Is sin the reason for one's damnation or not?

[FreeGrace2]

I know. Those whose sins are counted against them will be believers.

Interesting. So RT (or at least your view) is that sins aren't counted against those for whom Christ didn't die, then. Very interesting.

But, that would explain a number of verses, regarding who Christ came for and died for:

For whom did Jesus come to save? The sick, the lost, the poor, the unrighteous, the ungodly, and sinners.

Matt 9:12
On hearing this, Jesus said, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Are just the elect “sick”?

Luke 19:10
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. Are just the elect “lost”?

Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. Are just the elect poor?

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ died for sins once FOR ALL, the righteous (Christ) for the unrighteous[B/] (humanity, all of them), to bring you to God. Are just the elect unrighteous?

Rom 5:6
You see, just at the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Are just the elect ungodly?

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Are just the elect sinners?

Isa 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

RT cannot not answer these questions. RT knows full well that the entire human race is described as sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, and sinners. Every single one of us.

If Christ died for just the elect, then his theology leads to universalism, because of these verses. That means the non elect are neither sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, or sinners. So they don’t need salvation. And Christ wouldn’t need to die for any of them.

This leads to the conclusion that RT actually believes in universalism, though not to be admitted

 

[FreeGrace2]

We can see from Ephesians 2 that the elect are never under wrath, and that God makes them alive.

Believers sure aren't, as John the baptizer clearly noted:
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

From Eph 2:5 we see that being saved and being "made alive" are equated. And v.8 rounds out the concept; we are saved by grace, through faith.

This clearly shows that being made alive occurs through faith.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And there you go, borrowing from open theism

These drive-by snippets have no meaning without any explanation. My view has been clearly and repeatedly explained, so any attempt to link my view with open theism indicates either a desperate lack of understanding, or simply trying to make my view appear unbiblical.

This is what I said:
The Bible NEVER says anything about Christ dying ONLY for some. The Bible is clear about who's wrath of God abides on: unbelievers. Unfortunately, RT only "sees" 'those for whom Christ didn't die' when they "unbelievers".

Everyone is born an unbeliever, and under the wrath of God. The RT view that God pre-chose who to save apart from conditions or reasons cannot be found in Scripture. Why they believe a myth is baffling.

If you think my view borrows from open theism, please explain how, because nothing here in my statement has anything to do with the bogus charge.

 

[bling]

So you are arguing for an atonement that is 'there for the taking...if one believes'? - an atonement that is potential?

Not exactly what I am saying: “Atonement is not completed for anyone, so it is not just ‘there for the taking’”. Jesus is the sacrifice portion of the atonement and it was done completely and perfectly. Just as in Lev. 5 with unintentional sins, man has a part to play and is not just a bystander. In Lev. 5 man had to give up something to supply the sacrifice, not in “proportion” to the sin but in proportion to his means (trying to equalize what was given up [equal hardship]). You might also notice in Lev. 5 the sacrifice is not replacing the sinner, since it could be a bag of flour.

 

[Hammster]

Believers sure aren't, as John the baptizer clearly noted:
“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

I know. Believers have eternal life. Unbelievers have wrath.

From Eph 2:5 we see that being saved and being "made alive" are equated. And v.8 rounds out the concept; we are saved by grace, through faith.

This clearly shows that being made alive occurs through faith.

Eph 2:5 says that God makes people alive. By grace. Faith isn't even mentioned until later.

 

[Hammster]

These drive-by snippets have no meaning without any explanation. My view has been clearly and repeatedly explained, so any attempt to link my view with open theism indicates either a desperate lack of understanding, or simply trying to make my view appear unbiblical.

This is what I said:
The Bible NEVER says anything about Christ dying ONLY for some. The Bible is clear about who's wrath of God abides on: unbelievers. Unfortunately, RT only "sees" 'those for whom Christ didn't die' when they "unbelievers".

Everyone is born an unbeliever, and under the wrath of God. The RT view that God pre-chose who to save apart from conditions or reasons cannot be found in Scripture. Why they believe a myth is baffling.

If you think my view borrows from open theism, please explain how, because nothing here in my statement has anything to do with the bogus charge.

The only reason for God to have wrath towards someone He's going to save is if He doesn't know he'll safe them. Hence, your borrowing from open theism.

 

[Hammster]

Interesting. So RT (or at least your view) is that sins aren't counted against those for whom Christ didn't die, then. Very interesting.

But, that would explain a number of verses, regarding who Christ came for and died for:

For whom did Jesus come to save? The sick, the lost, the poor, the unrighteous, the ungodly, and sinners.

