The eternal purpose of Christ pt2

[Iconoclast]

You are grasping at straws; blowing in the wind. You have nothing to stand on.
Every point I have given, I have given a reason for my belief, and dispensationalism (in this thread) has not been one of them. So you are just making up excuses for your own inability to answer an intelligent post, as well as throwing around baseless accusations.
I have given my reasons even in my own posts: context, context, context.
As well as: poetry, figures of speech, etc. If you want to call me a liar, go ahead and do so, but I have not attributed anything to dispensationalism. You make things up because you are unable to refute a post. Incredible!!

Notice I did not call you a liar here I addressed what you were posting .
I only call you a liar and say you bear false witness when you twist my words .


Those times when you invent what you thought we were going to say or you speculate about oh you meant this ,or that and we never said it.
You say this is what you infer when in fact we didn't do any such thing.

Again take a poll.....who is with you on these issues......nobody.:laugh:

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by DHK

(Isn't it a wonderful truth.
God made all the world guilty before him, that all the world might see their guiltiness. In so doing all the world would see their need for a Savior. Jesus died for all the world. His will is that all the world would be saved. The only reason that all the world is not saved is because much of the world refuses the Savior's offer of salvation, for salvation is of faith.

Amen.

"He is not WILLING that ANY should perish - but rather that ALL should come to repentance" 2Peter 3

"He is the atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" 1 John 2:2

And yet

"He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1:11

Free will being what it is. Some accept the Gospel and others cling to their sin rather than choose life.

)

No it is once again wrong...denying the effects of the fall..it is man centered and as such is to be rejected.:thumbsup:

That is an oxymoron to claim that admitting to our sinful state and need of the Gospel is to be munged into "denying the effects of the fall".

Making stuff up will not last long under the light of scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

)

Look at your last twenty posts here......you suggest the scripture of the ot is not for us..

You suggest the OT. God is somehow different than the NT. GOD.

You suggest the God given scripture in the OT prophets taught differently than Jesus and Tha apostles in the NT....

THE THREAD is not really about that....but it is sad to see how much you do this and are not concerned about how you fragment the message.

Then off course you accuse me and others of error not knowing the scriptures and yet it looks like everyone not going by the NAME DHK. ....does not agree at all.

I don't understand this.

Why would the Arminian position need to toss out 39 books from the 66 books of scripture??

Why are you saying that?

 

[BobRyan]

And... God died for nothing.

God should have "put it on Lucifer" to not rebel - no matter what his choice - and save Himself the loss of 1/3 of the angels.

And failing that - God should have "put it on Eve" to not bite - no matter what her choice -- and save Himself the death of God the Son on the cross, and the loss of the majority of this planet.

If God's "choice" of government was to be king over "pre-programmed bots" then placing that "correction" on the thought cycles - early and often - would have saved us all a lot of grief - including himself.

Rather what we see is "High cost" being "paid" even by God in the form of the torture and death of His own Son - to promote, sustain - maintain a universe of free will choice - the system He sovereignly chose - and then PAID dearly to continue with it - no matter what.

in Christ,

Bob

And of course -- Paul as SAUL was pretty wicked.... Yet Christ died for him as well.

 

[savedbymercy]

Tell the truth now. Don't lie.
Were you or were you not, at one time in your life, "a worker of iniquity?"
Yes or no. Just answer the question.

This verse is talking about who God hates, your question is a evasion tactic! Ps 5:5 ! Does God hate the workers of Iniquity? Yes or No?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Tell the truth now. Don't lie.
Were you or were you not, at one time in your life, "a worker of iniquity?"
Yes or no. Just answer the question.

I will answer this for him, and he can, too, if he so chooses.


Yes. I was once a worker of iniquity. Yes I still sin. Yes I am a sinner saved by grace. Yes as a sinner God loved me. Why? My sins were given to the Lamb of the Most High, and He bore my sins and suffered in my stead. I repent of my sins daily. I grieve that I sin daily. Everything Christ did He did it for me.


He lived in my stead. Died in my stead. Rose from the grave for me. Ascended to the Father for me. And is coming back for me. :thumbsup:

 

[BobRyan]

I will answer this for him, and he can, too, if he so chooses.


Yes. I was once a worker of iniquity. Yes I still sin. Yes I am a sinner saved by grace. Yes as a sinner God loved me. Why? My sins were given to the Lamb of the Most High, and He bore my sins and suffered in my stead. I repent of my sins daily. I grieve that I sin daily. Everything Christ did He did it for me.


