Bought then Redeemed

[kyredneck]

If all are ransomed, but only some redeemed, is that not "potential redemption?"

I don't know how to respond to this considering your cockamamie redefining of Biblical terms, I'm not sure what the question is. To me 'ransom' and 'redeemed' are synonymous as far as the atonement goes.

[add]

The Bible On Ransom Vs. Redemption (preachersinstitute.com)

 

[Van]

I don't know how to respond to this considering your cockamamie redefining of Biblical terms, I'm not sure what the question is. To me 'ransom' and 'redeemed' are synonymous as far as the atonement goes.

[add]

The Bible On Ransom Vs. Redemption (preachersinstitute.com)

LOL, the ransom for "many?" Why not the ransom for all? Both must refer to all humanity or someone is claiming the bible is wrong. Once again an ambiguous term (who are the many) is used to foist false doctrine on the unstudied. Ransom does NOT mean redemption!! Full stop

If all are ransomed, but only some redeemed, is that not "potential redemption?"

 

[kyredneck]

@Van

Enough of this boondoggle. You've indicated God may or may not, He might, maybe, credit our faith as righteousness on this thread and others, you'll do it again. You lack the integrity to man up and explain it.

 

[tyndale1946]

Old Testament references to God’s redeeming His people, we are instructed that God views His people as His intimate family. He never makes redemption possible. He never offers redemption. He redeems His enslaved people from their just debts. This principle carries over to the New Testament doctrine of redemption in which the Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, entered His world and suffered to redeem His people from their indebtedness to divine justice (Matthew 1:21).

Matthew 1: 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Brother Glen

 

[Van]

@Van

Enough of this boondoggle. You've indicated God may or may not, He might, maybe, credit our faith as righteousness on this thread and others, you'll do it again. You lack the integrity to man up and explain it.

Yet another post addressing me and running from the topic. This is all these folks have, obfuscation, false charges, and change of subject ploys.

Here is the question they are not answering:
If all are ransomed, but only some redeemed, is that not "potential redemption?"

 

[taisto]

Yet another post addressing me and running from the topic. This is all these folks have, obfuscation, false charges, and change of subject ploys.

Here is the question they are not answering:
If all are ransomed, but only some redeemed, is that not "potential redemption?"

No, it's not "potential redemption." It's you promoting universal payment of all sins and then saying that it is really only some who are paid for. The determiner of who is paid for and who isn't becomes the humans display of personal faith which God judges and determines to either be righteous or unrighteous faith.

So, in your "potential redemption" is a graceless salvation. But, you cannot see it and you will not accept that this is your teaching at the core.

 

[Van]

No, it's not "potential redemption." It's you promoting universal payment of all sins and then saying that it is really only some who are paid for. The determiner of who is paid for and who isn't becomes the humans display of personal faith which God judges and determines to either be righteous or unrighteous faith.

So, in your "potential redemption" is a graceless salvation. But, you cannot see it and you will not accept that this is your teaching at the core.

Note this claim, "It's you promoting universal payment of all sins," but no quote is provided.
When is the sin penalty removed from an individual? When they undergo the washing of regeneration.
Did I say the "determiner" of who is paid for is the human display of person faith which God then determines as righteousness. No of course NOT. Again no quote.
Who is the Determiner of whose sins are removed? God, with the help of human faith, or God ALONE! God alone!!!!

It is hard to discuss biblical doctrine with those who seem only to rail again strawwomen of their own fabrication.

 

[Van]

Here is the question they are not answering:
If all are ransomed, but only some redeemed, is that not "potential redemption?"

Mr. Taisto says, No, it's not "potential redemption." But did you see the basis for the claim? Did he say all were not ransomed? I did not see either a yes or no to that question. Did he say only some are redeemed? I did not see an answer to that one either.

You would think after about 400 years of fabricating a defense for their doctrine, someone could google at least an attempt at an answer.

And again, Jesus became the means of reconciliation for all humanity, the whole world, but only some receive the reconciliation. Thus all the lost living today have the opportunity for redemption but certainly only a few will find the narrow way that leads to life. The gospel of Christ.

 

[taisto]

Note this claim, "It's you promoting universal payment of all sins," but no quote is provided.
When is the sin penalty removed from an individual? When they undergo the washing of regeneration.
Did I say the "determiner" of who is paid for is the human display of person faith which God then determines as righteousness. No of course NOT. Again no quote.
Who is the Determiner of whose sins are removed? God, with the help of human faith, or God ALONE! God alone!!!!

It is hard to discuss biblical doctrine with those who seem only to rail again strawwomen of their own fabrication.

