IS ALL SIN FORGIVEN ?

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Instead of the above attempt to ridicule another and exalt yourself as a humble specimen of humanity, what is wrong with being dogmatic? Study leads to dogmatic soundness.

Also, you've failed to address scripture with any semblance of a refutation. Basically you reject what scripture plainly says, 2 Timothy 1:9 for instance. God elects based on nothing in man, but only according to his purpose, kind of like, you know, he's God or something. You think this is unfair. Romans 9:20? Is that you there?

It seems as if many believe God has not clearly spoken in His word in a way that believers can grasp ,take it in, digest and meditate on it, then go out and proclaim and teach a lost world.
They have this idea that we should go around and gather as many theories as we can, then throw up our hands in a false humility and say we cannot know any truth.
Then they tune in to a phony like Joel osteen who tells them they are wonderful.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

It seems as if many believe God has not clearly spoken in His word in a way that believers can grasp ,take it in, digest and meditate on it, then go out and proclaim and teach a lost world.
They have this idea that we should go around and gather as many theories as we can, then throw up our hands in a false humility and say we cannot know any truth.
Then they tune in to a phony like Joel osteen who tells them they are wonderful.

Yes, very well stated. Many pretend that we just cannot really know, then enter into eternity ambiguously with a who knows, anything is possible except that God is actually God and Sovereignly elects.

Yet I see no validation to this position in Scripture among the saints, that any entered eternity in a state of ambiguity: they all knew it was all by Gods grace and election they entered the kingdom and many songs throughout Scripture testify to the demise of the non elect and the deliverance of those who are elect.

 

[DNB]

What exactly is your problem?
I will help you if possible.
Some people don't like to be helped.

I find you very difficult to reason with, thus, your help will not have the desired efficacy.
I don't know why i have to keep repeating this, but, when one feels that their opinion is tantamount to God's Word, I don't see the point in engaging, outside of trying to offer correction.
That's my problem, ...but thanks for asking!

 

[DNB]

Instead of the above attempt to ridicule another and exalt yourself as a humble specimen of humanity, what is wrong with being dogmatic? Study leads to dogmatic soundness.

Also, you've failed to address scripture with any semblance of a refutation. Basically you reject what scripture plainly says, 2 Timothy 1:9 for instance. God elects based on nothing in man, but only according to his purpose, kind of like, you know, he's God or something. You think this is unfair. Romans 9:20? Is that you there?

I addressed 2 Tim 1:9 twice now, but you failed to offer any semblance of a refutation to my exposition. And FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, i've said 5 times now that that was a poor choice on Anthony's part, the passage is ambiguous, meaning a Reformed interpretation is also valid. He could've picked better, as in many verses in Romans. I'm being fair by pointing this out, and acknowledging the Biblical weight of your position. WHICH PART ARE YOU NOT GETTING???? I'm talking to a wall.
My use of the word dogmatic in Anthony's case, and now yours, was not of the flattering and commendable definition, but of the narrow-minded, narrow-sighted, simple and stubborn inflection.

You both scare me, seriously, with your '...your resisting God's Word...' delusional sentiments.
I'm serious, you both seem fanatical.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

I find you very difficult to reason with, thus, your help will not have the desired efficacy.
I don't know why i have to keep repeating this, but, when one feels that their opinion is tantamount to God's Word, I don't see the point in engaging, outside of trying to offer correction.
That's my problem, ...but thanks for asking!

Well my friend I wanted to help ,but maybe another time. Trying to discredit me or P4T, or any other Reformed person is not going to work because your attempts to deal with scripture are not Close to the historical and confessional understandings.
These passages are very clear.
As long as jn6:37-44 is in the bible your objections ring hollow. Jesus taught it, so it was exactly Divine revelation which despite your efforts even you cannot explain the passages away.
When you turn from light it leads to darkness, but you think you have it figured out so I will leave you to it then.
Reformed people are not fanatical but rather are Reformed because they have seen other teachings already, worked through them, and left them as unbiblical.
Why would we turn from truth anywhere?
What good would that do?
We know your 6 or 7 verses are in scripture, 2 pet3:9, 1 in 2:2, 1tim 2, mt 23:37, jn3 :16,jn12:32...
We know they are there, we know what they mean.
You have suggested we have never heard the verses.
You are mistaken in this.