He lived in my stead. Died in my stead. Rose from the grave for me. Ascended to the Father for me. And is coming back for me. :thumbsup:

So then God loved you while you were yet a sinner, the wicked person that you were - yet God loved you , "drew you to Christ" John 12:32 - "God so Loved the WORLD that He gave..." yes really.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[SovereignGrace]

Do you hate your mother and father, your brothers and sisters?
If not you are not following the commands of Christ are you?

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
--What kind of Christian are you if you don't have hate?
That sounds really good to the unsaved doesn't it? Go ahead and spread your religion of hate, without trying to explain what is really behind the meaning of these words!

Did God hate Esau. No. He loved him.

As in Luke 14:26, "hate" is used relative to love, meaning to love less.
If you read all the accounts concerning Esau, you will find God's love.
But as usual the Calvinist jumps to unwarranted conclusions. It is pity.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

26. and hate not his father and mother] It is not so much the true explanation to say that hate here means love less (Genesis 29:31), as to say that when our nearest and dearest relationships prove to be positive obstacles in coming to Christ, then all natural affections must be flung aside; comp. Deuteronomy 13:6-9; Deu 21:19-21; Deu 33:8-9. A reference to Matthew 10:37 will shew that ‘hate’ means hate by comparison. Our Lord purposely stated great principles in their boldest and even most paradoxical form by which He alone has succeeded in impressing them for ever as principles on the hearts of His disciples. The ‘love of love’ involves a necessity for the possible ‘hate of hate,’ as even worldly poets have understood.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/14-26.htm

John Gill

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me
Not in a corporeal, but in a spiritual way; nor barely to hear him preach; but so come, as that he believes in him, applies to him for grace, pardon, righteousness, life, and salvation; professes to be his, submits to his ordinances, and desires to be a disciple of his;

and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and
brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my
disciple:
not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first principles of nature, to all humanity, to the light of nature, to reason and divine revelation: but that these are not to be preferred to Christ, or loved more than he, as it is explained in ( Matthew 10:37 ) yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service: such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples. The Ethiopic version inserts, "his house", into the account.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/luke-14-26.html


As you always say, context, context, context. Who is Jesus speaking to here? Jews. These Jews, if they were to follow Christ, will suffer backlash of following Him, seeing that most rejected Him being their Messiah. They would have to leave their families behind, because they could not serve Him and still remain in their Jewish customs. They would have to choose Him over them.

 

[SovereignGrace]

So then God loved you while you were yet a sinner, the wicked person that you were - yet God loved you , "drew you to Christ" John 12:32 - "God so Loved the WORLD that He gave..." yes really.

in Christ,

Bob

Okay. If someone died 2 days after Christ died, and He had not yet risen, did He draw Him? What about those in hell? Did Christ draw them? Remember, 'all means all'!!

 

[SovereignGrace]

DHK,


You never answered this question...


Was God angry with Satan and his minions when they rebelled?

 

[Rippon]

(YLT) God is a righteous judge, And He is not angry at all times.

DKK :"One of the most dangerous things a person can do is to place his theology in an opinioned translation of the Bible. This is one man's opinion of how the Bible should be translated. It is not inspired. He is fallible. To stake your doctrine on this one man's translation is foolish." (12/10/2012)

God is not an angry God. The Bible does not say that.

But the Word of God does not picture God as an angry God.

He is not an angry God.

It doesn't say God is angry.

God is angry with you for repeating the same old untruth about him DHK.

The Bible clearly tells us that God is angry. It is not his sole quality --but it is a biblical fact. For you to compare His anger with that of a human is faulty. Human anger is normally sinful --though there is a place for righteous anger.

God does not "lose control" as you put it. He is always in control. As a matter of fact --He is sovereign over everything and everyone.

The Scriptures tell us that God is a jealous God. Are you going to also claim that He is not a jealous God?

Your understanding of God is too finite and unbiblical.

You think God's election is at random.

You think God's love is equally spread out over everyone.

You think all people are not depraved.

You think all people are drawn to the Lord.

You think that all people have faith.

You think that someone comes to a saving faith that it is all of their own doing --because of their keen perception, intelligence and ability although the Holy Spirit may have been a witness to it.

You think God doesn't give anyone saving faith.

You think a person without the Spirit of God is a Christian.

I could go on and on.

Do you actually think DHK? You need to submit yourself to the actual authority of the Word of God.

 

[DHK]

DHK,


You never answered this question...


Was God angry with Satan and his minions when they rebelled?

