Is Jesus the only one who can pay for our sins?

[FreeGrace2]

Do you reject the apocrypha?

Yes.

The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. (APOCRYPHA KJV)

If you reject the apocrypha, you are a heretic by your own words.

Nonsense. Interesting that you accept books that were not considered inspired by councils way before 1611, yet reject actual books of the Bible that are considered inspired. But not surprising.

Besides, you are as the pagans, desiring a human sacrifice to appease their god.

This doesn't sound even close to what Christians believe. I haven't come across your ideas ever and I attended a Christian liberal arts college for 2 years and have been active in various ministries throughout my life. Why do you put yourself forward as one? Care to name the church you attend? I'd love to read its "statement of faith".

But interesting that you used the word "appease" here. That's what 1 John 2:2 means. iow, it was Jesus' dying for the sins of the world that propitiated His Father.

What God calls abomination, you call salvation.

It's the basis for one's salvation, something you're not even aware of. Or have rejected.

To one who desires human sacrifices, much is hidden.

To one who cherry-picks what they will accept from the Bible, VERY MUCH is hidden.

 

[John Hyperspace]

That was my question. I asked if the penalty for sin is something...
a. only Jesus can pay (and paid by dying)
b. we can also pay for by being eternally separated from God.

It seems to be obviously the first one is the correct answer, but I wondered why so few people agree.

It can't be either of those two. If it's paid by dying, and Jesus paid for us, we shouldn't be dying still - but we are. If the payment is eternal separation from God, then Jesus didn't pay for us because He wasn't eternally separated from God. So there must be a "c" because "a" and "b" don't work.

Whatever the penalty for sin is, Jesus did pay it. It could be the life of an innocent person (Exodus 12:3-5). If so, Jesus took our punishment, but those who don't believe can't however atone for their sin.

Does the scripture actually say Jesus paid the penalty for sin for us? Or did He nullify the penalty for sin? In other words, if the wages of sin is death, and we all die: but in Christ even though we die, we live on; did He pay the penalty, or, did He make the penalty of no real consequence. In other words, did He defeat death by turning death into life?

 

[EmSw]

Yes.

So you choose what is inspired and what is not. Since this was included in the KJV and you reject it, you are a self-proclaimed heretic.

Nonsense. Interesting that you accept books that were not considered inspired by councils way before 1611, yet reject actual books of the Bible that are considered inspired. But not surprising.

So man chooses what is inspired. How convenient.

This doesn't sound even close to what Christians believe. I haven't come across your ideas ever and I attended a Christian liberal arts college for 2 years and have been active in various ministries throughout my life. Why do you put yourself forward as one? Care to name the church you attend? I'd love to read its "statement of faith".

Please FG2, you know if Jesus was a sacrifice, then He was a human sacrifice. You may not have thought of that before, but that is what it is. You can't get around it. You demand a human sacrifice to be saved. Do you not?

I am 59 years old, have a college degree, been to many churches, been to Disney World, eaten spinach, played with LL All-Stars, and even bought a SUV. In all these things, I have never heard of Free Grace. Why do you put yourself as one? If you want my statement of faith, read my posts.

FG2, I am not a Pauline Christian as you are.

But interesting that you used the word "appease" here. That's what 1 John 2:2 means. iow, it was Jesus' dying for the sins of the world that propitiated His Father.

Alright, quit twisting what was said. You wrote that John used 'sacrifice' in this verse, and I told you it wasn't 'sacrifice'. I said nothing about appeasing. And it says nothing about Jesus dying for the sins of the world. I guess it doesn't matter if anything is inspired or not to you; you will add your 'inspired' words to your satisfaction.

It's the basis for one's salvation, something you're not even aware of. Or have rejected.

A human sacrifice is the basis of your salvation? So what God calls an abomination, you call your salvation.

Why don't you just believe Jesus' words, to enter life, keep His commandments?

 

[Marvin Knox]

What is clear is that He takes away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29). Nothing about the elect in that verse. Or any other. He died for all, which is specifically stated in 2 Cor 5:14,15 and Heb 2:9.

But that doesn't save anyone. It does, however, provide the gift of eternal life which is given to those who believe in Him. So no one will be cast into the lake of fire on the basis of their sins. It will be only on the basis of their not possessing eternal life, per Rev 20:15.

Maybe there's nothing about the elect in that verse. But it is found all over the place concerning the saved. (I didn't write the book or invent the term elect. God did.)

If you're looking to debate the idea that Christ died only for the "elect" you've come to the wrong place. I don't believe that doctrine.

The Word of God calls the saved "the elect". It's God's idea not mine. Nothing in simply pointing that out by using the term God uses says anything about the Calvinist doctrine of election and limited atonement or any such thing - if that's where you are looking to go with this.

I agree with what you say about Him suffering for the sins of all. I have never taught so called limited atonement if that's what you were looking to comment on in your post.

