Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You don't believe one earns salvation by their good works do you?
You wanted me to respond to your example. Your example made the Coast Guard a representation of God. So let's not get away from that.
How was the Coast Guard sinned against in your example?
Okay, then the Coast Guard saves everyone just like Christ saves all of His sheep.It is no different than the parable of the Good Shepherd had given to us. Nowhere is it stated that the sheep sinned against the good shepherd. So if this is the case, you cannot use the argument that the coast guard was sinned against within my parable. Do you get it?
...
Okay, then the Coast Guard saves everyone just like Christ saves all of His sheep.
No orthodox Christian believes God makes everyone a sheep and saves them all. That would be universalism.But you do not believe that.
You do not believe God makes everyone a sheep and saves all people.
...
No orthodox Christian believes God makes everyone a sheep and saves them all. That would be universalism.
No, I said He saves His sheep. I've noticed that you have a tendency to ascribe positions to folks that they don't hold to. This is tantamount to a straw man. It makes your argument seem weak.Yes, I do not believe in Universalism. I am saying that if you believe it is ultimately up to God to save people, and it is in no way man's decision, then you must come to the conclusion of Univeralism because God's loving nature is to try and save everyone that He can because He is loving, good, and merciful.
...
According to the scriptures, God's wrath is satisfied by Christ's finished work on the cross and those who believe in Jesus and are in Christ are not under God's wrath, those who don't and are outside of Christ remain under God's wrath which is only satisfied IN CHRIST. Don't you understand this basic biblical truth?You said a lot but never resolved anything. You posted verses where you assumed that world means everyone who ever lived. Then you accused me of muddying up the atonement and its application. But you still haven't explained how God can no longer be angry at sin (God's wrath satisfied) and yet someone can still be under that same wrath.
If you'd accept that world has varying definitions, you can avoid the contradiction.
ThanksI will create a thread maybe later today or sometime this week to answer this question (God willing) and I will let you know about it.
May God bless you;
And may you please be well.
...
Is there anywhere in scripture when world means a subset of every single person?According to the scriptures, God's wrath is satisfied by Christ's finished work on the cross and those who believe in Jesus and are in Christ are not under God's wrath, those who don't and are outside of Christ remain under God's wrath which is only satisfied IN CHRIST. Don't you understand this basic biblical truth?
The word world is used about 80 times in the gospel of John alone and yes, it has varying definitions...but never is one of those definitions "the elect" as Calvinists attempt to impose on the word world.
That is right, there is no obligation on God's part concerning the exercise of mercy/grace or it would not be mercy and grace. If the demands of justice are satisfied, His mercy and grace does not conflict with justice, nor does the withholding of mercy and grace conflict with justice. Having paid for sin by the blood of Christ, God's judicial nature was satisfied with regards to sin. Now God can freely dispense grace on his own terms, whatever arbitrary terms suit his pleasure. Or he could decide not to exercise mercy and grace at all. It's His choice, not ours. So what is God's arbitrary condition upon which his grace is dispensed? According to the scriptures it is faith in Jesus Christ, not predestination. That's the reason Paul is going through this and the point of this chapter is that the unbelieving Jews took offense at the idea that salvation is granted solely to those who believe in Christ.There is a reason. You just don't like the reason, because it means that He, not you, determines the outcome.
"For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:15)
Mercy is NOT obligatory, otherwise it would not be mercy.
There may be, if you have some particular instance in mind feel free to point it out.Is there anywhere in scripture when world means a subset of every single person?
“So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him."”There may be, if you have some particular instance in mind feel free to point it out.
Okay, that verse plainly uses "world" in a hyperbolic way. I am not disputing that the word world is uses in different senses, but it is never used in the Bible to signify the so-called "elect" as Calvinism imposes on the word world.“So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him."”
John 12:19 NASB
I've never made the argument that it did mean elect. But I am saying that it's used hyperbolicly in 1 John 2:2. If it's not, you are left with a contradiction that you keep insisting isn't one.Okay, that verse plainly uses "world" in a hyperbolic way. I am not disputing that the word world is uses in different senses, but it is never used in the Bible to signify the so-called "elect" as Calvinism imposes on the word world.
No, I said He saves His sheep. I've noticed that you have a tendency to ascribe positions to folks that they don't hold to. This is tantamount to a straw man. It makes your argument seem weak.
I've never made the argument that it did mean elect. But I am saying that it's used hyperbolicly in 1 John 2:2. If it's not, you are left with a contradiction that you keep insisting isn't one.
Thanks
True, you haven't, but of course the Calvinist must insist that world does not actually mean everyone of the world to support their peculiar doctrine of limited atonement and if that were not the case you would read 1 Jn. 2:2 in a normal way. There is nothing in the context to suggest a hyperbolic view of the word world. On the contrary, the contrast within the verse between "our sins" which refers to those of saved believers/ the elect and "the sins of the whole world" is an unambiguous declaration that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all mankind...the whole world. Just as it is plainly stated elsewhere, even specifically denoting that...."Christ tasted death for every man" ( Hebrews 2:9).I've never made the argument that it did mean elect. But I am saying that it's used hyperbolicly in 1 John 2:2. If it's not, you are left with a contradiction that you keep insisting isn't one.
Close enough.So you believe God saves sheep (i.e. those who He knows would choose Him of their own free will if after He regenerates them)?
...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?