Doctrine of devils

[jc the baptist]

If Jesus Christ died for ALL people in the world, why the Bible told us that theres so many people will go to hell?

It means that Christ is a FAILURE...NO!

Christ came to earth, suffered and died on the cross, and risen to SAVE HIS PEOPLE... the Bible didn't say TRY to save His people or even the whole world...but HE DID! He saved ALL, and that ALL refers to HIS sheep! to His people...

Christ died for His elect sheep and for them ALONE...Not ALL men are His sheep...

John 10:26 says: "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto."

He DID NOT say: "ye are not my sheep because ye will not belive."

 

[TCassidy]

When it is said that Christ died "not for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world," 1 John 2:2, or that He came to "save the world," John 12:47, the meaning is that not merely Jews but Gentiles also are included in His saving work; the world as a world or the race as a race is to be redeemed.

Sometimes the term "world" is used when only a large part of the world is meant, as when it is said that the Devil is "the deceiver of the whole world," or that "the whole earth" wonders after the beast, Revelation 13:3. If in 1 John 5:19, "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one," the author meant every individual of mankind, then he and those to whom he wrote were also in the evil one, and he contradicted himself in saying that they were of God. Sometimes this term means only a relatively small part of the world, as when Paul wrote to the new Christian Church at Rome that their faith was "proclaimed throughout the whole world," Romans 1:8. None but believers would praise those Romans for their faith in Christ, and in fact the world at large did not even know that such a Church existed at Rome. Hence Paul meant only the believing world or the Christian Church, which was a comparatively insignificant part of the real world. Shortly before Jesus was born, "There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled,"..."and all went to enroll themselves," Luke 2:1, 3; yet we know that the writer had in mind only that comparatively small part of the world which was controlled by Rome. When it was said that on the day of Pentecost, "there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven," Acts 2:5, only those nations which were immediately known to the Jews were intended, for verses 9-11 list those which were represented. Paul says that the Gospel was "preached in all creation under heaven." Colossians 1:23. The goddess Diana of the Ephesians was said to have been worshipped by "all Asia and the world," Acts 19:27. We are told that the famine which came over Egypt in Joseph's time extended to "all the earth," and that "all countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy grain," Genesis 41:57.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by jc the baptist:
John 10:26 says: "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto."

He DID NOT say: "ye are not my sheep because ye will not belive."

Classic example of wrenching Scripture by ignoring context.

This passage has nothing to do with predestination or pre-selection. It has to do with the fact that all of the sheep - believers - under the Old Covenant accepted Jesus as the Christ when He presented Himself to them. Those who did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah proved that they were not believers at all and therefore not His sheep.

He didn't say that these people could not possibly become believers. To the contrary, He called on the very same people to believe on Him on the same occasion. Just as Paul said of the non-elect in Romans chapter 11,

"And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in."

Here we have a most pointed and unassailble assertion of CONDITIONAL ELECTION - IF THEY ABIDE NOT STILL IN UNBELIEF - standing right alongside the SAVING ABILITY OF GOD - FOR GOD IS ABLE TO GRAFT THEM IN.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[whetstone]

Mark would you care to share your thoughts on Helen's belief that all sin has been paid for and no one dies for their sins?

 

[jc the baptist]

Originally posted by Helen:
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
John 1:29

Was John right or wrong?

John the Baptist was right... no argument to that... but i think you are pointing to the word "world"? am i right?

by the way... Look, John said "the Lamb of God, WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN of the world!", did Christ take away the sin of the world? if your answer is yes, why there so many people will go to hell in judgement day? i'll bring back to you your question: Was John right or wrong?

i strongly believed that Christ took away the sin of the world and the word "world" there is referring to the ELECT people of God... coz the Bible uses the word "world" in so many ways...

 

[Helen]

You folks sound just like the evolutionists. Nothing is the way it is written in the Bible if it disagrees with you.

I'm glad I can read for myself, things like "Come unto me, ALL ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."

and "he is not willing that one should perish"

and "God so loved the world".

and "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross" (Col 1:19-20)

But, according to the Calvinists here, 'all' doesn't mean 'all', 'world' does not mean 'world', 'none' doesn't mean 'none'.

