What must one do to be saved???

[SolaScriptura]

I would rather talk to Calvin than you, but unfortunately he's dead.

If blood was all that was required, then he could have simply cut himself with a knife, bled a little, and then gone merrily on his way.

(1) He had to die to take the curse of the Law (which was ONLY physical death) for those UNDER THE LAW (and I somehow doubt you are Jewish) - Gal 3:13 - So, yes there was a vicarious nature to his death, but not with regards to eternal punishment or even to the uncircumcised (Gal 5:3) By Galatians 5:3, I can say He took my physical punishment on the cross, but I don't know about you (read the verse).

(2) He had to shed his blood for the remission of sins (Heb 9:22, Mat 26:28)

(3) He had to die and be resurrected to bring about the resurrection - 1 Cor 15:21 "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

There is no sense in which He took eternal punishment in hell. He redeemed the circumcised from the curse of their law by death, ALL who will accept Him (whether circumcised or not) from sin and hell by His blood, and gave the resurrection to all men by His resurrection.

Show me a verse that says He SUFFERED in hell or that He went to hell FOR US. There isn't one. All you will find is "his soul will not be abandoned to hades" (Acts 2:27) which certainly does not teach that any part of Him went to hell to take my punishment and suffer an eternity for me. On the contrary, if the verse even was refering to hell, it would mean that He DIDN'T take my punishment there, because it plainly says "HE LEFT" and if He left, then He did not take my punishment in hell, because I deserved an eternity.

[ August 15, 2002, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

[Ruht]

"I would rather talk to Calvin than you, but unfortunately he's dead."

Well, perhaps if the two of you end up in the same place, you can talk to him there.

"If blood was all that was required, then he could have simply cut himself with a knife, bled a little, and then gone merrily on his way."

"(1) He had to die to take the curse of the Law (which was ONLY physical death) for those UNDER THE LAW (and I somehow doubt you are Jewish) - Gal 3:13 -"

Oh, I see. Well, then why wasn't him simply bleeding, good enough for that?

"So, yes there was a vicarious nature to his death, but not with regards to eternal punishment or even to the uncircumcised (Gal 5:3)"

Oh, I see, you are relinquishing some of your former statements and positions, but not entirely: is that it?

"By Galatians 5:3, I can say He took my physical punishment on the cross, but I don't know about you (read the verse)."

Oh, I see, you believe that to mean literally circumcised.

Well, once again you are misinterpreting scripture, for Galatians 5:3 is not referring simply exclusively to someone who is literally circumcised, but rather to those who try to justify themselves through the law.

Perhaps you should read the very next verse.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

You attempt to interpret this scripture with your own natural understanding, but the Bible can only be properly interpreted through the author who wrote it; as stated in I Corinthians 2:11, if you are even able to discern that.

"(2) He had to shed his blood for the remission of sins (Heb 9:22, Mat 26:28)"

Yes, he did.

"(3) He had to die and be resurrected to bring about the resurrection - 1 Cor 15:21 "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."

Christ fulfilled everything it takes for man to be saved and have eternal life.

"There is no sense in which He took eternal punishment in hell. He redeemed the circumcised from the curse of their law by death, ALL who will accept Him (whether circumcised or not) from sin and hell by His blood, and gave the resurrection to all men by His resurrection."

Christ redeemed all of us from the curse of the law, for none of us who are saved are under any written law, nor can we be judged by any written law. He took our punishment upon himself, and he had to go into hell to truly die.

I happen to believe that it is apparent that he spent time in the flames of hell and indeed felt the pain of those flames while there, and the Bible apparently indicates he indeed was in hell for three days after he died.

"Show me a verse that says He SUFFERED in hell or that He went to hell FOR US."

"AND HE MADE HIS GRAVE WITH THE WICKED, and with the rich in his death..." - Isaiah 53:9

"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his SOUL an offering for sin..." - Isaiah 53:10

"He shall see the TRAVAIL OF HIS SOUL, and shall be satisfied..." - Isaiah 53:11

I ask you: Where was the grave of the "wicked?" in the bosom of Abraham, or in the flames and torment of hades (hell)? "AND HE MADE HIS GRAVE WITH THE WICKED"

I ask you yet again: Did his SOUL "travail" on the cross, or did his body? Do the SOULS of the wicked travail in hell, or do their physical bodies? "He shall see the TRAVAIL OF HIS SOUL, and be satisfied..."