No, I don't believe "anger" is the correct word.
There are many anthropomorphisms and thus anthropomorphic language in the Bible to help us better understand God. Christ as the Lamb of God is obviously one of them. Have you ever seen an "angry lamb"? It is not in God's nature to be angry. I have already given you an illustration how God treats his children. God doesn't deal with his creation in anger.
The proper language would be righteous indignation, and even that is strong.
God could cast out the Satan and his demons without any emotion at all. God is not subject to emotions.

The entire subject of emotions and God is an interesting topic.

 

[DHK]

DKK :"One of the most dangerous things a person can do is to place his theology in an opinioned translation of the Bible. This is one man's opinion of how the Bible should be translated. It is not inspired. He is fallible. To stake your doctrine on this one man's translation is foolish." (12/10/2012)

The same can be said about the KJV. The KJV is in the minority in its translation, and in fact admits that the words "with the wicked" are not in the text by putting them in italics. But how many pages are we into this thread now, and that still is being ignored. God is not angry with the wicked every day, because there are no wicked (in that verse) to be angry with. It just isn't there. Look at your KJV. These words are added it. They are italics. You are the one leaning on only one fallible translation, not me.

God is angry with you for repeating the same old untruth about him DHK.

You are being blind to the truth. Read Psalm 7:11 in the hardcopy of your KJV.
Now look at the ESV and the Geneva. They not only disagree with the KJV they disagree with each other offering two more perspectives on the verse:

(ESV) God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day.

(Geneva) God iudgeth the righteous, and him that contemneth God euery day.

Either way you look at it, it does not say "God is angry with the wicked."

The Bible clearly tells us that God is angry. It is not his sole quality --but it is a biblical fact. For you to compare His anger with that of a human is faulty. Human anger is normally sinful --though there is a place for righteous anger.

No one here has taken the time to define anger as "righteous anger." When left undefined anger takes on a meaning by itself which is not a quality of God, not in today's vocabulary.

God does not "lose control" as you put it. He is always in control. As a matter of fact --He is sovereign over everything and everyone.

As I have been saying we no longer use a language that is 400 years old.
The modern day meaning of "anger" is one out of control. Today, if he is in control he is not angry. He may be indignant, but not angry. Words have meanings and for the sake of others we need to be careful how we describe God.

The Scriptures tell us that God is a jealous God. Are you going to also claim that He is not a jealous God?

In the same way that I am jealous of my wife, yes. He is protective.

Your understanding of God is too finite and unbiblical.

You think God's election is at random.

You think God's love is equally spread out over everyone.

You think all people are not depraved.

You think all people are drawn to the Lord.

You think that all people have faith.

You think that someone comes to a saving faith that it is all of their own doing --because of their keen perception, intelligence and ability although the Holy Spirit may have been a witness to it.

You think God doesn't give anyone saving faith.

You think a person without the Spirit of God is a Christian.

Do you actually think DHK? You need to submit yourself to the actual authority of the Word of God.

You can think all you want, but the truth is that you don't even attempt to.
You have rattled off a number of untruths without thinking; just brainless statements deliberately made to slander someone else. Was that your stated purpose? Why are you even here?

 

[Iconoclast]

in 1jn 2:2.......the sins of......are also in italics....does not stop you from using that verse.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Here is the thing, DHK, you are all over the place. I can not peg where you are coming from.

You say you are a literalist, and that 1,000 years means 1,000 years, and then when the word 'hate' comes up, it is not really 'hate.'


You say 'everybody has faith' and then stated that God saw those who would choose Him(have faith in other words) and chose them and those who would not choose Him(not have faith in other words) and freely damned them.


You stated God is omnipotent(and He is :thumbsup: ) and then say He can not save someone who refuses Him.


You stated the book of Acts is a book of transition(and it is) and that one should not take doctrine from it(paraphrasing here, so if this is not exactly what you have stated in the past, please forgive me) and then turned around and used Acts 10 in your attempted refutation of our understanding of regeneration.


You say that God loves everybody and then turns around and throws the unrepentant sinners in a red hot kiln.

 

[Rebel]

I will answer this for him, and he can, too, if he so chooses.


Yes. I was once a worker of iniquity. Yes I still sin. Yes I am a sinner saved by grace. Yes as a sinner God loved me. Why? My sins were given to the Lamb of the Most High, and He bore my sins and suffered in my stead. I repent of my sins daily. I grieve that I sin daily. Everything Christ did He did it for me.