Yup, just like the folk who insist that 'day' doesn't mean 'day', 'kind' doesn't mean 'kind', etc. etc.

It's like a cult in both cases: "You must depend on us for the correct interpretation, because the average person just can't understand God's Word on his or her own. We are the enlightened ones. We will explain it to you."

Bull.

Jesus called fishermen to be His disciples, and a despised tax collector. Time and time again He rebuked the intelligensia of His day for their lack of understanding the simple truth He was presenting.

I'll take the Bible the way it has been written. That world means world, and God so loved the world. That all means all, and Jesus' invitation is to all and not phrased as some trick thing. That God truly is not willing that one should perish but that all should come to repentance. That all things in heaven and on earth were reconciled to God because of Jesus' shed blood on the cross. That 'choose this day whom you will serve' has real meaning for the ages. That John was right when he said Jesus took away the sin of the world. Took away. All of it. Took it all on Himself.

Why do people still sin? Why did they ever sin --? After all, He is the Lamb slain FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. The efficacy of His work was for all time, but worked out IN time.

People sin because they have chosen themselves instead of God. But all justice for all time was satisfied in Jesus. All law for all time was fulfilled in Jesus.

That is my Jesus. He is God, and big enough for all of us for all time. It is what each of us chooses to do about that which makes the difference between heaven and hell for each of us for eternity.

 

[jc the baptist]

Originally posted by Helen:

I'm glad I can read for myself, things like "Come unto me, ALL ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."

and "he is not willing that one should perish"

I'll take the Bible the way it has been written. That world means world, and God so loved the world. That all means all, and Jesus' invitation is to all and not phrased as some trick thing. That God truly is not willing that one should perish but that all should come to repentance.

You are talking about the invitation of Christ, ok we'll discuss it...

The invitation is not for all mankind... the invitation is for the ELECT people of God only...

How come? As it is written: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (KJV)

You cite: "Come unto me, ALL ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."

Yup, I agree to that because it is written on the Bible, but it is very clear that the invitation to that verse is for the "Born Again"... how come... Born again is spiritually alive and recognize their labor and their heavy-laden while the non-born again are spiritually dead and doesnt recognize spiritual things...

... and only the sheep of God can recognize or hear the calling or voice of his Shepherd...no other than Jesus Christ...

I am not referring to the god of others that don't have any ABILITY or POWER to SAVE his people.. rather im referring to GOD, to the SOVEREIGN GOD of Moises, Jacob, and ....

 

[Helen]

You mean only the elect are those that labor and are heavy-laden?

I don't think so.

If predestination were a fact as Calvinism teaches it, then that invitation would never have to be given. The 'elect' would be His already whether they were laboring and heavy laden or not.

Another thing is your misconception of 'spiritually dead.' It does not mean spiritually unconscious, or hell would have no meaning at all. It means separated from God, in the same way that spiritually alive means an intimate knowing of God (John 17:3). In the same way that physically dead means separated from the body.

Those who are separated from God, and therefore classified as spiritually dead, are still quite capable of responding. If not, then Isaiah 1:18-20 would have no meaning whatsoever. Thousands followed Jesus, responding to Him, but not nearly all of them became His followers in the sense of being disciples.

All people can respond to good things, and all good things come from God.

 

[jc the baptist]

Originally posted by Helen:
You mean only the elect are those that labor and are heavy-laden?

I don't think so.

If predestination were a fact as Calvinism teaches it, then that invitation would never have to be given. The 'elect' would be His already whether they were laboring and heavy laden or not.

Another thing is your misconception of 'spiritually dead.' It does not mean spiritually unconscious, or hell would have no meaning at all. It means separated from God, in the same way that spiritually alive means an intimate knowing of God (John 17:3). In the same way that physically dead means separated from the body.

Those who are separated from God, and therefore classified as spiritually dead, are still quite capable of responding. If not, then Isaiah 1:18-20 would have no meaning whatsoever. Thousands followed Jesus, responding to Him, but not nearly all of them became His followers in the sense of being disciples.

All people can respond to good things, and all good things come from God.

Even Satan can do miracle...