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

"There isn't one. All you will find is "his soul will not be abandoned to hades" (Acts 2:27) which certainly does not teach that any part of Him went to hell to take my punishment and suffer an eternity for me. On the contrary, if the verse even was refering to hell, it would mean that He DIDN'T take my punishment there, because it plainly says "HE LEFT" and if He left, then He did not take my punishment in hell, because I deserved an eternity.'"

As I said before, you stumble at scripture by also interpreting it in haste. The Bible tells us that it is a snare to the man who devoureth that which is holy, and after vows to make enquiry (Proverbs 20:25). You would do good to meditate on this.

The saved do not deserve an eternity in hell, therefore Christ did not have to be in hell for an eternity for the saved. Only the eternally dammed unsaved deserve an eternity in hell, and the deeds of Christ do not cover the eternally dammed unsaved. The saved, in their sinful lives, deserved death, which includes hell. And as Christ does not have to die on a cross for all eternity for the saved's redemption, even so he does not have to spend an eternity in hell, either. For both are good for all eternity, unto the saved.

And if it's good enough for God, it's good enough for me. I have this faith in Christ.

The Lord taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

God bless.

[ August 16, 2002, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Ruht ]

 

[SolaScriptura]

The saved do not deserve an eternity in hell, therefore Christ did not have to be in hell for an eternity for the saved. Only the eternally dammed unsaved deserve an eternity in hell, and the deeds of Christ do not cover the eternally dammed unsaved.

If you hold to salvation by punishment, then the only reason they don't deserve it is because someone else took it for them, which is what you have been saying.

The saved, in their sinful lives, deserved death, which includes hell. And as Christ does not have to die on a cross for all eternity for the saved's redemption, even so he does not have to spend an eternity in hell, either. For both are good for all eternity, unto the saved.

Well, then, He didn't have to go to hell at all. THINK ABOUT IT, if His blood cleanses you, then you are sinless, and if sinless do you deserve hell? That's why I say it's by cleansing. He ddin't have to go to hell and take our punishment, and you admit that He didn't do that if you say He's not still there! When He cleanses us, we no longer deserve hell because we are clean AND PUNISHMENT CAN'T CLEAN. God could send a billion sinless people to hell for you, but you'd still be dirty - it took the blood of Christ. [PS: Why do you make it sound as if Christ died for people who were already saved? And, furthermore, why act as if He neglected the lost? Your Calvinism or new-age variation thereof has confused you to the point of....I don't even know how to finish this sentence.]

[ August 16, 2002, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

[Ruht]

"The saved do not deserve an eternity in hell, therefore Christ did not have to be in hell for an eternity for the saved. Only the eternally dammed unsaved deserve an eternity in hell, and the deeds of Christ do not cover the eternally dammed unsaved."

"If you hold to salvation by punishment, then the only reason they don't deserve it is because someone else took it for them, which is what you have been saying."

In a general sense, yes, that is what I have been in a sense saying. And Jesus Christ indeed took it for all who will believe. And the entire punishment consisted of the entire act of death, and in this case, bleeding while dying, since the life is in the blood. However, none of that act is required to be done for all eternity, but is surely good for all eternity, because Christ is God, and his atonement is eternal.

I'm sorry your apparent lack of faith in Christ keeps you from being able to see this. To him that hath, even more shall be given, but to him that hath not, even what little he hath shall be taken away.

"The saved, in their sinful lives, deserved death, which includes hell. And as Christ does not have to die on a cross for all eternity for the saved's redemption, even so he does not have to spend an eternity in hell, either. For both are good for all eternity, unto the saved."

"Well, then, He didn't have to go to hell at all. THINK ABOUT IT, if His blood cleanses you, then you are sinless, and if sinless do you deserve hell? That's why I say it's by cleansing. He ddin't have to go to hell and take our punishment, and you admit that He didn't do that if you say He's not still there! When He cleanses us, we no longer deserve hell because we are clean AND PUNISHMENT CAN'T CLEAN. God could send a billion sinless people to hell for you, but you'd still be dirty - it took the blood of Christ."

