Search results

This confirms to me that you are not following this discussion. Sins have nothing to do with hell. So, the removal of sins has nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is accepting God's offer of salvation, those who choose to reject God's offer will end up in the Lake of Fire.

No, Hell/Lake of Fire is a real place where those who have rejected God's offer of salvation will spend eternity in torment.

Matt 25.41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Name one derogatory statement I have made?

Just let it be known that you can not answer my question.

I will be more than happy to answer your simple question, but you owe me an answer. All you can do is "say" my interpretation is eisegesis without any proof. I will admit you are not a serious bible student, but if you make a claim like you have, you will need to defend it, not just assert it...

1 Jn 2.2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 2 Pt 2.1 They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them Look at the Great White Throne judgment, you will not find the word...

Eternal condemnation is not related to sins. Sins are not what eternally condemns us. I have a post out here where I give a little more info. Look for something titles Two Condemnations.

I don't believe that at all. All sins have been paid for, no unbeliever will answer for the sins he commits in this life, not in any eternal way.

I use a literal interpretation method, which has some figures of speech, metaphors, etc. So 1 Jn 2.2 and 2 Pet 2.1 tells me that Christ paid the price for all sins. False teachers are bought/redeemed.

Alright I will give it a go. 1 Jn 2.2 and 2 Pet 2.1 both do away with limited atonement. In 2 Pet the false teaches are said to be redeemed/bought. That is, Christ bought them and they are unbelievers. There is no statement that Christ potentially bought them but they have to become believers...

Let us get clearly in mind the nature of the Tribulation, that it is divine “wrath” (11:18; 14:8, 10, 19; 15:1, 7; 16:1, 19 [observe he omits 6:16, 17] and divine “judgment.” (14:7; 15:4; 16:7; 17:1; 18:10; 19:2). We know that our blessed Lord bore for us the wrath of God and His judgment...

PreTrib within Dispensationalism, some pre-argument thoughts Pretribulation rapturism rests essentially on one major premise—the literal method of interpretation of the Scriptures. As a necessary adjunct to this, the pretribulationist believes in a dispensational interpretation of the Word of...

The Passover was exactly in “the middle of the seventieth week,” or 486 1/2 years after “the commandment to RESTORE, and to build Jerusalem.” Christ, according to this theory, becomes the one who confirms the Covenant and in the period of His ministry the great promises of Daniel 9:24 have...

I wrote this in Word and then cut and paste. So, no need to complain about the structure. Post Trib arguments and comments A. The historical argument. There are several major arguments on which the posttribulationist rests his case. The first of these is the historical argument. His...

Yes, Christ is King of kings, and Lord of lords. I have stated this a hundred times.

Lord does not mean King, if that is what you are asking.

Like I have said, Jesus is a King. The issue is Jesus isn't a King to me, he is my spouse.

I have no doubt about the number of times the phrase Lord Jesus is used. I only said that I don't relate to Jesus as King. I am not sure what you are trying to say about Lord Jesus when the discussion is about King. We are Christ's bride.

The millennial kingdom is declared to be a literal, earthly kingdom over which Christ rules from David’s throne in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:8-17; Matt. 1:1; Luke 1:32). This kingdom is the subject of Old Testament prophecy (2 Sam. 7:8-17; Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-16; Jer. 23:5...