Certificate of Debt

[VanillaSunflowers]

No. Hammster said that, I was asking him how he could believe that.

Whomever would like to answer is good with me.

 

[Hammster]

Back temp. to give you the verses.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Hebrews 2:14
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,


2 Timothy 1:10
10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:


Hebrew 9:26
" he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself".

No context. Just assumption. I'm not going to do the work for you. This is typical, unfortunately. Synergistic carpet bomb with scripture and assume the meanings without the context. The monergists then have to explain the verses in context. It's tiring.

 

[ToBeLoved]

[Staff edit]

The verses are not out of context. That is what I am saying. You are accusing me of using verses out of context so I said prove that I have.

 

[Hammster]

The verses are not out of context. That is what I am saying. You are accusing me of using verses out of context so I said prove that I have.

You haven't given any explanation to the verses. So you haven't even made an argument, but want me to make a counter-argument. That's not how these things work.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You haven't given any explanation to the verses. So you haven't even made an argument, but want me to make a counter-argument. That's not how these things work.

The verses show

1. Jesus died for ALL sin.
2. That God does not want ANY to perish, but all to have eternal life.

I will let you go back with this information and re-read the post and then respond. You said that I have used these verses out of context, I replied that I did not. So it is up to you to show they are out of context.

 

[Hammster]

The verses show

1. Jesus died for ALL sin.
2. That God does not want ANY to perish, but all to have eternal life.

I will let you go back with this information and re-read the post and then respond. You said that I have used these verses out of context, I replied that I did not. So it is up to you to show they are out of context.

They don't say that. The context doesn't support your claims.

If you think they do, please show it. Blanket assertions don't cut it.

 

[EmSw]

They don't say that. The context doesn't support your claims.

If you think they do, please show it. Blanket assertions don't cut it.

So Hammster, were you willing to 'come' to Jesus in order to have life?

The reason I ask is because I wonder if you're not willing to 'come' to Jesus to have life, is the certificate of debt still against you?

 

[ToBeLoved]

They don't say that. The context doesn't support your claims.

If you think they do, please show it. Blanket assertions don't cut it.

You show me that they are out of context. I can't do all the work for you.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You haven't given any explanation to the verses. So you haven't even made an argument, but want me to make a counter-argument. That's not how these things work.

But you did make your argument, because you said the verses are out of context.

If you were looking for me to explain my verses, saying they are out of context is not the way to make that happen. You have shifted the burden of proof back to yourself by saying they are out of context.

 

[Hammster]

You show me that they are out of context. I can't do all the work for you.

You haven't done any work. You've just assumed a meaning.

 

[Hammster]

But you did make your argument, because you said the verses are out of context.

If you were looking for me to explain my verses, saying they are out of context is not the way to make that happen. You have shifted the burden of proof back to yourself by saying they are out of context.

Okay, I rescind my comment. But you'll need to explain why you think the verses say what you think they say. Then we can examine the context.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been closed for review

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been through a clean.
Please note that further rule violations will likely result in a certificate of debt
which will be dealt with by moderators.

In particular, please remember when you disagree with someone,
to address only the content of the post and not the poster.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Butch5]

Has the certificate of debt against you been canceled? If so, when did it happen?

What certificate of death?

 

[Hammster]

What certificate of death?

The one mentioned in Colossians.

 

[Butch5]

The one mentioned in Colossians.

I would submit that "debt" is not a good translation. I would also submit that when Paul says it was against "us", the "us" is the Israelites.

ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ·
(Col. 2:14 GNT)

What I bolded is the "handwriting of dogma" or the writing of rules. It's the Mosiac Law. The Israelites, not the Gentiles were under the Law. The Israelites were under the condemnations in the Law because they had not kept it.

 

[Hammster]

I would submit that "debt" is not a good translation. I would also submit that when Paul says it was against "us", the "us" is the Israelites.

ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ·
(Col. 2:14 GNT)

What I bolded is the "handwriting of dogma" or the writing of rules. It's the Mosiac Law. The Israelites, not the Gentiles were under the Law. The Israelites were under the condemnations in the Law because they had not kept it.

If context is completely ignored, you are probably right.

 

[Butch5]

If context is completely ignored, you are probably right.

It's the context that shows me Paul's talking about the Law. What writing of rules was against the Gentiles? God didn't have any covenants with the Gentiles.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I would submit that "debt" is not a good translation. I would also submit that when Paul says it was against "us", the "us" is the Israelites.

ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ·
(Col. 2:14 GNT)

What I bolded is the "handwriting of dogma" or the writing of rules. It's the Mosiac Law. The Israelites, not the Gentiles were under the Law. The Israelites were under the condemnations in the Law because they had not kept it.

I both agree and disagree.

We do have a debt. A sin debt. That sin debt keeps us away from God, but Jesus paid our sin debt in full and justified us through His blood, giving us His righteousness. So that sin debt, is still a debt to those who are not saved.

Now, I do agree with what you said that the Gentiles were never under the Law of Moses, that is true, but we all have a sin debt to deal with, each person. The 10 Commandments and the law revealed to us what is a sin in God's sight so we now know what God considers sin and each of us has to resolve the sin issue. We just made a good choice in that we chose Christ.

 

[Hammster]

It's the context that shows me Paul's talking about the Law. What writing of rules was against the Gentiles? God didn't have any covenants with the Gentiles.

You ignore the context of who is being addressed. That's your error.