The only way Christ would have to spend an eternity in hell to pay for the sins of someone, is if the ones he was paying for already had received eternal damnation. Just because someone has committed sin, that does not mean that they have received eternal damnation. The wages of sin is death, and Christ paid those wages for sin. However, there is one sin his death does not cover, and that is the sin of rejecting Christ's salvation, and that ends in eternal damnation.

I'm sorry, but one of your apparent problems in this is that God is more wise than you apparently think you are.

"[PS: Why do you make it sound as if Christ died for people who were already saved?"

I don't make it sound in such a way, it is your lack of spiritual hearing that makes it sound that way to you.

"And, furthermore, why act as if He neglected the lost?

He did not act as if he neglected the lost. However, if you are referring to the eternally dammed, then he neglects the eternally dammed because they are just that - eternally dammed. A lost sheep can indeed be found again, and a good shepherd will leave the found sheep to find even a single lost sheep. However, the good shepherd will not leave the found sheep for a dead sheep.

"Your Calvinism or new-age variation thereof has confused you to the point of

I am neither a Calvinist, nor do I offer a "new age revision." Your problem is that you are apparently spiritually blind to grace, and thus you apparently attempt to look for a way to justify your legalism.

....I don't even know how to finish this sentence."

Then apparently you are the one who is apparently confused.

Tell me: Do you believe in eternal security; once saved always saved? I believe I already know the answer to that, and I believe it is that you do not. Please forgive me, however, if I am wrong.

Please answer my question concerning this, however, for as with all legalism, this is what happens when people try to interpret scripture from off of the sure foundation.

God bless.

[ August 16, 2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Ruht ]

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by Ruht:
Actually, I don't really think I am trying to be "humble," rather I am trying to be as polite as I can be under the circumstances. I suggest that others try the same with me.

Then don't use the acronym, IMHO.

 

[Ruht]

"Then don't use the acronym, IMHO."

No, I will continue to use it, as it is a universal acronym widely used in Internet forums to denote an attempt at a polite response. And in a sense, being polite is a form of humbleness, even if I am not trying to deliberately be humble per se.

Another acronym, "ROTFLOL," means "rolling on the floor, laughing out loud," and it is widely used on Internet forums and chat rooms, but I hardly think that when it is used that a majority of the people using it are actually "rolling on the floor."

Sorry, but don't tell me how to write my posts, will you, please. You write your posts, and I'll write mine.

And if you don't like that, well, I guess that's just too bad.

I hope that is clear enough for you.

God bless.

[ August 16, 2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Ruht ]

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by Ruht:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Then don't use the acronym, IMHO."

No, I will continue to use it, as it is a universal acronym widely used in Internet forums to denote an attempt at a polite response. And in a sense, being polite is a form of humbleness, even if I am not trying to deliberately be humble per se.

Another acronym, "ROTFLOL," means "rolling on the floor, laughing out loud," and it is widely used on Internet forums and chat rooms, but I hardly think that when it is used that a majority of the people using it are actually "rolling on the floor."

Sorry, but don't tell me how to write my posts, will you, please. You write your posts, and I'll write mine.

And if you don't like that, well, I guess that's just too bad.

I hope that is clear enough for you.

God bless.</font>[/QUOTE]You attempts to ridicule are hardly polite, nor are they humble.

 

[Ruht]

"You attempts to ridicule are hardly polite, nor are they humble."

It's "your" attempts... etc. Apparently you couldn't wait to take a personal shot at me, and in your eagerness you failed to check your spelling and quality of your post.

That happens.

As for what you were attempting to say to me, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am not judged by your opinion, nor will I let your opinion intimidate me.

Apparently these are things people do when they can't win at theological "debate," as I have seen this numerous times in Internet forums, particularly in theist forums, and usually from apparently "incompetent" legalists; which means legalists who have been unsuccessful in arguing their erroneous theology, so they then, in their frustration, turn to personal accusations, as they did with Christ.

So, if that is the case, then I advise you to point your finger somewhere else, as it won't work on me.

I hope that is also clear to you.

God bless.

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by Ruht:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"You attempts to ridicule are hardly polite, nor are they humble."

