And that is figurative language, is it not?This isn't about what you want to do. The claim is made that the cross, somehow, purchased disciples.
Tong
R4842
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
And that is figurative language, is it not?This isn't about what you want to do. The claim is made that the cross, somehow, purchased disciples.
Where in scriptures did God enstate that?Oh sorry man. It is God who enstates that. Not me.
It was you who said “Everybody went to hell before Jesus Christ died on the Cross and rose again. Then everyone after that all were justified.” Those were your words, right?The Bible brother. You have one my friend. Seek for God not from the answers from me.
With love,
Matthew G
I did not lie. Many words have both a literal meaning and a figurative meaning. When an author employs a word for figurative use, the author (in this case Paul) alerts the reader that he is using a literal reality as an example in order to make a point. Literally speaking, a "doulos" is a person made a slave by another person. Used figuratively, a "doulos" is someone who made themselves a slave, speaking about someone who leads a slavish life. In this way Paul argues,The Greek word is ἐδουλώθητε
(edoulōthēte, Strong's #1402 douloó: to enslave, bring under subjection) in Romans 6:18 in the English phrase "slave of righteousness".
According to biblehub.com/greek/1402.htm, the definition for Strong's 1402 is:
Cognate: 1402 doulóō – enslave(passive, "become enslaved"), focusing on the status of being a bond-slave. In contrast to the other verb-form of the same root (1398/douleúō), 1402 (doulóō) stresses the results (effects) of enslavement. That is, what automatically goes with belonging to another. See 1401(doulos).
YOU LIE ABOUT THE PASSAGE IN ROMANS BEING "SERVANT" INSTEAD OF "SLAVE".
Review and study Paul's argument in Galatians 4.Where, @CadyandZoe, is it that "Paul argues elsewhere that we are no longer slaves, but sons, adopted into God's household" (your words)?
Of course not. But neither will you find a passage of the New Testament, which indicates that Christ bought slaves. You have yet to understand the concept of redemption. To redeem a slave is to set him free, not to take him as your own. Until you understand the concept, you won't understand the purpose and meaning of the cross.You won't find nor produce Paul arguing that we, who are bought by Christ's precious Blood, are no longer slaves of righteousness.
Paul isn't talking about the purchase of slaves; he is talking about the purchase of "freedom" for those individuals who want to be set free on his terms. You seem to misunderstand the exchange that takes place when a man "redeems" another man. When a man decides to redeem another man, he doesn't steel the slave or take him by force. No. Rather, he first must pay the slave merchant a fair price for the slave; then he sets the slave free.Paul wrote "you have been bought with a price" (1 Corinthians 6:20) about us disciples.
"Redemption" is the "payment for ransom", and a "payment" for something is to "buy" ("bought" past tense) that something.
Again, the ransom is payment for "freedom." A ransom is given in exchange for another person's freedom, not in payment for a slave."The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" says Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 20:28).
But that isn't ALL it is. The Bible uses many metaphors to describe what took place on the cross. The New Testament also describes the cross in terms of a lamb, slain at the temple. It also describes the cross in terms of the atoning sacrifice, made once a year for the sins of the people. Additionally, it describes the cross as the terms of reconciliation. Each of these ideas is different one from another, but they all serve to describe the meaning and significance of the cross. We can't understand the true meaning of the cross, until we take all these examples into account.Christ's Blood shed on the cross is payment for the ransom that leads to Christ's disciples being bought unto slaves of Righteousness; moreover, the payment for the ransom is redemption of Christ's disciples.
Yes, I am responding indirectly to the incorrect underlying assumption in this tread that Christ died in the place of his disciples, i.e. the "substitutionary atonement" theory of the cross. The argument goes something like this.When you wrote "Jesus didn't buy disciples", then, in effect, @CadyandZoe, you excluded yourself from the ransom that Jesus paid!
What do you mean?And that is figurative language, is it not?
Tong
R4842
I did not lie. Many words have both a literal meaning and a figurative meaning. When an author employs a word for figurative use, the author (in this case Paul) alerts the reader that he is using a literal reality as an example in order to make a point. Literally speaking, a "doulos" is a person made a slave by another person. Used figuratively, a "doulos" is someone who made themselves a slave, speaking about someone who leads a slavish life. In this way Paul argues,
"Do you not know that if you present yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or obedience resulting in righteousness?" Romans 6:16
In the sentence above, Paul alerts the reader that he is using "doulos" in a figurative sense, basing his argument on the realities of a "bondservant", who presents himself as an obedient slave to another man. Logically then, "you are slaves of the one you obey." Even if a man claims to serve God, in light of his slavish lifestyle, it is clear that he actually serves sin. (Jesus warned the Pharisees about this. John 8:34)
Here we clearly see that Paul has employed the term "douloo" in the figurative sense, i.e. voluntarily offering to serve one thing or another. In this case, one has either voluntarily agreed to obey sinful lusts etc. or one has voluntarily agreed to obey righteousness. Figuratively speaking, a person is a "slave" of sin if that person continues to obey his lusts. It was said of that person He lives a slavish life.
