- Jun 10, 2010
- 7,562
- 55
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
So if God knows a person won't believe, and then creates them anyway, they have access to eternal life once they're born? Either you're grossly confused, or being dishonest, or inconsistent, or you're an Open Theist. Not sure what it is.
Really? Fine. You preach a different gospel Hammster - for you corrected mine which, in essence, is Paul's.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-69/#post64553419:
We (you Hammster and I) are walking together down the street. We see a vagrant sitting in a shop doorway and I say to him:
Hi there, you look cold. Can I buy you a sandwich? Yes? Okay, I will, but before I do, I just wanted to share with you, if you don't mind, the good news of Jesus Christ - is that okay with you? (Vagrant nods). Great - well the good news is that Jesus Christ died for our sins on the cross and on the third day after his burial, he rose again from the dead. This is, indeed, good news for all mankind because he defeated the curse of death...and that is something we can all relate to don't you think? All he asks is that we put our faith in him so that we might have eternal life. Anyway, I wont bother you further...except to give you this pamphlet which is a reminder of what I have just said - with some details of all the local churches. I will get that sandwich...http://www.christianforums.com/t7787859-75/#post64559293:
Do you correct me, or not?
Me:
You:
I'm correcting you now. But I wouldn't in front of him. It's not your words or mine that will regenerate him. The Spirit can use a poorly presented gospel.
I'm not debating you about any specific text here. I'm simply trying to get you to acknowledge that kosmos can mean elect. I don't care what some guys thought. The Greek lexicon says kosmos can mean elect. I guess in order to support your traditions you feel the need to redefine the Greek language.
What you presented wasn't what Paul preached. It's just your misunderstanding of the text, which we've gone through great length to correct you on.
So... the elect. So Jesus became sin for the elect, that they might become the righteousness of God in Him. Correct?
19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting peoples sins against them.
It was a yes or no question.
Yes, God made him who had no sin to be sin for us (believers), so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Yes, that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting peoples sins against them.
So then non-believers cannot claim verse 21 for themselves?
I keep pointing you to v.19 which has God reconciling the world to himself, not counting people's sins against them. It is available to all.
So then non-believers cannot claim verse 21 for themselves?
YES, non believers can refuse to claim this verse.
That has nothing to do with the point of who the atonement was intended for, as you must define the terms within the context (which you seem to think they define themselves).
The atonement was intended for the 'world', as it clearly says. It underlines it by saying that people's sins will not be counted against them.
v21 explicitly says who Christ became sin for; ἡμῶν - our sake, ἐγώ is in the first person plural genitive (possessive). You have blatantly admitted that v21 was specifically speaking of believers. If you cannot say that v21 can be claimed by nonbelievers, then you have an inconsistency regarding the universal atonement being substitutionary.
I have actually all pointed out that v. 19 isn't trumped by v. 21
I think you have an inconsistency with verse 15.
Sure, they had access; of course they did.
None of those griff.
Ok so like I said. They HAD access. Not have. Glad you agree.
You do care what some guy thought - probably in this case Joseph Henry Thayer.
What?
You agree they HAD access. God foreknew they'd blow it, then created them anyway with no hope of salvation.
...That's not what I was asking, sorry. I am asking, whether a non-believer actually believes it to be true or not, would they be right in saying "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God"... where "our" and "we" refer to non-believers as well?
If you are an expert on what Paul did in fact preach, then please let us know.
I am not aware of any tenable correction of what I have understood from the scriptures in question.
The atonement was intended for the 'world', as it clearly says.
It underlines it by saying that people's sins will not be counted against them.
I have actually all pointed out that v. 19 isn't trumped by v. 21
I think you have an inconsistency with verse 15.
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?