Jesus Christ died for everyone (2)

[Don Maurer]

And I have never denied original sin. The difference between us is that I properly understand it and you don't. Adam's sin didn't render us unable to believe as you claim and cannot prove. Rather, his imputed sin to us renders us unable to save ourselves. When you figure that out, get back with me on another thread. This one's going to split again, and there is no more to say here.

Your right in that you did not outright deny original sin, but your opponent is right in that you deny original sin by redefining it as a slight deficiency in human nature. Your redefinition of the term original sin is not scriptural.
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

In John 6:44 Christ himself speaks of mankinds depravity.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
The word "can" speaks of ability. The ability to come to faith is not ours, it is only by the ability of the Father (and Holy Spirit in other texts) by which we come to faith.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I'm ALWAYS suprised when others keep putting a label on me that I've proven to be false. But, go figure. What else can they do.

This really isn't all about you, but then again, nor was the other thread.

And I have never denied original sin. The difference between us is that I properly understand it and you don't.

We are humbled.

Adam's sin didn't render us unable to believe as you claim and cannot prove. Rather, his imputed sin to us renders us unable to save ourselves. When you figure that out, get back with me on another thread. This one's going to split again, and there is no more to say here.

I've figured it out already. What you are implying is that without Adam's sin (which renders us unable to save ourselves) we would be able to save ourselves. We'd better tell God that thanks to Adam He has a purpose.

I think that you'll find that we 5-pointers believe that whether Adam had sinned or not we'd still need God.

What you miss is that His "intent" is to save ONLY believers. In fact, it pleases Him very much to do so.

And yet, despite His intent to save only believers, you have God forgiving the sins of everyone through Christ's death, then allowing their eternal torment. Inconsistent. Much.

Good for you. So is mine. Our difference is that you think He cherry picked without any condition who to save, which removes the importance of faith, and I know that His plan and promise is to save those who believe. But Calvinism logically concludes from your doctrine of election that God chooses who will believe. Yet, none of y'all have shown ANY proof from Scripture for believing that.

We believe that faith is essential. But as we also believe that faith is a gift from God and isn't given to everyone, I fail to see how the saved can be anything but deliberately chosen.

You are so mistaken. People reject His grace and love and gift. All the time. But your statement here reveals that you are totally unaware of that fact.

You obviously believe in two graces: effectual grace and ineffectual grace. I shudder to think that God's grace could be ineffectual. You may have to Google Effectual Grace. You can do it when you're looking up Libertarian Free Will and Limited Free Will.

Just another very pathetic attempt to mischaracterize my view. Which you are good at doing.

We wouldn't want to mischaracterise your view. This is about you isn't it?

Since you keep misrepresenting my view, your comment here is comical.

Me, me, me.

When you finally face and acknowledge my actual view, then show me what is "so inefficient and inconsistent".

Me, me, me.

You still have no idea what my view is, given all the misrepresentations of it you post. Is that on purpose, or are you really struggling to understand?

Me, me, me.

It seems your chief motivation is to have us understand your view, which unfortunately is laden with contradictions. Spend more time making it consistent and we'd have less of a problem. Although, in fairness, the only consistent view is ours.

 

[guuila]

Me, me, me.



Me, me, me.



Me, me, me.

Brian Reagan - The Me Monster - YouTube

 

[nobdysfool]

It's really tough being misunderstood...

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

I believe it. I also believe that we can't do it.

Two things...If Paul taught that the way to eternal life was by loving God and your neighbor (which he didn't), would you believe you could do it? In other words, would you believe Paul if he taught this?

Second, the Savior Himself, who is Life, taught this as the way to eternal life. If you don't do as He says, how will you obtain eternal life? Will you find eternal life from someone else? Will someone else's teaching override the Savior's teaching? Who else is able to teach the way to eternal life? If you can't do as the Savior teaches, how will you obtain eternal life?

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

I'm still trying to get a straight answer. Can we trust John, Peter and Luke? Yes? No?

Yes, but Luke could be questionable, but nevertheless, his gospel is witnessed by the first two.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

I apologize for confusing you like that.

Exactly!! That's what I've been trying to tell you. You clearly see that Paul says at least SOME people are made sinners by the actions of Adam, but at the end of the day, it makes no difference to you because you've already decided you're not going to believe it. Thus, by asking me questions about it, you're wasting my time, because it really doesn't matter what I say. You've already decided Paul is not your authority.