Even the very elect can deceived... there are so many people who make good things but are not elected before the foundation of the world... Even Satan did many good things... Many will say to the Lord at the last day saying "My Lord, my Lord" and the Lord will say unto them, "I dont know who you are, doers of wicked things"... many people followed Jesus Christ not because of the spiritual things but because of blessings (foods, etc..)

They are not the sheep of the Lord Jesus Christ but they are goats... goats can act what the sheep does, but whatever they did, they cannot become the sheep of God...

 

[Ray Berrian]

jc the Baptist,

You said, 'Even the very elect can deceived'

Here you have made an error if you think you are teaching the people of God. Your phrase flies in the face of Matthew 24:24. Jesus said,

"The days of the Great Tribulation will shortened and 'if it were possible, the false prophets would deceive the very elect."

The elect are never deceived because of the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit [John 14:26 & I John 2:27].

Dr. Berrian

 

[4His_glory]

Helen you can not let your feelings dictate your theology, but rather the Scriptures. As has been shown over and over again men are sent to Hell because of their sins. To suggest that every ones sins have been paid for smacks of universalism.

The above quote is dangerous as it takes away the blame of not recieving Christ from the lost, and places it on the church, somthing that is very unbilical.

Not only that it sounds like God has failed in fullfilling the Great Commission. People don't believe because they are sinners and in bondage to their sin, blinded from the truth, not because some denomination, or chruch has "blurred" the issue.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So unless you can show me a law which says 'thou shalt believe', then unbelief is not a sin, for is it not disobedience to a law.

This continues to be an extremely inadequate doctrine of sin. It is not even orthodox. By your standard, Adam didn't sin because what he did is nowhere found to be prohibited in the Law. You have just singlehandedly destroyed the Scripture. But God calls Adam's act "sin," even though not found in teh Law, and God imputed that "sin" to all of humanity. So God disagrees with you, Helen, and He plainly says so.

God commands belief. That is the definition of righteousness and sin.

Nor is hell a punishment for sin or sins. If it were, Jesus' death meant nothing, for the wages of sin is death and, as I quoted from Hebrews, and you agreed, He tasted death for us all. You agreed to that verse.

I agreed to the verse, not to you understanding of it. Remember??? If hell is not a punishment for sin, then what is it? And why is it eternal torment? And what exactly did Christ save us from? Your conclusion that Jesus' death meant nothing has no basis either. That doesn't even make sense here.

Revelation 20, where people are judged according to what they had done, may be looked at in light of Jesus' own words in Matthew 25 -- "Inasmuch as you did not do it to the least of these my brethren, you did not to it to me." It is better to let Bible explain Bible...

So now sin is a social thing? Come on, Helen. You aren't that unorthodox and you certainly should be that uninformed. You seem to have never given this much though, in spite of all your talking on it.

In addition, Jesus also mentions that the deeds come from the attitudes of the heart, and it is with the heart one believes or does not believe. Actions are simply an outworking of that, ref. James.

Christ says the same thing. It is the heart that is sinful. And the actions that flow from that are sinful as well.

When you stated that hell exists because Jesus did not die for all sin,

Where did I state this? Please show me.

You are picking and choosing verses to try to support a doctrine that destroys the character of God and the accuracy of the Bible. I hope those who are reading this and considering the ideas of Calvinism will see that.

To the contrary. I am one of hte few here willing to deal with all Scripture. You aren't. You just dismissed Rev 20 by a fallacious allusion to Matthews 25 redefining sin as social apathy. You didn't even address Rev 21:8. You are picking and choosing verses from hebrews because you think they help you. (They don't.) And then you say we destroying teh character of God because we insist that God's truthfulness means teh Bible is true about hell, sin, and what hell is for, and we insist that his judgment means that he doesn't punish people for all eternity for something that isn't sin, and we insist that he didn't punish Christ for sin and then turn around and punish sinners for teh same sin.

It is you, Helen, who are slandering the character, justice, and truthfulness of God, it seems to me. You have yet to make a coherent theological argument here.

