If you really think about it predestination is the only way Christianity makes sense. Christians who claim otherwise are just coping because they can't handle worshiping a god that creates human beings just to torture them. OP is one of the few honest Christians who acknowledge and celebrate the cruelty of creation. The suffering and misery are intentional and 99.9% of people exist to scream in eternity and wish they were never born.

>>18361552
The cruelty belongs not to God and creation, but to sin which merits condemnation.

Now IIRC the interesting thing is that Paul and John, from whom most of the verses seeming to imply presestiation come, also have the least clear mention of hell and afterlife torment. Definitely if you search the word "hell" in the nrsv, it's entirely absent from John and Paul.

>>18361577
*seeming to imply predestination

>>18361577
>nrsv
Yikes

>>18361579
Also applies to the KJV and NIV, if you prefer them.

So my guess is that the early Christians who believed in predestination also believed that death meant death and eternal life meant eternal life, while the Christians who believed in greater free will also believed in greater consequences for misusing it, like fiery torment in the afterlife. Combine them and insist on their compatibility, and you get the worst of both worlds.

>>18361602
That assumes the authors of scripture have different theologies, which is a presuppositional issue. The holy scriptures represent one consistent whole with one author from Genesis to Revelation, and the apostles differ from each other not in substance but only in style and emphasis.

>>18361575
>Create universe that allows sin
>Create creatures with the ability to sin who are easily tempted
>"Go my creations, go and live your lives that I already have perfect knowledge of!"
>Throw the vast majority of them into a burning garbage heap and make the rest sing your praises forever
Is it really a stretch to believe he's doing all this just to fuck with people?

>>18361611
Yes. The purpose for which God brought all into captivity under sin was not to toy with and torment them, but to the praise of His glorious grace. Nor is God unjust to abandon any into the fire, since it was man who chose to sin and brought condemnation to himself, and man being sinful could deserve no grace, so God must be justified in abandoning any to the fires of hell, since He would be justified in abandoning all. What is extraordinary is not that most are damned but that any are saved.

>>18361602
And then people will say that no one individually would have thought of a horrible doctrine like that, so it has to be an authentic divine revelation!

>>18361617
Did you happen to grow up around any kids that yanked wings off of flies or kicked stray cats or burned ants with a magnifying glass? Just curious.

>>18361629
No.

>>18361534
The quote from Romans 9:22 is notably part of a what-if question, not a plain assertion.
>What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction, and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the gentiles?

Much later in Romans 11, toward the end of what might be one long continuous discussion, he concludes:
>Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so also they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they also may now receive mercy. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen.

And that sounds universalist in itself. The happy conclusion could be that, in the final analysis, everyone has been chosen to be an object of mercy. "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all."

Though there are many other statements that make universalism difficult to support.

>>18361534
>Christ died only for the elect, “the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (John 10:11)
lmao
prottie reading comprehension

1 John 2


1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.


2 Peter


1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.


read
>the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world
>false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them

What this clearly means; Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and not just those of the elect or the church, even the false teachers who deny his body in the Eucharist he purchased with his precious blood.
Limited atonement is a very serious heresy, it disrespects the sacrifice of Christ which was made for all men. For God so loved the WORLD, etc.

You have to deny and entirely invert the clear meaning of scripture to argue for this ridiculous Calvinist nonsense.

Parable of the Sower.

God did not scatter his seed of the word partially, that is to say only in good soil, as the Calvinist would imply.
No, he scattered it universally. Among rocks, on the road, in thistles and thorns, and in good soil.

That is to say, Jesus's sacrifice was made for all men because all men are made in the image of God, but bears fruit only in a few.

Moreover, this very parable absolutely obliterates the Protestant misconception of assurance, once saved always saved, etc.


13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.


How can they once believe as Jesus says, and therefore be saved, and yet later fall away? This is a stumbling block to Protestant sensibilities.

>>18361778
>all men are made in the image of God
Universalist heretics need to be cast into hell with the dark demons that they love because they refuse to acknowledge that the light of God in Christ is the one true living God. In him there is no darkness, and according to Jesus, he is only for those that are Israel, of God, and that to give the bread of God to any others is sacralidge. You freaks try to twist christianity to advance your suicidal and devil inspired political agenda of turning the whole world into hell.

>>18361716
Also from 2 Peter is:
>The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.

Predestination is just taking Gods qualification of omniscience to its logical conclusion. Namely that if God, by definition of being God, knows everything, then he already knows who is going to end up where. If he didn't know he wouldn't be omniscient now would he? This presents quite the logical conundrum as the Bible is quite explicit that both free will is real and that God wants everyone to be saved. Thus we end up with the good ole' Epicurean Paradox, the so-called "Problem of Evil". It's not really something you can really reconcile without throwing out one half of the equation. Calvinists just flat out ignore that their doctrine does not allow for God to be All-good like the Bible clearly states he is, while the other Protestant and Catholic denominations just sweep the nature of omniscience under the rug.

>>18361822
He's not only omniscient, but omnipotent.

Which means he has the power to force you to sin, but also isn't forced to exercise that power. That is to say, he can make things happen actively, and also allow things to happen passively. Both of these represent different aspects of the divine will.
There are some who pretend to make God the author of sin, who forced Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of knowledge, as if he is were child playing with dolls. That is a dire insult to the divine.

But in truth he created men with a free will, one just as supernaturally free as his own because man was animated with his own breath, and just happens to have known already what choices they would make of their own volition.
Of course he knows who is going to end up where, and always has.

That doesn't mean men don't have any personal choice or agency in the matter.
Obedience, a core Christian virtue reiterated time and again in the most important parts of both the old and new testaments, would be completely meaningless if God merely forces you either to do his will or to spurn him.

Compatibalism is clearly the position of educated men.

>>18361606
>The holy scriptures represent one consistent whole with one author from Genesis to Revelation, and the apostles differ from each other not in substance but only in style and emphasis.
>my holy book has no contradictions
>and if it dies then you don't understand it properly
arguing like muslims

>>18361704
>The quote from Romans 9:22 is notably part of a what-if question, not a plain assertion.
This is sophistry, since Paul is not engaging in meaningless speculation, but is making a point particularly in response to the hypothetical objector who asks “Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?” The question is rhetorical
>And that sounds universalist in itself
Only if you disregard the entire rest of the epistle and the Pauline corpus, in particularly the 5th chapter in which he discusses the two humanities. There is one humanity which is in Adam, which belongs to the covenant of works, which receives from their head only death, and another humanity in Christ, which belongs to the covenant of grace, and receives from their head only life. What Paul is saying is that all (in Adam) were condemned so that all (in Christ) may receive mercy. And by all Paul does not mean all men, but all kinds, for he here is discussing Jews and gentiles, the apostasy of the Jews, but the ingrafting of the gentiles, as because the Jews have rejected the gospel it has gone out to bring the gentiles in and graft them into the olive tree. This calls back to chapter 3 verse 9. Very rarely does all ever mean all of all kinds.

>>18361716
>lmao
>prottie reading comprehension
And then you proceed to not even touch it, papist reading comprehension
>What this clearly means; Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and not just those of the elect or the church, even the false teachers who deny his body in the Eucharist he purchased with his precious blood.
Now, while you were and are unable to refute my citations, I will spend some time to refute yours to clear the issue and briefly show the opinion of the Holy Spirit.
(1/4)

>>18361716
John’s purpose is to comfort believers that their sins will be forgiven since Jesus Christ is their advocate before the Father. It is hardly a comfort to tell them that Christ died for them, and also for many other sinners which now suffer in hell for their sins. Christ’s advocacy is His intercession by which He offers and applies His sacrifice on behalf of His people, now, is Christ the advocate of all men? May the damned in hell console themselves that they have an advocate with the Father? If Christ is advocate of all men, why are not all saved? But if Christ is not advocate to them, He also did not die for them, since His supposed sacrifice on their behalf is incomplete; the sacrifice does not solely consist in slaughtering the goat but also sprinkling its blood upon the mercy seat. Now the meaning of three words is at issue in this verse, “propitiation”, “ours”, and “world”. The meaning of propitiation is an offering which removes the wrath of God, but the ineffectual offering you propose removes wrath from nobody, only enabling them to expiate themselves if they are so willing. The audience and the world are arbitrarily and baselessly assumed to be the entire elect and the entire body of mankind respectively, but John wrote at least to Jews, and at most to both Jews and Romans, who were frequently given to ethnic pride and contempt for foreigners, which caused many problems in the early Church and so John anticipating this pride reminds them that Christ offered His life not only for them but to bring many sons to glory from all kinds of men, the elect distributed throughout the world.
(2/4)

>>18361716
In Peter’s case it is very doubtful the verse pertains to the question at hand. Doubtful, that by Lord is meant the Lord Jesus, since the word here is despotes which is rarely ascribed to Him, doubtful that the purchase of the false teachers refers to eternal redemption by the blood of Christ, or only being called out of the world and joined to the Church by the grace of God which Christ purchased for many for whom He did not offer His life, doubtful that Peter speaks as to the real truth or only appearance and profession. On the other hand, it is quite certain that no particular fruits of redemption are ascribed to the false teachers, and quite certain that according to your opinion the
redemption of any by the blood of Christ cannot be a particular aggravation of the sins of any, because you say He died for all; and yet this buying of the false teachers is held out as an aggravation of their sins in particular.
(3/4)

>>18361716
>Limited atonement is a very serious heresy, it disrespects the sacrifice of Christ which was made for all men.
On the contrary, it is your view especially expressed in the abomination of the mass which disparages the sacrifice of Christ which was of infinite value. For you hold that His death was of such little value and efficacy that He could have performed all and done everything on the behalf of all men, and yet not one be saved. Indeed, in the mass, which is a denial of His once for all sacrifice to put away sin, you believe that Christ may be offered and yet that offering negated by your own mortal sin, which He is powerless to remove, before you even leave the sanctuary. And was this not your point when quoting Peter? “Look, here are some Christ failed to save, He tried His hardest, He did His best, but He just couldn’t do it, their sin was too much for Him, He died for their sins but they still died for their sins anyway”. On the contrary our opinion is that the death of Christ is of such infinite merit and value that any one for whom it is offered will certainly be saved, so if He was willing to save all men, all men would be saved, and one who sincerely trusts in His work alone to stand before God will be righteous in His sight even if they rape and murder a thousand times a day, since no sin has the power to separate them from the love of Christ. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which the church of Rome has rejected and cut itself off, out of which I call you to repent unto eternal life.
(4/4)

>>18361853
if there is a baby on a conveyor belt going towards a maetgrinder and button in front of me that can stop the conveyor then am I not responsible for the death of the baby if I refuse to press said button?

>>18362583
False analogy

>>18362590
no it's not

God watches everyday as humans make new baby crushing machines and never once does he stop them. he willingly let's this happens as he could stop it whenever he wants too

>>18362594
Yes it is, because you are not an innocent baby, God is not a man, and your fate is not random happenstance.
Here is a much more correct analogy: rebels have taken over a king’s castle, they have murdered his servants and destroyed his property, and then in mad glee they set it on fire around them. When his son came in to save them, they murdered him too. Now, is the king not justified to let them perish in the fire, or is he entirely merciful and gracious to pull even a few out?

File: First-and-Last-Words-of-First-and-Last-Verses-KJV-77777x-1.png (3 MB)

3 MB PNG

>>18361534
https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/errors/errors-of-calvinism/

Calvinist belief is a perversion.

New Testament faith isn't faith in your own works (Habbakuk 2:4), it is in Someone who does the work for you. It is not merely your faith. It is "the faith of God" (Rom. 3:3), the "faith of Jesus Christ" (Rom 3:22; Gal. 2:16), (Gal. 2:20) etc. It is the faith which God and His Son give to you so that you will believe the work which He did for you. Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Faith itself, the ability to believe on Jesus Christ for salvation, is a gift from God, not your own work.

