How to defeat the EIREITAD heresy!

[James_Newman]

Read my post again. And read your question again.
Here is your question: What were they saved from?
My concise answer (with extended explanation) was simply this:
They were saved from the penalty of sin!

What sin? Apparently only some of them used to be sinners. The rest of them were already saved?

 

[DHK]

Now answer the one I asked days ago that no one cares to touch. Why did Davids child die even though his sins were forgiven?

David faced the chastisement of sin many times on this earth. That is one of those times. The death of his infant was part of God chastising David for his great sin against Him.
His sins were forgiven as far as salvation was concerned. David would never lose his salvation. Here is an important question for you (and especially Bro Bob who isn't a ME believer). If David had died before Nathan had a chance to reach him (i.e. before he repented) :
1. would he have gone to heaven (paradise)?
2. would he have been excluded from the kingdom? (still to come)

 

[DHK]

What sin? Apparently only some of them used to be sinners. The rest of them were already saved?

Read the first chapter of 1Corinthians. He was writing to the saints, the saved, believers. All of them were saved. They were saved and were saved from the penaly of all of their sins--past present and future. There is no sin that can imputed against the believer. He stands before God clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. As far as God is concerned when God looks down upon DHK he does not see DHK, he sees the righteousness of Jesus Christ. The sins of DHK have all been covered by the blood of Christ.

 

[Amy.G]

David faced the chastisement of sin many times on this earth. That is one of those times. The death of his infant was part of God chastising David for his great sin against Him.
His sins were forgiven as far as salvation was concerned. David would never lose his salvation. Here is an important question for you (and especially Bro Bob who isn't a ME believer). If David had died before Nathan had a chance to reach him (i.e. before he repented) :
1. would he have gone to heaven (paradise)?
2. would he have been excluded from the kingdom? (still to come)

This is probably going to make me sound Calvinistic :tongue3: but I think that God might not have let him die before he repented.

Don't do this :tonofbricks: to me!

Just a thought.

 

[James_Newman]

David faced the chastisement of sin many times on this earth. That is one of those times. The death of his infant was part of God chastising David for his great sin against Him.

So the death of his baby was a 'penalty for sin'.

His sins were forgiven as far as salvation was concerned. David would never lose his salvation.

I agree.

Here is an important question for you (and especially Bro Bob who isn't a ME believer). If David had died before Nathan had a chance to reach him (i.e. before he repented) :
1. would he have gone to heaven (paradise)?

every saved individual will be raised up on the last day. If David is saved, he will be raised up on the last day

2. would he have been excluded from the kingdom? (still to come)

In my opinion, yes. If he had not been confronted by Nathan and repented of his sin, and instead died in that state of unrepentant murder and adultery, he would not have been accepted into the kingdom.

 

[James_Newman]

Read the first chapter of 1Corinthians. He was writing to the saints, the saved, believers. All of them were saved. They were saved and were saved from the penaly of all of their sins--past present and future. There is no sin that can imputed against the believer. He stands before God clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. As far as God is concerned when God looks down upon DHK he does not see DHK, he sees the righteousness of Jesus Christ. The sins of DHK have all been covered by the blood of Christ.

I realize they were all saved, I just don't know what you think they were saved from if only some of them used to be sinners.
1 Corinthians 6:11
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

So the death of his baby was a 'penalty for sin'.

I agree.
every saved individual will be raised up on the last day. If David is saved, he will be raised up on the last day
In my opinion, yes. If he had not been confronted by Nathan and repented of his sin, and instead died in that state of unrepentant murder and adultery, he would not have been accepted into the kingdom.

I do not believe David will be raised up on the last day. I believe David was one of the many dead who were seen in the city after Christ's crucifixion.

I believe the saints before the cross are going to be the guests at the marriage supper of the Lamb. The saints after the cross (the Church) will be the Bride.

 

[Rufus_1611]

You need to read what I have been posting on the other thread--questions that J.Jump and Lacy are not able to answer.

I'm only keeping up with a couple of the many threads on this topic that have been opened and it is difficult to sift through the chaff to get to the wheat of real dialogue.

Who put you in the place of God to judge other men's hearts?

I'm not judging other men's hearts. I'm judging deeds that God says will keep men from inheriting His kingdom. Further, it should not take a spiritual genius to recognize that one who commits adultery has adultery in his heart. It's the Pharisees that are difficult to identify, not the ones who place their sins before all to see.

How do you know who is saved and who is not?

If someone confesses that Jesus Christ is their saviour, then I can only trust that they are being truthful. I am further encouraged when they can make the 1 John 4:2 confession.

What is a carnal Christian (1Cor.3:1-3)? Does your theology leave room for one?

A carnal Christian is one who confesses Christ but is still living in the world, a carnal Christian is a babe in Christ. You have carnal Christians being sanctified. Sanctification occurs as the carnal mature.

Which sins do pick and choose will send a person to a thousand years of ME?

The ones the Holy Bible says will keep people from inheriting the kingdom.