The fact that this was taught in the Adelaide Bible Institute is hardly convincing theological support. Some of hte most well known theological schools in the country teach false doctrine. The question is not "what institution teaches it," but "Does God word teach it?" Clearly, Helen, the ideas you have put forth here have no support in Scripture. They are easily refuted.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Larry;

This continues to be an extremely inadequate doctrine of sin. It is not even orthodox. By your standard, Adam didn't sin because what he did is nowhere found to be prohibited in the Law. You have just singlehandedly destroyed the Scripture. But God calls Adam's act "sin," even though not found in teh Law, and God imputed that "sin" to all of humanity. So God disagrees with you, Helen, and He plainly says so.

There you go again;

This is what I mean when I say you don't know what you're talking about. What Adam did was against the law of God. God told him no to even touch the tree. But he did, and that is sin. No where in scripture, are we ever told to believe as in a comandment, such as what was given to Adam. You're being dishonest again.
Even though we wind up in hell because we reject the truth of Christ. There isn't a law against it.

In The light Of Christ;
Mike

 

[Pastor Larry]

This is what I mean when I say you don't know what you're talking about.

There was never any doubt about what you meant when you said that, but you have never been able to prove it.

What Adam did was against the law of God.

I agree. ABut notice several things, which you should have seen before you responded. First, I made no reference to the law of God, but to the Law. In theology, Law with a capital L is used usually to refer to the Mosaic Law. So when you say that Adam disobeyed the law of God, he did. There is no dispute there. But he did not disobey the Law. The Law wasn't even in existence yet.

Secondly, But you need to follow the context of the conversation here. Helen quoted Rom 7 and referenced Rom 5 about sin and the Law. It is a rather long and technical argument for which this forum is not well suited, and for which I don't have time to get involved with. But in that context, the Law is the Mosaic Law, not merely a command of God. Therefore, Adam disobeyed God's command.

God told him no to even touch the tree.

Really? Where? Can you show us this?

No where in scripture, are we ever told to believe as in a comandment, such as what was given to Adam.

So when God says to "believe," and commands all men everywhere to "repent," that isn't a command of God? That is really wierd stuff.

Belief and repentance (which aer necessary for salvation) are commanded by God, as we have shown. Belief is a part of worship which is also commanded by God. To say that unbelief isn't sin is simply wrong.

This homespun theology you guys are spouting is a good case for a Catholic type of a teaching magesterium. However, my commitment to Scripture prevents me from going that route and leads me, for some strange reason, to keep entering these surreal conversations in hopes that people actually learn.

You're being dishonest again.

Let's close with this. Why do you keep making this charge and then fail to demonstrate it? If I am being dishonest, you can show where. When I made that charge against you, I clearly demonstrated it in irrefutable proof. You still are refusing to stand up like a man and deal with that. But every time you make the charge, you offer no evidence.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Larry;

I agree. ABut notice several things, which you should have seen before you responded. First, I made no reference to the law of God, but to the Law. In theology, Law with a capital L is used usually to refer to the Mosaic Law. So when you say that Adam disobeyed the law of God, he did. There is no dispute there. But he did not disobey the Law. The Law wasn't even in existence yet.

Of course it wasn't writen down how ever a comandment from God is the Law. Capitol "L" or not. The Mosaic Law hadn't been writen yet, but Cain was punished for killing his brother Able. The Law of God was writen on our hearts from the beginning. We are born with it in our hearts. It's plain old right from wrong always has been. It was only writen down so man would have no excuse. The Jews in there ignorance called it the Mosaic Law. Moses only brought it down from the mountain. He didn't write it, God Him Self did. It is not the law of Moses it is the comandments of God. God is the Lawgiver. Man only adds to it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally From ILUVLIGHT;
God told him no to even touch the tree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Larry's reply;

Really? Where? Can you show us this?

Yes I can heres your proof. I believe that makes you wrong;

Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

I just know you're going to say this says something else just to save face. However you are wrong yet again.

So when God says to "believe," and commands all men everywhere to "repent," that isn't a command of God? That is really wierd stuff.

Really? Where? Can you show us this?

Belief and repentance (which aer necessary for salvation) are commanded by God, as we have shown. Belief is a part of worship which is also commanded by God. To say that unbelief isn't sin is simply wrong.