 

[DNB]

Well my friend I wanted to help ,but maybe another time. Trying to discredit me or P4T, or any other Reformed person is not going to work because your attempts to deal with scripture are not CV lose to the historical and confessional understandings.
These passages are very clear.
As long as jn6:37-44 is in the bible your objections ring hollow. Jesus taught it, so it was exactly Divine revelation which despite your efforts even you cannot explain the passages away.
When you turn from light it leads to darkness, but you think you have it figured out so I will leave you to it then.

ok, last remark, ...yes, finally, you chose a very good passage that, on the surface, supports very well the principle of predestination (unconditional election & irresistible grace, in this case).
I just don't think that the message is that simple, i.e. one dimensional. For again, there are an equal amount of verses, if not more, that entirely endorse free-will and human intervention. You're going to have to show more insight and comprehensivity in your exegesis, in order to address Scripture & Life, in its entirety.
Plus, adhering to a statement of faith, or confession or creed, as though they have any authority over the Church, is again, dogmatic and fanatical, really.
Until the next debate.....

 

[Paul Christensen]

Once again this reveals your improper understanding of the Gospel, the power of the Holy Spirit, of conversion, repentance, remission of sins, justification, salvation, and eternal security.

Believing the Gospel is NOT merely an intellectual exercise.
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:37, omitted from all modern versions).

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Rom 10:9,10)

The whole being is involved in conversion. And it does result in genuine repentance, which then rejects everything other than Christ and the Word of God. So all your hypothetical scenarios are just that -- pure fantasy.

Absolutely correct!
Here is a verse that sums it all up without a doubt:
"God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

As long as a believer remains in Christ, he is effectively the righteousness of God. This means that he is as righteous as Jesus is as far as God is concerned. This is grace-based Christianity. Performance-based religiousity, the pretence of Christianity, says that a person is righteous only if he remains sinlessly perfect, but if he does sin, he has to repent and be effectively born again all over again. But New Testament teaches that as the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross was one and for all, the transformation of conversion to Christ is also once and for all, and there is no further sacrifice for sin. Jesus, our great High Priest is the one who goes to the Father and intercedes for us as we approach the throne of grace when the devil bombs us with condemnation over our shortcomings and faults.

Those who are performance-based, mixed faith with works, have very little understanding of the High Priesthood of Christ. This is why they have to go and confess their sins to a human priest and gain absolution in order to ease their weak conscience. But this type of confession has no value to God, and makes Christ ineffective for being their High Priest, because they have turned from Him to a human priest instead.

 

[Doug]

Matthew 5: 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

This verse and the others you cited are for Israel. Jesus was preparing Israel for the kingdom on earth and warning them of not entering in if they were unfruitful. These verses are not for the body of Christ.

Matthew 5:19 is talking of the Davidic kingdom on earth and the law will be in effect (Isaiah 2:2-3)

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

ok, last remark, ...yes, finally, you chose a very good passage that, on the surface, supports very well the principle of predestination (unconditional election & irresistible grace, in this case).
I just don't think that the message is that simple, i.e. one dimensional. For again, there are an equal amount of verses, if not more, that entirely endorse free-will and human intervention. You're going to have to show more insight and comprehensivity in your exegesis, in order to address Scripture & Life, in its entirety.
Plus, adhering to a statement of faith, or confession or creed, as though they have any authority over the Church, is again, dogmatic and fanatical, really.
Until the next debate.....

It is not a question of showing more insight, or winning a debate.
We should help each other to be better equipped to serve God.
Read and work through that confession of faith.
There are one or two things I do not agree with biblically, however the men who put it together years ago had a much better grasp of scripture than most of us do today.
When truth comes in, error and false gods are leave.
You can start a thread showing wh

 

[Doug]

Doug,

The text of 1 John does not teach us that. You have imposed your interpretation on the text.

John writes to believers, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God” (1 Jn. 5:13). For John, when a person has believed on the name of the Son of God, he is born again (Jn. 3:15-16).

Here in 1 John, the one who has believed in the Son of God has “overcome the world” (1 Jn. 5:5).

John does not state he has "written to you Jewswho believe in the name of the Son of God” (1 Jn. 5:13).