You are openly stating: "all are ransomed"
That is very clearly "universal payment."
For you to deny this is silly. Own what you are saying.
Then you turn around and deny the first statement by saying: "but only some redeemed"
So, you are clearly saying universal payment, but only for some, which therefore makes the payment only potential.

How then can one make sure the payment is actually made? You state that God must judge if a person's faith is righteous or not. If God looks at the person's faith and says "yes", then they are chosen. If God looks at a person's faith and says "no," then they are not chosen.

In your teaching salvation is not by grace. Instead it's by the humans own faith, which God evaluates and either says yes or no.

This is what you claim, yet when called out, you deny your own teaching. It's incredibly frustrating to dialogue with you when you make a claim and deny it at the same time.

 

[Van]

You are openly stating: "all are ransomed"
That is very clearly "universal payment."
For you to deny this is silly. Own what you are saying.
Then you turn around and deny the first statement by saying: "but only some redeemed"
So, you are clearly saying universal payment, but only for some, which therefore makes the payment only potential.

How then can one make sure the payment is actually made? You state that God must judge if a person's faith is righteous or not. If God looks at the person's faith and says "yes", then they are chosen. If God looks at a person's faith and says "no," then they are not chosen.

In your teaching salvation is not by grace. Instead it's by the humans own faith, which God evaluates and either says yes or no.

This is what you claim, yet when called out, you deny your own teaching. It's incredibly frustrating to dialogue with you when you make a claim and deny it at the same time.

Did I say clearly "all are ransomed" does does the inspired word of God say Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all.
Did I say Christ paid the price of the individual sins of all humans? Nope
He paid the price to become the means of reconciliation for all of humanity.

Please quote this statement the next time you want to misrepresent my view. See 1 John 2:2 for details.

What would be wonderful would be to have a discussion of what I actually said. But that is not going to happen because scripture cannot be defeated.

 

[taisto]

Did I say clearly "all are ransomed" does does the inspired word of God say Christ laid down His life as a ransom for all.
Did I say Christ paid the price of the individual sins of all humans? Nope
He paid the price to become the means of reconciliation for all of humanity.

Please quote this statement the next time you want to misrepresent my view. See 1 John 2:2 for details.

What would be wonderful would be to have a discussion of what I actually said. But that is not going to happen because scripture cannot be defeated.

Here's what you now say: "He paid the price to become the means of reconciliation for all of humanity."

This means he didn't ransom anyone. He only became the means by which a person could be ransomed and have the price paid.

How is the price paid, Van?

If you say that it is by means of God declaring a person's faith to be righteous, then you declare man's personal faith to be the savior and means that moves God to save. That is works of man that cause God to be obligated. Van, that is removing grace from salvation.

It is very, very clear that your statement "He paid the price to become the means of reconciliation for all of humanity"
is incorrect and graceless.

I will watch as you try to run from your statement and blame me instead of accept your error.

 

[Van]

Here's what you now say: "He paid the price to become the means of reconciliation for all of humanity."

This means he didn't ransom anyone. He only became the means by which a person could be ransomed and have the price paid.

How is the price paid, Van?

If you say that it is by means of God declaring a person's faith to be righteous, then you declare man's personal faith to be the savior and means that moves God to save. That is works of man that cause God to be obligated. Van, that is removing grace from salvation.

It is very, very clear that your statement "He paid the price to become the means of reconciliation for all of humanity"
is incorrect and graceless.

I will watch as you try to run from your statement and blame me instead of accept your error.

Well, we have made progress. Mr. Taisto did rely on my actual statement, rather his strawwoman.
However the next statement, Christ "didn't ransom anyone" does not address "a ransom for all." Who do you suppose is included in the all? How about the OT saints. Were they ransomed? So did Christ only become the means by which a person could be ransomed? Inquiring minds want to know...

How about the thief on the next cross? Was he ransomed. Consider this, if a person is redeemed, have they been forgiven, and since their is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, can we say Christ is the means of salvation for the lost, and Christ has paid the ransom for everyone redeemed? Is that too hard a concept to be discussed?

Next, once again, and this is endless with this group, the silly claim is made if God chooses to save people whose faith He credits as righteousness, then that faith merited or earned or caused the salvation. Never mind salvation does not depend on the person who "wills." Romans 9:16. Why let God's word stop a false claim.

Next, in a avalanche of false claims, God is said to be "obligated." Never mind Romans 9:16. Or Matthew 7, or soils #2 and 3 of Matthew 13.

Next, I am removing grace from salvation. It never stops folks, read Romans 4:16 again, faith is in accordance with grace.

 

[taisto]

Well, we have made progress. Mr. Taisto did rely on my actual statement, rather his strawwoman.
However the next statement, Christ "didn't ransom anyone" does not address "a ransom for all." Who do you suppose is included in the all? How about the OT saints. Were they ransomed? So did Christ only become the means by which a person could be ransomed? Inquiring minds want to know...

