Condemned already: not just Calvinist

[Clare73]

If God forgave the debt there is nothing left to pay,

God forgave the debt because Jesus paid it.

Again, "forgiveness" is an accounting term meaning "cancellation of debt, "used of customers' accounts (debts) on the books.
God cancelled (forgave) our debt because it was paid, as a debt is cancelled on the books when it is paid.

You either pay the debt off or the person owed can forgive the debt, it is either or and not both.

It can be neither, someone else can pay the debt, which is cancelled as long as it gets paid.

The faith is needed to humbly accept the forgiveness as pure undeserved charity.

Nope. . .not according to God's sacrificial system of debt-paying for sin, where the blood had to be applied for cleansing of sin, not just "accepted."
The blood had to be applied by hyssop for the OT cleansing of one's sin,
just as the blood has to be applied by faith for the NT cleansing of one's sin.

You are making God’s forgiveness contingent,

You are denying the gospel and NT apostolic teaching.

Forgiveness is absolutely contingent on the blood of Christ being applied to our sin by faith.

when God, as the absolute best Lover,

Whose love is always in accord with justice.

is forgiving everyone,

And you are thereby making God unjust, by requiring payment twice for the same sin, payment by Jesus on the cross and payment by the sinner in Gehenna.

but not everyone is humbly accepting that forgiveness as pure undeserved charity, so the transaction is not completed for everyone. Matt. 18:21-35.

Matthew 18:21-35 is not about accepting God's forgiveness as pure undeserved charity, it's about our not forgiving others.

God forgave the debt that could not be paid.

It could not be paid by sinful man, because the sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish.

You might read Lev. 5 to see how scripture defines the sacrifice.

There were five different sacrifices in the sacrificial system.
God doesn't define the sacrifice in Leviticus 5. He defines the unintentional sin for which it must be offered.
All sacrifice was for unintentional sin. There was no sacrifice for intentional sin, you died with your sin unforgiven.

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

To be applied by faith.

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him)
to those that have the faith to receive that ransom.

Your notion of faith is passive, while the NT notion of faith is active--to take hold of, to apprehend (Philippians 3:12-13; 1 Timothy 6:12, 1 Timothy 6:19; 1 Corinthians 9:24-25).

God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan,

Strawman. . .

The ransom for which Jesus said he came to give his life (Matthew 20:28) was to pay the sin debt so that we could be set free from God's condemnation for sin (Romans 5:18).

but the unbeliever is himself holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.

Paul explain the difference:
Ro. 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
This is not saying sins prior to Christ crucifixion sins were “unforgiven”, since they were forgiven, but the forgiven sinner was not “punished” (disciplined) prior to the cross for his sins.
In Ro.3:25 Paul presents a bold huge contrast between the way sins are handled today (after the cross) and the way repentant forgiven sins where handled prior to the cross:
Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished
I do not like the word “unpunished” since in Greek the same word also means “undisciplined”.

So, prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

I'm thinking I would like it better under the OT where I was protected from this "fair and just discipline."

Who in the world thinks the eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46) of unquenchable fire (Mark 9:49) is simply "discipline?"
So Jesus died so that I could be saved from not being disciplined by God, to go to being disciplined by God?
Why do I think that is going backward instead of forward?
And you think that is the "good news" of the gospel?

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I that need to have that blood outside of Christ flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me, this I can experience today, while those prior to the cross could only experience an outward cleansing with animal blood.
If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize at the time, Christ was on the cross God in heaven, out of empathy/Love for Christ, would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through, will feel the death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37).

We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent.
As Paul said: “We can be crucified with Christ”, which is not saying Christ was crucified instead of us and the only way we can be crucified with Christ is to have Christ crucified.
It was not possible for those prior to the cross to empathically experience being crucified with Christ.

And you think this is what the gospel is?!!!
We are saved from God's condemnation (Romans 5:18) to empathically experience Christ's crucifixion?

Again, If sins prior to the cross are handled the same way as after the cross than there
is no contrast as Paul presents it and they would both have been equally punished.

And that is your logic for making Paul agree with your meaning of being "crucified with Christ"?!!!