"Belief and repentance are necessary for Salvation." Your sounding more like an anti Calvinist everyday Larry. You at least got the sequince right.

The rest you got backwards Larry. Unbelief is wrong, yet it isn't sin and we go to hell for it as well. By the way the statement directly above is a dishonest statement. You have never shown a comandment to believe. There is a difference between telling someone how to do something, and commanding them to do something.

However, my commitment to Scripture prevents me from going that route and leads me, for some strange reason, to keep entering these surreal conversations in hopes that people actually learn.

Maybe it's God trying to get you to absorb the truth instead of someone else's twisted idea of it.
The only thing I've learned from you Larry is how not to be like you. This includes Calvinism, which by the way is heresy and the direct denial of the truth of Scripture. As far as Catholicism You stand for it more than anyone I know. I mean you are for the reformation of the Catholic Church which in effect makes you a reformed Catholic.

Let's close with this. Why do you keep making this charge and then fail to demonstrate it? If I am being dishonest, you can show where. When I made that charge against you, I clearly demonstrated it in irrefutable proof.

No Sir you did not you only claimed to just like all your other claims they are all false.

You still are refusing to stand up like a man and deal with that. But every time you make the charge, you offer no evidence.

Not true Larry in our latest disscussion I proved you wrong with out a doubt. and the proof you brought was ficticious. The professor that wrote that garbage lied and you carried over here for him. Dave Hunt only gave his opinion of Spurgeon you turned it into a false charge of him lying. After reading the entire quote from Russel55 of Spurgeons entire statement It still said he could not accept atonement as being limited in any way. You owe Dave Hunt and me an appology for your false accusations. Yet you aren't man enough to stand up and admit you were wrong.

every time you make the charge, you offer no evidence.

Not true Larry. You just refuse to acknowledge the evidence. You dodge it and then claim falsely that I have no evidence. You are being dishonest again.
In The Light Of Christ
Mike

 

[HanSola2000]

Cass:

I rarely have time these days. I am still very behind with work, among other things. If you notice, my posts are short and few---its all I have time for, sigh. It'll change in about a month or so, but now, I do not have hours to post, but a few minutes, so I bash a heresy I hate more than the new version justifications--Calvinism.


Show me WHERE the Bible says Christ DID NOT die for the sins of the whole world. Go ahead, show where the Bible clearly, and unambiguously limits the atonement and the blood to the elect.

We all KNOW there are no such verses for the Bible teaches no such thing. It teaches our Lord atoned for, and died for the sins of all the world, all men, that He terasted deat "FOR EVERY MAN", etc. This jibberish about "limited" atonement is more Calvinistic LSD trips wherein the proponent sees things in Scripture not thtere, and cannot see what is there because of a dogged a prioiri committment to Calvinism.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Larry;
By the way Larry You're the one who started this dishonesty thing. If you don't like it then do as you would have others do unto you. Learn to be humble and helpful instead of accusiing and judgemental.
In the Light Of Christ;
Mike

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by HanSola2000:
Show me WHERE the Bible says Christ DID NOT die for the sins of the whole world.

Show me where the bible says that Christ did NOT die for snakes, and snails, and puppy dog tails.

I have posted at least a dozen verses that clearly say that Christ died for US, not for the damned. You just close your eyes and ignore the verses I post.

You see, Han, that is the difference between you and me. You CLAIM to believe the KJV is the word of God, but I am the one who believes every word of every verse. You just ignore the ones that make your Arminian heresy a lie straight from the pit of hell.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

T Cassidy;

have posted at least a dozen verses that clearly say that Christ died for US, not for the damned. You just close your eyes and ignore the verses I post.

Where'd you get'em from a reformed bible version maybe.
In The Light Of Christ;
Mike

 

[Ray Berrian]

I always was taught that the Devil did not want men and women to become saved. Now we have people who tell us that Jesus does not want most sinners. Do these people have the inner fortitude to enter the doors of the Lord's House--the House of Prayer? I would be afraid the Lord would split me down the center from the top of my head to the soles of my feet with a flaming bolt of His unquenchable light for these teachings that disgrace our God and my Savior.