Matt 9:12
On hearing this, Jesus said, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Are just the elect “sick”?

Luke 19:10
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. Are just the elect “lost”?

Luke 4:18
The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. Are just the elect poor?

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ died for sins once FOR ALL, the righteous (Christ) for the unrighteous[B/] (humanity, all of them), to bring you to God. Are just the elect unrighteous?

Rom 5:6
You see, just at the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Are just the elect ungodly?

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. Are just the elect sinners?

Isa 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

RT cannot not answer these questions. RT knows full well that the entire human race is described as sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, and sinners. Every single one of us.

If Christ died for just the elect, then his theology leads to universalism, because of these verses. That means the non elect are neither sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, or sinners. So they don’t need salvation. And Christ wouldn’t need to die for any of them.

This leads to the conclusion that RT actually believes in universalism, though not to be admitted

It was a typo.

Those whose sins aren't counted against them will believe.
be believers.

 

[cygnusx1]

We know from Heb 11:6 that without faith it is impossible to please God. What is the opposite of pleasing God? Displeasing God, of course, which is called "wrath" in the Bible. Jn 3:36 tells us what happens to those who don't believe.

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey(apeitho-disbeieves) the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

That's why people are in hell. By rejecting the free gift, they incur God's wrath for not believing the gospel.

This is an extremely simple and straightforward concept.

as I said ' FG2 knows sin has been atoned for (not hypothetically) , that is why he cannot bring in the idea of hell as a punishment for anyone whom Christ died for .thus his get out doctrine of endless torment (not for sin) but for simply rejecting a gift ! "

 

[FreeGrace2]

Eph 2:5 says that God makes people alive. By grace. Faith isn't even mentioned until later.

Sure. 2:5 equates being made alive with being saved. And v.8 adds "through faith". So "being made alive" is through faith.

Again, there are no supporting verses for the idea that God regenerates before people believe. There just aren't.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The only reason for God to have wrath towards someone He's going to save is if He doesn't know he'll safe them. Hence, your borrowing from open theism.

Your statement makes no sense. God's wrath is on all who don't believe. Including those who will believe later. If your position can be backed up with Scripture, please share.

The issue is believe or not believe. God is pleased with the former, and has wrath against the latter. All that is backed up with Scripture.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It was a typo.

Those whose sins aren't counted against them will believe.
be believers.

What verse actually SAYS that "those whose sins aren't counted against them will believe"?

And please answer the 6 questions attached to the verses. Thanks.

 

[Hammster]

Sure. 2:5 equates being made alive with being saved. And v.8 adds "through faith". So "being made alive" is through faith.

Yes, we know that faith is the means that God uses to justify. We are justified by faith. There are no verses that say we are made regenerate by faith.

Again, there are no supporting verses for the idea that God regenerates before people believe. There just aren't.

Well, there's Eph 2:5.

 

[Hammster]

Your statement makes no sense. God's wrath is on all who don't believe. Including those who will believe later. If your position can be backed up with Scripture, please share.

The issue is believe or not believe. God is pleased with the former, and has wrath against the latter. All that is backed up with Scripture.

I did back up my position with scripture. Eph 2:1-5.

 

[Hammster]

What verse actually SAYS that "those whose sins aren't counted against them will believe"?

And please answer the 6 questions attached to the verses. Thanks.

There is no one verse. My theology isn't shallow like yours.

And what six questions?

 

[janxharris]

study

Matthew 25:31-46

New International Version (NIV)

The Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

We were discussing John 10. No elephants either.

 

[cygnusx1]

We were discussing John 10. No elephants either.

I am discussing what Jesus taught , don't duck , all the council of God is up for study , not selective evidence to "prove a point "

 

[janxharris]

Go on to what? Does the text say that they are ever children of wrath? Do you think God is confused and doesn't know who He will save? Even in your own theology, if God is omniscient, why would He have wrath towards those He knows He'll save?

The text says nothing about the God's wrath on the elect.

They deserved wrath.

 

[Hammster]

They deserved wrath.

Quite right.

 

[janxharris]

This is just a dodge of the real issue. Analogies aren't designed to completely equal what they shadow. The point is that the serpent on a pole was for everyone who had been bitten and faced death. Unless RT can refute this point, they have no point or defense for their position.

So, "just as" Moses lifted the serpent, so Jesus would be "lifted up" for everyone who faced death from sin, which is everyone.

The analogy is crystal clear, but since is obviously refutes the RT claim of who Christ died for, the spin beings.

Unassailable.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Well, there's Eph 2:5.

It doesn't say that God regenerates before people believe.