ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I believe the scriptural passage of Hebrews 2:9-11 makes such distinction by describing Jesus tasting death for every man, while bringing "many sons unto glory."

Exactly. That's possibly the best reference to get a glimpse of it.

The purpose of His being made sin unto death, was not for the purpose of universal atonement, but rather, to make the "captain of their (the ~many sons~)salvation perfect through sufferings."

???

Yes, absolutely. It's about HIM much more than it's about US. We benefit from the price He paid. And that was Him becoming every last internal qualitative characteristic and functional activity of every man's sin condition so that all CAN BE covered by His blood and also without excuse to frustrate (set aside) grace.

Jesus wasn't made singular articular hamartia (THE sin, as our condition of lack as the missing share or part). He wasn't made articular or anarthrous hamartiai. He wasn't made the singular or plural articular or anarthrous hamartema/ta. He wasn't made the verb hamartano.

It's arguing over false semantic crumbs that becomes an endless false binary debate. Arminians are always referring to sins as resulting acts from acting. That would be hamartemata, whether articular or anarthrous.

But everyone has to employ their self-determined absolutes because they're all autonomous Synergists pretending to be the Monergistic creative force of their own salvation.

There's no valid viable middle ground for this false binary. If it's about sins as the resulting acts of the verb; then either Jesus Christ was an unparalleled sinner and all men are saved to the uttermost along with Satan and the host of hell, or only the hyperest of all Calvinists are correct in God maliciously torturing most of mankind for all everlasting to get His sadistic jollies (which would violate His many incommunicable and communicable attributes).

It would be better to understand the truth that reconciles ALL aspects of layered binaries of alleged belief.

 

[Danoh]

All that just to say we are not sinners because we sin, rather; we sin be because we are sinners.

But some need their own version of the likes of an R.C. Sproul, ever impressing himself with how well versed all that time the endless Scholaticism of men has made him.

Good grief!

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

All that just to say we are not sinners because we sin, rather; we sin be because we are sinners.

But some need their own version of the likes of an R.C. Sproul, ever impressing himself with how well versed all that time the endless Scholaticism of men has made him.

Good grief!

It's not Scholasticism, moron. It's scripture instead of English conceptualization by deceived and depraved minds.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

All that just to say we are not sinners because we sin, rather; we sin be because we are sinners.

Everything here is verbs and the noun hamartolos. You're clueless. It isn't the binary you presuppose.

You have no idea what sin (the noun) is. None.

Nobody is a sinner until they sin (the verb). But that verb comes from the noun that is their inner condition from which they will inevitably sin (the verb).

The wages of sin (the noun, as the inner condition) is death (the meat price in the market, so it's physical).

It's not the wages of sinNING, the verb. That's why unborn children die. There is sin in them, even though they haven't sinNNED as acting and resulting actions.

 

[Nang]

It's about HIM much more than it's about US. We benefit from the price He paid.

Agreed!

And that was Him becoming every last internal qualitative characteristic and functional activity of every man's sin condition so that all CAN BE covered by His blood and also without excuse to frustrate (set aside) grace.

Yes. Ever since God provided bloody animal skins for A&E in the garden, to cover their lack of righteousness, not for the purpose to forgive them, but with the purpose to allow them ~time~ to propagate the human race in order to fulfill the purpose of God . . . this early atonement has pointed to the promise and the purpose of the Savior who would be sent into the world from God.

IOW's and likewise, the blood of Christ shed on the cross is providing a ~covering time~ for all the "many sons of glory" to be manifested and saved.

That at least, is how I read & comprehend the scriptures . . .

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Agreed!

Yes. Ever since God provided bloody animal skins for A&E in the garden, to cover their lack of righteousness, not for the purpose to forgive them, but with the purpose to allow them ~time~ to propagate the human race in order to fulfill the purpose of God . . . this early atonement has pointed to the promise and the purpose of the Savior who would be sent into the world from God.

IOW's and likewise, the blood of Christ shed on the cross is providing a ~covering time~ for all the "many sons of glory" to be manifested and saved.

That at least, is how I read & comprehend the scriptures . . .

The reason there is so much confusion is because it's the anarthrous form of the articular sin that entered the cosmos that Jesus was made (poieo, which is not "made" in a sense most understand at all).

That means there's no depth, breadth, or height of anyone's sin condition coming forth into action that Jesus can't and doesn't cover with His sacrifice.

I'd doubt you have ever murdered anyone (other than hatred in your heart, and that likely for Arminians LOL), but that extreme inner quality of the sin condition being internal (your hatred and mine, or anyone's) or external (by actually taking a physical life with such intent coming forth into action), that and any other degree or gradient of the sin condition is covered for all of mankind because it's the qualitative characteristics and (dys)functional activities that are the sin that entered the cosmos.