Paul is not focused on one's social status, i.e. slave or free; he is focused on one's lifestyle, i.e. slavishly obeying lusts, or dedicated to uprightness, wholesomeness, and goodness. The question is, as a believer, shall we continue in sin or not? The answer is, those who follow Jesus have committed themselves to a life of uprightness, wholesomeness, and goodness because, according to the gospel, Jesus has promise to set them free of sin. Therefore, the answer is NO, we shall not sin in order that grace might increase.
Review and study Paul's argument in Galatians 4.
Of course not. But neither will you find a passage of the New Testament, which indicates that Christ bought slaves. You have yet to understand the concept of redemption. To redeem a slave is to set him free, not to take him as your own. Until you understand the concept, you won't understand the purpose and meaning of the cross.
Paul isn't talking about the purchase of slaves; he is talking about the purchase of "freedom" for those individuals who want to be set free on his terms. You seem to misunderstand the exchange that takes place when a man "redeems" another man. When a man decides to redeem another man, he doesn't steel the slave or take him by force. No. Rather, he first must pay the slave merchant a fair price for the slave; then he sets the slave free.
Again, the ransom is payment for "freedom." A ransom is given in exchange for another person's freedom, not in payment for a slave.
But that isn't ALL it is. The Bible uses many metaphors to describe what took place on the cross. The New Testament also describes the cross in terms of a lamb, slain at the temple. It also describes the cross in terms of the atoning sacrifice, made once a year for the sins of the people. Additionally, it describes the cross as the terms of reconciliation. Each of these ideas is different one from another, but they all serve to describe the meaning and significance of the cross. We can't understand the true meaning of the cross, until we take all these examples into account.
Yes, I am responding indirectly to the incorrect underlying assumption in this tread that Christ died in the place of his disciples, i.e. the "substitutionary atonement" theory of the cross. The argument goes something like this.
1. The Father accepted the death of his son as the means to absolve people of guilt.
2. The Father does not absolve the entire world of guilt.
3. Therefore, Jesus didn't die for everyone in the world.
My argument is this (based on Paul's argument in his epistle to the Romans, chapters 2 and 3.)
1. The Father "passed over sins" to allow time for people to repent. Romans 2:4, Romans 3:25
2. At the appropriate time in history, the cross served both as a public demonstration of God's righteousness, and a propitiation of his wrath.
3. Therefore, the purpose of the cross was not the expiation of sins, which God was already passing over, but a way for the world to be reconciled to God. He was NOT counting their sins against them when he made the overture to reconcile. 2 Corinthians 5:19. If God was not counting their sins against them, having already decided to pass them over, then there was NO need for Christ to die in their place.
If one begins with the substitution theory of the cross, one can not conclude that Christ died for each and every person in the world. But if one rejects the substitution theory of the cross, one is free to understand the actual reason why Christ had to die.
It was you who said “Everybody went to hell before Jesus Christ died on the Cross and rose again. Then everyone after that all were justified.” Those were your words, right?
Since I believe you said that as per your reading of the Bible, that I asked of who among the apostles taught you that. Because, in my reading of the Bible, I find no apostle teaching that, nor did Jesus.
I am surprised that you kind of find the question hard to answer. But no problem. I just have to take it as an “I don’t know” answer then.
Thanks.
Tong
R4844
What do you mean?
This isn't about what you want to do. The claim is made that the cross, somehow, purchased disciples.
This isn't about what you want to do. The claim is made that the cross, somehow, purchased disciples.
I did not lie.
Many words have both a literal meaning and a figurative meaning. When an author employs a word for figurative use, the author (in this case Paul) alerts the reader that he is using a literal reality as an example in order to make a point. Literally speaking, a "doulos" is a person made a slave by another person. Used figuratively, a "doulos" is someone who made themselves a slave, speaking about someone who leads a slavish life. In this way Paul argues,
"Do you not know that if you present yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or obedience resulting in righteousness?" Romans 6:16
In the sentence above, Paul alerts the reader that he is using "doulos" in a figurative sense, basing his argument on the realities of a "bondservant", who presents himself as an obedient slave to another man. Logically then, "you are slaves of the one you obey." Even if a man claims to serve God, in light of his slavish lifestyle, it is clear that he actually serves sin. (Jesus warned the Pharisees about this. John 8:34)
Here we clearly see that Paul has employed the term "douloo" in the figurative sense, i.e. voluntarily offering to serve one thing or another. In this case, one has either voluntarily agreed to obey sinful lusts etc. or one has voluntarily agreed to obey righteousness. Figuratively speaking, a person is a "slave" of sin if that person continues to obey his lusts. It was said of that person He lives a slavish life.