He lived in my stead. Died in my stead. Rose from the grave for me. Ascended to the Father for me. And is coming back for me. :thumbsup:

Died in your stead? Really? Then you should expect not to have to die, if that is the case -- but it is not.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Died in your stead?

Yes.

Really?

Really.

Then you should expect not to have to die, if that is the case -- but it is not.

I am not going to die, mon ami. I am going to live forever. :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

Here is the thing, DHK, you are all over the place. I can not peg where you are coming from.

You say you are a literalist, and that 1,000 years means 1,000 years, and then when the word 'hate' comes up, it is not really 'hate.'

God is love. It is evident in Luke 14:26 that when Christ commands his own disciples to hate their parents and brothers and sisters, that he is not telling them to literally hate them. It is a comparison of degrees. One's love for Christ should be so great that the love for the family would seem as hate in comparison. IOW, the meaning is simply "love less."
There is more than one meaning to a word. Context often gives that meaning. That is what I keep repeating. What is the definition? Look at the context! Why do you guys keep ignoring context??

You say 'everybody has faith' and then stated that God saw those who would choose Him(have faith in other words) and chose them and those who would not choose Him(not have faith in other words) and freely damned them.

Of course everyone has faith; even demons have faith. The Bible states as much. But not all faith with save. It is the object of "faith" that saves. The object of one's faith must be Christ. He is the only one who can be saved.

I simply stated what the Bible said; the very words of Christ, and astoundingly, the Calvinists here reject the words of Christ!!

Here they are again:
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

--I didn't write those words: Christ said them!
Do you believe them?
The basis of one's salvation is their faith; the basis of their condemnation is their unbelief. It is that simple. Those are the words of Christ. You either believe him or not.
What part of that verse do you need me to explain to you?

You stated God is omnipotent(and He is :thumbsup: ) and then say He can not save someone who refuses Him.

You like to play your word games.
Can he also create a rock so big he cannot lift? If he can't he is not omnipotent is he? These are the word games you are playing--the same basic word games that atheists play. Sad!

Yes, God is omnipotent.
Yes, God can save all and everyone.
However, God will save, as he promised, all who come to him; all who believe on his son. He has said that in his word over and over again. Even a verse so simple and common as John 3:16 teaches this very simple truth.

Again I ask you, what is so difficult about this verse that you need further explanation on:
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

You stated the book of Acts is a book of transition(and it is) and that one should not take doctrine from it(paraphrasing here, so if this is not exactly what you have stated in the past, please forgive me) and then turned around and used Acts 10 in your attempted refutation of our understanding of regeneration.

The doctrine of regeneration has never changed, especially since Pentecost.
The Book of Acts is a history of the acts of the Apostles. It is a transition period for the nature of the churches, for the decline of spiritual gifts, etc. Salvation for the NT believer from Acts 2 onward has never changed.

What Peter preached in the house of Cornelius:
Act 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
--is the same message that we preach today. It was under that message that Cornelius got regenerated/saved. That is what the account says.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
--The expression "heard the word" is the same expression used in Acts 2:41:
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
--They received the word and were saved.

You say that God loves everybody and then turns around and throws the unrepentant sinners in a red hot kiln.

This is the ridiculous way that you portray God--angry, mad, out of control--and the world sits back and laughs. Who will believe in a God like this they ask themselves. Not me. That is not my God. You have a very disturbed view of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

PreachTony

If you hadn't noticed, I've kind of pulled away from this discussion.

I noticed when I asked you for your view of election you could not produce it.
I notice that when you are questioned you drift away and do not answer what you were asked...but you change what you were asked.

I've done so mainly because I'm getting the impression that it's okay for Calvinists to string together various scriptures, regardless of context, but the moment a non-Cal does this it's "all hands on deck" to take down the non-Cal.

again....it is not about your impressions....you claim you want scripture I give you the catechism and the confession loaded with scripture you object.

You think you're going to win some cheap victory

I am not here to win "some cheap victory".

by providing one paragraph with multiple uses of a single word, as though that proves your point beyond a doubt

.

It does prove the point.....you could not give one definition.....you could not, none of your like minded friends could......so your complaining about the word world, or all are moot.

When I responded that you could have, should you have wanted, provided a much clear paragraph, you claimed you didn't need an English lesson, as though that won that little battle for your side.

That was not the point of discussion....you were asked directly about the word back....not several different words. You sought to avoid the word because any answer you offered would be fruitless.....and it was. You never answered it.:thumbsup:

God is not the author of confusion, and His word is clear

.

yes ...but this has nothing to do with the points being discussed.