My point is exactly as you say. He bears the sin of all.

Some (the elect - whatever you think that term means) will be exalted with Him in Heaven with forgiven sins and some (the reprobate - whatever you think that term means) will join Him in the bearing of their sins however that works in the economy of God.

Don't be so anti Calvinist and thin skinned that you see that controversy every time someone uses the biblical term "elect" for the saved - just as God Himself does.

There's plenty of heresy in this thread to fight against in EmSw's trash talk.

You don't need to go Calvin bashing here. It only detracts from the work you should be doing which is undermining the heresies espoused by the heretic.

 

[Fish14]

It can't be either of those two. If it's paid by dying, and Jesus paid for us, we shouldn't be dying still - but we are. If the payment is eternal separation from God, then Jesus didn't pay for us because He wasn't eternally separated from God. So there must be a "c" because "a" and "b" don't work.



Does the scripture actually say Jesus paid the penalty for sin for us? Or did He nullify the penalty for sin? In other words, if the wages of sin is death, and we all die: but in Christ even though we die, we live on; did He pay the penalty, or, did He make the penalty of no real consequence. In other words, did He defeat death by turning death into life?

The Bible is clear in that Jesus died for our sins (Romans 4:25).

Suppose the penalty for sin was an infinite dollar fine and you should pay it to enter Heaven. You wouldn't be able to ever pay it so you would spend eternity in Hell. But if you believed in Jesus, He would pay it for you in your place. An innocent death is needed as the payment for sin. You can't pay it. Your death is just a natural consequence of sin ("dying you shall die" in Gen. 2:17)

 

[FreeGrace2]

So you choose what is inspired and what is not.

No, I choose to believe all that is in the Bible.

Since this was included in the KJV and you reject it, you are a self-proclaimed heretic.

Since when was the KJV inspired?

So man chooses what is inspired. How convenient.

Isn't that how and why you've rejected what Paul and the writer of Hebrews wrote? Out of convenience, since they refute your ideas

Please FG2, you know if Jesus was a sacrifice, then He was a human sacrifice. You may not have thought of that before, but that is what it is. You can't get around it. You demand a human sacrifice to be saved. Do you not?

What a stupid question! I don't demand anything. I believe what the Bible says. Which you do not.

Consider the words of Jesus in Luke 22 -
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Now, Mat 26 -
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.
28 This is my blood of thecovenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

A sacrifice involves something given. Jesus gave His "body and blood" for the forgiveness of sins.

Please explain what He meant.

I am 59 years old, have a college degree, been to many churches, been to Disney World, eaten spinach, played with LL All-Stars, and even bought a SUV. If you want my statement of faith, read my posts.

The reason I asked is because I don't recognize ANYTHING Christian in your posts.

FG2, I am not a Pauline Christian as you are.

Nope, I'm a Biblical Christian.

You wrote that John used 'sacrifice' in this verse, and I told you it wasn't 'sacrifice'. I said nothing about appeasing.

Then why did I post this to you:
"But interesting that you used the word "appease" here. That's what 1 John 2:2 means. iow, it was Jesus' dying for the sins of the world that propitiated His Father."

And it says nothing about Jesus dying for the sins of the world.

Just read Luke 22 and Matt 26 and learn.

A human sacrifice is the basis of your salvation?

No, not "a human sacrifice". But the sacrifice of My Savior Himself.

So what God calls an abomination, you call your salvation.

It is clear that you totally misunderstand the justice of God, or the grace of God.

Why don't you just believe Jesus' words, to enter life, keep His commandments?

Why do you totally misunderstand those words of Jesus?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Maybe there's nothing about the elect in that verse. But it is found all over the place concerning the saved. (I didn't write the book or invent the term elect. God did.)

I never suggested that "elect" isn't in the Bible. Of course it is. But there are no verses that state that Christ died only for the elect, or that election is about salvation. In fact, Scripture teaches that God's election is about service, not salvation, by looking at the life of Paul. The Lord told Ananias that Paul was His "chosen instrument" to evangelize the Gentiles in Acts 9. And Paul said this about that election: 1 Tim 1:12 - I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service.

Categories of Election

1. Election of Christ: Isa 42:1 "Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.

Matt 12:18 "Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen; My Beloved in whom My soul is well-pleased; I will put My Spirit upon Him, And He shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles.

Luke 9:35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!"

Luke 23:35 And the people stood by, looking on. And even the rulers were sneering at Him, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One.

1 Peter 2:6 For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, And he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed."

2. Election of Israel: Amos 3:2 "You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth; Therefore, I will punish you for all your iniquities."

Deut 7:6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

3. Election of Angels: 1 Tim 5:21 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality.

4. Election of the Church or body of Christ: Eph 1:4a just as He chose us (believers) in Him…

5. Other elections:

Paul: Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;

Apostles: John 15:16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you , and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask of the Father in My name, He may give to you.