Your statement addresses the fact that you teach Jesus didn't ransom all. At best, Jesus only potentially ransomed all. Read your own quote.

"He paid the price to become the means of reconciliation for all of humanity"

Note that Jesus cannot have actually ransomed all in your comments.

 

[taisto]

How about the thief on the next cross? Was he ransomed. Consider this, if a person is redeemed, have they been forgiven, and since their is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood, can we say Christ is the means of salvation for the lost, and Christ has paid the ransom for everyone redeemed? Is that too hard a concept to be discussed?

Yes, the thief was absolutely ransomed. It was more than potential and it was not because of what the thief did. It was purely because God the Son declared to the thief that he would be with Him in paradise.

Yes, by being ransomed, the person is actually forgiven. Christ's ransom is the means by which God paid for sin, redeems sinners, and forgives their sin.

Van, it's more than just "potential." It is actual, 100% assured, with no doubt, done. At the cross the payment was made for all whom God gave to Jesus so that not one would perish.

 

[taisto]

Next, once again, and this is endless with this group, the silly claim is made if God chooses to save people whose faith He credits as righteousness, then that faith merited or earned or caused the salvation. Never mind salvation does not depend on the person who "wills." Romans 9:16. Why let God's word stop a false claim.

Next, in a avalanche of false claims, God is said to be "obligated." Never mind Romans 9:16. Or Matthew 7, or soils #2 and 3 of Matthew 13.

Next, I am removing grace from salvation. It never stops folks, read Romans 4:16 again, faith is in accordance with grace.

Van, if your claim is correct, then all persons who are saved are saved by their own merited faith and thus Paul's statement that "You have been saved by grace" is utterly negated by your teaching.

I know you cannot see it, but all who actually read what you say will have to come to that conclusion. I am sorry you cannot see your error.

 

[Van]

Your statement addresses the fact that you teach Jesus didn't ransom all. At best, Jesus only potentially ransomed all. Read your own quote.

"He paid the price to become the means of reconciliation for all of humanity"

Note that Jesus cannot have actually ransomed all in your comments.

Mr. Taisto has redefined the meaning of ransomed to mean redeemed. This is all they have. Nonsense topped with absurdity.

 

[taisto]

Mr. Taisto has redefined the meaning of ransomed to mean redeemed. This is all they have. Nonsense topped with absurdity.

No redefinition. They are synonymous. When you have had all your sins purchased and ransomed, you stand before God, made holy and perfect by the blood of Jesus. Christ has redeemed you from your sin.
To deny this is to deny the effectual work of Christ, by grace, on your behalf. The only thing that can replace it is a salvation by works.

The absurdity in this discussion is your statements that Jesus work on the cross is only a potential means to salvation. The absurdity is your statement that one is not chosen until God reviews the person's faith and checks off that person's personal faith as being worthy of being declared righteous.
Your claims are graceless and they miss the message of Paul regarding Justification.

Finally, you speak as a lone, rogue, voice and then condemn the community of Christ because they don't hold your views. That should be a red flag to you and your theology.

I don't believe there is anything more for us to discuss. We will disagree.

 

[Van]

@Van

Enough of this boondoggle. You've indicated God may or may not, He might, maybe, credit our faith as righteousness on this thread and others, you'll do it again. You lack the integrity to man up and explain it.

Enough of these personal attacks by naysayers who have not spent enough time learning how to study to show themselves approved.

Here he denies God chooses who to say, yet his doctrine says God chose who to save. Then I am charged with a lack of integrity. Anytime the godless left charges their opponents, they are usually describing their own malfeasance. Or as the old saying goes, when we point our finger at someone, our other fingers are pointing back to us.

 

[Van]

Old Testament references to God’s redeeming His people, we are instructed that God views His people as His intimate family. He never makes redemption possible. He never offers redemption. He redeems His enslaved people from their just debts. This principle carries over to the New Testament doctrine of redemption in which the Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, entered His world and suffered to redeem His people from their indebtedness to divine justice (Matthew 1:21).

Matthew 1: 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Brother Glen

Here we have the false claim God has not provided the "means of reconciliation" to all of humanity, or that only some "receive that reconciliation. False as clearly stated - everyone believing in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

 

[kyredneck]

@Van

Enough of this boondoggle. You've indicated God may or may not, He might, maybe, credit our faith as righteousness on this thread and others, you'll do it again. You lack the integrity to man up and explain it.

Then I am charged with a lack of integrity.

Then show some integrity and explain the 'if':

People are saved when and if God credits their faith as righteousness.

Is this the gospel of Vanology?:

'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and God might save you.'