ECT Our triune God

[Nang]

Oh? Who then is their life source? Surely not some other god. Are they themselves their own ontology? Better work on that one, sister.

Perhaps we define "life" differently.

There are masses of humanity existent that are nothing but walking dead.

 

[TFTn5280]

There is no such thing as Godly love, apart from Godly truth.

A profound statement indeed.

 

[TFTn5280]

You are presenting a view that unbelievers enjoy,

I certainly hope so.

 

[Nang]

I certainly hope so; for in order to enjoy it, must they not believe it?

Is that a message of grace, or a message of obligation (works)?

 

[TFTn5280]

I think you misunderstood me. The Good News is not to be compromised for Christ haters. To the contrary, let them go to sleep at night knowing that Christ's atoning work is every bit as efficacious for them as it is for believers. Let them stew on the truth that God loves to the point that he will not let them go. If the power of God unto salvation will not stir them to repentance, preaching hell to them surely won't.

Jesus Christ did not die for reprobates. That is the very definition of being "reprobate of God."

Such are walking dead men, consigned to hellfire.

I do not recognize this as gospel Truth at all.

"Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer."

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Let me get this straight. We are commanded to love our enemies, when God himself does not? From where does such love come?

There yuh go, mixin' up Jesus with his Father.

:dunce:

 

[TFTn5280]

Is that a message of grace, or a message of obligation (works)?

Let me say it another way: How can they enjoy it, if they don't first believe it?

 

[Nang]

Of course he did. "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do" is Christ's attitude toward those who hated him at the moment. The were reprobate to max.

You don't know who is ultimately reprobate or not. Jesus simply revealed the soldiers had no idea of who they were putting to death, nor personal desire to see him killed. The soldiers were pawns of the authorities and did not murder Jesus deliberately or with any acknowledgement that He was God.

You are confusing the curse of "enmity" with reprobation. We have no clue as to whether any or all of the soldiers who crucified Jesus were later given life and grace from God or not. If some of them did, their enmity was forensically removed through Christ becoming accursed on their behalf, of which the Christ had foreknowledge. If some of them did not, they proved to be reprobate and left in their accursed state of harboring enmity (hatred) against God.

Paul made it clear that Christ did not die just for his friends. but for those who were enemies of God (Rom 5:6).

All of us were enemies of God prior to being saved by God's grace. Ephesians 2:1-3

 

[Nang]

Let me say it another way: How can they enjoy it, if they don't first believe it?

Well, this is a better statement, but it still begs the question: How can spiritually dead men believe?

And since reprobates by definition, are those left in their unbelief, where is the efficacy of the atonement on their behalf?

It isn't . . .

It does not apply.

 

[TFTn5280]

Well, this is a better statement, but it still begs the question: How can spiritually dead men believe?

And since reprobates by definition, are those left in their unbelief, where is the efficacy of the atonement on their behalf?

It isn't . . .

It does not apply.

Well first of all, I would challenge you to show me in Scripture where it speaks of "spiritual death." When Jesus said, "Let the dead bury their own dead," he was speaking metaphorically of their destiny in unbelief. Spiritual death is a doctrine introduced by Augustine, one to which I do not ascribe.

I would like to direct you back to my post on Rom 5.15-19 on this very thread. I'll be back with the post number in a bit. The efficacy of their atonement is all over Scripture. You just haven't the eyes to see it. The atonement entails more than just a judicial aspect. The failure to recognize this is the fuel that keeps the Arminian v Calvinist debate burning, and the reason for which it will never go out. Christ's atonement is universal because he is go'el, the Kinsmen Redeemer, as well, who possesses a bloodline kinship to those in need, and can thus claim the cause for their needs as his own and stand in for his kinsmen who cannot free or redeem themselves. This is the ontological aspect of atonement to which I have been speaking. This line of redemption is applied in the OT to Yahweh acting on behalf of Israel by virtue of their special covenant relationship. That covenant was fulfilled in Christ in that he stood in as go'el for Israel as Seed of Abraham and David, and the entire human race by way of kinship attachment to Eve, the mother of all living. Thus in recapitulation – the re-heading-up of humanity (see Eph 1.10) – Christ is go'el as the second Adam in his representation of humanity as the second of two who were uniquely qualified to stand in on humanity's behalf, Christ accomplishing what the first Adam was disqualified from doing (see my post on Rom 5; see also Heb 2.14a – Since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise also partook of the same flesh and blood.)

The third aspect of atonement to which I have been drawing attention is pedah, which speaks to the dramatic effect of Christ having defeated the tyrants, thus death too, whereby all are resurrected in his resurrection from the grave, yes, some in their rejection, whereby they face the second death, for which there is no atonement, thus from which no escape. But the only reason they must be resurrected IS because they were included in Christ's death and resurrection on their behalf and in their place: for what resurrection is there besides that of Jesus Christ?

All of this to say, the bowl is bigger than you think.

I'll get the number of that post right away.

Blessings,

T

EDIT: That post number is 2063

 

[patrick jane]

Well first of all, I would challenge you to show me in Scripture where it speaks of "spiritual death." When Jesus said, "Let the dead bury their own dead," he was speaking metaphorically of their destiny in unbelief. Spiritual death is a doctrine introduced by Augustine, one to which I do not ascribe.