It's "your" attempts... etc. Apparently you couldn't wait to take a personal shot at me, and in your eagerness you failed to check your spelling and quality of your post.

That happens.

As for what you were attempting to say to me, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am not judged by your opinion, nor will I let your opinion intimidate me.

Apparently these are things people do when they can't win at theological "debate," as I have seen this numerous times in Internet forums, particularly in theist forums, and usually from apparently "incompetent" legalists; which means legalists who have been unsuccessful in arguing their erroneous theology, so they then, in their frustration, turn to personal accusations, as they did with Christ.

So, if that is the case, then I advise you to point your finger somewhere else, as it won't work on me.

I hope that is also clear to you.

God bless.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't always catch my spelling mistakes, I tend to miss the "r" on "your" and I sometimes miss "ed" on past tense words. You seem very defensive, you think that we're trying to intimidate you and are constantly saying that we're stumbling and can't understand (a polite way of saying that you think we're stupid). You also seem to think that we're trying to point our fingers at you as if we could magically turn you into some sort of strange creature. You've attacked (caugth the "ed" here) both myself and Sola Scriptura, claiming that we are blind, we've shown you both scripturally and logically why Jesus did not go to hell which is a place of eternal suffering and separation from God. We've shown you the original Greek terms and you've shown us "the original English" (as some seem to think). We've explained what the word Hades meant to the Greeks and what it means to various Bible commentators and yet you still insist that you are smarter and right. Nobody is forcing you to believe anything but I would appreciate it if you would stop pretending to be humble and polite when the comments that you are making qualify for neither one of those.

 

[Ruht]

"I don't always catch my spelling mistakes, I tend to miss the "r" on "your" and I sometimes miss "ed" on past tense words."

Well, perhaps sometimes it is because you are in a hurry to vent, rather than to edify?

We all make spelling and grammar mistakes on occasion, but I have been writing in forums for a few years, and I believe I tend to notice it occurring more often among those who have a tendency to turn from commenting on the topic of the threads, to instead devote entire posts of personal attacks against whoever they are upset with.

"You seem very defensive, you think that we're trying to intimidate you and are constantly saying that we're stumbling and can't understand (a polite way of saying that you think we're stupid)."

I am "defensive" because you have now turned to devoting entire posts to attacking me personally off topic, rather than keeping it along topic lines. And when I am attacked personally, sometimes I choose to verbally defend myself from such attacks.

As for your claim that I think you are "stupid" because I refer to some as "stumbling," actually I know that the Bible cannot be interpreted properly except through the author who wrote the Bible; as stated in I Corinthians 2:6-14. I use the word "stumble" because the Bible uses this word to refer to people who misinterpret scripture because they are not doing so through the Spirit of God while upon the sure foundation of grace.

"You also seem to think that we're trying to point our fingers at you as if we could magically turn you into some sort of strange creature."

LOL! Actually, the finger I was referring to was the judgmental finger.

You've attacked (caugth the "ed" here) both myself and Sola Scriptura, claiming that we are blind, we've shown you both scripturally and logically why Jesus did not go to hell which is a place of eternal suffering and separation from God."

I have not "attacked" anyone outside of topic lines, and I have also been "attacked," with you now even devoting entire posts to attacking me personally.

So, it is my opinion you are being hypocritical.

And actually, I was not trying to "attack" anyone, but actually stating what I felt needed to be said to people who I genuinely believe are stumbling.

I believe that you are actually just sensitive, as your arguments have apparently not gone well for you. I have seen this many times, as I stated previously.

"We've shown you the original Greek terms and you've shown us "the original English" (as some seem to think).

You are being less than honest, IMHO, for I myself revealed that the Bible itself refers to hades as a place of "torment" and "flame," in the original Greek. 'Course you apparently have still not come to terms with this, as you also had trouble with this when I previously discussed it.

"We've explained what the word Hades meant to the Greeks and what it means to various Bible commentators and yet you still insist that you are smarter and right."

And once again you are obfuscating, as I then asked you if the original text was written in Greek, and if it was, then that makes you absolutely 100% wrong, as the Bible WAS WRITTEN THROUGH THE HOLY GHOST who knows ALL LANGUAGES PERFECTLY, and who therefore knows WHICH WORDS ARE RIGHT TO BE USED.