Oz

You said in your latest post that I was reading into 1 John verses that these verses were to the remnant of Israel but in John 1:11 and Matthew 15:24 it is stated that Jesus came unto Israel.

All these verses are the same in that they uphold John 20:31 which was given to Israel to believe.

 

[Doug]

What's the difference between the Kingdom, and eternal life?

Israel to have eternal life had to believe on his name John 3:15-18
If they were unrighteous they would not enter into the kingdom and be given authority in it Matthew 5:20 Matthew 8:12 Matthew 22:13 Matthew 25:30 Matthew 25:23

 

[Enow]

This verse and the others you cited are for Israel. Jesus was preparing Israel for the kingdom on earth and warning them of not entering in if they were unfruitful. These verses are not for the body of Christ.

Matthew 5:19 is talking of the Davidic kingdom on earth and the law will be in effect (Isaiah 2:2-3)

I thank you for sharing but I do not read that into what you are saying about Matthew 5:19.

I read about how those who break even the least of His commandments and teaches others so, are called "least" in His kingdom and those who keep His commandments and keeps them are called great in His kingdom.

That was said in the midst of these words in regards to the law that Jesus came to fulfill ( which was by giving His life as a ransom for many that would believe in Him to be saved )

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

And the only way you can obtain that righteousness that exceed the righteousness of the scribes & Pharisees to enter into that kingdom of heaven is by believing in Jesus Christ.

And so verse 19 is about the believers that have entered into His kingdom of Heaven and they will be judged by how they keep His commandments and even by how they teach others on whether or not they are to be called great or least in His kingdom when He comes to judge His House first. That is where the vessels unto dishonor comes from for why they will be left behind to be resurrected later on for why they are called the least in His kingdom.

 

[DNB]

There are one or two things I do not agree with biblically, however the men who put it together years ago had a much better grasp of scripture than most of us do today.

Which confession, and by whom (rhetorical)?
Heidelburg Chatechism, Westminster Confession, 5 articles of Remonstrance, Augsberg Confession, Synod of Dort, Book of Common Prayer, Formula of Concord, Council of Trent, Vatican I & II, Schleitheim Confession, etc...?
All were devised by very devout, studious and faithful men. Some are somewhat diametrically opposed to the other, which one is heretical?
Arguably, many today may have a better grasp of Scripture than the ancients, simply due to the resources available, and the retrospective view of the many theologies and insights previously defined by the faithful of the past.

 

[DNB]

Israel to have eternal life had to believe on his name John 3:15-18
If they were unrighteous they would not enter into the kingdom and be given authority in it Matthew 5:20 Matthew 8:12 Matthew 22:13 Matthew 25:30 Matthew 25:23

I meant that, they are one and the same. In other words, my desire is to have eternal life in Christ's Kingdom.

 

[Paul Christensen]

You are dogmatic, and stubborn as a mule!
Do you have any awareness of the implications of what you're stating? You are claiming infallibility to your stance on Scripture.
I can sit here and affirm without reservation, that I may be wrong, that I can appreciate the passages in Scripture that are contentious to my views, that I don't have enough wisdom, humility & faith to be entirely correct on anything, and that I can only hope that my exegesis hasn't defamed God in any manner, or lead anyone astray.
What about you Mister know-it-all, who has a perfect understanding of God's Word?
I will assure you that anyone as dogmatic and audacious as yourself, are almost invariably wrong about their views, either in their conclusion, or the process to get there.

Those who base their views on unsound doctrine are the ones to resort to abuse and accusation. When all else fails the kick the player instead of the ball. As soon as you adopt an accusative attitude, you have lost credibility and therefore the debate.

 

[DNB]

Those who base their views on unsound doctrine are the ones to resort to abuse and accusation. When all else fails the kick the player instead of the ball. As soon as you adopt an accusative attitude, you have lost credibility and therefore the debate.

You're generalizing, that was very naive of you (uh oh, I'm doing it again).
I was very balanced in what i stated. I expressed my own fallibility, and pointed out why I felt they were showing audacity. I didn't even come close to accusing for the sake of frustration or abuse.
Why didn't you accuse them of constantly resorting to the heretic card, by claiming every opinion that they state is under the auspices of God? This is where my indignation lied, and thus, my accusation.