We are in a growing process, so God judges
the hearts of people to determine who is saved and lost at the time they are taken.

So faith in Jesus Christ is not the dividing line between saved and unsaved?!!!

You're making the heresies of the NT which John and Paul had to deal with look positively tame!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

"Very, very good" is not the same as "perfect", but if you insist, what does it mean? Perfect for what?

My real question is, what are the implications you wish to make with this notion of perfection, concerning Adam?

Adam was a perfect human being physically. He was also innocent in that he totally trusted God to decide what was good or not for him. He was quite content to enjoy the garden of Eden, and to do the jobs that God had for him. The temptation that was offered to Eve was that she and Adam could become more independent in their thinking and to decide what was good or evil for themselves. This meant turning their backs on God and to become humanistic in their attitude. What happen was that they lost their innocence with the result that the whole world was cursed and the male seed became corrupted.

So when I said that Adam was perfect, I mean physically and mentally, but innocent as far as good and evil were concerned. Whether something was good or evil was never a concern for them - until tempted by the serpent. God had given them just one command - don't eat the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. God knew that if they ate of it, they would start thinking for themselves instead of trusting God, and when they ate the fruit, their attitude was basically, "We don't need God anymore, we can think for ourselves." Is that the attitude of unconverted people right to this day?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

By the way, sin is not just 'the first sin' a person commits, but the very mindset of the person. "Sins" are the outworking of the sin in the person. The unregenerated can ONLY sin. Everything he does that we might consider "right" is still corrupt in its intentions and purposes, even if he justifies himself and his conscience approves of his intentions. Compliance with the law of God is not the same thing as obedience, if the heart is not changed.

Yes. In my previous post I tried to explain how that mindset came about. Humanism is defined as the attitude that that solution is within the person, and not from any outside agency, such as God. The humanist says, "I don't need God to tell me what to do and how to do it. I can work it out for myself." Charles Finney, in his systematic theology, called it selfishness. If Finney was around today, he would call it humanism, which is basically the same thing. Selfishness, as defined by Finney, is not a child refusing to share with his siblings, or a person not considering other people, as is generally believed as selfishness. The definition is an example of the meaning of a word changing from the 19th Century usage to modern usage. So, according to Finney's theology, sinful behaviour and actions stem from the selfish, or humanist, mindset.

 

[bling]

God forgave the debt because Jesus paid it.

Now your saying God really did nothing, since anyone can forgive a paid off debt. What would you think if after a prisoner paid the debt off completely the Judge said: “I forgive you your debt?”

Again, "forgiveness" is an accounting term meaning "cancellation of debt, "used of customers' accounts (debts) on the books.
God cancelled (forgave) our debt because it was paid, as a debt is cancelled on the books when it is paid.

I have taken a year of accounting and know a debt can be forgiven or paid off, either one cancels the debt, but they do not mean the same thing. You never say a debt paid in full was “forgiven”.

It can be neither, someone else can pay the debt, which is cancelled as long as it gets paid.

Right, if someone else pays the debt it is cancelled, but it was still not also forgiven.

Nope. . .not according to God's sacrificial system of debt-paying for sin, where the blood had to be applied for cleansing of sin, not just "accepted."
The blood had to be applied by hyssop for the OT cleansing of one's sin,
just as the blood has to be applied by faith for the NT cleansing of one's sin.
You are denying the gospel and NT apostolic teaching.

I am denying your interpretation of the sacrificial system (atonement system)

Look at the atonement process every male Jew in the first century should have experienced for very minor, unintentional and almost accidental sins, which is very much like what we should experience but much more severely since we sin intentionally. Lev. 5

Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement has some lite symbolic references to Christ, Lev 5 is a closer representation. I will discuss Lev. 16 if you want to take the time, but it takes some explaining of what and why it was needed by itself. Please read Lev. 5 before going further.

Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

Please think up some questions to ask me.

Whose love is always in accord with justice.

Being perfectly “just” is also part of being perfectly Loving.

And you are thereby making God unjust, by requiring payment twice for the same sin, payment by Jesus on the cross and payment by the sinner in Gehenna.