Look at Romans 10:8 and 17 and see how that faith is given to a man. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." When a sinner is presented with the Scriptures explaining salvation, the faith to believe it is given to him. Every Christian is to impart that faith to a lost world (Rom. 10:14), but the responsibility to exercise that faith is on the sinner who heard the word of God preached. It is not a Calvinistic election, it's a choice on your part.

The other choice a sinner can make is quenching the conviction of the Holy Spirit and defy the Lord, turning his back on the Bible and sin against his conscience to sear it. The lost try to alibi their way out of believing to avoid responsibility in willful ignorance. "I can't understand." You don't have to understand. "I can't live it." You don't have to live it. We are talking about Jesus Christ paying for your sin by His death on the cross and rising again to give you a home in heaven. Will you believe that He did that for you, will you receive Him as your own personal Saviour? Plain and simple.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc

File: 7^7.png (76.2 KB)

76.2 KB PNG

In the Old Testament, if the Gentile did right, and continued to do right, seeking for "glory and honour and immortality," God gave that Gentile "eternal life."
The prime example of this in the New Testament is found in Acts 13:48. The people in the verse who are "ordained to eternal life" are "ordained to eternal life" on the basis of WORKS!

The Gentiles "were ordained to eternal life" because "they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord" (Acts 13:48). It had nothing to do with some Calvinistic "eternal decree of election." The Gentiles responded correctly to the light they had, and God rewarded that response by allowing them to believe the Gospel for salvation.

The same thing happened back in Acts 10. Notice that Cornelius, a Gentile (Acts 10:1) was already doing right, as far as he knew to do (Acts 10:2). He was "a devout man;" i.e., he was seeking glory, honor, and eternal life from the one true God. He "feared God... gave much alms... and prayed to God alway," so he was patiently continuing "in well doing." So Cornelius is the perfect example of Romans 2:6-7. He does right, and God rewards him by sending him the Gospel through Simon Peter. Cornelius ends up getting saved and receiving the eternal life for which he sought.
If you need one more example, turn to Luke 7:3- 5. Notice that the Jews of Christ's day recognized the principle expounded by Paul in Romans 2:7. "And when he heard of Jesus, he [the Gentile Roman cen- turion-vs. 2] sent unto him the ELDERS OF THE JEWS, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they be- sought him instantly, saying, that HE WAS WOR- THY for whom he should do this: FOR HE LOVETH OUR NATION [Gen. 12:3], and he hath built us a synagogue." That centurion got his servant healed because of his deeds and attitude toward the nation of Israel.

Calvinists don't want to have responsibility like atheists. It's your choice to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ or not, but it's not your work

>>18361853
I don't see why God couldn't logically be omniscient, which entails knowing the final destination of human souls, but intentionally choose to create us with free will, and suspend his foreknowledge of our destinies, specifically to give us that free will.

File: Bible Prophecy + confirming future science facts.png (169 KB)

169 KB PNG

>>18362704
God destroying His enemies also brings Him glory. It's very egotistical and self-centered to think that God should not create you if it would eventually result in you choosing out of your own free will to reject the free gift of salvation from God. Whether you choose what God would want you to choose, or you choose against what God wants for you, either way He is glorified.

Should God choose to love epstein enough to not create him just so God doesn't have to punish him since it would cause epstein misery? No, because epstein don't matter more than God.

The important thing to remember about God is His holiness. The love of God is rooted in God's holiness. All of God's love, in this age, is vested in the righteous life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Apart from Christ, God loves no man (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8); apart from Christ, the sinner abides in God's wrath (John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”).

God wants you to regret your sinful state and come to Him for salvation, but if you refuse, why should you, an enemy of God, automatically get a free pardon by God not letting you come to existence so that you don't have to suffer?

File: 1556852936362.jpg (240 KB)

240 KB JPG

>>18362600
>Yes it is, because you are not an innocent baby, God is not a man, and your fate is not random happenstance.
Plenty of babies have died throughout history. Obviously the people posting on /his/ (not even the guy you replied to) are infants. I'm just wondering why an all-powerful god in control of everything would allow innocent children and babies to be slaughtered. This isn't a hypothetical, it happens all the time.
>Here is a much more correct analogy: rebels have taken over a king’s castle
How did that happen to an all powerful omnipotent king that created both the rebels and the castle.
>They have murdered his servants and destroyed his property
Still not stopping them, or really doing anything about it, or preventing it from happening in the first place
>When his son came in to save them, they murdered him too.
Wasn't that part of the fucking plan too?
>Now, is the king not justified to let them perish in the fire, or is he entirely merciful and gracious to pull even a few out?
He created the fire, the rebels, the entire scenario. And now he's only going to pull people out of the fire if they believe in his son that is also him, that he sent to die but is angry at people for killing, because it was all part of his plan to create a perfect heavenly kingdom on earth which he could have done from the start.

>>18362568
>>18362569
>>18362570
>>18362571
A whole lot of gishgalloping word salad that I'm simply going to ignore because it is a text wall with no formatting. You might as well have omitted punctuation entirely, wrote in the miniscule style or the great ancient codex's.
Instead, I post yet another bible verse.


23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

...

36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God,
ye might receive the promise.


>if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins
So what exactly does this mean?
It is possible for Christians (we, so the author of Hebrews writes) to sin *willfully* after receiving knowledge of the truth, and this removes them from a state of grace, sets them back on the broad path to destruction.

When the Calvinist who receives knowledge of the truth subsequently sins willfully (as so many do), which in fact they claim is completely unavoidable due to their inherent total depravity of nature, the sacrifice of Christ is made of no effect for them, and does not remain.

>cont

>>18363367
Moreover, they have left themselves absolutely no means of rectifying this as a function of their religious body, since they totally reject the "popish" sacrament of reconciliation. In fact, they don't even pretend to confess their sins.
That's right, if a Calvinist sins willfully after simply learning of the gospel, they have no recourse whatsoever but for the flames of perdition. That's what the bible they claim to uphold really teaches.

In their hubris and rush to excise the sacraments from their counter-church, they have unwittingly cut themselves off from the means by which the entire testimony of the early church down through today relates that sins among the faithful are to be forgiven. It is this reason for which Jesus gave his apostles the power to bind and loose, and to forgive sins.

>after ye have done the will of God,
ye might receive the promise
Again, the meaning is quite clear.
First you do the will of God in all patience and perseverance, even unto the end, then subsequently receive that which was promised obedience, love, and good works.

You can trust Jesus to uphold his promise, because he is faithful.

>in the abomination of the mass
>the mass, which is a denial of His once for all sacrifice to put away sin
You condemn Justin Martyr, one of the earliest Christian witnesses to the orthodox form of the mass and the Eucharist as the unequivocal body of Christ, just as much his flesh and blood as was taken on in the Incarnation. His words, not mine.

You are a heretic. Calvinism is the single most schismatic heresy ever conceived, and the evidence is plain to see in the babble of noise and confusion all their myriad sects have created. Truly Jesus could not have identified any group more truly when he said that those who do not gather with him scatter abroad.

>and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing
You have called this gift of the mass instituted by Christ an unholy abomination.

Lol

Deuteronomy tells you that you are cursed and tells you why are cursed

And it also gives you a choice, good or bad

There's no such thing as predestined to hell, you make the choices that take you there.

Calvinist ad hoc mental gymnastics and pilpul really are something else.

>John must have been writing to the le Jews! "We" must mean le Jews!
>Peter definitely meant the opposite of what's written there, clearly he must have because if he didn't my presuppositions are not le biblical!
Nah, he was writing to Christians in Asia Minor (Anatolia). An area filled with gentiles.
Peter is saying that Jesus' precious blood purchased even the false teachers, and elsewhere he writes that those who fall away from the faith are in a worse spot than those who never came to it in the first place.

This first childish deflection as an attempt at confusing the topic is very weak, and easy to predict as it's what Calvinists say all the time when confronted on this point. The second objection is the mere feckless flailing of someone who refuses to understand what is meant.

>Calvinists usually reply that 1 John 2:2 is talking about how Christ died not just for the saved in his local community of Christians but for all saved people throughout the entire world. However, this interpretation is less than obvious: when John talks about the “world” he clearly means the entire world, including unbelievers.

>For example, 1 John 5:19 says, “We know that we are of God, and the whole world [ho kosmos holos] is in the power of the evil one.” This verse does not mean that only believers are under the power of the devil but that all people throughout the entire world suffer from the devil’s temptations. Yet these same words are found in 1 John 2:2, which says Christ atones not just for our sins “but also for the sins of the whole world [ho kosmos holos].”

>>18363448
cont

To me, this issue is not that complicated.
IMO, soteriology is less important to understand or discuss than is learning how Christians are called to live their lives on earth.

In Adam, all men sinned.
So in order to reverse Adam's sin and restore men to a condition like that which was in the garden, Jesus the new Adam paid the price of death originally put upon Adam, one that applies equally to all men.

He does this for Adam, therefore for all men.
Because all men are in Adam, they were all in his loins when he ate the fruit of knowledge.

And so through Jesus, the new Adam, all men may attain the kind of life Adam originally enjoyed before the fall.
That is, supposing they are conformed to the image of the Son, made anew in the image of God for a second time; not in the flesh as Adam was, but in their spirit.

If Jesus sacrifice was not made for the sake of all men, then he only died for a small part of Adam and not the entire man.
If he didn't pay the price for all men, for the sins of the whole world, then he did not pay the *full* price for Adam the individual.

>inb4 that's universalist
No, it isn't. You merely don't get it.

9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.

13 For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.

14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

>nooo Paul no that's "works righteousness" stop please
>p-Paul stop saying Christ died for all, that's not very Calvinist

"that if one died for all, then were all dead"
"that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again"

the so called "doctrine", in truth heresy, of limited atonement was essentially unknown to the entire church from antiquity until modernity
it is a modernist aberration, a clear innovation of the most foul variety rivaled only by such hot takes as Christian Identity and Black Hebrew Israelites, alien to the entire collective testimony of the church fathers, and an astoundingly arrogant imposition on the Christian ethos from a small minded puffed up lawyer and self-styled Pope of Geneva

Christians are supposed to show the same love Christ showed to all men, regardless of whether or not they are Christians or are saved
because Christ gave his life for them all without regard for persons, that the way of salvation might be opened to those who would take up their cross and follow him
all men are made in the image of God, all men sinned in Adam, and to restore them Jesus laid down his life not just for his elect but for the sake of all men

as Jesus laid down his life not only for Jews and gentiles, for sinners and the righteous, Christians are called to emulate his example

indeed, the right chorus and harmony of patristic voices upholding this great purchase of the whole world by Christ stands in stark opposition to the discordant individualistic mewlings of John Calvin and his inheritors
the list of patristic commentators on this beautiful teaching is so long in fact, that merely naming just a few or providing some of their words really wouldn't do their consensus justice, nor would it sufficiently illustrate just how out of step and radically hostile to true Christian doctrine this Calvinist's headcanon conceit really is

>>18363467
>when you out-scriptura the sola scripturas
bravo, just bravo. sad that all I can do is give you a (You).

>>18363367
>A whole lot of gishgalloping word salad
You still don’t know what that means
>I'm simply going to ignore because it is a text wall with no formatting
Go outside
>Instead, I post yet another bible verse.
And I ignore everything you say from here on, because you are so brain damaged from the internet you cannot read a paragraph. You obviously do not read the bible, since it’s a gish galloping word salad text wall. You clearly do not care what the text means, you decided what it meant before you started looking for prooftexts, because otherwise you would not completely ignore exegetical arguments and act like you’re “winning” by doing so. I accept your concession

>>18363498
No anon, he completely ran away from the biblical argument. Running away is not winning. You are all fools preaching your own wisdom as the word of God
>>18362637
>>18362642
>>18363441
There is an unbiblical assumption in your interpretation, which is in your philosophy but not in the text, namely that if man turns toward God and obeys Him, this must mean he does so out of his own free will without the support of divine grace. The explicit teaching of scripture is the opposite, that man in the flesh is not able even to desire to do good, Romans 8:7-8 “because the mind set on the flesh is at enmity toward God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh are not able to please God” and can no more turn toward God and repent unto life than a dead man may freely will to get out of his grave. You touched on the truth when you said God gives man the gift of faith, but if God gives faith to man, and God gives grace equally to all men, how then do not all believe? And if it is of grace then it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is not grace.
>The people in the verse who are "ordained to eternal life" are "ordained to eternal life" on the basis of WORKS!
Not only is that Pelagian heresy directly destroying the gospel, but it is completely contrary to the nature of God. God decided the ends from the beginnings, who they were and what they did was only so because God decreed it to be so, for otherwise is to drag the divine being down from heaven and make Him a creature, by making Him contingent on created things. But neither they nor their decision did or could exist until He ordained creation, how then does He who acts in all things and reacts to nothing react to that which does not exist?
(cont.)