The Word of God calls the saved "the elect". It's God's idea not mine.

Yes. He elected every believer.

Don't be so anti Calvinist and thin skinned that you see that controversy every time someone uses the biblical term "elect" for the saved - just as God Himself does.

I wasn't trying to demean the word in any sense.

There's plenty of heresy in this thread to fight against in EmSw's trash talk.

No kidding!

You don't need to go Calvin bashing here. It only detracts from the work you should be doing which is undermining the heresies espoused by the heretic.

I wasn't bashing anyone or anything in my post. Just wanting to set the record straight about election.

 

[bling]

So, you believe in human sacrifices. Don't worry, you aren't alone.

Notice the colored word above, 'about'. Since you think this is compared to Jesus death, we have to conclude God was 'about' to sacrifice His Son. However, Isaac's death did not come to fruition. Isaac was to be offered upon an altar, not a pagan cross. I also take you believe in a blood-thirsty God. As I said above, you are not alone.

We are all to be living sacrifices (giving our lives for the cause, just as Jesus is our example in this, but that does not mean we have to be tortured, humiliated and murdered every time.

God does not have any problem, especially with forgiving people and certainly does not need Christ to go to the cross in order for God to forgive.

Abraham did what was needed mainly for Abraham, but also for the nations around Abraham that will hear and repeat this story. At the time rulers of nations around Abraham were offering up to their gods their own children as symbolic of their commitment to their gods, but they would have known Abraham did not do such a thing so were they more devoted to their gods then Abraham was to his God? This story shows Abraham was much more devoted to his God then all the rest of them (giving his only son), but it also showed Abraham’s God Loved Abraham more than their gods loved them.

First, you must know the truth God gave us. This is the only thing to which we can compare other writings or the spoken word. As God told us, any false word was to test us to whether we will keep His commandments and obey Him.

Deuteronomy 13
3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him.

By this standard, we Jesus was a True Prophet of God, for He does tell to keep the commandments. If someone tells you that you do not have to keep the commandments, they are a false prophet which tests you to see you will keep the commandments.

Jesus did not personally record anything, so you are relying on others to tell us what Jesus said without corrupting it, but you think some writers did at some time corrupt the message. Why could they not also corrupt what they said Jesus said?

Again, Paul's own words will reveal whether it was Jesus or another spirit. We have no written witnesses to attest to Paul's vision, so we must rely upon what he wrote.

What greater “witnesses” are there to Peter, John and Matthew, which is not also found with Paul? Peter describes Paul’s writing 2 Peter 3: 14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Pater is including Paul’s letters with other scripture.

However, if you repent for the forgiveness of sins, you are pardoned of your sins (letting them go as if they were never committed) and you are remitted of the penalty. No sacrifice is needed, no offering is needed, and no blood is needed.

The “sacrifice” is not needed for forgiveness, but the sacrifice for (because of) sin is part of the atonement process.

Then please show me where God permitted a sacrifice to be given upon a pagan cross. If you can, then perhaps you have a point.

The cross was not used by pagans (Romans) for sacrifice, but for severe punishment of criminals.

You need to look at this article -

APOCRYPHA KJV

Here is the first line of this article:
The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible.

They were never given the weighted significance of scripture, but can be read and enjoyed.

Then you and I are in trouble. We can compare Jesus' words with the OT truth. Do you find anything Jesus said that is a lie?

I do not find any scripture to be a “lie”, but you are the one coming up with some division of scripture to say some could be a lie and the other is true, but you have not shown an infallible separation method.

I'm not sure what you're asking, but yes, Jesus did give us plenty of examples of being selfless, denying Himself, and loving others.

Is the cross an example of this denying self and Loving us?

However, we never see a human sacrifice for any atonement. Human sacrifices were purely pagan. You can't compare pagan sacrifices with Jesus.

Very true, so this sacrifice is something hugely different. The human sacrifices of the pagans was nothing but murdering of the human being sacrificed. With Christ we have a cruel torture, humiliation and murder done by evil wicked people, but allowed to help us.

What was the flour considered if not a substitute? What did the Jewish people consider the sacrifices to be for them?

A poor Jewish person in that time would have to work overtime, really “sacrifice” to get enough money together to pay for a bag of flour. He would get up early one day spend hours hiking into Jerusalem carrying his bag of flour, then he would wait in line for hours (thinking how he never wanted to do this again) to hand over his bag of flour to a priest who cast it on the fire. Those that could afford an animal went through a lot of the same hardship to give their “sacrifice” to the priest.