You are not considering man’s part in the whole atonement process and What Jesus taught us with the Parable in Matt. 18:21-35 where the wicked servant was totally unconditionally forgiven by the master, yet because he did not humbly accept the forgiveness as pure charity in the end still owed the debt.

Time in Gehenna will not pay the sin off.

Matthew 18:21-35 is not about accepting God's forgiveness as pure undeserved charity, it's about our not forgiving others.

Our not forgiving others is in the parable but it is not the only thing: did the Master, represent God, say He forgave the wicked servant’s debt?

It could not be paid by sinful man, because the sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish.

Are you not making God out to be very blood thirsty with Him wanting innocent blood for a payment?

Did the sacrifices in Lev. 5 for very minor sins “pay” off the sin debt?

There were five different sacrifices in the sacrificial system.
God doesn't define the sacrifice in Leviticus 5. He defines the unintentional sin for which it must be offered.
All sacrifice was for unintentional sin. There was no sacrifice for intentional sin, you died with your sin unforgiven.
To be applied by faith.

I agree “All sacrifice was for unintentional sin” but also like in Lev. 16 there could have been sins you did not know you committed and might not have committed but were just worried about.

Those good children of God people prior to the cross who were forgiven by God, where just not personally disciplined for their sins.

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished... (Rom. 3:25, NIV)

This verse does provide a lot of information about how sins prior to Christ going to the cross were handled.

First off: Paul is giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, just a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished”, but that also means the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).

God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.

Paul goes on to explain:

Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

I do not like the word “unpunished” but would use “undisciplined” (you discipline your children and do not punish your children).

So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for their rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize, at the time Christ was on the cross, God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel a death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent. (We can now comfortably feel justified before God.)

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I, who needs that blood outside of Christ to flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.

Your notion of faith is passive, while the NT notion of faith is active--to take hold of, to apprehend (Philippians 3:12-13; 1 Timothy 6:12, 1 Timothy 6:19; 1 Corinthians 9:24-25).

The ransom for which Jesus said he came to give his life (Matthew 20:28) was to pay the sin debt so that we could be set free from God's condemnation for sin (Romans 5:18).

Atonement is a huge misunderstood topic which all the theories do a poor job explaining, look at just one aspect they do not address:

When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner what are you trying to get him/her to accept: A doctrine, a denomination, a book, a theology, or something else. NO, you want the nonbeliever to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and if he does a child of God is released to enter the Kingdom and be with God, but if the sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him crucifies” a child is kept out of the Kingdom.

Does this not sound very much like a kidnapping scenario with a ransom being offered?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is described in scripture as a literal ransom payment?

Would the sinner holding a child of God out of the Kingdom of God describe a kidnapper?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is a huge sacrificial payment, like you find with children being ransomed?

Some think, if I do something, I am saving myself, but a criminal (very unrighteous) person can accept an undeserving ransom payment without doing anything worthy, righteous, honorable or noble.

I'm thinking I would like it better under the OT where I was protected from this "fair and just discipline."

Who in the world thinks the eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46) of unquenchable fire (Mark 9:49) is simply "discipline?"
So Jesus died so that I could be saved from not being disciplined by God, to go to being disciplined by God?
Why do I think that is going backward instead of forward?
And you think that is the "good news" of the gospel?

I and others need all the benefits from a fair/just Loving disciplining and that is what we get when we are empathetically crucified with Christ.

Those that go to hell have refused the fair/just disciplining (being crucified with Christ) and thus are punished (not disciplined) which you cannot survive from.

And you think this is what the gospel is?!!!
We are saved from God's condemnation (Romans 5:18) to empathically experience Christ's crucifixion?

And that is your logic for making Paul agree with your meaning of being "crucified with Christ"?!!!

So faith in Jesus Christ is not the dividing line between saved and unsaved?!!!

You're making the heresies of the NT which John and Paul had to deal with look positively tame!

Do you feel God in heaven empathically experience the crucifixion with Christ?

What did you experience in being crucified empathetically with Christ?

Think about this:

There is a, one of a kind, Ming vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.

Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair discipline? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?

Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?

