Search results

II Cor 5:20, Rom 4:2-3. Every time you ask for the forgiveness of sins, you are reconciling yourself to God. In Rom 5:1 Paul is using the word, justified, we are justified to God through our faith. Paul could have used the word, reconcile as well. The meaning is the same. Your belief justifies...

Context is everything. There is no explicit or implicit content of forgiveness of sins in Rom 5:18 and Rom 4:25. Yet the word "justification" is used. Stay on point. As I stated before what is being justified is "life", not the forgiveness of sins.

The topic is not about the reconciliation of man to God. It is about Christ's reconciliation of the world to God. In other words His Incarnation/death/resurrection.

Would not disagree. But the topic is completely different. It is NOT referencing the death and resurrection of Christ. This context is speaking about man's response to the work of Christ. Christ's work made this possible for mankind. Because of His sacrifice for sin, He is now our High...

What do you do? Just match words and assume they all have the same meaning? The word justification in Rom 5:25 is about Christ resurrection giving life. It is the same meaning in Rom 5:18. Justification to life. Has absolutely nothing to do with forgiveness of sin. Might have known that Calvin...

The topic we are discussing has no forgiveness of sins stated or implied. Christ accomplished two things by His death and resurrection. The primary work was to overcome death. Secondly, He made Himself the eternal sacrifice for sin. There is no forgiveness here either. Rom 5:`16,18...

The one thing you have correct here is that those Christ reconciled were justified. The words have the same meaning. However sins were not forgiven. Again reconcile, justify, made righteous does not mean forgiveness of sin. If you balance your checkbook with a bank statement are reconciling...

Twice you double down on your own interpretation which has been shown to be in error. Even a fifth grader would pause and take stock and find out why others think he was wrong. Besides it being theologically unsound, scripturally nonexistent, it is not logical within your own view. You seem...

So you keep saying this but cannot put forth any scriptural evidence to support your theory. Saying if often does not make it true. It shows your ignorance of the topic at hand. It might behoove you to use historical evidence to support it, if there is any.

JBO points out a huge disconnect in your statement, a contradiction and you just double down on your ignorance of the text and context. Vs 19 states Christ was reconciling the world. That is all human beings, as well as the world itself. Because He has reconciled mankind, defeated death for...

The point of the text is that IF GOD WOULD HAVE JUDGED MANKIND, HE WOULD NOT HAVE COME. He overlooked their sins and came to redeem mankind from death and sin. That is what Rom 5:10 is saying. While mankind was still in their sins, Christ came. He did not forgive sins. No sin has ever been...

First, no place in scripture is there any text that supports a limited atonement. It is a worthless philosophy that denies what scripture teaches about who Christ is and what He accomplished for the world. Also, you keep misunderstanding the phrase "not imputing sin". The meaning of the phrase...

Reconciliation of the world by Christ to God. To those who hold a view of some limitation on the work of reconciliation of Christ to God are by ignorance denying who Christ is and what He accomplished for mankind. The doctrine of the Incarnation as understood in scripture is a direct denial of...

All of mankind, the world itself was reconciled by Christ to God. Many texts confirm this in scripture. It is an impossibility that there can be any distinction or selection by virtue of Christ's Incarnation and being raised from the dead.

Ah Ha, I just realized to what you are referring. Matt and John are NOT referencing the Gospels. In Post 1076 Brightfame used Matt Poole and John Gill as confirmation sources for his statements. As far as I know, they are Calvinists. Maybe you should read back a few posts before making...

never stated such, nor implied such. Many things were changed by the RC, but unfortunately, Luther and Calvin threw out the baby with the bath water. In the history of the Church, there has never been such a thing as reformed before Calvin. The two concepts of predestination and Original...

Precisely, 1500 years after the Gospel was given. All false teachings are based on scripture. It is very easy to determine false teachings when the teachings are 1500 years after the fact. It is also quite obvious when one needs to change the wording, not just the meaning, but the wording of...

Only in your opinion. What I explained to you about the Incarnation has been the understanding of Christians from the beginning, It is historical fact that I gave to you, not my opinion. First, it does not say elect. It says "just for the unjust". There is also no conversion mentioned or...

All false teachings have biblical support. In all the citations I gave to you earlier, some person, many of them Patriarchs came up with their own interpretation of some text. If you want to know how the Church answered false teachings read Acts 15 dealing with circumcision issue at what could...

Your statement does not match the text you cited. There is no mention of elect, either directly, or implied. BUT it is describing the Incarnation. So my question to you again, what is your understanding of the Incarnation?