The flour, bird or lamb did not “do” anything for God, but the hardship on the giver willingly giving up time, effort money was Loving fair/just disciplining the giver (sinner) for a very “minor” offence. It was an act of “worship” for the sinner, but also an act of fellowship with God (God forgave them afterwards) and fellow forgiven sinners. The sinner could now put his sin behind him, he had memories of participating in worship at the temple (Where God was to be), He had a better understanding of the debt even minor sins create, and he should feel God Lovingly disciplining him for his “minor” sins by going through the atonement process.

Now I think you are seeing something. Did God need Jesus' 'sacrifice' to forgive us?

No

 

[Marvin Knox]

..........................But there are no verses that state that Christ died only for the elect.......,

I didn't say that He did.

I merely said the following:

Jesus did bear the penalty for the sins of the elect. The scriptures are clear about that.

Surely you believe that as well. If you don't - you're a heretic as well as EmSw.

No one said anything about "only the elect".

Where did you get the idea that I believed that?

..........or that election is about salvation. In fact, Scripture teaches that God's election is about service, not salvation,

How silly - of course it's about salvation.

Anyone put into service for the cause of Christ was and is saved or he is "elected" to do the work of Satan and not that of God.

God's choice of that person was from before his salvation not since.

Look at Christ, John the Baptist, Paul and all the disciples to see that fact - not to mention you and I who were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.

I wasn't bashing anyone or anything in my post. Just wanting to set the record straight about election.

I've heard your service not salvation take dozens of times.

IMO it's ridiculous to say that anyone of the fallen men who are said to be without hope and without God in the world could be chosen by God before the foundation of the world for service in the cause of Christ without God's choosing them for salvation also in order to use them in that service.

You do believe, don't you, that we do the work of God only by the power of the Holy Spirit? You do believe that anyone "elected" to do that work (before they even existed) were elected to do that work through the Holy Spirit's power - which is only given with salvation?

No doubt in my mind that you will come up with a comeback of some sort. But, please, save it.

You are, IMO, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

You should save your posts to that effect for another thread IMO. I'm not interested.

Why you would find it necessary to open this pet peeve of yours here when there are bigger fish to fry I'll never know.

But I won't serve as a distraction from your debate with EmSw anymore.

You're on your own. I thought we were doing pretty well as a team though. Even old Bling was on our team against the heretic.

Perhaps you can even come to much agreement with the heretic in your mutual distain for Reformed theology and thus nullify your work to undermine his heresies.

Strange bedfellows and all that.

Unless he's stupid enough to jump back on the hook now that you have changed the subject - you've likely lost him. What a shame.

 

[FreeGrace2]

↑I said this:
"..........................But there are no verses that state that Christ died only for the elect.......,"

I didn't say that He did.

I merely said the following:

Surely you believe that as well. If you don't - you're a heretic as well as EmSw.

No one said anything about "only the elect".

Where did you get the idea that I believed that?

By saying that Christ for the elect. I forgot that your views do not include limited atonement. Calvinists who do believe in limited atonement say it the way you did. My point was that He died for more than the elect.

Then I said this:
"..........or that election is about salvation. In fact, Scripture teaches that God's election is about service, not salvation,"

How silly - of course it's about salvation.

Where does the Bible say that? I provided Scriptural evidence for 6 categories of election, none of which relate to salvation.

Anyone put into service for the cause of Christ was and is saved or he is "elected" to do the work of Satan and not that of God.

Huh?

God's choice of that person was from before his salvation not since.

I know when God elected believers; before the foundation of the world, per Eph 1:4.

But the fact remains that God chooses believers for service; not unsaved for salvation.

Look at Christ, John the Baptist, Paul and all the disciples to see that fact - not to mention you and I who were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.

OK, let's look at Eph 1:4 - For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Plain as day. We (believers) were chosen to be holy and blameless. That is for service, not salvation.

I've heard your service not salvation take dozens of times.

I proved it with Scripture. Where are any verses that says people are elected to salvation.

IMO it's ridiculous to say that anyone of the fallen men who are said to be without hope and without God in the world could be chosen by God before the foundation of the world for service in the cause of Christ without God's choosing them for salvation also in order to use them in that service.

That's because of your reformed bias. Everyone in the world is born "without hope and without God in the world" as it is. So your "hangup" is false.

You do believe, don't you, that we do the work of God only by the power of the Holy Spirit?

If you're thinking of John 6:29, I'm not biting. The Jews asked Jesus, in the context of "working for food that endures to eternal life" what work God requires. So Jesus' answer was what we call "tongue-in-cheek" when He said "the work of God is to believe in His Son". That's no work at all. In fact, Paul contrasted faith (believing) from works in Rom 4:4,5 and Eph 2:8,9.

You do believe that anyone "elected" to do that work (before they even existed) were elected to do that work through the Holy Spirit's power - which is only given with salvation?

Yes, and this still doesn't lead to the conclusion that anyone was elected to salvation. The work that we were created for (Eph 2:10) is the SERVICE that we've been elected to do.

