My Comment: He will replace the archtype of the animal sacrifice. Christ came to bring the solution to the fall. Your response: Of course{/quote] yes, but you believe that He only saved some men from the fall. He didn't even save His creation in your view. If the fall affected all men, then Christ works affected all men. Based on the wording of scripture, the meaning of the inherent inheritability of the fall, and the assumption of our natures by Christ, it cannot be but that
EVERY man be saved by His death and resurrection.
Sorry , all men are not set free from bondage to sin , is it too hard for you to see it ?
How can you tell the difference, I might add? We all sin, believer and unbeliever. So how do you know or how do you see that some have been saved from bondage and others not?
I believe it to be so, because the Bible states it that way and it has been taught, accepted, transferred with that understanding since the beginning from the Apostles. If one does not have that much faith, what is the sense in the whole thing.
You continue to confuse things that differ , all men is Geographic , National Trible NOT each and evry ............for then it would include the Amalekites .
That is the very point. You need to change the meaning otherwise your presupposition falls on its face. But the Bible is quite clear, it is in fact all men, no exception. It has nothing to do with geography. There are only two groups in the OT. Jews and Gentiles. The veil of the temple was rent breaking the curtain between the two. There is now only one people. Gentiles and Jews are one, called God's people, people Christ came to redeem so that none would be held in bondage to Adam but free to choose for themselves who they would serve. There is no text in the Bible that contradicts that premise from beginning to end.
If the Amalekites are people, then they are included.
Arminianism , and works based ............ no need for Grace.
More to the point, it has nothing to do with redemption or the salvation of mankind, or correction of the fall. Man is now able to do what Adam was doing, fulfilling his created role, prior to his sin which put all of us in the bondage of the judgement against Him. He was free to choose, Christ gave us that freedom.
You want to deny the very work that Christ did for man. Then you want to make God do what He created you to do with Him. You have everything turned around backwards.
Man's will is totally devoted to his heart , and his heart is defiled .... he chooses that which he prefers ........ Darkness.
That is correct. Each and every man chooses his relationship with His maker. He will be held accountable for that choice.
My Comment: This is done through the Incarnation. Immortality of mankind makes it possible for God to have a communion with mankind in this fallen world because we will never perish eternally. NO ONE.
Your response: Hell exists.
Yes it does indeed. But your view denies its existance for most of mankind. Only those that have been redeemed, made alive, and then rejected that great gift given to all of mankind will live eternally in hell. Explain your view where hell would even exist?
read Genesis for your answer , The Flood , and Sodom and Gommorah are good starting places.
Again, that is the whole point of universal redemption. Not a soul or I should say, a human being will be lost. All will live for an eternity. None will be exterminated, annihilated, cease to exist. All because Christ brought life to all of mankind. You are under the mistaken assumption that hell is non-existance. Hell is an eternal existance for human beings who have willfully rejected Christ or God.
Using your example, if Christ had not come, mankind, those of Sodom would all have ceased to exist at the time of their mortal deaths. Body and soul would have been eternally separated. Human beings as they were meant to be would be annihilated and God's creation and creatures bearing His Image would have been destroyed by their own creator. I still say incomprehensible, but apparently for you that is just and mercifull.
Man is worse than that , it isn't that he just doesn't follow the Spirit's leading ......... he is opposed to it!
That would be true of most of the OT and before Christ actually redeemed mankind. That is the whole purpose of the Incarnation. Redeeming our human natures so that they will be eternal and able to respond to God's call because now He has solved the problem of death and sin and man is no longer held in bondage to it. Again, you fail to properly understand what salvation actually entails for mankind, have no correlation with the fall and the purpose of man's existance.
No. ........... ability is a grant ...we are saved by Grace....
Ah, Yes, But Grace as the Gospel has proclaimed it starts long before your view even enters the picture. We are saved in order that we can be granted faith, and the ability to believe. Your view assumes Christ did nothing and because He cannot save everyone, He decrees to save some, by which His death and resurrection actually has no power because you deny the very essence of that power to overcome death and the fall.
No , man is at war with God.
I have never read that in the Bible. Satan is at war with God and His Church. Satan influences and leads men just as much as the Holy Spirit. It is man's desire, and his will that determines which influence he will permit to lead his life. God does not favor one man over another. Here is where your biggest denial exist.
You either must say that some people do not sin, have not been commited to disobedience through Adam, thus only some are in need of Christ. Or God committed all to disobedience, all men are in fact sinners and that God did so for the express purpose that He could show mercy upon all men. Christ died for the ungodly. I would presume in your theology that there may be some who are not ungodly, thus no need for Christ. He died for sinners, but some are not sinners. Your view is not consistant with many parts of scripture. You change meanings hoping that some will fall in line, but lo, there is always some other verse that sinks the supposition.
My rereading it now will not change the view it has had for the last 2000 years. What makes you think that some modern view takes precedence over the original?
It aligns with Roman 8: 29-30 as well. We were chosen not to believe but as believers IN Christ to be partakers of His divine nature, II Pet 1:4, to be holy, blameless, to be Sons, heirs of the promise. But nothing, absolutely nothing that says believers are selected to be believers at some point for any reason.
Easily stated, but nothing to show just why you deny it when everything you state confirms what I stated. Your theology is not consistant to what you are saying.
"I will have Mercy on who I will have mercy"
Yes, and this is at the begining of Pauls long several chapter discourse about the Jews and Gentiles. In the end he clearly shows in many ways, that God did it all just to show His mercy upon all. That is your answer on whom He will, He will have mercy. ALL, Romans 11:32
If that is true, then at least Arminius had that part of the Gospel understood correctly.
My Comment: It has already and continues until he returns and mankind is without excuse.
Your response: Of Course
Again, a very easy answer. It just does not align with what you have been saying above and in your other posts. Those that were not predestined to salvation, by whatever way you think it might mean, is that God also forordained His creatures to Hell by His hand, not man's and that gives man a good excuse. That has nothing to do with your argument about God having mercy on some and not on others. It does not even measure up to God's justice let alone mercy. The fact is, when you deny the historical understanding of the Incarnation and say that only those who are redeemed are saved, you also deny hell's existance.
Maybe, even worse, I don't see how you can even know with any measure of any assurance that you are in either camp. You have no knowledge under the typical OSAS scenerio that you might not be one of those who believed for a time but then fell away, thus were never saved in the first place and thus were not the elect or chosen.
Rather than just answer my suppositions about your theology I would really like to see you develop yours to show that it is consistant with what you actually believe. Not just isolated texts, totally out of context and then no acknowledging texts to the contrary or changing their meaning.
