Featured The eternal purpose of Christ pt2

Notice I did not call you a liar here I addressed what you were posting .
I only call you a liar and say you bear false witness when you twist my words .


Those times when you invent what you thought we were going to say or you speculate about oh you meant this ,or that and we never said it.
You say this is what you infer when in fact we didn't do any such thing.

Again take a poll.....who is with you on these issues......nobody.:laugh:

 

Amen.

"He is not WILLING that ANY should perish - but rather that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3

"He is the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2

And yet

"He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1:11

Free will being what it is. Some accept the Gospel and others cling to their sin rather than choose life.

That is an oxymoron to claim that admitting to our sinful state and need of the Gospel is to be munged into "denying the effects of the fall".

Making stuff up will not last long under the light of scripture.

 

I don't understand this.

Why would the Arminian position need to toss out 39 books from the 66 books of scripture??

Why are you saying that?

 

And of course -- Paul as SAUL was pretty wicked.... Yet Christ died for him as well.

 

This verse is talking about who God hates, your question is a evasion tactic! Ps 5:5 ! Does God hate the workers of Iniquity? Yes or No?

 

I will answer this for him, and he can, too, if he so chooses.


Yes. I was once a worker of iniquity. Yes I still sin. Yes I am a sinner saved by grace. Yes as a sinner God loved me. Why? My sins were given to the Lamb of the Most High, and He bore my sins and suffered in my stead. I repent of my sins daily. I grieve that I sin daily. Everything Christ did He did it for me.


He lived in my stead. Died in my stead. Rose from the grave for me. Ascended to the Father for me. And is coming back for me. :thumbsup:

 

So then God loved you while you were yet a sinner, the wicked person that you were - yet God loved you , "drew you to Christ" John 12:32 - "God so Loved the WORLD that He gave..." yes really.

in Christ,

Bob

 

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/luke-14-26.html


As you always say, context, context, context. Who is Jesus speaking to here? Jews. These Jews, if they were to follow Christ, will suffer backlash of following Him, seeing that most rejected Him being their Messiah. They would have to leave their families behind, because they could not serve Him and still remain in their Jewish customs. They would have to choose Him over them.

 

Okay. If someone died 2 days after Christ died, and He had not yet risen, did He draw Him? What about those in hell? Did Christ draw them? Remember, 'all means all'!!

 

DHK,


You never answered this question...


Was God angry with Satan and his minions when they rebelled?

 

DKK :"One of the most dangerous things a person can do is to place his theology in an opinioned translation of the Bible. This is one man's opinion of how the Bible should be translated. It is not inspired. He is fallible. To stake your doctrine on this one man's translation is foolish." (12/10/2012)

God is angry with you for repeating the same old untruth about him DHK.

The Bible clearly tells us that God is angry. It is not his sole quality --but it is a biblical fact. For you to compare His anger with that of a human is faulty. Human anger is normally sinful --though there is a place for righteous anger.

God does not "lose control" as you put it. He is always in control. As a matter of fact --He is sovereign over everything and everyone.

The Scriptures tell us that God is a jealous God. Are you going to also claim that He is not a jealous God?

Your understanding of God is too finite and unbiblical.

You think God's election is at random.

You think God's love is equally spread out over everyone.

You think all people are not depraved.

You think all people are drawn to the Lord.

You think that all people have faith.

You think that someone comes to a saving faith that it is all of their own doing --because of their keen perception, intelligence and ability although the Holy Spirit may have been a witness to it.

You think God doesn't give anyone saving faith.

You think a person without the Spirit of God is a Christian.

I could go on and on.

Do you actually think DHK? You need to submit yourself to the actual authority of the Word of God.

 

No, I don't believe "anger" is the correct word.
There are many anthropomorphisms and thus anthropomorphic language in the Bible to help us better understand God. Christ as the Lamb of God is obviously one of them. Have you ever seen an "angry lamb"? It is not in God's nature to be angry. I have already given you an illustration how God treats his children. God doesn't deal with his creation in anger.
The proper language would be righteous indignation, and even that is strong.
God could cast out the Satan and his demons without any emotion at all. God is not subject to emotions.

The entire subject of emotions and God is an interesting topic.

 

The same can be said about the KJV. The KJV is in the minority in its translation, and in fact admits that the words "with the wicked" are not in the text by putting them in italics. But how many pages are we into this thread now, and that still is being ignored. God is not angry with the wicked every day, because there are no wicked (in that verse) to be angry with. It just isn't there. Look at your KJV. These words are added it. They are italics. You are the one leaning on only one fallible translation, not me.

You are being blind to the truth. Read Psalm 7:11 in the hardcopy of your KJV.
Now look at the ESV and the Geneva. They not only disagree with the KJV they disagree with each other offering two more perspectives on the verse:

(ESV) God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day.

(Geneva) God iudgeth the righteous, and him that contemneth God euery day.

Either way you look at it, it does not say "God is angry with the wicked."