 

[Paul Christensen]

You're generalizing, that was very naive of you (uh oh, I'm doing it again).
I was very balanced in what i stated. I expressed my own fallibility, and pointed out why I felt they were showing audacity. I didn't even come close to accusing for the sake of frustration or abuse.
Why didn't you accuse them of constantly resorting to the heretic card, by claiming every opinion that they state is under the auspices of God? This is where my indignation lied, and thus, my accusation.

If you are correct in your doctrine and have confidence in it, then you don't have to resort to accusation at all. You just maintain your position and continue providing Scripture evidence. Giving "you" messages only increases defensiveness and causes a thread to become a tit or tat exchange of attack and defence.

Yes, I am generalising, but it is quite true that those whose doctrine is unsound tend to go over the top in trying to justify their position with great big coloured bold fonts and upper case writing. I see this as "shouting for all you're worth, argument very weak!" My father was an excellent and cunning debater, and when my brother and I started yelling at him, he would say, "You've lost the argument because you raised your voices". and that cut the ground out from under our feet!

It's the same with a preacher. If a preacher has to yell his sermon, then his doctrine is unsound; because if he was teaching sound doctrine and confident about it, he would use a normal public speaking voice and teach it to them. I gave up shouting when a good friend (because I am totally bald), told me I looked like a great big red lollipop! Good preachers don't have to shout and yell. Good stage actors know how to project their voices so they can be heard from the back of a large auditorium without having to shout. Shouting just results in a sore throat and a loss of voice. Stage actors know that, and if it happens to them, they can't do their job any longer.

I know that God doesn't suffer from nerves, but He ain't deaf either!

 

[DNB]

If you are correct in your doctrine and have confidence in it, then you don't have to resort to accusation at all. You just maintain your position and continue providing Scripture evidence. Giving "you" messages only increases defensiveness and causes a thread to become a tit or tat exchange of attack and defence.

Yes, I am generalising, but it is quite true that those whose doctrine is unsound tend to go over the top in trying to justify their position with great big coloured bold fonts and upper case writing. I see this as "shouting for all you're worth, argument very weak!" My father was an excellent and cunning debater, and when my brother and I started yelling at him, he would say, "You've lost the argument because you raised your voices". and that cut the ground out from under our feet!

It's the same with a preacher. If a preacher has to yell his sermon, then his doctrine is unsound; because if he was teaching sound doctrine and confident about it, he would use a normal public speaking voice and teach it to them. I gave up shouting when a good friend (because I am totally bald), told me I looked like a great big red lollipop! Good preachers don't have to shout and yell. Good stage actors know how to project their voices so they can be heard from the back of a large auditorium without having to shout. Shouting just results in a sore throat and a loss of voice. Stage actors know that, and if it happens to them, they can't do their job any longer.

I know that God doesn't suffer from nerves, but He ain't deaf either!

Yes, in principle what you say is true. I recall a quote from Bruce Lee which stated, '...the minute my opponent loses his temper, I know that I will win the fight...' At least, the quote is allegedly from him. Either way, we get the point, no one is acting at their optimum when they become enraged.
But again, because I was so balanced in my rhetoric, it therefore precludes any accusations of rage or diatribe, but rather exhortation and rebuke. I'm serious, I honestly felt that i was pointing out the source of their error and audacity. They are fanatical and dogmatic. And thus, by me offering them this realization, I was doing them a great service.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Yes, in principle what you say is true. I recall a quote from Bruce Lee which stated, '...the minute my opponent loses his temper, I know that I will win the fight...' At least, the quote is allegedly from him. Either way, we get the point, no one is acting at their optimum when they become enraged.
But again, because I was so balanced in my rhetoric, it therefore precludes any accusations of rage or diatribe, but rather exhortation and rebuke. I'm serious, I honestly felt that i was pointing out the source of their error and audacity. They are fanatical and dogmatic. And thus, by me offering them this realization, I was doing them a great service.

I try to do the same. If I feel defensive, I usually resort to crazy humour.

 

[DNB]

I try to do the same. If I feel defensive, I usually resort to crazy humour.

Good remedy, it can be both concealing and disarming.