You, of course, failed to answer that, and now you try to distract from this fact.

Your Greek excuse is therefore a sham.

Who do you think you're fooling?

"Nobody is forcing you to believe anything but I would appreciate it if you would stop pretending to be humble and polite when the comments that you are making qualify for neither one of those."

I try to be polite, but when it's time for the gloves to come off, it's time. If you want a verbal piece of me, then hit me with your best shot.

I hope, once again, that's plain enough for you.

God bless.

[ August 16, 2002, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Ruht ]

 

[SolaScriptura]

I'm not attacking you, Ruht, I'm trying to explain that you've put your faith in the wrong thing. You've put it in punishment rather than blood. Romans 3:25 says that it is "faith in His blood" that saves, not faith in His punishment, and certainly not faith in the myth and lie that He went to hell.

 

[Ruht]

"I'm not attacking you, Ruht, I'm trying to explain that you've put your faith in the wrong thing. You've put it in punishment rather than blood. Romans 3:25 says that it is "faith in His blood" that saves, not faith in His punishment, and certainly not faith in the myth and lie that He went to hell."

My faith is in the blood of Christ. My faith is in the death of Christ. My faith is in the cross of Christ. My faith is in Christ.

I have preached faith in the blood of Christ for years; however, he indeed PAID IN FULL our punishment.

I ask you: is it possible that Christ ever cut himself while he was a human being? His earthly father was a carpenter, so is it possible he at times perhaps also worked as a carpenter, and he then perhaps cut himself, and bled because of that cut? Would having faith in that incident of blood have saved anyone? Would the blood he bled while being beaten with a whip, and the blood he bled while being cut with a crown of thorns, have saved us, if he had not completed his act of dying for us?

He specifically bled as a punishment for my sins, upon a cross. And I indeed have faith in that blood. He also was raised again for my justification, and I also have faith in his resurrection. He went into hell, and I also have faith that God was "satisfied" by the "travail" of his soul while in hell, just as Isaiah 53 alludes to, as further payment in full for my sins.

If you cannot see all of this, then as I said before, I don't really know what more to say.

I indeed have faith in the blood of Christ, and have preached it for many years. One of my most used verses is Romans 3:25.

My faith is in the blood of Christ because my faith is in Christ. And I acknowledge everything else he did to complete the act of dying for me and bearing my punishment in full.

Now, since you have demanded I answer this and that throughout your posts, then when are you going to answer some of the things I have kindly asked you to answer, such as: Do you believe in eternal security, once saved always saved?

Now, let's see if you have faith in the blood of Christ. If you truly have faith in the blood of Christ, you would have faith in everything else he did in giving his life for us. And you would also have ceased from your own works, as God did from his.

God bless.

 

[SolaScriptura]

You miss my entire point. The phrase "shedding of blood" implies a violent death, and I agree that He had to die violently. However, to say that a sacrifice is "punished" especially with the exact punishment prescribed by the Law is utterly ridiculous. When a Sabbath breaker who escaped the notice of human authority offered a sacrifice, was the animal stoned? That was the prescribed punishment of the Law for the Sabbath breaker! Sacrifice does not equal punishment, and certainly not the exact punishment that the Law prescribes for the offender. Where does the Law prescribe death by a cross? I read in Moses' Law of stoning in general cases (and of burning for priests' daughters), but not of a cross nor of hell. There was no reason for Jesus to take the exact punishment prescribed by the Mosaical Law (stoning) nor the exact punishment by the greater Law (hell) but rather to die a violent death and cleanse us by His blood, for we are "purged (cleansed, purified) with blood" and "without shedding of blood is no forgiveness." (Heb 9:22) Furthermore, the price of our purchase is not punishment in hell but "His own blood." (Acts 20:28)

[ August 16, 2002, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

[Ruht]

"You miss my entire point."

Uh huh, I believe I've heard that before from you. (Or at least the tone.)

"The phrase "shedding of blood" implies a violent death, and I agree that He had to die violently.

Ooooooohhhhh, thaaaaat's what it means.

"However, to say that a sacrifice is "punished" especially with the exact punishment prescribed by the Law is utterly ridiculous."