Paul is not focused on one's social status, i.e. slave or free; he is focused on one's lifestyle, i.e. slavishly obeying lusts, or dedicated to uprightness, wholesomeness, and goodness. The question is, as a believer, shall we continue in sin or not? The answer is, those who follow Jesus have committed themselves to a life of uprightness, wholesomeness, and goodness because, according to the gospel, Jesus has promise to set them free of sin.
Therefore, the answer is NO, we shall not sin in order that grace might increase.
Review and study Paul's argument in Galatians 4.
Of course not. But neither will you find a passage of the New Testament, which indicates that Christ bought slaves.
You have yet to understand the concept of redemption. To redeem a slave is to set him free, not to take him as your own.
Until you understand the concept, you won't understand the purpose and meaning of the cross.
Paul isn't talking about the purchase of slaves; he is talking about the purchase of "freedom" for those individuals who want to be set free on his terms. You seem to misunderstand the exchange that takes place when a man "redeems" another man. When a man decides to redeem another man, he doesn't steel the slave or take him by force. No. Rather, he first must pay the slave merchant a fair price for the slave; then he sets the slave free.
Again, the ransom is payment for "freedom." A ransom is given in exchange for another person's freedom, not in payment for a slave.
But that isn't ALL it is. The Bible uses many metaphors to describe what took place on the cross. The New Testament also describes the cross in terms of a lamb, slain at the temple. It also describes the cross in terms of the atoning sacrifice, made once a year for the sins of the people. Additionally, it describes the cross as the terms of reconciliation. Each of these ideas is different one from another, but they all serve to describe the meaning and significance of the cross. We can't understand the true meaning of the cross, until we take all these examples into account.
Yes, I am responding indirectly to the incorrect underlying assumption in this tread that Christ died in the place of his disciples, i.e. the "substitutionary atonement" theory of the cross. The argument goes something like this.
1. The Father accepted the death of his son as the means to absolve people of guilt.
2. The Father does not absolve the entire world of guilt.
3. Therefore, Jesus didn't die for everyone in the world.
My argument is this (based on Paul's argument in his epistle to the Romans, chapters 2 and 3.)
1. The Father "passed over sins" to allow time for people to repent. Romans 2:4, Romans 3:25
2. At the appropriate time in history, the cross served both as a public demonstration of God's righteousness, and a propitiation of his wrath.
3. Therefore, the purpose of the cross was not the expiation of sins, which God was already passing over, but a way for the world to be reconciled to God. He was NOT counting their sins against them when he made the overture to reconcile. 2 Corinthians 5:19. If God was not counting their sins against them, having already decided to pass them over, then there was NO need for Christ to die in their place.
If one begins with the substitution theory of the cross, one can not conclude that Christ died for each and every person in the world. But if one rejects the substitution theory of the cross, one is free to understand the actual reason why Christ had to die.
* John 15:16: Here the Lord Jesus was talking to His disciples:-
'Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth:
but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you.
Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you,
that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain:
that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in My name, He may give it you.'
(Joh 15:15)
* These were the twelve, chosen indeed by God the Father, through the Son.
* John 15:19:
'If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own:
but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world,
therefore the world hateth you.'
(Joh 15:18-19)
* These are the twelve, many who would go on to know martyrdom for His Name.
No, not quite. The complete exchange goes something like this. The will of the Father was to make peace with mankind and reconcile the world to himself. This act came at a cost. The Father proposed to demonstrate (vindicate) his righteousness by allowing the religious and political authorities to put his son to death on a cross. (the cost) After three days and three nights, he raised his son from the dead, thus vindicating his word, giving substantial evidence that he is fully willing and able to keep his other promises: to take away the sins of the world; to raise up the fathers and bless them with eternal life; to tabernacle among the people; to rule over them as king; to protect them from his enemies and much more (that slips my mind at the moment.)Is is kind of like what you said in one of your post. Here’s the excerpt.
“The Bible uses many metaphors to describe what took place on the cross. The New Testament also describes the cross in terms of a lamb, slain at the temple. It also describes the cross in terms of the atoning sacrifice, made once a year for the sins of the people. Additionally, it describes the cross as the terms of reconciliation. Each of these ideas is different one from another, but they all serve to describe the meaning and significance of the cross. We can't understand the true meaning of the cross, until we take all these examples into account.”
Paul said:
1 Corinthians 6:20
For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.
1 Corinthians 7:23
You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.
Peter said:
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
The writer of Acts said:
Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Did Jesus Christ buy/purchase those who are being saved? Yes.
Tong
R4845
I'm sure it is. You quote a lot of scripture and make good points. It just so happens that your good points don't support your overarching premise that Jesus didn't die for each and every man or woman or child.Not exactly “ on point?”...... lol.....who cares? I bet what I posted was of value to somebody out there....excuuuuuuuuuse me! Lol..