Explaining Jn 3:18

[savedbymercy]

dhk

Your link doesn't prove anything

Maybe it does not for you, thats not problem. It proves I have a scriptural basis for what I believe and witness to, it does not matter if you or anyone else disagree.

 

[savedbymercy]

No one Christ died for owes any debt for sin against God's Law, That goes for Believer and Non Believer, even though they shall become a Believer in God's Time, before they die or before the second Coming. For Christ has paid the sin debt to God's Law and Justice for everyone He died for. In light of that, they can never be condemned or under any legal condemnation unless the Cross Work of Christ becomes of Non Effect with God !

Those Christ died for are not condemned while they are enemies by nature like other men ! Why ? Because while they are being enemies, They have been reconciled [put into favor] to God, How ? Was it by their believing, or repentance ? No, it was by the Death of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Rom 5:10

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Their old adamic nature, could not prevent their reconciliation to God[Objectively] by Christ Death or Blood. No one can refute this Truth, they may deny it, but it cannot be refuted !

 

[DHK]

dhk



Maybe it does not for you, thats not problem. It proves I have a scriptural basis for what I believe and witness to, it does not matter if you or anyone else disagree.

There is no Scriptural basis for saying that TULIP is the gospel--none.
I don't care what you post or how many links you give. That one is heresy.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: God placed a forbidden fruit at the reach of Adam and gave Adam a command and a free-will choice to obey or sin. However, God knew in advance that Adam would indeed choose to sin if He gave Adam the chance.

HP: What does God's foreknowledge of what might happen have anything to do with the outcome? Free will indicates being a first cause of ones intents and subsequent actions. Either the will is free or it is not. If man is not the first cause of intents and subsequent actions, the will is NOT free but under necessity. Which is it Steaver? If you desire to be seen as outside the fold of Calvinism, it would be a great advantage for you to distance yourself from a system of necessity, which Calvinism is indeed.

So far the 'choice' doctrine I see you holding is a mere chimera, and no choice at all.

 

[savedbymercy]

dhk

There is no Scriptural basis for saying that TULIP is the gospel--none.

Thats your opinion, and I proved that it was ! You making it out to be just a mans opinion name calvin is not going to help you !

Also, even a Baptist Preacher shared the same conviction that Tulip is the Gospel !

I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross. (Charles Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ole Charles certainly missed her there. :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

dhk

Thats your opinion, and I proved that it was ! You making it out to be just a mans opinion name calvin is not going to help you !

Also, even a Baptist Preacher shared the same conviction that Tulip is the Gospel !

Spurgeon's opinion doesn't make it right.
You have proved nothing. It is heretical to say that TULIP is the gospel. That is not Scriptural. TULIP is not found in the Bible. You are being divisive and I believe purposely so. You need to stop this. Inadvertently you are simply saying that perhaps more than 50% of the members of this board are not saved! We don't need those godless accusations thrown around here.

 

[DHK]

I really love this quote:

R. T. Kendall states that Calvin disagreed with his predecessors on two points. Firstly, that Calvin believed that Christ died to atone for the sins of the whole world, meaning every individual person in the world, not just the elect. He bases this belief on statements which Calvin made in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, in his commentaries on the Bible and in various other works. For instance, in the treatise On The Eternal Predestination of God, Calvin wrote: "It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins 'of the whole world.'"[5]).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Calvinist-Arminian_debate

 

[savedbymercy]

dhk

Spurgeon's opinion doesn't make it right.

I knew you would say that. I just showed you that quote so you would know that this opinion was not just held by me alone.

Plus I showed you Jesus's words !

 

[DHK]

dhk



I knew you would say that. I just showed you that quote so you would know that this opinion was not just held by me alone.

Plus I showed you Jesus's words !

Jesus said: "go and do thou likewise." What did he say it in reference to?
Judas hanging himself??
You do a lot of proof-texting; taking Scripture out of context.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Much of what SBM says is the direct results, NOT of Scripture, but rather the product of the Calvinistic philosophical position of the atonement. He views it as a forensic proceeding and not as the governmental substitution it was. The notion that he derives his position from Scripture alone is simply not the case. False philosophy drives every point of TULIP, including but not limited to total depravity as understood by the Calvinist and those leaning hard towards Calvinism.

 

[steaver]

HP: What does God's foreknowledge of what might happen have anything to do with the outcome? Free will indicates being a first cause of ones intents and subsequent actions. Either the will is free or it is not. If man is not the first cause of intents and subsequent actions, the will is NOT free but under necessity. Which is it Steaver? If you desire to be seen as outside the fold of Calvinism, it would be a great advantage for you to distance yourself from a system of necessity, which Calvinism is indeed.

So far the 'choice' doctrine I see you holding is a mere chimera, and no choice at all.