Uh huh. You like making things up as you go, don't you? Quite a technique you have going there, sola whatever.

Supply my words where I mentioned punishment according to the "Law."

Here's a hint: There are none.

"When a Sabbath breaker who escaped the notice of human authority offered a sacrifice, was the animal stoned? That was the prescribed punishment of the Law for the Sabbath breaker!

So!

"Sacrifice does not equal punishment, and certainly not the exact punishment that the Law prescribes for the offender. Where does the Law prescribe death by a cross?"

Don't know, where does the "Law" prescribe death by a cross?

Here's even another stumper: Where did I mention the "Law" in such a way?

"I read in Moses' Law of stoning in general cases (and of burning for priests' daughters), but not of a cross nor of hell. There was no reason for Jesus to take the literal punishment prescribed by the Mosaical Law (stoning) not the literal punishment by the greater Law (hell) but rather to die a violent death and cleanse us by His blood, for we are "purged (cleansed, purified) with blood" and "without shedding of blood is no forgiveness." (Heb 9:22) Furthermore, the price of our purchase is not punishment in hell but "His own blood." (Acts 20:28)"

OK then, his blood that flowed when he was whipped on his back should have therefore been good enough, according to your logic. Whip the man, let him bleed a little, and then let him go, and let us then have faith in that, if literal blood is all that was required.

And if violent death is the key, then why not just simply behead him quickly where he wouldn't have to suffer, or run a quick sword through him, like what was finally done to him.

There is a deeper revelation than you are allowing or understanding, I pray you learn of it someday.

I ask you: Paul, who wrote Romans 3:25, also wrote the following. Why no mention of the "blood" in this writing:

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God." - I Corinthians 1:18

Why didn't Paul say "For the preaching of the blood is to them that perish foolishness..."?

Because it all is referring to the same thing, which is the life of Christ being given in sacrifice and atonement for the sins of the world.

He paid for our sin in the entire act of specifically being put to death in a punishing way, and that's what it's all about, pilgrim.

BTW, you still haven't answer my question on where you stand on eternal security/once saved always saved. What's wrong, afraid of something? You're good at demanding others answer your questions, but where are you to answer my kindly asked questions?

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, leading captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." - II Timothy 3:5-7

God bless.

[ August 16, 2002, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Ruht ]

 

[Ruht]

Sola, before you attempt another distraction and red herring, I strongly request you to answer my question about eternal security/once saved always saved.

I will view you as attempting to avoid condemnation of your theology, if you refuse. For this is a simple request, and very relevant to the discussion at hand, especially to your accusations (or suggestions) of me not having faith in the blood of Christ

God bless, Sola.

 

[SolaScriptura]

He paid for our sin in the entire act of specifically being put to death in a punishing way, and that's what it's all about, pilgrim.

Well, there you go! Finally you realize that hell has nothing to do with it.

(Isa 65:2) "I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;" -- There's the cross.

 

[Ruht]

"He paid for our sin in the entire act of specifically being put to death in a punishing way, and that's what it's all about, pilgrim."

"Well, there you go! Finally you realize that hell has nothing to do with it."

Have you ever tried selling used cars? you would be a natural, as spin and sophism are very valuable traits in such a "profession."

The "entire" act of death included going into hell.

Nice try, though.

"(Isa 65:2) "I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;" -- There's the cross.'

Actually, there's an example of the "rebellious people" mentioned in that verse, answering "There's the cross."

What's wrong, Sola, eternal security/once saved always saved got your tongue? Running from the light, are you?

The Lord taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

God bless.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The "entire" act of death included going into hell.

I agree, as long as it is understood that in this context hell is not torment, but simply the place where people go when they die.

What's wrong, Sola, eternal security/once saved always saved got your tongue?

Well, now that you brought it up, let me state that YOUR doctrine of it depends on the partiality of the God with whom Peter declares there is none. YOUR doctrine of it depends on Jesus not dying for all men as the Bible says He did. Your doctrine of it depends on man not being required to obey as Hebrews 5:9 says He is. YOUR doctrine of it depends, in short, on Hebrews chapter 10 and Romans chapter 10 being lies. So, considering that YOUR doctrine of eternal security is based on a rejection of Scripture, I HATE IT as David confesses he does.