>>18362642
>The Gentiles "were ordained to eternal life" because "they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord" (Acts 13:48)
The word “because” is not found in the verse, it is supplied by your vain imagination. This is what the verse says
>And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
The divine decree is not the events of time and the two cannot be flattened out and crushed together. The gentiles rejoicing does not imply they were not appointed to eternal life, and them being appointed to eternal life does not imply they did not rejoice. Their rejoicing and glorifying is their believing, and the meaning of the text is they did this because they were appointed to it.
>The Gentiles responded correctly to the light they had, and God rewarded that response by allowing them to believe the Gospel for salvation.
God allowed them to believe, on condition that they do believe?
>The same thing happened back in Acts 10
You have done an excellent job of refuting yourself. Cornelius was not “devout”, did not “fear God”, did not “pray to God continually”, did not call God “Lord” *without faith* or *apart from* the Church. He already was a believer, just as Peter was already a believer before Pentecost. Nobody was saved before Pentecost? Nobody has been saved since the extraordinary gifts of that time ceased? This is all it means when it says the Holy Spirit came on them.
>That centurion got his servant healed because of his deeds and attitude toward the nation of Israel.
No, it was because of his faith, “I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith.” Stop following the example of the devil in your exegesis
>Calvinists don't want to have responsibility like atheists
Absurd

>>18363448
>ad hoc mental gymnastics and pilpul
Those are more words that don’t mean what you think they mean
>"We" must mean le Jews!
It certainly did not mean anyone beyond the context of the original audience, which could not be understood by that audience. As all the other scriptures 1 John was written to particular people at a particular place and time.
>>Peter definitely meant the opposite of what's written there, clearly he must have because if he didn't my presuppositions are not le biblical!
Strawman fallacy
>Peter is saying that Jesus' precious blood purchased even the false teachers
This is what you desire it to mean and what you decided it meant before you read it, but it is not what is said in the text. Where is Christ’s blood mentioned? Can I see it? We must be reading different translations
>This first childish deflection as an attempt at confusing the topic is very weak, and easy to predict as it's what Calvinists say all the time when confronted on this point. The second objection is the mere feckless flailing of someone who refuses to understand what is meant.
Your heated emotions are not very persuasive to me sir, you may differ but I believe God’s word and not your feelings
(cont.)

>>18363448
>However, this interpretation is less than obvious: when John talks about the “world” he clearly means the entire world, including unbelievers.
I just want to note you have left the conversation and now I’m arguing with some article you found after googling how to prove me wrong. Now, this is a naked assertion that “world” must mean each and every man in the world which proceeds to back itself up with its own refutation. When John says “We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one”, his meaning is that each and every man in the world is in the power of the evil one? The believers are of God, and also in the power of the evil one? It is not a limited meaning of world which excludes the Church, less than each and every man in the world, the world of evil and wickedness? There are many different uses of the word “world”, especially in the Johannine corpus, which do not mean all men everywhere. John 1:10 “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.” He was in society, and the heavens and the earth were made through Him, and the goats did not know Him. John 17:9 “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours”, He prays not for any man, but only for these men? Verse 16 “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” The apostles do not belong to the body of mankind? The scriptures rapidly become absurd and meaningless if this arbitrary rule is forced on them, which is maintained for the sole reason of subjugating the word of God to a human tradition and preventing it from speaking.

>>18363451
Christ is called the new Adam because of His succeeding where he failed and not because He is the Savior of all his progeny. He is the Savior of none which are in hell.
Your view is not universalism because you do not believe what it says when he says “In Christ all will be made alive”. In your view in Christ none are made alive, only enabled to make themselves alive if they are only willing. And that’s really the difference between a God-centered and man-centered reading of the bible. For the Calvinist, all men would be saved if God was willing, for the synergist, all men would be saved if they were willing. Man controls salvation in your system.
>>18363492
>the so called "doctrine", in truth heresy, of limited atonement was essentially unknown to the entire church from antiquity until modernity
As a matter of history, this is an indefensible falsehood which would be extraordinary to any church historian. You have said this because you are actually entirely clueless about church history, having never studied it, and is a typical case of a tradcath/orthoLARPer assuming history is the same as their dreams and feelings. See for example Gottschalk of Orbais, who lived more than half a millennium before John Calvin.

>>18363492
>Christians are supposed to show the same love Christ showed to all men, regardless of whether or not they are Christians or are saved
We are commanded to love all men, but we are not commanded to love any with the same love with which Christ loved the Church except our brethren and our wives, John 13:34 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another” 1 John 3:16 “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.” Ephesians 5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” now I ask, are to love all women in the world the same way we love our wives? Is Christ an adulterer? Does He love other wives than His perfect stainless bride?
>because Christ gave his life for them all without regard for persons
He did so without regard for persons, since there was nothing in them which pleased Him. He did not die for this one because he was a Jew, or for that one because he was smart, or that one because he was strong, but He died for all without discrimination.
>Christ gave his life for them all without regard for persons, that the way of salvation might be opened to those who would take up their cross and follow him
Again this is the real issue and a clear demonstration of how the rancid idol of man’s free will subverts the glory of God. Christ is here relegated to the shadows as the background character in your story, so the cause of your salvation is not His dying for you but your carrying your cross and following Him, it’s about your works, your willing, your running, and not God who has mercy.

bump

>>18364068
Let's start here.

>rancid idol of man’s free will
Except I already quoted a passage in which the author of Hebrews writes that if *we* (members of the church) sin *willingly* after receiving the knowledge of truth, there remains no sacrifice for sins.

You're making idols where there are none.
It's delusional, and you reject personal moral responsibility by giving into this abandonment.
Christ will judge *all* men for their works, yes you too, because these men are personally responsible for what they have done as a consequence of their free will.

You're calling Justin Martyr an idolator, it's really hard to believe someone actually thinks this way.
Read his Apology to the Roman Senate, he upholds both the mass and free will.

>we are not commanded to love any with the same love with which Christ loved the Church except our brethren and our wives
You're doing something strange by inventing two kinds of love, in order to strain scripture around your heretical presuppositions, where the new testament only knows agape.

Moreover, you have forgotten the sermon on the mount. That's baffling to me, are you even a real Christian or is this some kind of weird LARP troll exercise for you?


43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

cont

>>18364769
God the Father loved the whole world enough to send his Son to them, he rains on them all just and unjust alike. That is an expression of his perfection, which Jesus tells his flock to emulate.
So too is the Son like the Father, dying for all men, just and unjust, elect and damned. Where the Father rains water, Jesus' drops of blood fall. And this is what Jesus calls his church to do as well.

>but He died for all without discrimination
Huh, I think you might have forgotten which point you're arguing for. Did you forget, you said Jesus didn't die for the heathens, never purchased them.

>He is the Savior of none which are in hell.
Again, you refuse to understand and misrepresent my meaning.

Jesus doesn't save all men by dying on the cross, he purchases them all for judgement.
In this way, he gathers together *all* the wheat *and* all the tares of the field into one barn. Only then separating between them on the threshing floor. By dying on the cross, he prepares a universal harvest of all men to be subsequently judged.

Just as all men are of Adam, made in the image of God, and so incur the same penalty of death as Adam, when Jesus pays that price for Adam he purchases all men.

>>18364772
>matter of history, this is an indefensible falsehood
Laughable. You pulled a single literally who from a wikipedia article, an article which itself makes clear this doctrine was unknown for the entirety of church history up till that point.

There is a reason only Calvinists believe this, it's because that's a modern innovation and is unknown to every other historic denomination.

You're just lying through your teeth, maybe to yourself who knows, if you seriously think limited atonement existed in any way to the patristics. Their silence is absolutely deafening, while I can name three or four *very* well known names off the top of my head who teach that Christ died for all. Because they got it from the bible, which says the same thing many times.

>some article you found
It's arrogant for you to assume that this is the first time I've ever encountered a Calvinist. I was already familiar with that article.

Of course John is distinguishing between the whole world and the church. That's precisely the point.

Jesus did not die only for the sake of the elect, his church, but for the whole world too. That's the obvious meaning of 1 John 2 2. One your presuppositions, which were explicitly designed as an attack on the mass, cannot accept.
Christ's sacrifice was truly sufficient for all men, and applies to them all, but effective only for those who are grafted into his body through participation in the New Covenant.

>Where is Christ’s blood mentioned? Can I see it?
How else did Christ purchase anyone?
Are you implying he spends money on slaves?
This is you being intentionally obstinate.

>certainly did not mean anyone beyond the context of the original audience

He's writing to the church. The fact it is included in the bible means that it's teaching applies to the entire body of the faith. The things written in Corinthians do not suddenly not apply to you just because you aren't a Corinthian. You're making artificial divisions where none naturally exist.

1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


>all men
>all
>men
NOOOOOOOOOO IT DOSENT LE RELALY MENA TAHT

Imagine talking tl yourself like this, yikes

>>18364769
>Except I already quoted a passage
Papist, why do you think quoting irrelevant passages is proof of anything? You are literally incapable of arguing the text, which is why you ran away instantly as soon I pushed back against your false interpretation and still haven’t touched the OP. This is what slavery to human tradition looks like, this guy actually thinks he’s just following the bible!
>if *we* (members of the church) sin *willingly* after receiving the knowledge of truth, there remains no sacrifice for sins.
You are correct, they are members of the church and not believers, elect etc. the latter of which and not the former are the only ones for whom Christ died, whom He cannot fail to save, who cannot fall away. So it’s irrelevant to this subject.
>Christ will judge *all* men for their works, yes you too, because these men are personally responsible for what they have done as a consequence of their free will.
Amen.
>You're calling Justin Martyr an idolator
No, I’m calling you an idolater. I’m not talking to Justin Martyr, Justin Martyr isn’t twisting scripture to fit his idols.
>Read his Apology to the Roman Senate, he upholds both the mass and free will.
1. Justin was wholly ignorant of the mass which was not innovated for over a thousand years after his death. This is uncontroversial historical fact that only you are left in the dark about. The passage you anachronistically believe has something somehow to do with the mass actually contradicts transubstantiation. 2. Justin has a fondness for human free will not because it is the teaching of the scriptures but because he was a philosopher
>You're doing something strange by inventing two kinds of love, in order to strain scripture around your heretical presuppositions, where the new testament only knows agape.
Agape is not the only word for love used in the New Testament, but it also doesn’t mean “the unique love which Christ had for the Church”.
(1/7)

>Moreover, you have forgotten the sermon on the mount
Go back and read that post again, this time pretending you aren’t easily overcome by emotion like a woman, and read the way that sentence began
>>18364772
>he rains on them all just and unjust alike.
The saving death of Christ is not rain
>So too is the Son like the Father, dying for all men, just and unjust, elect and damned
We read not one word in all of scripture of Christ dying for the just, we find no concept that there is such a thing as a just man apart from God’s grace. He came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. The elect are not the “just”, which is a piece of your heretical man-made theology, but the elect are the wicked whom God chose out of the world and made His own by the death of Christ which alone makes them to differ from the damned. The grace of God does not find righteous men, it creates them.
>I think you might have forgotten which point you're arguing for
No I just didn’t selectively forget rules of language like you do.
>Did you forget, you said Jesus didn't die for the heathens
Jesus died for many heathens sir, it does you no good to directly misrepresent me. Christ died for heathens, for rapists, murderers, thieves, sodomites, He died for those who put Him to death, having thereby called them out of that state and into eternal life which the Father had predestined them to.
(2/7)

