Romans 9 Unmaligned

[Grip Docility]

Anything with which you use Jn 3:18 must be in agreement with it.

Here we have Jesus presenting the snake on the pole as figurative of salvation from eternal death by faith in his work on the cross.


The condemnation of unbelief is not limited to the Pharisees of Jesus' time.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb 11:7, Ro 8:8, 14:23)--that includes trusting in his Son for salvation in the NT.
In the NT we are saved from condemnation by faith only (Eph 2:8-9, Jn 3:18).

One verse here and there used to back up a verse not in context, doesn't change that the actual usage of the verse. It is time assigned.

We know this also, because of John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

It specifies intent of the Father. It specifically states that God didn't send His Son into the world to condemn it. Because we know the sin of the world is unbelief, This is a reference to the exact full measure that Colossians 1:15-20 defines. But, just to ensure that intent isn't misunderstood... because it says specifically "Did not... implying.... The Father didn't desire His Son to condemn the world.

If Pas was to denote part, or Kosmou(s) to denote part in this matter.... the specification of NOT to Condemn... means that it is impossible to imply that God created some to be damned and some to be saved (blindly). Why? Because, this implies that Jesus Christ's crucifixion would have condemned the other part, thus making Jesus' words in contradiction with the Will of His Father.

This goes on to vindicate the Colossians 1:15-20 exegesis I presented earlier, proof that it is not in contradiction with John 3:18, and further show that John 317-18 follows both of my Exegesis's accurately.

IMO

 

[Clare73]

One verse here and there used to back up a verse not in context, doesn't change that the actual usage of the verse. It is time assigned.

One verse here and there has as much authority as a paragraph or a whole page.
Your background has led you to devalue and mishandle Scripture in the name of some false authority over it.

The great apostasy begins here. . .it has to be.

We know this also, because of John 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

The angel told Joseph that he would save his people (Mt 1:21, Lk 2:11, Ac 5:31, 13:23, Tit 2:14).
The pattern for Christ's sacrifice are the sacrifices of the OT, which were not atonement for the world, they were only for God's people in the world.

 

[Grip Docility]

The angel told Joseph that he would save his people (Mt 1:21, Lk 2:11, Ac 5:31, 13:23, Tit 2:14).
The pattern for Christ's sacrifice are the sacrifices of the OT, which were not atonement for the world, they were only for God's people in the world.

What happened to John 3:18? Is the intended context of Colossians 1:15-20 as it naturally flows from the Apostle Paul still a passage that is a "mystery" or "dark thing"?

 

[ralliann]

I am not seeing any nuance of Salvation from Wrath, that John preached. From either of you...Just curious about that.
Punishment for sin does not always mean eternal death, or even death.

 

[Grip Docility]

I am not seeing any nuance of Salvation from Wrath, that John preached. From either of you...Just curious about that.
Punishment for sin does not always mean eternal death, or even death.

Romans 9 is a key doctrine within a faction of Christianity. 4 verses within it build an entire doctrine. I exegeted this to exalt the Mercy and Compassion within it. The discussion you see is not a normal discussion.

1 side suggests that God made random widgets to be condemned to hell, while the other side of the discussion says that the Love of God is towards all mankind, without favor, to say all are Loved by God, equally. The widget side of the discussion is more merciful than most of the theological belief. Both sides of the discussion exalt God's Love. This is a sharing of differences in view.

This was not my initial point of exegeting this passage, but it came up in discussion.

 

[Clare73]

What happened to John 3:18? Is the intended context of Colossians 1:15-20 as it naturally flows from the Apostle Paul still a passage that is a "mystery" or "dark thing"?

The human attempt, for the sake of its own fancy--more wise than God, to overturn the NT gospel of Jesus Christ (Jn 3:18) by extending the saved church, the very body of Christ, to include unbelievers, is not the gospel Paul received from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11-12) and is, therefore, cursed (anathematized) by him (Gal 1:6-9).

It is not ours to set the word of God against itself, misrepresenting Colossians in order to overturn Jesus' clear and unequivocal teaching (Jn 3:18).
Paul anathametizes all such endeavor (Gal 1:6-9), and that is where I am leaving it.

 

[Grip Docility]

The human attempt, for the sake of its own fancy--more wise than God, to overturn the NT gospel of Jesus Christ (Jn 3:18) by extending the saved church, the very body of Christ, to include unbelievers, is not the gospel Paul received from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11-12) and is, therefore, cursed (anathematized) by him (Gal 1:6-9).

I have thick skin. If I have counter evidence that it is the other way, would you at the very least examine it?

It is not ours to set the word of God against itself, misrepresenting Colossians in order to overturn Jesus' clear and unequivocal teaching (Jn 3:18).
Paul anathametizes all such endeavor (Gal 1:6-9), and that is where I am leaving it.

I respect your opinion on this. I do now have a much more simple way to offer evidence to the contrary. I, too, from my side of the isle, believe it is emptying the cross to deny what (IMO) Jesus Christ accomplished.

 

[Clare73]

I have thick skin. If I have counter evidence that it is the other way, would you at the very least examine it?

I think you've pretty much presented that.

I respect your opinion on this. I do now have a much more simple way to offer evidence to the contrary. I, too, from my side of the isle, believe it is emptying the cross to deny what (IMO) Jesus Christ accomplished.

 

[Grip Docility]

I think you've pretty much presented that.

I forgot that John the Revelator had actually cleared up the question of Kosmon(s) in his own writings.

 

[Clare73]

I forgot that John the Revelator had actually cleared up the question of Kosmon(s) in his own writings.

It won't help. . .any interpretation of Scripture which overturns any of the NT is, ipso facto, heresy.
You are making part of God's word (Jn 3:18) untrue.

 

[Grip Docility]

It won't help. . .any interpretation of Scripture which overturns any of the NT is, ipso facto, heresy.
You are making part of God's word (Jn 3:18) untrue.

You are convicted. I will respect this. I appreciate all of the time that you spent discussing all of this with me and the patience that you demonstrate.

I disagree that your interpretation of John 3:18 is being utilized for doctrine properly, but... I respect that we all have our pet opinions. This is the nature of being human.

 

[Clare73]

You are convicted. I will respect this. I appreciate all of the time that you spent discussing all of this with me and the patience that you demonstrate.

I disagree that your interpretation of John 3:18 is being utilized for doctrine properly, but... I respect that we all have our pet opinions. This is the nature of being human.

You have indicted both orthodox and reformed Christianity.

 

[Grip Docility]

You have indicted both orthodox and reformed Christianity.

I didn’t write 1 John 2:2

Are you referring to Protestant branches?