From 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

• fornication
• idolatry
• adultery
• effeminate
• abusers of themselves with mankind
• thieves
• covetous
• drunkards
• revilers
• extortioners

From Galatians 5:21

• envyings
• murders
• drunkenness
• revellings
• such like

From Ephesians 5:5

• whoremongerers
• unclean person
• covetous man
• idolaters

Jesus condemned the omission of Justice, mercy and faith more than he condemned the sin of adultery which he freely forgave? How do you account for that in your system of works and condemnation?

"From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." - Matthew 4:17​

"But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy." - 1 Peter 1:15-16​

In the example above you have inferred judgement (by your question), when the judgement is left up to God. Only God knows the heart.

It's a wicked heart that does wicked deeds.

What would you have said if a man offered his two virgin daughters to a crowd of homosexuals to be abused by them all night. A few nights later he got drunk and fell into incest with those same daughters and they conceived two illegitimate sons.

I would say you're perhaps not representing Lot fairly. He was wrong to offer his daughters but he was never faced with executing his offer. The sin of drunkenness and the sin of incest was upon his daughters. The daughters, "made their father drink wine" and "he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose." Will you please elaborate on your point of bringing up Lot?

The man's name was Lot. And he is called just and righteous in the sight of God. In other words, he was a Christian.

I do not deny that he was a Christian.

 

[Hope of Glory]

All sins are condemned by God: a little white lie just as much as adultery; for sin is a transgression against the law (1John 3:4)

I can't believe that you would take that verse so out of context! (See, I can do it just like you can!)

It says the sin is lawlessness. The sin. Single. It's talking about something specific. What is lawlessness?

 

[Hope of Glory]

And those sins are covered by the blood.

And what happens if you don't access the blood by confessing?

 

[Hope of Glory]

baseless, without Scriptural foundation, and that you have no answers for it.

Yeah! You disagree with (insert name of poster), so you're obviously deluded! Never mind what the Bible says! You didn't give the answer I wanted, so you didn't give an answer!

 

[Amy.G]

I can't believe that you would take that verse so out of context! (See, I can do it just like you can!)

It says the sin is lawlessness. The sin. Single. It's talking about something specific. What is lawlessness?

1 John 3
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

What are you talking about, "the sin"?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Answer the question: Why did Jesus die?

He died that all might be saved.

There, I answered. Now, it's your turn:

Why and for whom was his blood shed?

 

[Amy.G]

Why and for whom was his blood shed?

It must have been for all those Jews who were already saved.

 

[Lacy Evans]

It must have been for all those Jews who were already saved.

Some of the ones from Corinth!

 

[Hope of Glory]

What are you talking about, "the sin"?

Aw, c'mon, Amy! One of your own was even discussing "the sin" in this very passage, about a week ago.

It's posted, discussed, and Amy of course comes out with "why don't you post some scripture?" type of statement.

The verse has the definite article; it's talking about one specific sin, not a general sort of "well, I done did wrong, Jimmy Joe".

So, what is lawlessness?

And why won't you answer my question?!? Who was the blood shed for?

 

[Amy.G]

Aw, c'mon, Amy! One of your own was even discussing "the sin" in this very passage, about a week ago.

It's posted, discussed, and Amy of course comes out with "why don't you post some scripture?" type of statement.

The verse has the definite article; it's talking about one specific sin, not a general sort of "well, I done did wrong, Jimmy Joe".

So, what is lawlessness?

And why won't you answer my question?!? Who was the blood shed for?

Matthew 26
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[DHK]

So the death of his baby was a 'penalty for sin'.

More accurately it was God chastixing him for his sin on this earth, just as a father chastises or disciplines his own child. It has no bearing on his salvation.

In my opinion, yes. If he had not been confronted by Nathan and repented of his sin, and instead died in that state of unrepentant murder and adultery, he would not have been accepted into the kingdom.

This is how far off ME doctrine is. The Kingdom was David's whether he would have suddenly died of a heart attack or not. It was Christ who take David's throne. Remember: "Christ the son of David" But yet you would say: "Christ the son of a pagan (as is every unsaved man). That is blasphemy and a blasphemous doctrine. Whether or not David repented would have no bearing on him entering into the Kingdom. God had promised it to him, and does not lie.

 

[Lacy Evans]

This is how far off ME doctrine is. The Kingdom was David's whether he would have suddenly died of a heart attack or not. It was Christ who take David's throne. Remember: "Christ the son of David" But yet you would say: "Christ the son of a pagan (as is every unsaved man). That is blasphemy and a blasphemous doctrine. Whether or not David repented would have no bearing on him entering into the Kingdom. God had promised it to him, and does not lie.

huh?

"Yet you would say Christ the son of a pagan"? What in the world are you talking about and how did you reach such a conclusion about what James would say?

Why do you all collectively insist on telling us what we believe? is it a new debate tactic? Do you PM one another and say, "Let's just mess with them"? Man it's irritating. We spend half of our bandwidth explaining that we never said what you guys say we said and that we don't believe what you all say we believe.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Matthew 26
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

If he died for all, who are the many?