>>18364772
>Again, you refuse to understand and misrepresent my meaning.
Now, several things are to be responded to here
1. It is a false purpose which you impute to the death of Christ, for scripture knows nothing of Christ purchasing for Himself a right to judge all men in His death. This is His by virtue of His appointment as King over all men, which is not in any way based upon His atonement, but derived merely from the good pleasure of God. Instead what we find the business of Christ in His life and death was was the salvation of sinners, Luke 19:10 “the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”, 1 Timothy 1:15 “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” Matthew 20:28 “the Son of Man came to give His life as a ransom for many” Galatians 1:4 “who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father” so we find nothing else in scripture to be the intention which the Son of God sought to accomplish by His death other than to effect the salvation of those for whom He died
(3/7)

>>18364772
2. The wheat and tares are *not* gathered together into the barn, the tares, which the Master of the field did not desire and did not sow, were sowed in His field by His enemy, and when both have finished growing the foreign tares are gathered and thrown into the fire while the wheat alone is gathered into the barn. Nor does He connect the parable in any way to His atoning death
3. The price which He paid was that which man owed through wickedness ever since he first fell through eating the fruit, which consisted in death and the second death, which were suffered upon the cross by Christ in the stead of those on whose behalf He died (Galatians 3:13). Now, if He paid the price, how does it still remain for them to pay the same price?
4. A ransom is a payment made in exchange for the release of prisoners, which justice demands to be released immediately as soon as payment is received. Now, if Christ payed the ransom for all men, why are not all men released from their bondage? Is there either injustice in the Father to reject sufficient payment, or deficiency in the Son which was offered? Either one is gross blasphemy, “universal” and “redemption” when the greatest part of men perish are as irreconcilable as “Roman” and “Catholic”.
(4/7)

>>18364774
>You pulled a single literally who from a wikipedia article, an article which itself makes clear this doctrine was unknown for the entirety of church history up till that point.
Projection of your own ignorance aside, this wikipedia article (which is not my source) says nothing of the kind, in fact mentions the influence of Augustine on him. I did mention one man from church history, which is one more than you know anything about, but while this was sufficient to refute the objection it is not all those who held this doctrine before Calvin. I see you’re throwing out another empty citation of a predetermined prooftext, this time from 1 Timothy 2. I wonder whose side the man who wrote this would be on? https://ccel.org/ccel/augustine/enchiridion/enchiridion.chapter27.html
>There is a reason only Calvinists believe this, it's because that's a modern innovation and is unknown to every other historic denomination.
Sir you’re a clueless buffoon. You are completely unqualified to opine on church history, the difference between us is that I read books while you read 50 Epic Church Father Quotes that Prove Catholicism is True on epicbasedtradcath.com. You literally believe the mass existed in the 2nd century
>You're just lying through your teeth
This whole controversy is because you are a dangerous combination of arrogant and stupid
(5/7)

>>18364774
>It's arrogant for you to assume that this is the first time I've ever encountered a Calvinist
Sorry, my bad. You left the conversation and I was arguing with some article you found after googling how to prove me wrong in the past.
>Of course John is distinguishing between the whole world and the church. That's precisely the point.
So, the meaning of “the whole world” is not universal and does not include all men?
>Jesus did not die only for the sake of the elect, his church, but for the whole world too
As an interpretation of kosmos in 1 John 2:2 there is less than no reason to accept this, as I proved sufficiently before, however, this is moving the goalposts. I suppose it would be fair to say you never made an argument, so your inability to defend your erroneous beliefs has worked in your favor by giving you some measure of plausible deniability to pretend this is what you were saying all along, despite what you were obviously saying in reality, and what synergists actually argue, that world means each and every man, and not reprobates in particular (which I note has no ground in the context whatsoever, so this has not actually salvaged the misinterpretation at all)
(6/7)

>>18364774
>That's the obvious meaning of 1 John 2 2
I think this the only argument you’re going to be able to make, “it’s obvious” I accept your concession
>which were explicitly designed as an attack on the mass
The saving death of Christ for sinners and its exposition in the New Testament were well over one thousand years before the abomination of the mass was created by the devil to destroy the Christian religion. You are culpable in your understanding, since you know the difference between the two is the death of Christ was a perfect and sufficient offering by which sin was put away forever, while the mass is a failure which purifies nobody and leaves everyone in their sins. And yet you insult God by preferring the latter?
>Christ's sacrifice was truly sufficient for all men, and applies to them all, but effective only for those who are grafted into his body through participation in the New Covenant.
If He is sufficient for all, and applied to all, how is He not effective for all? What does it mean to apply Christ’s sacrifice? Does it not mean to make it effective? Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for all, since it would have been effective for all if it had been offered for all, but it is only effective for the elect since it was only offered for them.
>He's writing to the church
All churches in all parts of the world in all times, or a particular church in a particular time and place? It may be applicable to all, that does not mean it is addressed to all.
(7/7)

>>18365024
>Justin Martyr, First Apology to SPQR
>Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels ... Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.

...

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, etc.

>>18365081
Where’s the priest?

Papists are actually so dumb they think reciting disputed quotes is the same thing as proving their interpretation right

>>18365027
Christ's mercy is exactly like rain. That's why he uses this metaphor.
In the Old Testament, when Israel sins God sends them a drought.
When they repent, he returns the water.

Adam was disobedient, and was punished with death. Christ pays that price not only for him, but all his descendants too. Since this penalty applied equally to them all.

Israel later was disobedient, and punished many times, eventually being scattered to the east and west among the nations. Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise of their regathering, so called lost sheep.

>>18365029
Interesting.
However...

Joseph, Jesus' beloved adoptive father, is himself described as a just man, righteous in some translations.
Surely rain fell on him, and it's other less upstanding men Jesus compares him with.
Was he without sin? No. These things are true at the same time.

Joseph's fundamental nature is not of depravity, but dignity, because God when he spoke of creation said that it was good.

Moreover, am not identifying the elect with the just any more than I previously mentioned gentiles and the righteous the same way.
Merely temporally comparing them through semantic arrangement, to illustrate a point.

>>18365030
Yeah, I guess I misremembered the exact location of the threshing floor. Thanks for pointing that out.

My own argument is still sound though, because the field is the world.
The good seed is the incarnation and death of Christ, the gospel and word of the kingdom, which by falling to the ground produces much fruit.
In proclaiming Christ's death to all men, it becomes evident that this good news to all men is a natural fruit of Jesus' death. Meaning, since it is to be preached to all men, all men were intended when Christ gave his life.

>>18365034
>the meaning of “the whole world” is not universal and does not include all men
You seem confused.
The church militant is in the world, but not of it. The church triumphant is in heaven, (still part of the kosmos).

cont

>>18365034
The new heavens and new earth will be revealed after judgement, and the bridal veil will be lifted.
You say Jesus is not an adulterer, and that's true. But you're making a categorical error, and confusing reconciliation with marriage.

Jesus reconciled all things in heaven and on earth to himself, with the purchase of his precious blood on the cross, which fell to earth as a typological rain.
This includes all sorts of profligates and unrepentant sinners. It also includes various animals, the sky, and the ocean.
He's not marrying those.

The procession into the new heavens and earth and wedding feast of the kingdom follows his return in glory to judge the living and the dead.

>>18365037
>mass created by the devil
You shouldn't flirt with blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Even more when you know it isn't true.

>All churches in all parts of the world in all times, or a particular church in a particular time and place
There is only one body of Christ, and one holy catholic and apostolic church.
What you're talking about are congregations, different members of the same body.

If the book is in your Bible, it applies to the entire body of faith.
Not just one part of it. That's how canons work.
It's why the council at Jerusalem was able to unilaterally rule for every congregation, not simply Jerusalem. And not for a particular time, but down through the ages. Those same rulings are still in effect today.

>>18365088
The word translated as "president", is actually proestōs, προεστός.

If you can't see etymological connection between proestōs, provost, preost, and priest that would be a very sad thing.
That's basically the administrator.

26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.


>God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent
>all men
>whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead

Jesus was raised from the dead to give this assurance of the final judgement to all men. That is, for the sake of all men, that they be assured of his personal judgement.
And moreover, God commands *all men* to repentance of the same kind that he commands of his church.

One blood, Adam's blood, in all nations.
One blood, Jesus' blood, for the reconciliation of Adam's to God.
The very same blood that is in every man born of Adam, all men.

God calls men to repentance so that they may be united with his son.
If he had personally made it metaphysically impossible for most men to repent, he wouldn't have called them all to repent.
Ergo, it's possible for every person God calls to repentance to reply. And in perfect accord with the aforementioned scripture which testifies that God wills all men to be saved.

>God divinely wills all men to repent and be saved, and then commands it.
>Somehow, this doesn't happen.

This makes Calvinists short circuit.
The idea that God is literally forcing everyone to repent is a rationalization born of cognitive dissonance and a fundamental misunderstanding of the true scope of God's sovereignty.

Forcing someone to repent obliterates what it means to truly repent, same deal with obedience, and love.
It definitionally cannot be an imposition by force from the outside, it's an internal change and reorientation.

What this means is, in order for this thing to happen there *must* be a voluntary participation, submission, or "fiat" of the human will in, to, and regarding the divine will.
Repentance is a gift from God he is constantly offering men, all men, but only a few accept it because most love the world more than him.

And this is a faculty God created man with. To have a will of his own, one fundamentally like his even if it is not strictly eternal, because it is through his own breath that it was first instilled in Adam.
Faculties that are perfected in Christ.
God tacitly tolerated (as it is written, winked at or overlooked) certain ignorant things among the nations before the restoration worked in his son.
But since Christ was risen, the call for repentance became universal.

31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.


Jesus, saying that by being lifted up he will draw *all men* unto him.
Since we know he was speaking of his death, it is right to say that the reason he gave his life was to draw *all men* to him.


12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.


>by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life
>all men, all men
As condemnation came to all men through Adam's disobedience, through Jesus' righteousness (the new Adam) the free gift of life came to all men.

>>18365212
1. Etymology is not definition 2. Priest is not derived from this but from presbyteros through Latin and German, as a consequence of the development of the concept of a Christian priesthood in later generations.
What’s really sad is the slavery to the ahistorical Roman system. Justin does not mention the priest, does not mention adoration, does not mention sacrifice, and does not mention the change of substance because Justin doesn’t know what transubstantiation is. The only thing papists look at and see transubstantiation in is “Eucharist”, which does not mean what you think it means, it means thanksgiving, and was used because the sacrament is a thanksgiving for the perfect death of Christ, and “is the flesh and blood of that Jesus” but “is” does not mean “is magically transformed into and worshipped and sacrificed”.

Doesn't matter, because God and Hell are not real to begin with

>>18365846
dude, no
please stop trying to anachronistically insert Calvinism into the ancient world

"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).

>>18365889
>please stop trying to anachronistically insert Calvinism into the ancient world
The ironic thing is that this is exactly what you’re doing. I didn’t say Justin was a Calvinist or even agreed with Calvin, I simply acknowledged the uncontroversial historical fact that he wasn’t a Romanist. A Protestant can allow history to be history, a Romanist must live in an alternate universe. You would literally be laughed out of the room by any church historian on earth if you claimed the mass existed in the 2nd century. You aren’t studying history when you go to papist propaganda websites to copy+paste cherrypicked church father quotes. What I simply can’t fathom is how it’s possible for you people to continually be so assertive about the historicity of Romanism when you know full well you have never studied any of this, you’ve never read a single book, you’ve never heard a single lecture, you’ve never read a single thing one of these guys actually wrote, and you know there are people who have, and yet you are so hubristic and overconfident to go out and opine and argue about these things about which you are clueless with people far better educated than you.