Jesus did not choose certain men to be saved and then go to hell and take all their wrath so that God would never be able to punish them and they would be saved merely by absense of authority to punish. Rather, He died as a sacrifice for all men, shedding His blood, so that whoever accepts Him through faith will have that blood applied to them and be cleansed from their sins. His sacrifice is like that of the Passover, which once the lamb was killed, was not automatically effective, but the blood had to be painted onto the door. And, Christ is our Passover, by which sacrifice, we are unleavened (1 Cor 5:7, sinless) if we have had that blood painted onto the door of our heart. And what is the application of the blood? Baptism of course. And the cleasning of that blood is perpetual as we walk by faith in the Lord and the light of His Word. (1 John 1:7) But Calvin had to make up this stupid system where Christ goes to hell (if you don't believe me, read his Institutes and confuse yourself some more) for certain men whom He chose with respect of persons and whom will be saved not from their sins (for they will always remain dirty) but will be saved from punishment only, because all their wrath is gone. It's so disgusting! It's worse than Catholicism! At least the Catholics don't make Christ a respector of persons!

[ August 16, 2002, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]

 

[Ruht]

"What's wrong, Sola, eternal security/once saved always saved got your tongue?"

"Well, now that you brought it up, let me state that YOUR doctrine of it depends on the partiality of the God with whom Peter declares there is none. YOUR doctrine of it depends on Jesus not dying for all men as the Bible says He did. Your doctrine of it depends on man not being required to obey as Hebrews 5:9 says He is. YOUR doctrine of it depends, in short, on Hebrews chapter 10 and Romans chapter 10 being lies. So, considering that YOUR doctrine of eternal security is based on a rejection of Scripture, I HATE IT as David confesses he does.

Jesus did not choose certain men to be saved and then go to hell and take all their wrath so that God would never be able to punish them and they would be saved merely by absense of authority to punish. Rather, He died as a sacrifice for all men, shedding His blood, so that whoever accepts Him through faith will have that blood applied to them and be cleansed from their sins. His sacrifice is like that of the Passover, which once the lamb was killed, was not automatically effective, but the blood had to be painted onto the door. And, Christ is our Passover, by which sacrifice, we are unleavened (1 Cor 5:7, sinless) if we have had that blood painted onto the door of our heart. And what is the application of the blood? Baptism of course. And the cleasning of that blood is perpetual as we walk by faith in the Lord and the light of His Word. (1 John 1:7) But the Calvinist has to make up this stupid system where Christ goes to hell for certain men whom He chose with respect of persons and whom will be saved not from their sins (for they will always remain dirty) but will be saved from punishment only, because all their wrath is gone. It's so disgusting! It's worse than Catholicism! At least the Catholics don't make Christ a respector of persons!"

Translated: Sola has just revealed what a fraud he is, as he does not believe in eternal security, which means he does not believe in the blood of Christ. Just as I suspected quite a few posts back. Legalists are basically all the same, and can be recognized once one understands salvation and legalism.

Sola's faith is not in Christ, but in his own efforts of self-righteousness. He interprets the Bible on the foundation of works, rather than the foundation of grace, the sure foundation.

Which is why he stumbles at scripture.

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to his people. To whom he said, This is the rest ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: YET THEY WOULD NOT HEAR. But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Wherefore hear the word of the Lord ye scornful men who rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell we are at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves. Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone a SURE FOUNDATION; he that believeth SHALL NOT MAKE HASTE." - Isaiah 28:9-16

Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.

"No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment, THOU SHALT CONDEMN. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of ME, saith the Lord." - Isaiah 54:17

Let the wind blow, for this house is founded upon a rock.

God bless.

[ August 16, 2002, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Ruht ]

 

[SolaScriptura]

Your 'translation' of my post is incorrect. Let me 'translate' it myself: Salvation is by the continual cleansing of Christ's blood (1 John 1:7) which a Christian has IF they walk in the light and not by the fictitious one time pouring out of wrath that the heretic John Calvin concocted in his depraved mind when, professing to be wise, he became a fool.

1 Corinthians 4:6 "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

[ August 17, 2002, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura ]