Search results

Roman 5:12 is specifically speaking of physical death. It corresponds to Gen 3:19. Because of the sin of Adam, Adam died, suffered mortality, dust to dust. That is NOT spiritual death. This death spreads to all men through that mortal nature which all men share since. There is a difference...

The important vs are 14-15. You miss the whole reason that He can give aid to the seed of Abraham. Having a relationship with man is why man was created in the first place. That relationship was lost permanently by death. Death needed to be ended so that He (Christ) could give aid to those...

So far, its the context that follows that you depart from. This is what you are totally missing. You cannot have a Christ dying and being resurrection for only some human beings. It is an absolute impossibility given the meaning of the incarnation of Christ. Until you understand the...

It starts out that way, however he emphasizes that we have that ability to be justified by faith because of the hope we now have. That hope is described in vs 6-21. It is speaking about the work the Incarnated Christ did for mankind. Without the world being reconciled there is no hope. There...

Based on your view, which does not align with historical Christianity. You clearly deny the Incarnation of Christ. You have no understanding of the doctrine which is one of the historical hallmarks along with the Trinity for Christianity. You sounding like an old record. You have not address...

You can say that a thousand times but that will not change what scripture states. So far, we have found that you do not believe what scrpture states about the fall of man. You do not believe in the Incarnation of Christ, You do not believe Christ died was resurrected to give life to the world...

That is just amazing. Is this what Calvin wrote as well? How can non-elect be of physical seed of Adam. but did not fall in Adam? If they did not fall in Adam, then we have millions of people who never died. Or do you have some text that that establish how they might have died, if they did...

This is interesting theology. If Adam represents the Church, and only the Church is corrected, then you have a conundrum. That would mean there were other human beings with Adam who were not condemned through Adam. Are they all alive still? We should have people still alive from the time of...

It is not about elect or believers after vs 6. Citing Rom 5:18 is quite clear it is all men. It does not say elect nor believers. Playing devils advocate here. If your statement is true, then Rom 5 would only be about elect as well. Thus we have a portion of mankind that was condemned...

Vs 6 is a transitional vs. He has been speaking about believers, being justified by faith. He speaks of the hope believers now have. What is that hope? Christ died for the ungodly, which is all men. If you disagree then you need to develop a theory of what is the condition of all other people...

I'm not sure to what you are referring. The entire Bible is written to and for Christians. The first 6 vs is about Christians, but from vs 6 to the end Paul is referencing why we have the hope he speaks about in the first 6 verses. You just implied that the whole of Chapter 5 is about...

Correct. So do I. Propitiation refers to Christ's sacrifice for sin. It is not being referenced in Rom 5:18. There is not subset implied or stated in this text. The whole context of Rom 5 is about that the condemnation of death through Adam was universal, as was the resurrection of Christ...

absolutely

Then may I ask you to explain just how they do? Just to make sure you have the same texts, they are Rom 5:10 and II Cor 5:18-19.

Rom 5:10 which you cite repeatedly is referencing two distinct events. You assume they are one and the same. The first is the reconcilement of sinners to God (which is all men, since all men are sinners) from death. In other words the opposite of death is life. All men are held under the...

OK, it seems brightfame52 has someone to assist him. Maybe you can help him find texts in scripture that support limited atonement. He seems unable to find any.

You made assertions, then quoted two texts that have nothing to do with what you asserted. You cannot change the meaning of words in scripture to fit a particular theory. In this case you actually reversed the meaning of the texts. If you are going to support limited atonement, you need to...

You've made two comments basically and base them on the two texts Rom 5:10, II Cor 5:18-19. At issue is the fact that your comments don't align with the texts. Which is why I have been asking you to corroborate your comments with texts that actually support your comments. You don't seem to...

So explain it so I get it. I'll never understand if all you say, "your not getting it"'. So, where are the texts that support what you assert.

Your comments, assertions have nothing to do with the texts you cite, which is only two, Rom 5:10, II Cor 5:18-19. You don't seem to find any other texts that might support what you are asserting. You show no understanding of the texts I cited since you have never addressed them. If I am not...