>>18365138
>>18365187
>>18365238
The problem these have as with the many other misuses of scripture the papists have brought forth so far (as though you thought you only needed to misuse a few more) is that there is no fear of God in the reading of them. A man will not twist and willfully distort any words more than those he claims to have the highest reverence for, since any other words he will simply dismiss when he disagrees with them, and any other he will ignore when he does not find his support, but when it is the words of God he will twist them and turn them around and fill them with his own meaning, see the importance that the appearance of following the bible must be maintained. I know Rome does not teach you how to read the bible, but this is not it. You do not first decide your doctrine, then go running through the bible snagging any prooftext you can fit it into, “thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” The way to read the bible is to begin books at verse 1 and continue reading until the final verse, paying attention to syntax and context, and considering the historical context, forming an interpretation with a mind to understanding what objectively the author intended to communicate. This is the word of God and you will treat it with respect.

>>18365138
By far the majority of this post is irrelevant and without merit of reply since it has nothing to do with the text of the bible, you are preaching your own imagination. For instance, you say “Surely rain fell on him (Joseph) and it's other less upstanding men Jesus compares him with” but when did Jesus ever compare anyone with Joseph? When did Jesus ever mention Joseph? I can only attribute this to significant biblical ignorance, and yet you would dispute with me about the bible? It truly is incredible how all the things internet tradcaths complain about Protestants supposedly doing is in reality very applicable to themselves. Here you are, ignorant laymen building entire theological systems detached from history on nothing but your own ignorant personal interpretations of biblical prooftexts. “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures”

>>18361534
I love the nonchalant argumentation routes you're making.

>>18365138
>Christ's mercy is exactly like rain. That's why he uses this metaphor.
It is not a metaphor, it is an example of God showing love even to the wicked in that it also rains on their fields. What Christ’s death has in common with rain is utterly beyond me, it seems nothing but an arbitrary assertion you decided to make with little thought put into it on the assumption it somehow benefits your cause. Again, no fear of God
>You seem confused.
No, I don’t think I’m the one who’s confused here: are you in fact agreeing with me that the meaning of “world” in 1 John 2:2 is limited and does not refer to all men?

>>18365187
>But you're making a categorical error, and confusing reconciliation with marriage.
No, I am speaking of the salvific love for which Christ came into the world and gave His life a ransom for many. All creation will be renewed through Christ, but He did not die in the place of anything but men (and that elect ones). Now, I ask it again, since we are to love our wives with the same love with which Christ loved the Church, having given Himself for her, are we to love all women in the same way as we love our wives, or did Christ love the Church in a way in which He did not love any other?
>You shouldn't flirt with blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Even more when you know it isn't true.
I’m afraid there are no spirits involved in the mass except unclean ones, you have been deceived by the enemy and caught in the devil’s snare. You cannot eat at both the table of the Lord and the table of demons, while you partake of the abomination of the mass you do not partake of the death of Christ, you are severed from Christ, outside the Church, off of Noah’s ark and you cannot be saved until you repent and believe the truth.
>There is only one body of Christ, and one holy catholic and apostolic church.
There is one mystical church, but many instituted visible churches on the earth. Your own church, despite your ignorance, acknowledges this. Again, it is not addressed to all. The original audience would not be confused and think he was talking to somebody other than them. They were very familiar with the ethnic controversies which had wracked the early Church, and would understand John’s meaning that Christ’s blood is meant for men from every tongue, tribe, people and nation, all kinds throughout the world.

OP you are correct that Christian logic infers double predestination.
Rather than doing mental gymnastics to cope and debunk all the evidence, rather and trying to justify why somehow it isn't evil, it's better to admit the truth:
Christianity is retarded and wasn't designed by bronze age schizos with this level of analysis and contemplation in mind.

>>18365320
>The idea that God is literally forcing everyone to repent
God is not “forcing” anyone to repent, He gives to His chosen people spiritual grace which changes their hearts from dead to alive and enables them to believe the truth. And this grace is not mere help which will avail them if they co-operate, as if being only helped dead men can co-operate in their own resurrection, but they are made alive and set free from the power of the devil which they were under.
>What this means is, in order for this thing to happen there *must* be a voluntary participation, submission, or "fiat" of the human will in, to, and regarding the divine will.
1. It is as if you had said dead men must voluntarily participate in their own resurrection 2. If it is the intention that all men be saved, and all men are not saved, then the will of God is frustrated. It hardly improved it to say this is because of the will of men, because that is to say the will of God is frustrated by the will of men which is impossible Psalm 33:10-11 “The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations.”
>But since Christ was risen, the call for repentance became universal.
The call is universal, the grace is not.

>>18361606
>The holy scriptures represent one consistent whole with one author from Genesis to Revelation, and the apostles differ from each other not in substance but only in style and emphasis.
Does anyone besides young earth, flat earther, American Deep South/African evangelicals believe this?

>>18366458
I’m not a flat earther, I’m not from the deep south, and I’m not from Africa and I believe it.

>>18366472
So you are a young earth evangelical. Damn...

>>18361802
/thread

This autist used to argue with himself using a tripcode, now he has gone full anonymous but still says the samd retarded bullshit

>>18366301
Justin describes the Eucharist as a sacrifice though. He's not the only one, Augustine too. I knew that without having to look it up, so many people just like you have denied it.

Christians have been worshipping that way since the beginning.
I don't have to insert anything about the orthodox church into the past, because it's literally all there. The Nicene Creed, recited at every mass, the Didache, etc, these things testify to the historicity of the apostolic church you deny.

>you’ve never read a single book, you’ve never heard a single lecture, you’ve never read a single thing one of these guys actually wrote, and you know there are people who have, and yet you are so hubristic and overconfident
You don't know a single thing about me.
Like, you keep repeating these small-minded insults. Calling me a woman, an idiot, arrogant, a devil worshipper etc. You're clearly flustered and struggling to respond coherently in any other way.

Where is the evidence of good faith, or charity?
In fact, your entire affect isn't one which speaks to regeneration.

Like, I just conclusively demonstrated you're wrong about Justin Martyr and true antiquity of the understanding the sacrifice of the mass in the Eucharist common to the apostolic church in both the east and west.

This central rite of true Christian worship, you say is the work of the devil.
And then, you accuse me of propagandizing. You are a liar.

Instead of thanking me for the correction, you just double down on being wrong.
You're a waste of time.

>>18366379
You don't have anything of value to add to this discussion. Which is clear, in that you continually tear others down instead of building them up.

>>18366384
Jesus compares Joseph (a just man, as the bible says while *you* say it is impossible), with the unjust in that very verse, since in the SAME gospel he's described as a just man.

>>18366432
>mystical church, but many instituted visible churches on the earth
You deny the Nicene Creed too.

>there are no spirits involved in the mass
if you had stopped there, you would have been okay

>except unclean ones
and yet you decided to flirt with blasphemy, succumb to hatred and enmity, test God, and give credit to the enemy which does not belong there

there is no reason at all to even infer this
you have no extraordinary phenomena to point to which demand extraordinary explanations like demonic activity
so invoking demonic activity, where there is no compelling reason to attribute a certain event to their acts, is not only premature and uncalled for but in this case itself a clear sign that you have absolutely zero respect for Christ's thrice repeated warning about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and it is precisely because you are targeting Christians

and supposing you did recognize extraordinary phenomena associated with the celebration of mass, it would be self defeating of you to admit it in public
this is a dilemma you have taken up of your own accord, and what's more it reveals your position as untenable and fundamentally hostile

>>18366681
>Justin describes the Eucharist as a sacrifice though
You know who else describes the Eucharist as a sacrifice? The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 29, Article 2
>In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead, but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all, and a SPIRITUAL OBLATION OF ALL POSSIBLE PRAISE unto God for the same: so that the Popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of the elect
So Justin said the sacrament is a sacrifice, and Westminster said the sacrament is a sacrifice, and Justin saying that meant he believed the mass, therefore, the Westminster divines believed in the mass! I have said many times the anachronistic reasoning which used to prove transubstantiation in the church fathers would also prove it in the reformers, who obviously did not believe it. The reason why you think the church fathers sound like Romanists, and why they do not often sound like Protestants, is because they lived in some cases a thousand years before your religion began, so they did not see a need to exercise caution to avoid sounding like heresies which would not exist for many centuries.
>I knew that without having to look it up, so many people just like you have denied it.
But what none of them said and what you could not find any of them saying when looking it up is that in the Eucharist the priest acting as another Christ in the person of Christ makes Christ bodily present upon the altar by working the miracle of transubstantiation so that he may offer Him up again to God the Father as a propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead. That is distinctly high medieval garbage.

>>18366681
>Christians have been worshipping that way since the beginning.
No they have not, they had not worshipped that way for one thousand two hundred years, for Peter Lombard denied it.
>You don't know a single thing about me
Yes sir I do. I have more than enough experience with your type, especially when I was one. You guys all do the same thing.
>Like, you keep repeating these small-minded insults. Calling me a woman, an idiot, arrogant, a devil worshipper etc
I didn’t call you a woman, and I didn’t call you a devil worshipper. You are projecting the emotional barrage you have obviously been under the moment you entered this thread. I did call you stupid and arrogant, because that’s how you were behaving. Stop being stupid and arrogant, a wound from a friend is more honest than a kiss from an enemy.

>>18366681
>I just conclusively demonstrated you're wrong about Justin Martyr and true antiquity of the understanding the sacrifice of the mass in the Eucharist common to the apostolic church in both the east and west
No sir, you conclusively demonstrated your own ignorance and pride. Again, you haven’t studied church history at all, it doesn’t matter what I know, it matters that you know this. Instead of whining at me that your feelings hurt, act like a man and receive the criticism. I cannot imagine the hubris of getting into fights like this while having a knowledge of the subject that goes as deep as reading lists of cherrypicked quotes supplied by propagandists pushing an agenda.
>This central rite of true Christian worship, you say is the work of the devil.
That is why I said that, because it is the truth. You are on the wide way, you are caught in the devil’s snare, would it be loving for me to smile and wave you into the fire? Not at all.
>Instead of thanking me for the correction, you just double down on being wrong.
Sir, the flat earther should re-evaluate himself when he tells the physics professor to accept his correction
>you continually tear others down instead of building them up
When Christians tell you to repent they aren’t doing it because they hate you, they do it out of love. It is loving to warn you of the impending doom and call you to be saved in Jesus Christ.
>in that very verse
What verse, Matthew 5:45? There is no reference to Joseph there either.
>You deny the Nicene Creed too.
No.

>>18366711
It is warranted in Galatians 2:4 and Matthew 24:24 among others. Heresy and false worship, especially which directly corrupts such an important sacrament and obscures the light of the gospel to ensure the damnation of so many can only have a diabolical origin and purpose. You believe I am targeting Christians, it is so important for me to use the strongest language to shake you awake because you are wrong about that. You need to understand this is not Christianity but a counterfeit set up to steal your soul. Would you also apply these criticisms to Justin Martyr for calling Marcion an agent of the devil?

>>18366770
>You know who else describes the Eucharist as a sacrifice? The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 29, Article 2
"In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all ..."

How do you not see this is the exact opposite of what you say it means?

>Westminster said the sacrament is a sacrifice
No.
It explicitly says it is not in itself a sacrifice, but merely represents or memorializes one.

While Justin in no uncertain terms says that Christians everywhere offer up the Eucharist as a sacrifice to God.
These are not reconcilable positions. The Westminster confession represents a fatal break from the sacred tradition received from antiquity.

>>18366776
You don't hurt my feelings at all though.
Like, these rhetorical digs and ad hominem simply aren't effective at putting me off balance.

In fact, I count it as my blessing when men say all sorts of lies and insults about me for Jesus' sake.
Calling me emotional and a buffoon, among other things ITT isn't legitimate criticism. Pointing out my error in misquoting the parable of tares from memory is. I am perfectly capable of differentiating the two, but you seem confused as to being able to tell the difference.