Yet your side acts as though man cannot take scripture at face value, but instead must piece together disparate scriptures from the old and new in order to get the notion of what one verse in the new means.

The whole bible old /new gives us truth. It is not a poem that you give whatever meaning you feel or have an impression about.

As for anger at sin, I guess you're just completely ignoring the point I was making about the priest and the sacrificial lamb. You didn't answer the question I posed, as to if the priest was angry at the lamb.

Your point made no sense.

Instead, you referenced the flood. Look, I'm not going to act like God never shows His wrath. God is love. God is also vengeful, jealous, and a perfect judge. No, God didn't have Noah paint happy words on the Ark.

But remember what Jesus said when people acted as though others were worse sinners simply because calamity befell them. The Galileans and those on whom the tower in Siloam fell were not worse sinners, as Jesus proclaimed.

This does not address the issue.

Rain falls on the just and the unjust. When tornadoes hit the midwest, do you think they only hit the houses of the unrepentant? Do you think only unsaved sinners died in the floods after Hurricane Katrina? Do you think the people who lived before the flood were that much worse than we are now? God's never going to destroy the whole earth with water, as He did then. The destruction awaiting those in the post-flood generations is reserved to fire and fervent heat.

I do not follow your point as no one has said these things?

As for election...you're coming at this topic from the Calvinist side and I'm coming from the non-Cal side

.

I did not ask you that...I did not ask whose side......I asked for you to give your view...I asked for you to answer directly and you never have...even now you still did not...Frankly I doubt you have a view of it.

I doubt either of us can provide a definition the other will ever hold to

.

I did not ask you that...can you stick to the question?

here is what I asked you in post 13;

PT posted;

Quote:
I'm not going to lie to you Icon.
I think the doctrine of Election as described by Calvinism is deplorable.

1]Okay...stop right here.....Give your definition or understanding of election right now... forget for one minute there are Calvinists...someone comes up to you in Publix and says PT...I have been reading my bible...what does eph 1 mean by election?

Give me your definition.....then give me ...what you think Calvinism says...in the words of actual Calvinists

You have not answered this......

Your side states that God has already chose out those that will be saved, and has no intention on saving those that remain

.

I did not ask you what my side says....;I asked this;

PT posted;

Quote:
I'm not going to lie to you Icon.
I think the doctrine of Election as described by Calvinism is deplorable.

1]Okay...stop right here.....Give your definition or understanding of election right now... forget for one minute there are Calvinists...someone comes up to you in Publix and says PT...I have been reading my bible...what does eph 1 mean by election?

Give me your definition.....then give me ...what you think Calvinism says...in the words of actual Calvinists

This, as other non-Cals have pointed out, leaves us scratching our heads as to the point of all of these "general calls" and invitations in the scripture. We don't understand

:sleeping_2:

why God would command all to repent and then never move some to repent, but would blame them all the same.

God does not blame anyone...they are already guilty and condemned.

We don't understand why Jesus would lament Jerusalem not turning to Him

they were supposed to turn...but they would not.

when it required Him moving them in the first place.

no one stops them....they love their sin .

Folks on your side have accused us of a schizophrenic God, but we see the same thing on your side

.

No you don't. This my side your side thing is false also. There is truth and those who fall short of truth.

We see Jesus drawing ALL men unto Him

.

You never explained how you think this happens. We explained the verse...you do not welcome it.

Your side sees Jesus only drawing the Elect, and thus you have to say that "All men" actually only means "the Elect."

God does not draw the Jew only...he draws all men, every tribe kindred and tongue.

We see Jesus being the propitiation for the sins of the world. Your side sees Him only as the propitiation for the sins of the Elect,

Your "side" is in error.

Let me put it to you this way PT......if you think you can get a non elect person into heaven go for it:thumbsup:

First you would have to know they were non elect which you cannot do....then you would have to free them from sins bondage,and the influence of satan, then impart a new heart and new life......go for it:thumbsup:

and thus "the sins of the world" must actually mean just "the sins of the Elect."

only the elect get saved.

But in John 6 Jesus says "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" Did Jesus choose out a devil, Judas, just so he could later be damned?

These men were chosen messengers sent forth.

Again, no non-Cal will tell you that man saved himself. God must still draw, and man must still respond, but the salvation is still purely of God.

this is a confused contradictory statement.

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes.




Really.



I am not going to die, mon ami. I am going to live forever. :thumbsup:

:applause::thumbs::applause:....yes ye have entered into life already.