I would like to direct you back to my post on Rom 5.15-19 on this very thread. I'll be back with the post number in a bit. The efficacy of their atonement is all over Scripture. You just haven't the eyes to see it. The atonement entails more than just a judicial aspect. The failure to recognize this is the fuel that keeps the Arminian v Calvinist debate burning, and the reason for which it will never go out. Christ's atonement is universal because he is go'el, the Kinsmen Redeemer, as well, who possesses a bloodline kinship to those in need, and can thus claim the cause for their needs as his own and stand in for his kinsmen who cannot free or redeem themselves. This is the ontological aspect of atonement to which I have been speaking. This line of redemption is applied in the OT to Yahweh acting on behalf of Israel by virtue of their special covenant relationship. That covenant was fulfilled in Christ in that he stood in as go'el for Israel as Seed of Abraham and David, and the entire human race by way of kinship attachment to Eve, the mother of all living. Thus in recapitulation – the re-heading-up of humanity (see Eph 1.10) – Christ is go'el as the second Adam in his representation of humanity as the second of two who were uniquely qualified to stand in on humanity's behalf, Christ accomplishing what the first Adam was disqualified from doing (see my post on Rom 5; see also Heb 2.14a – Since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise also partook of the same flesh and blood.)

The third aspect of atonement to which I have been drawing attention is pedah, which speaks to the dramatic effect of Christ having defeated the tyrants, thus death too, whereby all are resurrected in his resurrection from the grave, yes, some in their rejection, whereby they face the second death, for which there is no atonement, thus from which no escape. But the only reason they must be resurrected IS because they were included in Christ's death and resurrection on their behalf and in their place: for what resurrection is there besides that of Jesus Christ?

All of this to say, the bowl is bigger than you think.

I'll get the number of that post right away.

Blessings,

T

MANY can't hang, for long. not about this stuff. few can, or, i should say will. nobody enjoys "re-thinking", not many folks like change. this is not a CHANGE, as it is written. i am so thankful to God that, although the opportunity has always been available, I have disregarded ANY outside "doctrines", denominations, and most certainly ANYTHING not revealed in scripture the main problem i see, is people either refusing to read and RE-UNDERSTAND, or not admitting that they did, and all variations between. anger, attempted rebuke, questions that are answered already in Scripture, etc. etc. i have never listened to anyone else's detailed interpretations, to my detriment perhaps. perhaps not. i thank God for being Blessed with discernment. - IMO - no need to explain things, and backtrack for the stubbornly ignorant and self-absorbed "know-it-alls" - you know, the ones that are done learning and seeking God - atrol:

 

[patrick jane]

There yuh go, mixin' up Jesus with his Father.

:dunce:

there you go, with a limited understanding of God and Christ. oh, i forgot God's Spirit, All One In The Beginning. if you're still chewing on that, and can't seem to swallow it, stay put. do not try advancing to the deeper meaning of ALL THINGS, until you figure out the basics. SHOW -ME - atrol:

 

[Lazy afternoon]

nang can't hang, for long. not about this stuff. few can, or, i should say will. nobody enjoys "re-thinking", not many folks like change. this is not a CHANGE, as it is written. i am so thankful to God that, although the opportunity has always been available, I have disregarded ANY outside "doctrines", denominations, and most certainly ANYTHING not revealed in scripture the main problem i see, is people either refusing to read and RE-UNDERSTAND, or not admitting that they did, and all variations between. anger, attempted rebuke, questions that are answered already in Scripture, etc. etc. i have never listened to anyone else's detailed interpretations, to my detriment perhaps. perhaps not. i thank God for being Blessed with discernment. - IMO - no need to explain things, and backtrack for the stubbornly ignorant and self-absorbed "know-it-alls" - you know, the ones that are done learning and seeking God - atrol:

If you just want to come in to judge everyone then stay outside.

Give something of substance instead of your illustrious opinions.


LA.

 

[Nang]

Well first of all, I would challenge you to show me in Scripture where it speaks of "spiritual death."

Genesis 2:17; Job 7:15; Psalms 33:19, 56:13, 78:5, 116:8; Proverbs 8:36; John Chapter 3; Ephesians 2:1-6, Romans 5:12-15, 17; James 5:20

 

[TFTn5280]

Genesis 2:17; Job 7:15; Psalms 33:19, 56:13, 78:5, 116:8; Proverbs 8:36; John Chapter 3; Ephesians 2:1-6, Romans 5:12-15, 17; James 5:20

I know how you get your doctrine. What you don't know is how you got it.

 

[patrick jane]

If you just want to come in to judge everyone then stay outside.

Give something of substance instead of your illustrious opinions.


LA.

that's exactly what you do. sorry if it seems familiar - atrol:

 

[patrick jane]

i give substance, if you ever paid attention, i can speak, instead of copy/paste

 

[patrick jane]

If you just want to come in to judge everyone then stay outside.

Give something of substance instead of your illustrious opinions.


LA.

btw, i don't judge. i discern. it's not too late to understand. also, i know you don't judge ME. right ? - atrol:

 

[Lazy afternoon]

that's exactly what you do. sorry if it seems familiar - atrol:

You don't have to lie to avoid the truth.

I give scripture and you hate it, because you are a Madist.

LA

 

[Nang]

I know how you get your doctrine. What you don't know is how you got it.

What an amazing claim!

Care to explain how you know what I do or do not know?