It isn't the truth. The bible gives you a clear guideline on how to discern clean from unclean spirits in 1 John 4. Clean spirits will confess that Jesus came in the flesh, unclean spirits will deny it.
The Nicene Creed testifies to the incarnation, and is repeated liturgically with every celebration of the mass.

Can you personally say the same of protestant services?

“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]” (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

>offer the Eucharist
>first make confession
>so that your sacrifice may be a pure one
>avoid any profanation of your sacrifice

So the Eucharist which is the wholeness of his body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ is offered as a sacrifice to God on the Lord's day.

Not merely spiritually, for Christ did not come as a disembodied spirit simply appearing to be corporeal to the intellect as the heretics maintain, but as a real flesh and blood man.
Thus, the incarnation is demonstrated through the consecrated host. Not the dead body of Jesus on the cross, whose death is proclaimed in the gospel and the liturgy, but the wholly living and glorified body of his resurrection fully present under the accidents of bread and wine.
And what's more, fully available to the communicant not as if he had torn a piece of him away with his teeth as in the eating of common food, but whole and unbroken even through the breaking of bread and entirely under both species or only one. A true miracle.

File: file.png (53.1 KB)

53.1 KB PNG

>>18364023
>if God gives faith to man, and God gives grace equally to all men, how then do not all believe?
Because they choose to not believe. Since you believe that people don't have free will to make a decision, here is some questions:

If the faith to believe in Jesus Christ is given through irresistible grace as a gift, why does the Bible command and exhort us to believe in Jesus Christ? Why give commands that are impossible to obey?

How can God hold the non-elect responsible for ‘not believing’ and damn them for it, when He deliberately did not give them the faith to enable them to believe in the first place?

How can God withhold grace and Christ’s atonement from some of His creatures and then condemn them to the Lake of Fire for all eternity for not accepting what was never offered to them?

How can Christ be just, loving, compassionate, and merciful if He chose to die on the cross for some when He could have easily died on the cross for everyone?

Why preach ‘repent or perish’ when the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish?

How do you know that your faith is genuine, that it came as a gift from God and not from yourself?

How can anyone know? Yet 1 John 5:13 says we can know we have eternal life.

During the period before an elect person gets saved, how are they condemned already (for not believing) when their unbelief (which is a sin) has already been paid for by Christ on the cross? Since the sin problem has been defeated, you still need to have a choice if you actually want the righteousness of The Lord Jesus Christ, otherwise God is simply forcing you to do exactly what He wants without giving you a choice.

https://www.timefortruth.co.uk/errors/errors-of-calvinism/

>>18368989
>Because they choose to not believe
So it’s man who chooses to believe, and not God who gives it to him?
>If the faith to believe in Jesus Christ is given through irresistible grace as a gift, why does the Bible command and exhort us to believe in Jesus Christ? Why give commands that are impossible to obey?
God ordains both ends and means, He exhorts us to believe so that through the message preached the elect will be brought near to Him while the reprobate in rejecting the gospel will be condemned.
>How can God hold the non-elect responsible for ‘not believing’ and damn them for it, when He deliberately did not give them the faith to enable them to believe in the first place?
This is precisely the objection Paul preempts and responds to in Romans 9:19. God can hold them responsible and condemn them because they really rejected Him and decided in their hearts to do so, which is a real evil against His really binding law upon them. Man is judged for his real disobedience to God’s law, and not for what he could have done nor for the divine decree.
(1/3)

>>18368989
>How can God withhold grace and Christ’s atonement from some of His creatures and then condemn them to the Lake of Fire for all eternity for not accepting what was never offered to them?
He condemns them not for rejecting grace which was offered to them, but for disobeying the command to repent and rebelling against His just authority in Jesus Christ. But God’s grace can certainly be demanded by nobody under any circumstances, otherwise it is not grace.
>How can Christ be just, loving, compassionate, and merciful if He chose to die on the cross for some when He could have easily died on the cross for everyone?
His death on the cross was loving and compassionate because it was deserved by nobody and forfeited by all, so that He would have been entirely just to abandon all and save none. So because all were undeserving, He has no responsibility to save any, and what is extraordinary is that any are saved and not that any are damned.
>Why preach ‘repent or perish’ when the non-elect can’t repent and the elect can’t perish?
This is identical to the first question and answered in the same way, that God ordains means, and the ordinary means of grace consist of word and sacrament through which He saves His elect people. And as far as it concerns us, we preach unto every creature because we do not know the identities of elect and reprobate and can either preach to all or to none, but “I endure everything for the sake of the elect” (2 Tim 2:10)
(2/3)

>>18368989
>How do you know that your faith is genuine, that it came as a gift from God and not from yourself?
The believer can know his faith is genuine and different from that of apostates in several ways, from the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit who is given as the down payment of his salvation, from the fruits of the Spirit in his life, and through the promises of God given to him in word and sacrament. And this question more than any other is a red herring and irrelevance in the controversy with the synergists, since I doubt they will outright deny there is such a thing as false faith and so defy both reason and scripture, and so the difference remains in the two camps as far as assurance is concerned that the Calvinist can be fully assured he will be saved and with the Lord, while the synergist cannot.
>During the period before an elect person gets saved, how are they condemned already (for not believing) when their unbelief (which is a sin) has already been paid for by Christ on the cross?
Because the pardon of a prisoner does not take effect until notice is received by the warden, who effects it by the immediate release of the prisoner. But as soon as it is issued he has the right to be released, which may not be stowed away and forgotten.
>forcing you
There is no force involved, and nobody acts contrary to their own will, but the will itself is changed no longer to seek evil but the mercy of Jesus. And on this important and defining issue, you stand not with the Reformation but with Rome against the Reformation.
(3/3)

>>18369061
I think that a person becomes "elect" only after willingly accepting the gift of salvation. In 1 Tim 2:6, it says Christ’s ‘ransom’ was said to be for ALL, just as "ALL have sinned" (Rom 3:23).

Just because Mat 20:28 says "many", doesn't mean it can't mean all. For example Rom 5:19 says that "many were made sinners" even though all were made sinners, therefore many can mean all. So the blood atonement that the Lord Jesus made really was for all, but when God gives you the faith to accept it, but you can deny it with your free will and refuse to accept it (yes, you can resist what God wants for you, which is why bad things happen Acts 7:51 says you can resist the Holy Ghost, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 says that if man wants something contrary to what God wants for them, such as a lie, they get it).

Any excuse an unsaved man gives for passing up the way to Heaven will be upon his own head. Christ made the way, and there is only one way, through Him. You reject Christ and you have no hope whatsoever. The gift of salvation is offered to all, but as you can see, many refuse it. Not because God determined that they should refuse it, but because they wanted to out of the free will that God gave them.

>>18369061
>>18369103
>will itself is changed
The new nature that you get when you are saved is not God "changing your will". When you are saved, even though you get a new nature in you that wants to please God (which is the real you, since a Christian is not the flesh), you still have the old fleshly nature (Romans 7:17-25) that is cut off from the soul (Colossians 2:11-14), so clearly if your will was changed by God, then that would mean you wouldn't have any desire to do anything contrary to what God wants while you are in the current corrupt flesh, but that's clearly not the case.

>>18369103
>>18369124
>I think that a person becomes "elect" only after willingly accepting the gift of salvation.
Do you think God exists in time?
>In 1 Tim 2:6
Beginning with this is a series of no less than 8 different bible citations from all different books, and each a different context. If we desire to understand God’s word, and not simply to give our own opinions the appearance of scripture’s support, we should slow down and examine it carefully and in its own context. Now, the question here is not really how many men Christ died for, but what basically was it He intended to accomplish? You think Christ died to open up a way for men to freely by the operation of their own wills to bring themselves into salvation, so that any will be saved if only they satisfy the condition which is placed in front of them, and so Christ could have died for all men and done everything necessary to save them, and yet not one be saved. Our opinion is very different. We believe that Christ died in the place of all those who were predestined to eternal life, taking on Himself the fully penalty of all their sins so that none of those for whom He died can suffer condemnation. The difference therefore is whether Christ died to save sinners, or to enable them to save themselves, now I ask what is the bible’s answer to this? “If God is for us, who is against us? He who indeed did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him graciously give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.” And we must reject this really unacceptable idea that it is possible for man to frustrate God’s will. Man often disobeys God, but man cannot cause to occur other than that which God intended and decreed to occur, he cannot even exist apart from it.

>>18369215
Of course God is outside of time because He created time, but based on what the Bible says, God let's people accept or refuse the gospel. God doesn't make them refuse the gospel, but will give a way for them to refuse the gospel if they personally choose to reject it in their heart. It's all about the heart. If you reject Jesus in your heart, that is your choice, not the choice of God.

Rom. 10:9: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

1 Timothy 4:10
“For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.”

>>18369219
Of course, the rejection of Christ is entirely the sinner’s own choice, but it is incorrect that the acceptance of Him is also his own choice. If man were left in control of his own salvation it were placed on his shoulders, not one would be saved. The bible is clear that man is dead in sin and requires a miracle to enable him to believe, John 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.“ Romans 8:7 “because the mind set on the flesh is at enmity toward God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so”. How dare we claim any piece of the pie for ourselves, when it is only God’s grace that saved us?

>>18369232
I'm not saying that I did it. It's because of God that I even got the choice of accepting or refusing the will of God for me. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:", if there was some sort of part that I needed to do in order to be saved then that statement would not be true, but since it's because God made it so that we can make a choice between accepting or refusing, is why we can be saved.

When God is convicting a sinner of their sin and presenting them with the choice of accepting the fact that they are as sinner and need salvation, or refusing to confront that fact and refusing the gift of salvation, He is not brainwashing them to make the choice He wants them to make, He is simply GIVING them the option CHOICE. It's not us that are responsible for saving ourselves with anything we do, but that doesn't mean we don't have responsibility in front of God if we refuse to accept what God is convicting us of.

Acts 7:51
“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.”

>>18368989
>Because they choose to not believe.
NTA.
I'm the dude defending the mass ITT.

That's simply not how belief works.

Belief is a gift, not a choice.
You can't force yourself to genuinely believe anything.
It's something that just happens to you.
You can't choose to believe that the sky appears neon purple, or that two plus two is five. You'd be lying to yourself.

Faith is distinguishable from belief alone because it entails a free will decision to obey and live by the commands of Jesus.
That is, to *be* faithful to his new covenant. A faithful soldier, one that is not treacherous, obeys his orders and goes where his commander tells him to.

Of course, it involves belief too.
But to equate faith, fidelity, with belief alone is to cheapen the meaning of the word.
For example, when a wife is in infidelity to her husband, it isn't because she doesn't believe in him. It's because she chose to betray his trust.

God will never betray your trust, but people betray God all the time.
You see?

>>18369237
>I'm not saying that I did it
I see two options, you or God, and you’re saying God didn’t
>It's because of God that I even got the choice of accepting or refusing the will of God for me.
That’s how Rome does it too, God gave them the opportunity to earn salvation through their own works of righteousness. And I don’t see why if you have the free will to believe the gospel you would not have the free will to keep the whole law? I am glad you don’t go there, but the only way you could be consistent is either by joining me or joining Rome.
>if there was some sort of part that I needed to do in order to be saved then that statement would not be true
Amen brother, absolutely. Now, does that not mean that if apart from Calvinism you necessarily play some part in your own salvation then this verse proves Calvinism? But in any non-Reformed system, the difference maker in your salvation is you and your deeds. In your system God did everything equally to save you and the atheist but the atheist goes to hell and you don’t because he chose to reject the gospel and you chose to accept it. Is it not the case you say you needed to do the part of choosing to believe in order to be saved? Not in Calvinism, we chose to believe because He first chose us, there was no condition we needed to satisfy.
>He is not brainwashing them to make the choice He wants them to make, He is simply GIVING them the option CHOICE
Of course He is not brainwashing, and He is not puppeting them, He is raising them from the dead. The bible says natural man is dead in sin and cannot do what is pleasing to God. A sinner who has not been raised to life could no more choose to believe than a dead man could choose to get out of his grave, but one who has been raised has been changed from death to life.
(cont)

>>18369237
>Acts 7:51
Now brother, what is this passage not about? It is not about salvation, it is not about the nature of man, it is not about what God must do to save man, it is not about anything we are talking about. If a human author expects you to be familiar with his ideas based on the parts he dedicates to the subject, is it not so with the Holy Spirit? Stephen is condemning the Jews for their rejection of the revelation of God through the prophets, culminating in their rejection of Jesus Christ. What he means by “resisting the Holy Ghost” is not that He was spiritually drawing them to faith in Christ and they thwarted Him, as if Lazarus could have refused to come out of his tomb, but they have resisted what God commanded of them externally through the mouths of the prophets.