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jer 1:5)"

Which is it HP? Did Jeremiah free will choose to be sanctified and ordained a prophet or did God cause Jeremiah to be sanctified and ordained a prophet?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Because God foreknew what would happen, it is no sign the prophet's will was not involved in the outcome. I believe God can foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as those of necessity. If God held the prophet morally accountable, his will was indeed involved in doing what he did.

God can do whatever He so desires, but if it is by necessity or coercion that man does something, God will not hold man accountable for any such outcome. I personally believe Jeremiah was indeed involved in choosing to follow the Lord's requests.

God chose and ordained others that in the end rejected God's calling and ordination. Saul was one such man.

 

[steaver]

Because God foreknew what would happen, it is no sign the prophet's will was not involved in the outcome. I believe God can foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as those of necessity. If God held the prophet morally accountable, his will was indeed involved in doing what he did.

God can do whatever He so desires, but if it is by necessity or coercion that man does something, God will not hold man accountable for any such outcome. I personally believe Jeremiah was indeed involved in choosing to follow the Lord's requests.

God chose and ordained others that in the end rejected God's calling and ordination. Saul was one such man.

You can take foreknowledge out of the equasion. The scripture is clear, God sanctified and ordained Jeremiah before he was born. It is written, and cannot be changed. Free will in this case would then be an agent that could overturn God's Word on this matter, that cannot be.

Saul's testimony has nothing to do with this matter of Jeremiah and God declaring him sanctified and ordained before he was born.

I dont believe you have satisfied your delimma. Jerimiah is just one of dozens of examples where God caused a person to be or do something. Foreknowledge does not make God's declarations of cause go away for you. You have to deal with it. What has happened with you is that you despise Calvinism so much that all you can see is free will and do not deal with those scriptures that clearly declare God's Providence in the lives of individuals. You need to have an answer for both, freewill has it's place but you have to deal with the element of God causing as well.

Think about it, :wavey:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

But Steaver, God does not say He 'causes' it. You are reading that into the text. You assume without proof that because He foreknows it must of necessity come to pass. I again say, God can foreknow matters of perfect choice. I know full well that is beyond our abilities as humans, but I thought God's ways were higher than our ways, and His foreknowledge possessing capabilities we do not have.:thumbs:

 

[steaver]

"And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.(Exod 4:21)"

You have to deal with the fact that freewill is not always allowed with God. You are so passionate about defending freewill that you totally ignore the Providence of God and HIs power to give and take freewill at his WILL.

 

[steaver]

Your always calling me out on this cause verses freewill subject. You demand that if one says anything at all about God causing a person to do something , then they are a Calvinist.

There is both declared in the scriptures, freewill and God caused. Dont you see this?

 

[savedbymercy]

It canceled our legal liability to the Law of God !


Folks, at the Great White Throne, those who are going to hell to perish for their sins, is because of their sins against God's Law, for the strength of sin is the Law 1 Cor 15:56

56The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

Col 2:14

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Paul here teaches that Christ by His Cross, has canceled His People's legal liability [God's Law] having erased the written code, with its regulations, that were against us, opposed to us, He took them away [Jn 1:29] nailing it to His Cross.

Now any teaching that states that in any way, that those whom Christ died for, that is His cross work on their behalf, that if any of them are legally condemned for their sins, thats a false teaching and opposes the work of Christ. Those who in light of such a scripture as this one Col 2:14, still believe that those whom Christ died for are still at any time in their lives condemned by God for their sins in the flesh, they are rejecting the clear implications of the Saving Work and Accomplishment of Christ, these will therefore by their profession become enemies to the cause of Christ.

 

[DHK]

It canceled our legal liability to the Law of God !


Folks, at the Great White Throne, those who are going to hell to perish for their sins, is because of their sins against God's Law, for the strength of sin is the Law 1 Cor 15:56

56The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

Col 2:14

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Paul here teaches that Christ by His Cross, has canceled His People's legal liability [God's Law] having erased the written code, with its regulations, that were against us, opposed to us, He took them away [Jn 1:29] nailing it to His Cross.

Now any teaching that states that in any way, that those whom Christ died for, that is His cross work on their behalf, that if any of them are legally condemned for their sins, thats a false teaching and opposes the work of Christ. Those who in light of such a scripture as this one Col 2:14, still believe that those whom Christ died for are still at any time in their lives condemned by God for their sins in the flesh, they are rejecting the clear implications of the Saving Work and Accomplishment of Christ, these will therefore by their profession become enemies to the cause of Christ.

Not entirely true.
(Joh 3:18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

(Joh 3:36) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

They will go to hell because, of their own free will, they chose not to believe on Christ.

 

[steaver]

Not entirely true.
(Joh 3:18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

(Joh 3:36) He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

They will go to hell because, of their own free will, they chose not to believe on Christ.

Amen!

Jesus said He died for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD. What is left is believe or unbelief. The sin of unbelief is the onlly sin that will not be forgiven, this according to Jesus.