No doubt in my mind that you will come up with a comeback of some sort. But, please, save it.

I don't mind repeating the truth.

You are, IMO, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Yes, that's just an opinion.

Why you would find it necessary to open this pet peeve of yours here when there are bigger fish to fry I'll never know.

For clarification from your less than clear post.

But I won't serve as a distraction from your debate with EmSw anymore.

It's not a debate. He's so far off the rails it's just a one sided discussion.

You're on your own. I thought we were doing pretty well as a team though. Even old Bling was on our team against the heretic.

Well then, it looks as if I'm not really on my own.

Perhaps you can even come to much agreement with the heretic in your mutual distain for Reformed theology and thus nullify your work to undermine his heresies.

There's nothing to agree with in his very strange views.

Strange bedfellows and all that.

Yes, very strange.

Unless he's stupid enough to jump back on the hook now that you have changed the subject - you've likely lost him. What a shame.

No, he lost himself.

 

[EmSw]

...

 

[EmSw]

We are all to be living sacrifices (giving our lives for the cause, just as Jesus is our example in this, but that does not mean we have to be tortured, humiliated and murdered every time.

How about giving your life for love?

John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Just what do you consider the 'cause' to be?

God does not have any problem, especially with forgiving people and certainly does not need Christ to go to the cross in order for God to forgive.

Exactly. That's what Jesus taught, repentance for the forgiveness of sins. He did not teach He had to go to the cross in order to forgive sins.

Abraham did what was needed mainly for Abraham, but also for the nations around Abraham that will hear and repeat this story. At the time rulers of nations around Abraham were offering up to their gods their own children as symbolic of their commitment to their gods, but they would have known Abraham did not do such a thing so were they more devoted to their gods then Abraham was to his God? This story shows Abraham was much more devoted to his God then all the rest of them (giving his only son), but it also showed Abraham’s God Loved Abraham more than their gods loved them.

What do you mean by 'giving His only Son'?

Jesus did not personally record anything, so you are relying on others to tell us what Jesus said without corrupting it, but you think some writers did at some time corrupt the message. Why could they not also corrupt what they said Jesus said?

That puts Judaism and Christianity in a dilemma, doesn't it? We all could be living a lie.

It is my belief, that all truth is based upon the two great commandments. You shall love the Lord your God, and your neighbor. Anyone who teaches against these, or they are not needed, has corrupted God's truth. I think you will find every good thing from God comes from these two commandments.

What greater “witnesses” are there to Peter, John and Matthew, which is not also found with Paul? Peter describes Paul’s writing 2 Peter 3: 14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Pater is including Paul’s letters with other scripture.

How many of the Gentiles were ignorant, or unlearned to whom Paul went? How many knew anything about salvation?

Does God give you wisdom, bling? Why are your writings not inspired? If God gives you wisdom, can your writings not be compared to other scriptures? If you don't have God's wisdom, should I believe anything you write?

The “sacrifice” is not needed for forgiveness, but the sacrifice for (because of) sin is part of the atonement process.

If sins are forgiven through repentance, what atonement is needed? Do forgiven sins need atonement? Are sins that are counted as though they were never committed need atonement?

Are you one who also believes in human sacrifices? God calls these an abomination. Will you shout these abominations from the mountain top, just like Marvin says he does?

The cross was not used by pagans (Romans) for sacrifice, but for severe punishment of criminals.

So, was Jesus a criminal? Why was it used as a sacrifice of the Lord in your opinion? Do you recall God saying a sacrifice was acceptable by hanging on a cross?

They were never given the weighted significance of scripture, but can be read and enjoyed.

So, being part of the Bible does not guarantee it is 'inspired', right?

I do not find any scripture to be a “lie”, but you are the one coming up with some division of scripture to say some could be a lie and the other is true, but you have not shown an infallible separation method.

Do you want an example?

Romans 10
6 But the righteousness which is of faith saith thus, Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down)
7 or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach:

This is what Paul said. Supposedly he was quoting the OT. Let's see what the OT says.

Deuteronomy 30
11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Paul took a lot of liberty to change what God said, don't you think? But, what would the unlearned Gentiles know about what God said in the OT?

First, Deuteronomy isn't talking about righteousness of faith. It's talking about the commandment which God commanded.

Second, it doesn't say who will go up to heaven to bring Christ down; it says who will go to heaven to bring God's commandment down, that we hear it and do it.

Third, and this is the biggie, IT DOES NOT SAY who will descend into the abyss, to bring up Christ from the dead! Paul clearly lied about what Deuteronomy said. Deuteronomy said who shall go over the sea to bring God's commandment to us, to make us hear it, that we may do it. If one cannot see how Paul changed the very word of God, then there is something wrong.

Fourth, Paul said the word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach. God said, the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. God said nothing about a word of faith. This is what Paul preached, not what God said.