Suppose after smashing the vase, repenting and forgiveness, your older brother says he will work with your father putting the vase together, so you can keep up with your social life. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

Suppose Jesus the magician waved his hands over the smashed vase and restored it perfectly to the previous condition, so there is really very little for you to be forgiven of or for you to do. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?

Suppose it is not you that breaks the Ming vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Ming vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Was the neighbor forgiven and if not why not?

 

[enoob57]

Jesus went to the cross to pay the sin debt, which payment is applied to those who believe in and trust on him and his atoning work.

How do you reason what you have said above with this verse below?
1 John 2:1 (KJV)
Chapter 2
[2:1] My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
[2] And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[TedT]

I just read the Bible and believe what it says.

We all just believe an interpretation of what we think it says...me and thee.

 

[Clare73]

How do you reason what you have said above with this verse below?
1 John 2:1 (KJV)
Chapter 2
[2:1] My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
[2] And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

The old Mosaic covenant of Judaism and its exclusiveness with circumcised Jews being John's reference point, the "whole world" would mean not just the Jews anymore.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How do you reason what you have said above with this verse below?
1 John 2:1 (KJV)
Chapter 2
[2:1] My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
[2] And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Which part of that do you suppose to disagree with what @Clare73 said?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Calvinism is not the only theology that sees some sinners as condemned before conception. The theology of our Pre-Conception Existence (PCE) contends that all persons created in HIS image were created before the creation of the physical universe* with a free will and an equal ability and rtunity to put their faith in HIM as their GOD and Saviour to become HIS elect chosen ones
OR
with an equal ability and opportunity to put their faith against HIM as being a liar and therefore a false god, ignoring HS warning this would be an unforgivable sin
and that if HE ever proved that HE is their creator god, this unforgivable sin would put them in hell forever.

* which they saw as per Job 38:7 with Rom 1:18-20.

Job 38:7 is referring to angels and Romans 1:18-20 is referring to people after creation not before. Verse 20 says “for since creation” meaning after creation not before and verse 23 says they exchanged the glory of God for idols of birds, four legged animals, and crawling creatures which didn’t exist before creation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

PCE also contends that rather than GOD having NO reason to elect some and pass over others as some Calvinists clam, HE chose those who put their faith in HIM to be elected to salvation no matter how they might sin in the future and to be HIS Bride after this reality was cleansed from all evil. HE also passed over for salvation all those who repudiated HIM as a false god driven by an evil megalomania as for ever unfit to ever be a proper Bride for HIM, consigning them to hell on the spot.

AS you can see this is hardly Calvinism at all, until we get to the salvation of sinners which is pretty straight forward orthodoxy.

If what you say here were true then there would be no need for this world at all if we are already judged and condemned and our future sins are already forgiven then there would be no need to believe in Christ at all. Why preach the gospel of salvation if the decision was already made before creation? Why call people to repentance if they’re already saved whether they repent or not?

 

[BNR32FAN]

So, no actual verse, eh.

You just ignored the verses that specifically state that the torment of those who are condemned is eternal. If your saying they don’t actually say that then you should offer some sort of explanation as to how these verses could not be referring to eternal torment instead of just ignoring them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Universal salvation like in "You shall not die..."

Yes the serpent said the same thing to Eve in the garden of Eden.

 

[TedT]

Job 38:7 is referring to angels and Romans 1:18-20 is referring to people after creation not before.

Prove this opinion is more truthful than mine...

 

[TedT]

If what you say here were true then there would be no need for this world at all if we are already judged and condemned and our future sins are already forgiven then there would be no need to believe in Christ at all.

The use of the world is found in our need to have our eyes opened to sins, our own and the eternal nature of the sins of the reprobate and a platform for Christ's sacrifice. That doesn't change in PCE Theology though you seem to mistakenly believe it does.

No Need has no validity to this conversation except HE needed to fulfill the promise inferred in our election sometime, somewhere...

 

[TedT]

Yes the serpent said the same thing to Eve in the garden of Eden.

If you don't believe in universal salvation why are you poking me about it? I sure don't and nothing I say implies it...

 

[BNR32FAN]

Prove this opinion is more truthful than mine...