No one here has taken the time to define anger as "righteous anger." When left undefined anger takes on a meaning by itself which is not a quality of God, not in today's vocabulary.

As I have been saying we no longer use a language that is 400 years old.
The modern day meaning of "anger" is one out of control. Today, if he is in control he is not angry. He may be indignant, but not angry. Words have meanings and for the sake of others we need to be careful how we describe God.

In the same way that I am jealous of my wife, yes. He is protective.

You can think all you want, but the truth is that you don't even attempt to.
You have rattled off a number of untruths without thinking; just brainless statements deliberately made to slander someone else. Was that your stated purpose? Why are you even here?

 

in 1jn 2:2.......the sins of......are also in italics....does not stop you from using that verse.

 

Here is the thing, DHK, you are all over the place. I can not peg where you are coming from.

You say you are a literalist, and that 1,000 years means 1,000 years, and then when the word 'hate' comes up, it is not really 'hate.'


You say 'everybody has faith' and then stated that God saw those who would choose Him(have faith in other words) and chose them and those who would not choose Him(not have faith in other words) and freely damned them.


You stated God is omnipotent(and He is :thumbsup: ) and then say He can not save someone who refuses Him.


You stated the book of Acts is a book of transition(and it is) and that one should not take doctrine from it(paraphrasing here, so if this is not exactly what you have stated in the past, please forgive me) and then turned around and used Acts 10 in your attempted refutation of our understanding of regeneration.


You say that God loves everybody and then turns around and throws the unrepentant sinners in a red hot kiln.

 

Died in your stead? Really? Then you should expect not to have to die, if that is the case -- but it is not.

 

Yes.

Really.

I am not going to die, mon ami. I am going to live forever. :thumbsup:

 

God is love. It is evident in Luke 14:26 that when Christ commands his own disciples to hate their parents and brothers and sisters, that he is not telling them to literally hate them. It is a comparison of degrees. One's love for Christ should be so great that the love for the family would seem as hate in comparison. IOW, the meaning is simply "love less."
There is more than one meaning to a word. Context often gives that meaning. That is what I keep repeating. What is the definition? Look at the context! Why do you guys keep ignoring context??

Of course everyone has faith; even demons have faith. The Bible states as much. But not all faith with save. It is the object of "faith" that saves. The object of one's faith must be Christ. He is the only one who can be saved.

I simply stated what the Bible said; the very words of Christ, and astoundingly, the Calvinists here reject the words of Christ!!

Here they are again:
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

--I didn't write those words: Christ said them!
Do you believe them?
The basis of one's salvation is their faith; the basis of their condemnation is their unbelief. It is that simple. Those are the words of Christ. You either believe him or not.
What part of that verse do you need me to explain to you?

You like to play your word games.
Can he also create a rock so big he cannot lift? If he can't he is not omnipotent is he? These are the word games you are playing--the same basic word games that atheists play. Sad!

Yes, God is omnipotent.
Yes, God can save all and everyone.
However, God will save, as he promised, all who come to him; all who believe on his son. He has said that in his word over and over again. Even a verse so simple and common as John 3:16 teaches this very simple truth.

Again I ask you, what is so difficult about this verse that you need further explanation on:
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

The doctrine of regeneration has never changed, especially since Pentecost.
The Book of Acts is a history of the acts of the Apostles. It is a transition period for the nature of the churches, for the decline of spiritual gifts, etc. Salvation for the NT believer from Acts 2 onward has never changed.

What Peter preached in the house of Cornelius:
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
--is the same message that we preach today. It was under that message that Cornelius got regenerated/saved. That is what the account says.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
--The expression "heard the word" is the same expression used in Acts 2:41:
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
--They received the word and were saved.

This is the ridiculous way that you portray God--angry, mad, out of control--and the world sits back and laughs. Who will believe in a God like this they ask themselves. Not me. That is not my God. You have a very disturbed view of God.

 

PreachTony

I noticed when I asked you for your view of election you could not produce it.
I notice that when you are questioned you drift away and do not answer what you were asked...but you change what you were asked.

again....it is not about your impressions....you claim you want scripture I give you the catechism and the confession loaded with scripture you object.

I am not here to win "some cheap victory".

.

It does prove the point.....you could not give one definition.....you could not, none of your like minded friends could......so your complaining about the word world, or all are moot.

That was not the point of discussion....you were asked directly about the word back....not several different words. You sought to avoid the word because any answer you offered would be fruitless.....and it was. You never answered it.:thumbsup:

.

yes ...but this has nothing to do with the points being discussed.

The whole bible old /new gives us truth. It is not a poem that you give whatever meaning you feel or have an impression about.

Your point made no sense.

This does not address the issue.

I do not follow your point as no one has said these things?

.

I did not ask you that...I did not ask whose side......I asked for you to give your view...I asked for you to answer directly and you never have...even now you still did not...Frankly I doubt you have a view of it.

.

I did not ask you that...can you stick to the question?

here is what I asked you in post 13;

 

:applause::thumbs::applause:....yes ye have entered into life already.