Search results

The problem is that I agree with you respective of the RC. I'm not RC which is why many of their doctrines have been condemned by the Orthodox Church, such as predestination, Original Sin. The issue is that the first three reformers embodied a lot of RC theology. Calvin departed from...

It would be really remarkable that the early Church actually held to the view of irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints and then later condemn it has heresy. Calvinism as a whole was condenmed by the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. Good luck, the ones you picked below do not suffice...

It is a split event for the unbeliever. Every human being will receive life at the end of time. All will be raised because Christ defeated death for the world actually. Respective of the sacrifice for sin, if one never believes or falls away from his faith, he has forfeited the sacrifice and...

I know you are convinced that you are correct. The view you espouse has never been a teaching of the Church for 2000 years. The theory you are espousing is the I an P of Calvinism which is obviously a modern new view and not scriptural.

It is precisely what I have been saying. The sacrifice is complete, finished, perfected, and is available for all men. However, believers are the subject here, those that are sanctified. This verse isolated again, which you seem to do a lot, does not address that any believer can forfeit that...

You missed the initial reconciliation in the same context. II Cor 5:18-19 is Christ reconciling the world to God. This is automatic or a free gift given to all mankind. Because of this reconciliation Paul then pleads that a person reconcile themselves to Christ which we do by and through...

In other words you cannot answer the questions. It's obviously your own personal theory and has no basis for the correct understanding of scripture. It has no creditable history to be authentic teachings of scripture. It is not of the Holy Spirit who gave the Gospel once for all time, Jude 3...

If it was from scripture it would have been taught for 2000 years already. Obviously, every false teaching is also based on scripture, but most, if almost all come long after the Patristic era of the NT. I didn't find any such teachings in the first 1500 years of the existence of scripture. So...

I can understand someone reading scripture and arriving at a particular view and later finding that the meaning was different than he thought. You seem to be trying to promote a view that is quite modern and new. In just a cursory check I cannot find any such teachings of scripture anywhere...

Ah, but scripture says that the world was reconciled to God which means that both man and the world are no longer under the permanent curse of death by Adam. Now we know that all men will be raised. We also know that there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Christ gave life to the world...

I disagree with one phrase. Your question, did He pay the full penalty for the sins of the whole world? your answer, absolutely. That would not make sense if you later say that unbelievers would be condemned. You just stated that the penalty was paid for the world, which includes these...

You are incorrect in both cases. OT the sins of the people were placed upon the sacrifice, thus forgiveness. Christ covered, propitiated the sins of the world, He did not purge or take away any sins. That would be a carte blanche forgiveness of every single sin of every single human being from...

You are correct the cross was the propitiation for the sin of the world. That is one part of Christ' work by His death and resurrection. The whole is the atonement Christ made to God. Christ put man and the world right with God. Other words that say the same thing is reconciliation of the world...

You will be hard pressed to show any scripture that states Christ removed sin from the Cross. He performed a sacrifice for sin. Sin is forgiven/removed on a singular basis. When one confesses their sins they are removed/forgotten because Christ as our High Priest can and will forgive them...

What is so sad is that your theology does not even provide for a hell.

What it actually means Is I believe what scripture says and what it has meant for 2000 years. What I don't believe is the theory of Calvin which has no root, theologically in scripture. That is what I do not believe.

This is why you have such a horrific understanding of scripture. You take bits and pieces of scripture to create a narrative that becomes external to scripture, meaningless and irrelevant. John 17 is Christ pastoral prayer. Vs 1-5 He is praying for Himself. vs 6-19 He is praying for His...

You clearly do not understand the theology of scripture relative to atonement. Lets leave Christ out of the picture for a moment. Adam sinned and His condemnation was death, physical death, dust to dust. Also, it estranged him from God relative to his relationship. Man was created to be...

The very verse you cite tells you He did not save anyone from the penalty of sin. Man chooses whether he will suffer the penalty of sin. Those that believe will not be condemned, those that believe not will be condemned. Here is where you err. All men have been saved from the power of sin...

You are confusing penalty with power. Christ did not remove the penalty of sin. Sin, unbelief which are acts of man and if not forgiven will lead to eternal separation from God. Quite the contrary. Without Christ no one would be saved. We would all be dissolved by permanent death, no...