So I ask, who is giving us the truth and who is lying?

Is the cross an example of this denying self and Loving us?

Yes, very much so, BUT it is not a sacrifice accepted by God.

Very true, so this sacrifice is something hugely different. The human sacrifices of the pagans was nothing but murdering of the human being sacrificed. With Christ we have a cruel torture, humiliation and murder done by evil wicked people, but allowed to help us.

Either you think the cross was a sacrifice, or a murder. Which way are you leaning?

A poor Jewish person in that time would have to work overtime, really “sacrifice” to get enough money together to pay for a bag of flour. He would get up early one day spend hours hiking into Jerusalem carrying his bag of flour, then he would wait in line for hours (thinking how he never wanted to do this again) to hand over his bag of flour to a priest who cast it on the fire. Those that could afford an animal went through a lot of the same hardship to give their “sacrifice” to the priest.

Was Christ your possession to be sacrificed? Did you bring Christ to the priest to be sacrificed? Did you get up early hiking into Jerusalem, waiting in line for hours, to give Christ to the priest?

The flour, bird or lamb did not “do” anything for God, but the hardship on the giver willingly giving up time, effort money was Loving fair/just disciplining the giver (sinner) for a very “minor” offence. It was an act of “worship” for the sinner, but also an act of fellowship with God (God forgave them afterwards) and fellow forgiven sinners. The sinner could now put his sin behind him, he had memories of participating in worship at the temple (Where God was to be), He had a better understanding of the debt even minor sins create, and he should feel God Lovingly disciplining him for his “minor” sins by going through the atonement process.

What hardship did you suffer to sacrifice Christ? Do you call it worship that Christ died on the cross? Do you feel your sins are behind you after worship in the temple?

 

[Marvin Knox]

OK, let's look at Eph 1:4 - For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
Plain as day. We (believers) were chosen to be holy and blameless. That is for service, not salvation.

I just can't resist commenting on this obvious reach of yours.

Being holy and blameless, whether positionally or actually in our everyday actions, are both the result of being in Christ.

Being in Christ is salvation pure and simple.

Why do you feel that you must reach like that?

Everyone in the world is born "without hope and without God in the world"

Exactly.

If a person is without hope and without God they are not a saved and believing person.

God elected us in that condition - namely unsaved and unbelieving.

Therefore God elected unbelievers not believers. It's very clear unless you have a pet axe to grind.

No thinking person with a shred of knowledge concerning simple logic can fail to see that.

It is logically and inescapably true whether one is talking about election to salvation or election to service.

Saying that God elects believers for salvation or for service – is a little like saying that God elects 100 year olds for old age or to escape death for 10 decades.


They would both be silly and unnecessary statements even if they were made by God.

You rob the Holy Spirit's words of meaning when you play such games.

 

[Marvin Knox]

.

 

[Marvin Knox]

.

 

[EmSw]

It's not a debate. He's so far off the rails it's just a one sided discussion.

So, we find you don't believe in eternal security. You keep saying one only has to believe, but that doesn't apply to me, right?

Well then, it looks as if I'm not really on my own.

While believing in eternal security, you try your hardest to send me to damnation, even with help from your friends.

There's nothing to agree with in his very strange views.

Do strange views (in your eyes) cancel eternal security?

Yes, very strange.

No, he lost himself.

I lost myself? I thought no one could pluck me from His hand. So, one has eternal security according to your standards. I see how you work, FG2 makes the rules. I used to believe in what you and Marvin believe. How is it I lost myself?

 

[EmSw]

But I won't serve as a distraction from your debate with EmSw anymore.

You're not distracting, Marvin.

You're on your own. I thought we were doing pretty well as a team though. Even old Bling was on our team against the heretic.

Did you decide on your own, I'm a heretic, Marvin? Or, did you go before councils to decide this? Do you think teaming up will have any affect on me? Can we call you Roger, the heresy hunter now? Is this your calling?

Let's see what we find about heresy in the Free Dictionary, shall we?

1. a professed believer who maintains religious beliefs contrary to those accepted by his or her church.
2. a professed believer who willfully and persistently rejects any part of the doctrine of his or her church.
3. anyone who does not conform to an established view, doctrine, or principle.

You call me a heretic because I maintain beliefs contrary to those accepted by YOUR church. Strike one, Marvin.
You call me a heretic because I willfully and persistently reject the doctrine of YOUR church. Strike two, Marvin.
You call me a heretic because I do not conform to an established view, doctrine, or principle. Well Marvin, human sacrifice IS NOT an established view, doctrine, or principle in any Christian church. Strike three, Marvin.

Besides, anyone who shouts this abomination from the mountain tops, does not listen to, nor believe the Sovereign God. Sorry Marvin, you are out of strikes.