>>18369307
Yes, but God didn't brainwash me to put my trust in Him. Yes, God gave me the faith that I need so that I could even put my faith in Him to begin with, but God didn't control me to make that choice. It's why people can refuse the gift of salvation even after God gives a sinner everything they need to receive the gift. They can choose to put that faith on something else instead, like their own works, for example.

>>18369311
>Stephen is condemning the Jews for their rejection of the revelation of God
Yes and He is also clearly said they were resisting the Holy Ghost, just like how people resist the Holy Ghost when God is convicting them and presenting them with the choice to accept the gift of salvation. He is not forcing them to accept it, you can resist.

>>18369309
Salvation is completely the work of God, refusing or accepting the gift of salvation is the choice of man.

>Not in Calvinism, we chose to believe because He first chose us, there was no condition we needed to satisfy.
And I choose to believe God gave me option to accept or reject what He wants for me, not because i'm special, but because God is just that awesome that He lets people choose and make their own decisions even if it's not what He wants.

>He is not puppeting them, He is raising them from the dead.
Against their will? No he is not. Many times God can convict someone but they don't want to accept the gift of salvation, but then God gives them another chance later on and they accept it. I think that happened with me in the past actually.

>>18369307
I had ignored you before because of the incredibly dishonest way you attempted to weasel out of the historical reality before expressing your own foolish pride, but do you understand the Westminster Confession to be denying what Justin affirmed?

>>18369309
>>18369320
Just because God can change our will do be what He wants it to be, doesn't mean that's what He did. If that's all God wants to do, then we were just robots, but clearly what God wants is for us to decide to love Him out of our own free will and not because He programmed us to love Him by changing our will. God giving us a new nature that wants to please Him was something that we consented to by realizing our sinful condition and our need to depend on God instead of ourselves, it's not a programming switch that God turned on for His special elect people, but a result of God giving us our own will to make decisions with.

>>18369313
I'm the dude you responded to first.
Consider the example of the rich young man who approached Jesus.

Jesus told him specifically to sell everything he owned, give it to the poor, and follow him.
Clearly, the young man really did believe Jesus enough to ask him about eternal life.
But Jesus particular terms, which applied to him, were too much for him to bear because he had love for worldly things.

>their own works
you mean the same works that everyone on earth will be judged by on the last day
everyone

that includes *all men*, those belonging to the visible church who are nevertheless, and those nominal heathens in the invisible church too
there is no conflict between works and faith, unless you define faith as belief alone, which definition is simply not sufficient to fully describe faith

Jesus calls on his faithful to do certain things for him, and this might not be the same for every person although there are certain commands that are truly universal and apply to the entire body of faith.
But if you deny him, by refusing to really do the things he has asked, how could you be said to truly follow him? For if you love him, you will do as he says.

You're right about men being able to resist or vie with God, which is in the very name and biblical history of Israel, but only to an extent.
God *can* force your hand and your heart. It's just that he doesn't *have* to, he isn't bound by any arcane legal precept. He binds men to these laws.

>>18369326
That’s a strawman brother, I said we aren’t puppets. God didn’t reach down and manipulate your body to do what He wanted, He changed your heart and changed you from death to life so you chose life, rather than death.

>>18369321
Entirely.
You shouldn't feel the need to respond to further, if all you intend to do is say "you fool".

raca

>>18369332
Does this post >>18366796 mean that what Westminster denied and Justin affirmed are the same thing?

>>18369335
>Entirely.
Right, so what the Westminster actually said was “In this sacrament Christ is not offered up to his Father, nor any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sins of the quick or dead” so can you show me where Justin Martyr said either in the Eucharist Jesus Christ was offered to His Father, or that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is for sins?

Scripture "teaches" nothing, because Scripture is just a collection of random ramblings.

Religion is a mental illness.

>>18369333
It's either people have free will to choose or reject God. If that isn't true, then they don't have free will.

God gives people what they want. If they want to reject salvation, God helps them reject it. If they want to accept salvation, God helps that happen.

God just looked into your heart to see if you want to accept or refuse His gift. But if God forced your heart to accept then that means you didn't make any choice and are a robot.

John 1:12
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:”

God doesn't force you to receive, but if you did, that means you received.

For there is indeed one holy, catholic, and apostolic church.
And like all created things, this body has both visible and invisible aspects.

One which Jesus himself prays to be one, just as he and his father are one.
As the Father sends Jesus with authority *to forgive sins* and Jesus sends his apostles with authority *to forgive sins*, so too does he pray that his apostles send others with that same authority.
And so on, until he comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

>As my father has sent me, so I send you.
Maybe my memory fails here, but I don't believe it.

>>18369342
>>18369336
You have Justin's own words to read, and that of the Didache.
As witnesses to the truth of what I say.

If you cannot understand their plain meaning, it is because you have chosen not to understand.
And have instead chosen the way of equivocation, innuendo, and schism.

>>18369362
>You have Justin's own words to read
Right so no you can’t show me that because Justin didn’t say that because Justin didn’t believe that, I accept your concession
>understand their plain meaning
Translation: anachronistically insert medieval Roman innovations into 2nd century documents

>>18369360
>It's either people have free will to choose or reject God. If that isn't true, then they don't have free will.
They don’t have free will
>God just looked into your heart to see if you want to accept or refuse His gift
If He looked for that, He only saw evil and rebellion, Romans 8:7 “the mind set on the flesh is at enmity toward God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so” Ephesians 2:3 “among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”
>But if God forced your heart to accept then that means you didn't make any choice and are a robot.
Jesus Christ could not have chosen to reject God, but Jesus Christ wasn’t a robot. You are conflating several definitions of the term “free will”.

>>18369332
Now youre getting confused.

When James wrote James 2:21, he was not writing New Testament doctrine for the Body of Christ. He was writing to "the twelve tribes" of Israel (James 1:1) in the Tribulation (Rev. 12:17). Look at James 2:21, "Was not Abraham OUR FATHER...." He is talking to a race of people which could trace their origin back to Abraham. He is not talking about Abraham being the father of "the faithful," as in Galatians 3.

Abraham's faith was perfected (completed) by his works. James 2:22, "By works was FAITH MADE PERFECT." That isn't your faith. No works can complete your faith. Your faith is perfect the moment you trust Christ, because the object of your faith is perfect. Your faith is fulfilled at salvation, even to the point where your destiny is predetermined (Rom. 8:29).
In the Pauline epistles, your faith is not what needs perfecting; it is you who needs perfecting (Eph. 4:12-13; Col. 4:12; 2 Tim. 3:17). It is the new man that needs to grow in grace and knowledge and go from perfection to perfection (Phil. 3:12-15). But your Christian growth has nothing to do with your justification before God. That was settled at salvation.
To sum it all up: in the Old Testament, faith was a personal belief between a man and God on a specific thing God told him. That is why Habakkuk 2:4 said, "The just shall live by HIS faith." God's message wasn't necessarily the same thing for every one (see Heb. 11). Today everyone has the same message: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." In the New Testament it is not just "your faith" (Rom. 1:8), it is "the faith of God" (Rom. 3:3) and "the faith of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 2:16).

In the Old Testament "The righteous" are those whose lives are characterized by doing right to please God in order to complete the faith and be shown mercy by God as a result. (Exod. 20:6). That is exactly the opposite of The New Testament (Eph. 2:8-9).

What sin does Jesus forgive on the cross?
Well, Adam's own sin clearly.

And in particular, the sin of the Roman soldiers who crucified him wrongfully. Saying Father forgive them, for they *know not what they do*. They did not know he was truly the Christ until it was too late. They did not have the means to know, since Jesus had commanded his disciples not to tell people he was Christ. In this way, he makes them the innocent instruments of his perfect sacrifice despite all the stripes and gall he suffered.

The original sin, one which was put upon every one of Adam's descendants.
That is to say, all men.

Is this original sin the only sin men commit?
No, each man has his own personal violations distinguishable from and heaped upon Adam's even if they all inherited this primordial disobedience.

Maybe I have misunderstood.
But I can't say that I believe this to be the case.

>>18369366
He said it's a real sacrifice. The Westminster confession expressly contradicts that.

Confession is not an innovation. It's a sacrament. And one I have personally, face to face and sharing our beliefs and disagreements as brothers would, witnessed someone from the ECO alliance PCA tell me they cannot make.
Because their sin was so severe, they have withheld it from others. And that's simply not good for them.

>>18369375
2 Pet 3v9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." This verse states that if you go to Hell you are GOING against the will of God! Not only that, but the Lord doesn’t want you there; HE didn’t create it FOR you - Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" Mat 25v41. God did everything He could to keep you out of Hell, the decision is now YOURS - "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Rom 10v13. Now just STOP & THINK for a second about that! How can God be longsuffering to the elect if HE KNOWS THEY’RE GOING TO GET SAVED! ‘Longsuffering’ implies that God gives you so much time before His patience runs out. God’s patience doesn’t run out at all with the ‘elect’ under Calvin’s system! He KNOW’S they are going to repent, & they CAN’T REPENT UNTIL HE REGENERATES THEM. And of course if they can't resist the regeneration, because they don't have free will, that means that God is just pointlessly making us suffer simply because He doesn't "feel like" regenerating us yet.

>>18369376
James isn't writing to the twelve tribes alone, but to the entire church. This church, which has a special mission to go east and west for to the lost tribes of Israel and regather them back into the temple, the body of Christ.

His writing does not apply merely to those in the time of the tribulation, but also to those who it was immediately addressed to in his own time.

That's why it's in your Bible.
His words apply to the entire body of faith.

And it is not the works of the Old Covenant of Moses he writes of, dead works which Paul describes like the circumcision of flesh and the periodic sacrifice of animals, but works of the New Covenant.
Of which the yoke is on the face of it easy compared to what came before, and yet also in a way more demanding on the inner life.

>he's talking about a race of people
He's talking about the *spiritual* children of Abraham, not those of the flesh marked by circumcision, but of those circumcised of the *heart*.

>>18369399
In Rom 3:21-22, "the righteousness of God" is 1) "without the law," 2) "manifested" in Jesus Christ, 3) "witnessed" in the Old Testament, 4) given to us "by faith of Jesus Christ," and 5) "unto all... that believe." If you violate any one of those points, you don't have God's righteousness. If you try to get that righteousness by keeping the Law, then you have your own righteousness, not God's (Rom. 10:3). If you try to get righteousness apart from personal faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, then you don't have God's righteousness.

The law is our schoolmaster, but once saved, we are no longer bound by it, Rom 10v4-6, Rom 7v4-6

You can't pick and choose one of the gospels from the Bible based on which one you like more. Any man in any dispensation is saved by doing what God tells him to do – John 5v24, Acts 16v30+31, Acts 8v37, Gen 15v1-6, Gen 6v14 etc. God tells men different things, on different occasions.

>>18369419
What exactly do you mean by "personal faith"?
It's not *your* faith which saves you, it's Christ's own faith.

Being faithful is keeping your promise, upholding your end of an agreement, refusing to betray your brother in arms even under pain of death, not cheating on your wife, telling the truth and refusing to lie, etc.
God isn't faithful because he believes in you, it's because he keeps his promise.

>once saved, we are no longer bound by it
So you are not bound to love your neighbor as yourself, to take up your cross, to worship God, and to forgive as you wish to be forgiven?

