Are people Condemned Due To Unbelief, Or That "In Adam" and are sinners?

[preacher4truth]

It's interesting how he had such a problem to a DIRECT quote from Paul. I didn't say "God passed over the sins previously committed," Paul did. And I wonder if he thinks God sending his Son to atone even for that sin previously committed was just a "wink?" Shameless.

I have no problem with what Paul said, just your misinterpretation/misapplication of it. :love2:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

Your theology professor would revoke your degree if he saw that you posted this clearly worded...

Shame on you. You continually claim to know better, then resort to the gutter and strawman arguments to further your cause.

Yep, this is what I've been saying.

It amazes me the trail of verses used to lead to his illogical conclusions, strawman #1, #2, #3, #4 parade by, followed of course by the typical follow up reply of one of the crew, with mutliple thumbsups.

I find it amusing and see such as quite sophomoric in nature. I loved the "disengenous"{sic} label cast upon me. I think he meant disingenuous, which means lacking in frankness. Heavens sakes, I thought I was pretty frank about it. Perhaps the "hypocritical" part is what he meant. Who knows? Who cares? It wasn't even correctly spelled! :love2:

Yes yes, we know, people go to hell for unbelief. Nonsense. They go to hell for being sinners, who happen not to believe, who are headed there as we speak, and the only way to escape this is to believe.

This thing that God overlooks sins (whichever version that is) is simply misunderstood to portray that God has simply not been taking them serious, you know, as He has throughout history. Hence, this needs to be interpreted correctly, as it has not been for obvious reasons.

Note also the reference wasn't given. Why? Well, because the context doesn't support his interpretation.

Thus its not "for" unbelief, they are already headed there, it's for being lost.

Now, did Jesus die on the cross for unbelief, or for the sins of the whole world, that condemn the word in guilt, in order that in believing in Him, His people may come out of the condemnation of sins (eternal death) and become His? Yes, He died for the sins of the world, to save His people from their sins. And the unbelieving and otherwise will remain right there where they were; lost and dying in their sins.

I wonder, are there any in hell right now who have never heard? You bet. And natural revelation/general revelation isn't another Savior for them, Christ alone is. People love to pretend that this is, and also say by what they do with that knowledge, they are saved. Not so, it's not by works, or behavior modification based upon general revelation. It's Christ alone, and He came to save His people from their sins. This passage presents men as being without excuse, and proves men lost, not the gen/nat revelation saves.

Glfrederick, you gave a nice list of verses a while back. Thanks for that.

:wavey:

 

[quantumfaith]

All men stand condemned by God at their physical births, as they are seen by God as being "In Adam"
rejecting Jesus will be the "finishing" act of this condemnation, but we are both those with sin natures who chose to Sin...

If person dies, their sin nature already has them condemned by Holy God, apart from rejecting Jesus...

IF that is what you said, forgive me, misunderstood you!

JF,

This is one thing that I find totally "ridiculous", that being the level of sematics used in order to remain true, as each of us do, to our carved out theological positions. I cannot help but grin occasionally at the pains we go through.

 

[preacher4truth]

JF,

This is one thing that I find totally "ridiculous", that being the level of sematics used in order to remain true, as each of us do, to our carved out theological positions. I cannot help but grin occasionally at the pains we go through.

So you're saying that the resident arminian does this also? "Semantics used in order to remain true" I mean, you said each of us? Is that what you mean, each of us, or no? :smilewinkgrin:

To be honest, I've never seen you go through any pains to express yours, to be quite frank, what I see are many "drive-bys" with thumbs but no theological dialogue with Scriptures that I am aware of. I mean, I'd love to see that, along with Scriptures.

I've rarely seen this from you. I can't say it makes me grin.

 

[Iconoclast]

Actually I said they aren't condemned (meaning going to hell -- or "finally condemned") BECAUSE of Adam's fall. They perish BECAUSE they refused to believe God's revelation, period. How many verses do I need to produce that say that very thing verbatim before you would believe it? I've got a few more, but I really thought 5 would be sufficient.

Skan,

If you include God's revelation,and conscience we start to be in agreement.

However all sinned...in romans 3 is a point action....we all sinned in adam at that moment...Adam was federal head...and a type of the last Adam.

In post 4 you were only speaking of those who do not believe the word preached...that is why there was contention about that statement.....as well as differences on what happened in the fall.

 

[quantumfaith]

So you're saying that the resident arminian does this also? "Semantics used in order to remain true" I mean, you said each of us? Is that what you mean, each of us, or no? :smilewinkgrin:

To be honest, I've never seen you go through any pains to express yours, to be quite frank, what I see are many "drive-bys" with thumbs but no theological dialogue with Scriptures that I am aware of. I mean, I'd love to see that, along with Scriptures.

I've rarely seen this from you. I can't say it makes me grin.

 

[preacher4truth]

Oh yes, the possessed apathy is part of it too. Thanks for the reminder, sort of. :wavey:

 

[JesusFan]

JF,

This is one thing that I find totally "ridiculous", that being the level of sematics used in order to remain true, as each of us do, to our carved out theological positions. I cannot help but grin occasionally at the pains we go through.

Thanks for being nice on the "put down"

How was I doing this in my answer, just curious?

 

[preacher4truth]

Thanks for being nice on the "put down"

How was I doing this in my answer, just curious?

Probably meant others, therefore, it's not really a put down, since it was toward them, and not you.

See how it works?

:laugh:

 

[webdog]

I was just thinking how much time alleged pastors have to post on this board. I wonder if their congregations know how many hours are spent here attacking...er...interacting with others on the web when they allegedly have a flock of their own to tend to. Just saying.

 

[quantumfaith]

Thanks for being nice on the "put down"

How was I doing this in my answer, just curious?

Please notice, I included Everyone.

 

[quantumfaith]

Probably meant others, therefore, it's not really a put down, since it was toward them, and not you.

See how it works?

:laugh:

My last comment to you for a while. Let me quote another great BB member.

Let me know when you think you can have an adult conversation.

 

[preacher4truth]

I was just thinking how much time alleged pastors have to post on this board. I wonder if their congregations know how many hours are spent here attacking...er...interacting with others on the web when they allegedly have a flock of their own to tend to. Just saying.

I was just thinking who one would be most like when being accusatory, when reporting the brethren to others slanderously in objective? Holding lists of wrong doings? Things like that?

- Peace

 

[preacher4truth]

My last comment to you for a while.

Promise? :love2:

As I told you in the past, your continued drive-bys, innunedos, labels? Not profitable to engage with you.

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

Your theology professor would revoke your degree if he saw that you posted this clearly worded bit of horse hooey...

Shame on you. You continually claim to know better, then resort to the gutter and strawman arguments to further your cause.

If you are going to bring an accusation, please be specific, and try not to resort to immature personal attacks and demeaning rhetoric. My posts are on topic and about the point up for debate, not personal, thus I think it would be your post that would be considered "resorting to the gutter." It's fine to disagree with my views and even call me out if you think I've committed a fallacy. In fact, I welcome such argumentation. It is a debate forum after all. But, this kind of response profits no one and only reflects poorly on you.