Sonnet
New member
You mean we are. Why don't you just say you haven't the answer either. It's no shame.
ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
You mean we are. Why don't you just say you haven't the answer either. It's no shame.
It's a bit odd that you use Scripture that was pertaining to the House of Israel. Pre-cross, as well. Christ had not yet gone to the cross. The Kingdom message was being taught, as well. Can you explain yourself here?
Sonnet
New member
21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.
Context is giving life to the dead.
Nothing there about not wanting salvation.
That was mighty pretty. Worthy of "The Bard" himself.
Sonnet
New member
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Who are the children of the promise?
Who are the children of the promise?
Nang, you may want to address post #802 if you wish to back up what you posted. Otherwise, I'll assume you agree with me and will derive some kind of "cheer" from that.
Cross Reference
New member
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I think it is awful that you would reject the teaching of Jesus Christ just because it was before He died and spoken to a Jew. Especially since the matter pertains to His Kingdom, and who will or will not "see" it.
But this is the tragedy of dispensational teaching (hermeneutics). It takes away from the Words of God which destroys the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I DO have the answer. You don't have a foundation for all I've been saying already; trapped in the vortex presuming it's a "we".
I'm communing from time into timelessness. NOW. But there is no now... for God.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
The covenant children; the elect souls who, by grace, receive God's promises of everlasting life.
Sonnet
New member
Sonnet
New member
I'm willing to listen.
So let me get this right: you are saying that
a) Christ died for all the sins of all the people who have ever lived or will ever live.
b) As a) above but add in sins committed by non-humans and/or non-sentient things.
c} Christ died for the sins committed by the 'world' in general but not some sins and/or not the sins of some individuals.
d) Sin is not imputed to the individuals who commit it but only to the entity known as the world. Christ died for this sin but not for the sin of individuals.
e) Sin is a void concept, so the whole argument has no merit.
?
I have never heard that God is in the habit of rescuing himself from failed plans. God planned all along that he would send Christ so that all who believe and put their trust in him could receive salvation.
Thanks for your opinion Nang. I shall of course continue to stick to what the Bible says.
Apart from your goodself no doubt.
It is great to hear you have read similar commentaries before. However, your logic as awry: it is your onus to prove your doctrine. People don't have to avoid it. I don't read the Bible to avoid having to confront your doctrine. I read it to be blessed by the Spirit. If you want to make some kind of teaching then you have to prove it. A thing you have always failed to do.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
If you had any idea what sin is I could answer whatever it is you're attempting to ask.
I said nothing of sins "committed". That would be the verb.
There are others, though few.
Go back and catch up on the thread. No sense in repeating everything for you.
As it happens, I do have an idea of what sin is. So now can you answer my question?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I think that's true, or I wouldn't have continued.
From the inside outward...
Innner:
Hamartia articular (singular) - Inner Condition (sin in the nature and members)
Hamartia anarthrous (singular) - Every inner qualitative characteristic and functional activity of the condition
Hamartiai anarthrous (plural) - All inner qualitative characteristics and functional activities of the condition
Inward to Outward:
Hamartiai articular (plural) - All individual anarthrous facets as inner demonstration
Hamartano (verb) - Bringing forth the noun into action as the verb
Hamartiai articular (plural) - All individual anarthrous facets as outer demonstration
Outer:
Hamartema/ta singular/plural articular/anarthrous - The resulting actions from acting
Everyone is focused upon hamartano and hamartema/ta, presuming they are hamartia/i in whatever form. So the argument is being framed around wrong perceptions as a false binary.
Hamartema/ta is only used 4 times in the entire NT, yet it is what is superimposed as hamartia/i in most hearts and minds of English thinkers/speakers.
Even when teaching live and the audience "gets it" in the first 2-hour teaching; it still takes weeks and months for most to even begin to comprehend the truth because of the lifetime of false perception that is in place that has replaced the simple application of nouns and verbs.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No, you don't. You've represented all sin/s as verb/s. You have no idea what sin, the noun, is or what the articular and anarthrous forms of it are.
Nobody knows according to PPS and if you push him he will ignore you
- Status