Perhaps you can even come to much agreement with the heretic in your mutual distain for Reformed theology and thus nullify your work to undermine his heresies.

Strange bedfellows and all that.

Did you not know you are a heretic to Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Penecostals, and many other churches? Of course you won't acknowledge this because you think John 3:16 says this -

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Reformed Theology should not perish but have everlasting life.

Unless he's stupid enough to jump back on the hook now that you have changed the subject - you've likely lost him. What a shame.

No Marvin, I don't walk away like Reformed Theology does. When you don't get your way, you stammer and pout like a spoiled child and walk away, but not without calling someone names first.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I just can't resist commenting on this obvious reach of yours.

Being holy and blameless, whether positionally or actually in our everyday actions, are both the result of being in Christ.

Only when the believer is not grieving (Eph 4:30) or quenching (1Thess 5:19) the Holy Spirit, but rather, are filled with the Spirit )Eph 5:18).

Being in Christ is salvation pure and simple.

Yes. And Eph 1:4 does NOT say that one is chosen to be in Christ. They are clearly said to be chosen TO BE holy and blameless.

Why do you feel that you must reach like that?

It is the Calvinist view that reaches way out in Eph 1:4.

God elected us in that condition - namely unsaved and unbelieving.

Nope. The election has already occurred, no argument. But those elected are believers. The "us" in Eph 1:4 is actually clarified in 1:19 as believers.

Therefore God elected unbelievers not believers.

Therefore, not.

It's very clear unless you have a pet axe to grind.

No axe, and non grinding on my part. My points are all verified from Scripture.

No thinking person with a shred of knowledge concerning simple logic can fail to see that.

It is logically and inescapably true whether one is talking about election to salvation or election to service.

So you're now admitting that election "may be" to service. Interesting. I gave 6 examples or categories of election that cannot be for salvation. So, where are those verses that do speak of election to salvation?

Saying that God elects believers for salvation or for service – is a little like saying that God elects 100 year olds for old age or to escape death for 10 decades.

Nope.

You rob the Holy Spirit's words of meaning when you play such games.

There are no games on my side. My points are all verified from Scripture.

To say that God chooses for salvation from the Calvinist view is to say that God chooses who will believe, which absolutely is not even hinted at in Scripture, much less said.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"It's not a debate. He's so far off the rails it's just a one sided discussion."

So, we find you don't believe in eternal security.

I have no idea where you get your questions. Of course I believe in eternal security.

You keep saying one only has to believe, but that doesn't apply to me, right?

It applies to everyone. Again, your questions reveal an astounding lack of grasping anything I've posted.

While believing in eternal security, you try your hardest to send me to damnation, even with help from your friends.

How have I done that? Please be specific. And, btw, I have no ability to send anyone to damnation, but thanks for the compliment. But it belongs to God alone.

Do strange views (in your eyes) cancel eternal security?

No, strange (meaning unbiblical) views are contrary to God's truth.

I lost myself?

I don't know. You tell me.

I thought no one could pluck me from His hand. So, one has eternal security according to your standards.

No, according to the Bible. Much of which you've rejected.

I see how you work, FG2 makes the rules.

No, God did that already. I only acknowledge them.

I used to believe in what you and Marvin believe. How is it I lost myself?

Well, you're going to have to tell me. What was the event where you "apostatized" from your former belief and decided that Paul wasn't biblical?

 

[Marvin Knox]

There are no games on my side. My points are all verified from Scripture.

Your position is nothing but a "game" played with the scriptures in order to avoid the obvious meaning of them.

Example:

I am 71 year old now. Some would call me an "old man" I suppose.

I received Christ when I was 13 years old. If "election" has to do with service as you say then that 13 year old was elected to do all of the good things which I have (I believe) done in the flesh as a Christian. The election should be said to be of a 13 year old to serve. Him all of his days.

Since we are talking in the present - it is technically true that God elected a 71 year old for service. But to say that God elected a 71 year old to serve Him would be extremely misleading to all concerned.

The scriptures are very clear (as you have admitted) that (whatever you envision election to consist of) I was elected form my birth and even "before the foundation of the world".

You would be technically correct (and would likerly mislead many) by saying today that God elected a 71 year old to serve Him all of his days or that He elected a 71 year old to spend eternity as part of His body (either one).

But doing so would be (purposefully IMO) misleading concerning the actual meaning of the doctrine.

I do believe that before God you are guilty of purposefully misrepresenting what the scriptures teach when you say that "God elected believers. That misrepresentation is true whether we are talking about salvation or simply service.

You are wrong IMO to cast around for a way to say things in a way that supports your particular view.

And - again - that would be true if I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said that election is only for service or whether I stuck to the Reformed view that election includes salvation itself.

Your not understanding what you are doing here would not be sin. However your purposefully misleading others would be IMO.

The doctrine of election (whether to salvation or service) has to do with God choosing for that before we believed (before we even existed).

