully and perfectly made a propitiation for their sins, as their Legal Representative before the law of God, satisfying perfectly every commandment from conception to death~in thought, word, and deed. Much more could be added, but overall, this is enough for me to post John 3:16 and for us to consider the true meaning of John 3:16, that has been corrupted by many since John wrote it. Obvious it started soon after the apostle left did grievous wolves enter in among the flock and begin to corrupt the truth that is preserved in the scriptures, not in some cult claiming to be God's Church! Be it RCC/ EOC; etc. Let us see if your interpretation will find support in the scriptures of TRUTH, where ONLY truth reigns supremely; and apart from the scriptures, there is no truth; and we will add, if the scriptures will not support one's doctrine, that they are holding to a lie, regardless what they may say otherwise.

Then you select a text that utterly denies what you say about it. The text is universal. He atoned for the sin of the world. Scripture never states that He atoned for some sin or certain kinds of sin or even sins of particular people. You seem to think that Christ somehow had certain people's name on His back (so to speak) so  that His death was only for those listed there.  This is the pure unmitigated heresy of Calvinism/Reformed theology of predestination.  The false doctrine categorically denies who Christ is, denies outright the Incarnation itself, thus mankind's salvation and eliminates an eternal existance.  This notion of a legal representative is again ONLY used within Calvinism. It is part of that denial of the Incarnation of Christ.

I'm sure you will say you believe in the Incarnation, all Calvinists do. However your understanding has nothing to do with scripture.

Let me ask you this?  What nature did Christ assume?  Did He assume a human nature?  In your theology, it is necessary to posit that Christ bore a very particular nature, not human nature, one that would only pertain to those your theology calls the elect. Which immediately implies that man has at least two kinds of nature. One that Christ bore to save, the other pesumeably different, but that He would actually destroy, so goes your theology. 

Which raises a huge question. What nature did Adam have and what nature was condemened to death?  If this is the same as Christ bore, then we need to assume that there was another creature with Adam that bore the nature that Christ did NOT assume since they were not condemned to death or at least did not fall? You need to explain this. 

Or are you going to posit some kind of transformation after the fall that establishes at least two different kinds of creatures.  I cannot really call them human because I don't know which it is that you use for designation of a human being.  At any rate, there is absolutely no connection between the fall of man, nor the redemption of that man in your theology, at least in light of scripture,  Calvinistic theology has you boxed in a little theory that is very small and has no relevance to scripture and what it teaches.

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.

This scripture is really not to hard to understand, "IF" one is not holding to a lie~if so, then to them it becomes impossible for them to find support in the scriptures to try to cover up their error that they have embraced by following man's teach instead of the word of God. I read a quote once, written over one thousand years ago that this believer said:

You have failed to understand it because your theology eliminates the possibility of man ever having eternal life period, let alone some called elect.  Which is also why the notion of limited atonement is an absurdity by scripture. Your theology never gets to eternal life, any relationship with God must come some other way.  You need to explain this as well.

The rest of your post is just more of your irrelevant bluster. It says absolutey nothing scriptural and has nothing to with refuting the univeral atonement of Christ.

Just for your refresher course of texts that  you need to deny or change to irrelevancy to support the tenents of Calvinism or whatever it is that you think scripture means.

I might add that your theology when juxaposed against what scripture actually teaches us, denies the Incarnation which is one of the central hallmarks of Christianity because it is wholly Christological.

But lets start with the fall. After all man would not have needed redemption except for the fall.  Gen 3:19 is the text that describes the fall. Adam died, that is he became mortal. Satan was allowed to take man captive through death. Heb 2:14-17. Man as a human being would cease to exist upon his biological death. He would return to dust.  This immediately sinks Calvinism, even the concept of God condemning most of men to hell which is part of your theology. The problem with that is hell would not need to exist. Who would be in it. All we become are piles of dust.

A key part of this is that God permitted Satan to assign death to man's nature.  Why? Because God, first knew Adam would sin, and that Christ in saving mankind, would assume that very same nature and restore it back to life, to an eternal existance.  (This is NOT eternal life).

Paul in Romans begins the journey of redemption with Chapter 5.  Rom 5:6-10 states very clearly that Christ came to save the ungodly, sinners. No place here does it say, only elect sinners, or that only the elect are sinners. A logical question here, regarding your theology, why did God permit those He elected to fall?  See the statement above regarding all those other creatures your theology leaves out with having some kind of nature that Christ would NOT assume.

Rom 5:12 Paul clearly reiterates that death, the condemnation of death came to all men.  Not some, not just the elect.  Questions you need to an answer with your theology.

What is the solution to this universal death? Paul clearly states in Rom 5:18 that it is LIFE that is given to all men. Amazing, nothing about some men or just the elect. (This is physical life, pure existence as a human being, not eternal life which in scripture is describing man's spiritual relationship.)

Good ole' Paul. He so very succinctly states in I Cor 15:12-22 that Christ will raise ALL the dead.  Now, your theory must posit that Christ only raised some dead, namely the elect.  Verse 22 is as clear a short summary as one can make of the Incarnation. Adam's nature fell, death came, Christ assumed that same consubstantial nature of man and raised that nature, namely every single human being to life.  This is NOT, I repeat, NOT spiritual life or what scripture calls eternal life. 