Since when is he not?

Does a person have to believe and accept Paul and his writings to be saved?

If you say no, then why all the fuss if I don't accept all his writings?

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Me, me, me

What's with all this me, me, me stuff? Why must you mock others? Where are we told to have contempt for others? I am starting to see what Hammster means when he says you can't love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[guuila]

Does a person have to believe and accept Paul and his writings to be saved?

I'm not the judge of that.

If you say no, then why all the fuss if I don't accept all his writings?

N/A

 

[Hammster]

Two things...If Paul taught that the way to eternal life was by loving God and your neighbor (which he didn't), would you believe you could do it? In other words, would you believe Paul if he taught this?

Second, the Savior Himself, who is Life, taught this as the way to eternal life. If you don't do as He says, how will you obtain eternal life? Will you find eternal life from someone else? Will someone else's teaching override the Savior's teaching? Who else is able to teach the way to eternal life? If you can't do as the Savior teaches, how will you obtain eternal life?

Through imputed righteousness. Jesus is the only one who could fulfill the commandments.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, but Luke could be questionable, but nevertheless, his gospel is witnessed by the first two.

Okay, Peter said

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:14-16 NASB)

Luke, in Acts, testifies of Paul's apostleship.

 

[guuila]

Well, that was fun.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Okay, Peter said

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:14-16 NASB)

Luke, in Acts, testifies of Paul's apostleship.

Is this the 'inspired' writing of Paul of which you speak?

2 Corinthians 11 -
16 I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.
17 That which I speak, I speak it NOT AFTER THE LORD, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.
18 Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.

Paul even admits he does not speak after the Lord, but rather, he says he speaks foolishly.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Through imputed righteousness. Jesus is the only one who could fulfill the commandments.

So no one can love his neighbor as himself? No can refrain from murder? No one can refrain from stealing?

You are correct, Jesus was the only who could fulfill the commandments, and yet, He commanded us to do the same.
Why would you not love God with all your heart?
Are you not regenerated with a new heart?
Why do you let your 'old' heart say you can't obey Jesus' words?

Have Paul's words taken control of you to the point you can't obey Jesus? Sorry, that isn't for me.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Well, that was fun.

It was? It would be more fun if you tell us why Paul didn't say "ALL" were made sinners by Adam. If you can't answer, I suggest you go online and maybe you might find it there. I would really like to know why you think Paul didn't say "ALL" were made sinners through Adam.

This is a foundational truth of your belief; surely you can tell us why Paul didn't say "ALL" were made sinners.

 

[guuila]

It was? It would be more fun if you tell us why Paul didn't say "ALL" were made sinners by Adam. If you can't answer, I suggest you go online and maybe you might find it there. I would really like to know why you think Paul didn't say "ALL" were made sinners through Adam.

This is a foundational truth of your belief; surely you can tell us why Paul didn't say "ALL" were made sinners.

Nah. I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who's actually willing to submit to what Paul says.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Nah. I'd rather spend my time discussing this with someone who's actually willing to submit to what Paul says.

Maybe a fellow Calvinist will come to your aid. Your inability to answer is very telling.

 

[Hammster]

Is this the 'inspired' writing of Paul of which you speak?

2 Corinthians 11 -
16 I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.
17 That which I speak, I speak it NOT AFTER THE LORD, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.
18 Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also.

Paul even admits he does not speak after the Lord, but rather, he says he speaks foolishly.

That would be what Peter is referring to. But I guess we should now discount him, too.

 

[Hammster]

So no one can love his neighbor as himself? No can refrain from murder? No one can refrain from stealing?

You are correct, Jesus was the only who could fulfill the commandments, and yet, He commanded us to do the same.
Why would you not love God with all your heart?
Are you not regenerated with a new heart?
Why do you let your 'old' heart say you can't obey Jesus' words?

Have Paul's words taken control of you to the point you can't obey Jesus? Sorry, that isn't for me.

Whoa. Hold on there. Now we need a new heart? That wasn't mentioned before. You said we only needed to obey the commandments.

 

[Hammster]

It was? It would be more fun if you tell us why Paul didn't say "ALL" were made sinners by Adam.

He did.

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. (Romans 5:18 NASB)