I did prove that Romans 1-18:20 is referring to after creation not before by pointing out that Paul specifically stated in verse 20 “for since creation”. That means since after creation not before it and he goes on to say that they worshipped images of birds, four legged animals, and crawling creatures, none of which existed before creation. And who created these idol images before the universe or man existed? I’d say it doesn’t get any more proven than that.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The use of the world is found in our need to have our eyes opened to sins, our own and the eternal nature of the sins of the reprobate and a platform for Christ's sacrifice. That doesn't change in PCE Theology though you seem to mistakenly believe it does.

No Need has no validity to this conversation except HE needed to fulfill the promise inferred in our election sometime, somewhere...

Ok then I have a few questions.

1) Why was Jesus speaking speaking to the crowd of men who were seeking to kill Him in John 5? He tells us the answer to that question in verse 33.

“But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.”
‭‭John‬ ‭5:34‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Will these men be saved or will they be condemned? He tells us the answer to that question in verse 45.

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. I do not receive glory from men; but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?””
‭‭John‬ ‭5:39-47 NASB

So why is Jesus trying to save men who are going to be condemned and were these men capable of repentance in this world?

 

[BNR32FAN]

If you don't believe in universal salvation why are you poking me about it? I sure don't and nothing I say implies it...

I was agreeing with you

 

[Mark Quayle]

The use of the world is found in our need to have our eyes opened to sins, our own and the eternal nature of the sins of the reprobate and a platform for Christ's sacrifice. That doesn't change in PCE Theology though you seem to mistakenly believe it does.

No Need has no validity to this conversation except HE needed to fulfill the promise inferred in our election sometime, somewhere...

Far be it from me to agree with @BNR32FAN nor to approve of his logical rigour, but Ted, you seem to in one post think PCE means Pre-Conception Existence, and in another Pre-Conception Election, as if either one proves the other, or as if they are essentially the same thing.

 

[Der Alte]

To Whom It May Concern.
When Jesus says Aionios He means "eternal,""everlasting,""unending" etc.
“αιωνιος transliterated in English as aionios” occurs 72x in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated world only 5 times in the N.T. [2%]
“aionios” is correctly translated “eternal” 42 times in the N.T.[52%]
“aionios” is correctly translated “everlasting” 25 times in the N.T.[34.7%]
Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times, [38.8% of total] Jesus never used “aionios” to refer something common, ordinary/mundane which was not/could not be “eternal.”
= = = = = = = = = =
In twenty four [24] of the following 26 verses “αιων/aion//αιωνιος/aionios are defined/described as eternal, everlasting, eternity etc, by paralleling or juxtaposition with other adjectives or descriptive phrases.
= = = = = = = = = =
…..Some people claim that “αιων/aion//αιωνιος/aionios never means eternity/eternal” because a few times they refer to something which are not eternal e.g. “world.”
However, neither word is ever defined/described, by adjectives or descriptive phrases, as meaning a period less than eternal, as in the following NT verses.
…..Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. Jesus never used “aionios” to refer to anything common, ordinary or mundane that was not/could not be eternal.
…..In the following ten verses Jesus defines/describes “aionios” as “eternal.” Lk 1:33, John 6:58, 10:28, 3:15, 3:16, 5:29, 3:36, 4:14, 6:27, 8:51

[1] Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign [basileusei [Vb.] over the house of Jacob for ever; [αιωνας/aionas] and of his kingdom [basileias, [Nn.] there shall be no end.[telos]​

In this verse the reign/basileusei, the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here means eternal, no end.

[2] John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[aionios] ​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “live aionios” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite age, a finite period life is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[3] John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [aionios] life, and they shall never [aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand”, and “never perish.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite age,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’/never perish” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

[4]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
[5] John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life.​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish,” twice. Believers could eventually perish in a finite age, by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

[6]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, [Amen, Amen] I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [aionios] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite age,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.

[7]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

[8]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never [ου μη/ou mé] thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [aionios] life.​

In this verse Jesus paralleled aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé][fn] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal. See footnote [fn] on “ou mé” below.

[9]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.​

In this verse Jesus contrasted “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[10]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ou mé eis ton aiona][fn] see death."​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means eternity.

[Character Limit. Continued next post]