Other texts that clearly stated Christ's Incarnation results in universal atonement and the saving (salvaton) of man and the world from death and sin.  Other texts, I Cor 15:53, again, ALL the dead will be raised to immortality and incorruptibility.
II Tim 1:10, Col 1:20, John 6:39, II Cor 5:18-19, Rom 3:24, John 4:42. I John 4:14.

What I need answers to is how can Christ say "whosoever" when most of creatures known in scripture as human beings, will be destroyed. assuming for the minute there is such a thing as heaven in your theology, if so how does an eternity with man in it exist in your theology?

Every text that mentions or states something about the resurrection is denied as existing by your theology.

I don't know if you believe that there will be a resurrection or not, but I can say this, based on scripture, your theology does not provide for a resurrection.  I Cor 15:17-19 is the deathknell for your whole perspective. Why?

Because if Christ does not raise all the dead, then Christ is not even risen. Whatever you might believe, Paul says it would be in vain. There will be no eternity, heaven or hell. There cannot be a resurrection of the dead.

I'm sure you will retort that you believe in a resurrection. But could you explain it within the theology you have been espousing
Limited atonement is a direct denial of any kind of resurrection of  any man.

So, RB, the ball is in your park. Where is your scriptural support for your view of all of scripture. Where is all this evidence that you say you have to refute Christianity 101 that has been the historical teaching of Christianity since the Apostles.  If you think it changed, explain when, how and by whom?  Where is Calvinism in Paul or any Apostle?

An aside.  Nothing above even deals with eternal life. What is stated above provides for Christ to call all men to repentance, so that a free man, one of those "whosoevers" can accept His offer of eternal life.  This is part of your theological connumdrum, you conflate everything above and roll it all into the relationship.

Obvious it started soon after the apostle left did grievous wolves enter in among the flock and begin to corrupt the truth that is preserved in the scriptures, not in some cult claiming to be God's Church! Be it RCC/ EOC; etc. Let us see if your interpretation will find support in the scriptures of TRUTH, where ONLY truth reigns supremely; and apart from the scriptures, there is no truth; and we will add, if the scriptures will not support one's doctrine, that they are holding to a lie, regardless what they may say otherwise.
Just an historical note:  You are correct that false teachings/ideas came, most from within, but in almost every case, that I can recall without rechecking, all of them were one issue heresies.  In each case the Body, enlivened by the Holy Spirit eliminated all false teachings.  It was not until Calvinism that someone brought to existence an entire faith system, not just one idea, that is unscriptural. 

The last sentence in the above quote applies to you, spot on.  A very accurate self portrayal.

A statement was made:

>>>Eternal life is maintained by faith in Christ and obedience to the same, you can find that all throughout the NT Scriptures<<<

Maintaining eternal life is not found in the Scriptures. What is found there in many places is that Eternal Life is a GIFT from God (Romans 6:23)--
we see this confirmed when Jesus says "I GIVE them Eternal life, and they shall NEVER perish". (John 10:28)

To teach otherwise is to warp the Gospel message. There really is no need to post more concerning this though, since the persons who have heard
the above verses and reject them are dead set on keeping to their false doctrines. May God bless you!

As usual, you are so far wrong that its pitiful...

I John 3:23-24
23   And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as He has commanded us.
24   Whoever keeps God's commandments abides in Him, and He will abide in him, and by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

Deal with it Fish. This is God speaking through His Spirit, through the hand of John the Apostle.

Who are you? Nothing...no one with ANY authority in the Word of God.

Who are we to listen to...you, a nothing, a nobody? Or God, by His Spirit, through John an Apostle?

I rest my case...by walking in obedience, a consistent exercise in practicing righteousness, we are maintaining our stand as abiding in Christ, and in case you forgot, only those who are in Christ HAVE Christ abiding in them, and they are the ONLY ones who have eternal life.

So much for your false philosophy bound up in human religion.

You are correct dpr. The early church would agree with what you just said. This is a consensus view compiled by Hippolytus in 200ish AD. They believe like you said. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0516.htm

Yes, I'm aware of that. But I didn't know that my understanding aligned with a lot of what those early 1st-2nd century Church fathers held to until I starting reading their writings long after my Bible studies. Still, lot of brethren today think they are outdated, and I think that's mostly because they'd rather keep the tradition view their Church teaches them. I don't play those kind of things. If something is not Scriptural, I have no problem mentioning it.
End Times Forum / Re: The False Doctrine of the "Secret Rapture".
« Last post by dpr on Today at 11:00:19 AM »
Sometimes I'm completely astonished by how people can react to very old & orthodox Christian theology.

Act as if they ashamed of the Reformation & godly men like John Wycliffe & Martin Luther.
Ashamed of the early church & godly men like the blessed Augustine.
This has been the belief of Godly men for a long long time.
Quite a few martyrs for Christ died believing this theology.

I am not ashamed of any of them or their theology.
They are all good witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But who ultimately should we listen to and heed? Our Heavenly Father and His Son in His Word, with help by The Holy Spirit. There's events of fulfilled prophecy in our generation that the past Church Fathers didn't get to see.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10