Cause if not, that would be antinomian.
I think Jesus' own exegesis on the Lord's Prayer leaves absolutely no room for compromise. Because it is given in both positive and negative terms.

File: OSAS1.png (299 KB)

299 KB PNG

>>18369437
>It's not *your* faith which saves you, it's Christ's own faith.

It is the faith which God and His Son give to you so that you will believe the work which He did for you. Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Faith itself, the ability to believe on Jesus Christ for salvation, is a gift from God, not your own work.

Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9, given by God, Romans 10:8 & 17) only in the one, final, effectual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:8-12) dying in your place (1 Cor. 15:3-4) as a substitutionary offering for sin (Rom. 5:1-10). His blood atonement made for you is finished, so if you have received the Lord Jesus by faith (John 1:12) in your heart, you're forgiven of all your sins and are saved, once for all; finally and forever! (Rom. 8:38-39, Romans 4:5)

What you're doing is you're trying to mix the old testament and great tribulation doctrine into the church age.


>So you are not bound to love your neighbor as yourself, to take up your cross, to worship God, and to forgive as you wish to be forgiven?

The difference between Christians and the unsaved is that we are not keeping these commandments in an effort to justify ourselves or even to try to stay saved. We are doing these things out of a heart of love for the One who saved us by His blood. We know that lying and cheating and coveting break our fellowship with Him, so a Christian tries to live right to stay in fellowship with the Lord (John 14:15; Rom. 13:10; Eph. 2:10, 4:14-32; 1 John 1:7).

>>18369454
>We are doing these things out of a heart of love for the One who saved us by His blood.

So you can not do these things, and still be saved?
Even not forgiving? Sowing, that we might reap.
This law Jesus lays down, you say you aren't bound by it because you are self assured of your personal salvation.

>lying and cheating and coveting break our fellowship with Him
Yes.

Which means that even if we are saved at one point, willfully sinning makes it so there remains no sacrifice for sin. See the passage from Hebrews posted above.

This unfortunately happens regularly enough, but what is fortunate is the sacrament of penance and reconciliation is available the church through the power of the Holy Spirit. It's why Jesus gave his apostles the power to forgive sins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Iy5aCHQiQ
Calvinism lives and dies by medieval nominalism.

>>18369474
Rom 5:8-9 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

Romans 4:4-5: "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

Romans 8:38-39 "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

The moment you put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ for your sins forgiven, (2 Cor 5:21) you are eternally saved (John 3:16) and placed into the Body of Christ, which is the church (1 Cor 12:13).
By calling upon the Lord (Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.) God will hear your call, ‘cry, prayer’ and He knows your heart, thoughts and motive, and He will respond by saving you, IF, (Rom 10:9+10 – it’s all about the heart! Rom 6:17, Acts 8v:22, Mat 13:15)

The Lord Jesus Christ’s Blood is what washes you from all your sins, and He justifies you through it (Rom 5:9), by faith (Rom 5:1). Works has nothing to do with getting saved - Read Eph 2:8+9, Titus 3:5, 2 Tim 1:9, Gal 3:21-29, Gal 5:4 etc.

2 Corinthians 3:17 "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." In the context, the Holy Spirit gives the Christian liberty from the bondage of the Law (Gal. 5:1-5). It is the liberty to follow God's precepts without the Law condemning you before the Lord (Psa. 119:45).

In writing to the Hebrews, the author says, "For unto us (Hebrews) was the gospel preached, as well as unto them" (Heb. 4:2). In the context, the "them" refers to the children of Israel as they were on the verge of entering Canaan in Numbers 13-14.

>>18369474
Under the Law (OT), salvation is by works and faith. His faith in what God has told him to do, his PERSONAL faith in his own works (Habbakuk 2:4). For example, God told Noah to build an ark. Noah believed if he did what God told him to do that God would save him. In Hebrews 11, every one in that chapter adds works to his faith.


>Which means that even if we are saved at one point, willfully sinning makes it so there remains no sacrifice for sin. See the passage from Hebrews posted above.

To receive the knowledge of the truth does not mean they are saved. It means they received the knowledge of the truth of who Jesus was and what he did as well as the truth that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4), and that God does not take pleasure in “whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sins” (Hebrews 10:6). The writer wants them to trust in the only sacrifice for sins, which is Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, and not return to the old sacrificial system.

In our immediate context of Hebrews 10:26, we see that many in the Hebrew-Christian community were still looking to the Old Testament sacrificial system (Hebrews 10:1-4) with its burnt offerings (Hebrews 10:6, 8), Temple work (Hebrews 10:19, 20), priesthood (Hebrews 10:21), and the Law of Moses (Hebrews 10:28).

>>18369491
You're not directly answering my question.

>>18369503
>they received the knowledge of the truth of who Jesus was and what he did as well as the truth that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins”

You say "they", but the author writes "we".

>many in the Hebrew-Christian community were still looking to the Old Testament sacrificial system
This is true. That's why they were still going to the Temple even though Jesus said it was desolate.

But the author of Hebrews isn't talking about an animal sacrifice for sins. He's talking about Jesus' sacrifice. The blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, he expressly contrasts this sacrifice with the law of Moses.
Because it's the blood of the new covenant, the blood of a man and not that of an animal, as under the old law.

>>18369511
If this portion of Hebrews is not tribulation doctrine, to reject Christ’s sacrifice is to go on sinning willfully by remaining in the Old Testament sacrificial system. For those who do that, there is no longer sacrifice remaining for sin because for them Christ is not a sacrifice.

For Christians, works have nothing do with salvation.

Titus 3:5
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;”

Romans 8:38-39 "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Nothing in the present or in the future or below or above etc. can separate you from the love of God after you are saved because you are in Christ, it's that simple. I'm not going to write anymore because you can believe what you want to believe if you ignore what the Bible says.

>>18369518
>sinning willfully by remaining in the Old Testament sacrificial system.
Paul still continued to make sacrifices at the Temple (at least just one occasion) (Acts 21 and 24). Paul seems to have decided to continue to adhere to the Law while fully acknowledging that it's unnecessary.

>>18369518
It doesn't follow necessarily that if Hebrews as an entire work is not limited merely to tribulation doctrine and the twelve tribes, then they must not be speaking of the New Covenant sacrifice specifically in that verse.

That's spurious.

It uses "sacrifice" in the singular tense, as opposed to the aforementioned "sacrifices" of bulls and goats.

>works have nothing to do with salvation
that's simply not what the bible witnesses to about belief and works in faith, or what the church teaches for that matter
the church is not "Christianity", or "Christians", that's a kind of confusion of label with the thing in itself

forgiveness is something you must personally commit to, and freely of your own volition
a thing on the inside you have to accept, to be converted and bear fruit, and subsequently a way of acting towards others which is in accordance with the true spirit of forgiveness

the same kind of thing is true of obedience and repentance
to hold fast, work patience, other precepts, this is a common fact which requires the cooperation of the communicant

File: a christian doesnt live in sin.png (144.3 KB)

144.3 KB PNG

>>18369571
You are ignoring the rest of the Bible, read the Pauline epistles 3 times, and then move on to the rest of the New testament scriptures and you will start to see that a man is saved in this age by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9), not by works. Jesus took our deserved punishment (judgment and death) upon Himself, paying the price for our sins. There is absolutely nothing you can do to atone for your sins yourself. Nothing.

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

>>18369982
Mercy is not only something you receive, it's something you personally dispense.
You receive this thing, that it might work through you for the sake of others.

It's not meant to be bottled up and kept to yourself, like the servant who received one talent and buried it.

Through these acts of charity, you become more like Jesus.
Conformed to his image, following his steps, etc.

EG


16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

...

>>18370160
immediately following this parable, an explanation given


34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

>>18370163
>>18370160
>>18370150
You can only apply this to the body of Christ if you are blatantly ignoring what the rest of the Bible says. Do you even know who Jesus came for at first, who He was preaching to in his sermons?

Matthew Chapter 10:
"5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Galatians 1:6-9
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

In Acts 15 (7-11), James, Peter, all the apostles, Paul and Barnabas proclaiming salvation is only by grace trough faith, and that there's no salvation by law, or works involved to keep your salvation. In acts there is transition of going from Jews to gentiles.

In the New Testament 5-6 gospels are mentioned, and each is different from the others. Paul didn't preach the same gospel of the kingdom of heaven Jesus preached to the Jews (Matt. 10:5-7), the gospel of the grace of God was revealed to him specifically by Jesus Christ afterwards (Galatians 1:10-12)

The gospel of the grace of God is clearly explained in 1 Cor. 15:3-4: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” >>18369454

If you automatically apply everything in the Bible to yourself as instructions on how to be saved, then why havent you built an ark yet as God commanded Noah?

>>18370185
>There are 5 or 6 gospels.
lmao
Is it five, or six? Are you sure?

Jesus is talking about the final judgement here, this isn't a teaching restricted to the Jews.

Okay then, go ahead and pretend as if Jesus doesn't expect you to show hospitality to strangers traveling though your land, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit widows and prisoners, etc just because you're a gentile.

At a certain point, you've simply hardened yourself to the truth and nothing I can say will change that.
My further involvement ITT doesn't seem to be necessary.

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

>>18370228
>Is it five, or six? Are you sure?

https://download.timefortruth.co.uk/docs/Christian_Soldiers_Battle_Notes.pdf

Page 168

>Jesus is talking about the final judgement here, this isn't a teaching restricted to the Jews.
Once you are in Christ God no longer sees you as a Jew or a gentile Galatians 3:28

To say Christians are going to be judged for their works is saying God is a liar.

2 Corinthians 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."

1 Corinthians 3:13-15 "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

>And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Are you obeying Him?

In Acts 20:24, Paul says he testified to "the gospel of the grace of God." This is the Gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. It is the good news that a sinner, by the free grace of God (Eph. 2:8-9), can be saved from sin and Hell by receiving the person of the Gospel, Jesus Christ (vs. 1, cf. John 1:12), and putting his complete trust for salvation in His atoning work on the cross and His resurrection from the dead (vss. 3-4, cf. Rom. 10:9-10).
It is also called "the gospel of God" (Rom. 1:1), "the gospel of his Son" (Rom. 1:9), "the gospel of Christ" (Rom. 1:16), "the gospel of your salvation" (Eph. 1:13), "the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. 1:8), etc. This is the gospel of which Paul says, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that we have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:9). It is the good news given specifically to Paul of the Body of Christ (Gal. 1:11-17).

>>18370614
>>18370228
When you read a verse of Scripture, always ask yourself this question: "Is this thing aimed at a saved person or is it aimed at a Gentile or a Jew?" Everything in that Bible is aimed at a Jew or a Gentile or a Christian. God divides mankind into three classes: unsaved Gentiles, unsaved Jews, and "in Christ," there is "neither Jew nor Gentile."

Don't only take verses from the Bible that align with your feelings because you don't want to accept what the Bible really says. If the Bible is wrong, and salvation is about your works and your faith, then that means that the meaning of your life is all about yourself, and not God. Think about that. It means that your only purpose, and doing anything at all, is to make sure that you fight hard enough against the flesh every day and have enough faith in your works (Not because you love God, but out of necessity for yourself to not burn in hell), in order to HOPEFULLY at the judgement finally earn salvation in the end from hell as a reward or your deeds. That is because if you are not saved (in Christ), that means you have to be judged according to your works.

But if you read the rest of the Bible, and not just the parts that you agree with, you will see that Jesus Christ is a Saviour, not just a reminder or an instructor. You are saved in this age by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) in the one, final, effectual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:8-12) dying in your place as a substitutionary offering for sin (Rom. 5:1-10). If you have received the Lord Jesus by faith (John 1:12) in your heart, you a are saved, once for all; finally and forever.

>>18370247

Read Mat 6v14+15 – here you are only forgiven if you forgive others, yet the Christian has already been forgiven of all his sins – Eph 4v32, Col 2v13. You are not rightly dividing (2 timothy 2:15)