It still requires individual repentance of sin and all that has issued forth from it, whether internal (as concupiscence) or external (as acting and actions). That requires the repentance to be granted. And since repentance is the changed condition of the heart and mind, it isn't done by us. It requires the noun of faith that comes out of the noun of hearing, which comes by means of the anarthrous rhema of God/Christ. Period.

 

[Cross Reference]

Everything here is verbs and the noun hamartolos. You're clueless. It isn't the binary you presuppose.

You have no idea what sin (the noun) is. None.

Nobody is a sinner until they sin (the verb). But that verb comes from the noun that is their inner condition from which they will inevitably sin (the verb).

The wages of sin (the noun, as the inner condition) is death (the meat price in the market, so it's physical).

It's not the wages of sinNING, the verb. That's why unborn children die. There is sin in them, even though they haven't sinNNED as acting and resulting actions.

LOL!!! What a blowhard!! What error!! There must be a lesson to be learned by indulging this guy. Anyone got any ideas? I am at a loss for more words.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

LOL!!! What a blowhard!! What error!! There must be a lesson to be learned by indulging this guy. Anyone got any ideas? I am at a loss for more words.

Of course you are. That's always the plight of rank heretics attempting to be self-appointed theologians when you can't comprehend the scriptures for what they actually say and mean because you have to presuppose your false doctrine is the only possibility because it's your own autonomy.

You are yet in your sins.

 

[Cross Reference]

Of course you are. That's always the plight of rank heretics attempting to be self-appointed theologians when you can't comprehend the scriptures for what they actually say and mean because you have to presuppose your false doctrine is the only possibility because it's your own autonomy.

You are yet in your sins.

<yawn>

 

[Nang]

. . that extreme inner quality of the sin condition being internal (your hatred and mine, or anyone's) or external (by actually taking a physical life with such intent coming forth into action), that and any other degree or gradient of the sin condition is covered for all of mankind because it's the qualitative characteristics and (dys)functional activities that are the sin that entered the cosmos.

It still requires individual repentance of sin and all that has issued forth from it, whether internal (as concupiscence) or external (as acting and actions). That requires the repentance to be granted. And since repentance is the changed condition of the heart and mind, it isn't done by us. It requires the noun of faith that comes out of the noun of hearing, which comes by means of the anarthrous rhema of God/Christ. Period.

Amen

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Amen

It's exegetical fact and truth that is only argued by English conceptualizers who want their salvation to be their own work. They can't stand the sovereignty of God and must exhibit their false claimed human Monergism.

It's a denial of concupiscence in the heart, which is (of course) concupiscence of the heart in itself. LOL.

 

[Sonnet]

Who is "us?"

Whomever his auditors are when he proclaims the gospel. When he first met the Corinthians, 'us' would have been them as unbelievers. So too, when he preaches to others (v.11 - 'this is what we preach') it will be other unbelievers (mostly unbelievers - Romans 15:20).

#86
#87

 

[Sonnet]

It's almost impossible to directly do so in this venue, since so few have any grid in their English-sculpted hearts and minds for Greek anarthrous nouns.

And it's not about what I "think" it means; it's about what it "does" mean by specific linguistic understanding.



This isn't acting or actions. It's a plural noun, and it's referring to internal and/or externalized results of various qualities of the sin condition that is a noun.

Christ didn't die for the resulting outer acts (hamartemata). They're included because of their internal source within the nature (physis) of our being (ousia) as the internal functionalities of our hypostasis (underlying reality of existence).

Everyone is arguing over misrepresented crumbs of half-truths.



It only "seems so" when English thinkers/speakers presume Greek nouns are English verbs or the nouns resulting FROM verbs.

Just because Jesus was made every inward qualitative characteristic and (dys)functional activity of every man's sin (the articular noun as the condition of lack, for sin is not a "something" but a "somethinglessness" as a void), it has nothing to do with that death being applied to anyone for their actual sin.

You're thinking of individuals' actings and resulting actions as sins. That's not what hamartiai plural articular is referring to. So it's an invalid question from and erroneous perspective of presupposition.

The English-sculpted mind is a theological prison of tangential conceptualization. That's why I asked you (or anyone else) to clearly define sins, sins, sins, sins, and their singular counterparts. They're not the same, and the subtleties escape English minds.

I understand the distinction you are making but I don't see how it makes any difference.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I understand the distinction you are making but I don't see how it makes any difference.