Rightly presented - the doctrine shows salvation and or service to be of grace and not of ourselves. That is the purpose of the words the Holy Spirit wrote and you should not twist the meaning of those words simply to undermine Reformed doctrine.

We agree on many things concerning salvation. This just isn''t one of them.

You are my brother as I see it.

Obviously I do not consider EmSw my brother.

The things he has said in this particular thread are but in addition to things which he has said elsewhere which have led me to that conclusion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Your position is nothing but a "game" played with the scriptures in order to avoid the obvious meaning of them.

Example:

I am 71 year old now. Some would call me an "old man" I suppose.

I received Christ when I was 13 years old. If "election" has to do with service as you say then that 13 year old was elected to do all of the good things which I have (I believe) done in the flesh as a Christian. The election should be said to be of a 13 year old to serve. Him all of his days.

I don't understand what this means. Election to service means that all believers have been elected to serve God. Is that difficult to understand? It has NOTHING to do with the flesh, which your example included. God gives the gift of the Holy Spirit so that believers CAN perform their service in the power of the Spirit. There is no need to insert energy of the flesh in any discussion of service.

I proved that election is about service, but you've ignored it.

Example: Paul was described as God's "chosen instrument" in Acts 9:15 - But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel."

And this is what Paul himself said about that election in 1 Tim 1:12 - "I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service."

Do you not see the direct connection between Paul's election and service?

Since we are talking in the present - it is technically true that God elected a 71 year old for service.

Your age has nothing to do with election. He elected you for service as a believer. And He did that before the foundation of the world.

But to say that God elected a 71 year old to serve Him would be extremely misleading to all concerned.

I don't understand. Please clarify.

The scriptures are very clear (as you have admitted) that (whatever you envision election to consist of) I was elected form my birth and even "before the foundation of the world".

And that isn't the issue. The issue is: elected to what? Or, elected for what purpose? That is the issue. Which I've shown to be for service, not salvation.

You would be technically correct (and would likerly mislead many) by saying today that God elected a 71 year old to serve Him all of his days or that He elected a 71 year old to spend eternity as part of His body (either one).

There is no way being technically correct should mislead anyone. And I disagree with trying to equate election with spending eternity as part of His body, which is just another way of expressing the Calvinist doctrine that God elects people to salvation by choosing who will believe.

But doing so would be (purposefully IMO) misleading concerning the actual meaning of the doctrine.

I've been very clear about what election means: to be elected or chosen for service. How is that hard to understand?

I do believe that before God you are guilty of purposefully misrepresenting what the scriptures teach when you say that "God elected believers.

You're free to believe whatever you want to believe. But that is EXACTLY what Eph 1:4 says. Plainly.

What it doesn't say is that God chooses who will believe. Or that God chooses who will be saved. The word "us" in 1:4 is defined in 1:19 as "believers".

That misrepresentation is true whether we are talking about salvation or simply service.

I have no idea why anyone would think what I have posted regarding election would be regarded as a misrepresentation.

You are wrong IMO to cast around for a way to say things in a way that supports your particular view.

What does "cast around" mean? What I've done is clearly express what the Bible says clearly.

And - again - that would be true if I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said that election is only for service or whether I stuck to the Reformed view that election includes salvation itself.

But I'm not wrong. Your claim is.

Your not understanding what you are doing here would not be sin.

Oh, I fully understand that what I'm doing here would not be sin. Of course not.

However your purposefully misleading others would be IMO.

You're going to have to explain how anything I've posted could be seen as misleading.

The doctrine of election (whether to salvation or service) has to do with God choosing for that before we believed (before we even existed).

That isn't in contention.

Rightly presented - the doctrine shows salvation and or service to be of grace and not of ourselves.

I've not said anything other.

That is the purpose of the words the Holy Spirit wrote and you should not twist the meaning of those words simply to undermine Reformed doctrine.

I've twisted nothing from Scripture. You're going to have to show how I've done that.

So far, all you've done is throw empty claims. That means claims without a shred of evidence.

Please back up your claims with evidence.

We agree on many things concerning salvation. This just isn''t one of them.

Then prove your position from Scripture. As it seems now, you're confused by thinking that I have misrepresented something. And all without any evidence.

You are my brother as I see it.

Back atcha!

Obviously I do not consider EmSw my brother.

His views certainly DON'T represent biblical Christianity. But he may have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation in the past. He did recently post that he used to believe what I believe. I've asked for clarification of what led to his apostatizing (change in what he believed).

 

[EmSw]

Obviously I do not consider EmSw my brother.

The things he has said in this particular thread are but in addition to things which he has said elsewhere which have led me to that conclusion.

I'll be! I didn't know salvation depended on what one says. I thought you said it depended upon a human sacrifice. Are you still shouting this abomination on the mountain tops?