By being made singular anarthrous sin, Jesus died for everyone's plural anarthrous and plural articular sins. Jesus didn't die for everyone's singular articular sin; only for those who repent, and repentance is granted by God, and it's a noun. The verb comes from the noun.

And even the plural articular sins are hamartiai, NOT hamartemata (the resulting acts from acting). Sin isn't about the doing and the done. Those are inevitable. Sin is the inner condition, which is a noun. And furthermore, it's a noun that is not a "something" but a "somethinglessness". A hole or void. A lack. The missing share or part, and what's missing is God's inner standard of righteousness for outer conduct.

Nouns are the things that verb. All commission (or ommission) comes from a condition. Repentance changes that condition, but the verb of repenting comes from the noun repentance which is granted by God (just like the faith is given by God and the grace is from God).

Salvation is not a work we accomplish, including the verb of repenting or believing. Faith (noun) comes out of hearing (noun), and hearing (noun) by the Word of God/Christ.

It's a monumental distinction, and it's an explicit functionality.

 

[Sonnet]

The reason there is so much confusion is because it's the anarthrous form of the articular sin that entered the cosmos that Jesus was made (poieo, which is not "made" in a sense most understand at all).

That means there's no depth, breadth, or height of anyone's sin condition coming forth into action that Jesus can't and doesn't cover with His sacrifice.

I'd doubt you have ever murdered anyone (other than hatred in your heart, and that likely for Arminians LOL), but that extreme inner quality of the sin condition being internal (your hatred and mine, or anyone's) or external (by actually taking a physical life with such intent coming forth into action), that and any other degree or gradient of the sin condition is covered for all of mankind because it's the qualitative characteristics and (dys)functional activities that are the sin that entered the cosmos.

It still requires individual repentance of sin and all that has issued forth from it, whether internal (as concupiscence) or external (as acting and actions). That requires the repentance to be granted. And since repentance is the changed condition of the heart and mind, it isn't done by us. It requires the noun of faith that comes out of the noun of hearing, which comes by means of the anarthrous rhema of God/Christ. Period.

You are seriously suggesting that those whom Paul and the apostles preached the Gospel to (including such words as 'Christ died for the sin of us') understood that they were being told that Jesus died for the sin condition (and all its qualities and extremes) without reference to any particular individual?

 

[Sonnet]

It's exegetical fact and truth that is only argued by English conceptualizers who want their salvation to be their own work. They can't stand the sovereignty of God and must exhibit their false claimed human Monergism.

It's a denial of concupiscence in the heart, which is (of course) concupiscence of the heart in itself. LOL.

Faith isn't work; it's morally neutral.

Perhaps we need to address Romans 9.

 

[Sonnet]

By being made singular anarthrous sin, Jesus died for everyone's plural anarthrous and plural articular sins. Jesus didn't die for everyone's singular articular sin; only for those who repent, and repentance is granted by God, and it's a noun. The verb comes from the noun.

And even the plural articular sins are hamartiai, NOT hamartemata (the resulting acts from acting). Sin isn't about the doing and the done. Those are inevitable. Sin is the inner condition, which is a noun. And furthermore, it's a noun that is not a "something" but a "somethinglessness". A hole or void. A lack. The missing share or part, and what's missing is God's inner standard of righteousness for outer conduct.

Nouns are the things that verb. All commission (or ommission) comes from a condition. Repentance changes that condition, but the verb of repenting comes from the noun repentance which is granted by God (just like the faith is given by God and the grace is from God).

Salvation is not a work we accomplish, including the verb of repenting or believing. Faith (noun) comes out of hearing (noun), and hearing (noun) by the Word of God/Christ.

It's a monumental distinction, and it's an explicit functionality.

Do you proclaim this Gospel?

 

[Sonnet]

By being made singular anarthrous sin, Jesus died for everyone's plural anarthrous and plural articular sins. Jesus didn't die for everyone's singular articular sin; only for those who repent, and repentance is granted by God, and it's a noun. The verb comes from the noun.

Of those that were snake-bitten, were any without access to the offered cure?

John 3:14, Numbers 21:8-9.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You are seriously suggesting that those whom Paul and the apostles preached the Gospel to (including such words as 'Christ died for the sin of us') understood that they were being told that Jesus died for the sin condition (and all its qualities and extremes) without reference to any particular individual?

I'm saying modern English thinkers/speakers don't have a grid for how thought and speech were understood and practiced in more ancient cultures and times, and superimpose their own.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Faith isn't work; it's morally neutral.

Faith is a NOUN. So believing isn't faith. Believing is the verb of the noun.

Perhaps we need to address Romans 9.

The problem is not understanding the hypostatic translation into Christ, or none of Romans will be understood according to the actual Gospel.