Rejecting Christ, or rejecting "Christianity"? (the church) ???

[Skovand]

Not a city. A valley outside of Jerusalem that was used as garbage pit, if you want symbolism.

(Barclay always has some interesting factoids.)

Here's what it looks like today:

By city I mean it was a Village. It was a tribal land of the Hinom family. It’s heavily criticized that it was a burn spot until fairly recently. Until recently, it was the valley of slaughter where several wars happened and bodies were dropped down. Much later, as modernization begin to build up it became a trash site. But thousands of years ago it was not a trash site as far as any evidence seems to point towards.

 

[St. SteVen]

The compiler flags an open-bracket without a close-bracket as a syntax error. You need @Verily's right bracket to make the whole program work. The whole world could fly off its axis otherwise.

(Geek humor.)

[thanks]
[/thanks]

 

[Behold]

That's a VERY infamous misquote.

This verse only applies to the born again. who are "not under the Law, but under Grace"..
-
-
KJ21
blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us. He took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross;

ASV
having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;

AMPC
Having cancelled and blotted out and wiped away the handwriting of the note (bond) with its legal decrees and demands which was in force and stood against us (hostile to us). This [note with its regulations, decrees, and demands] He set aside and cleared completely out of our way by nailing it to [His] cross.

 

[St. SteVen]

This verse only applies to the born again. who are "not under the Law, but under Grace"..
-
-
KJ21
blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us. He took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross;

ASV
having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;

AMPC
Having cancelled and blotted out and wiped away the handwriting of the note (bond) with its legal decrees and demands which was in force and stood against us (hostile to us). This [note with its regulations, decrees, and demands] He set aside and cleared completely out of our way by nailing it to [His] cross.

That's pretty short-sighted.

The scriptures you quoted say...

"... He took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross; ..."

"... he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; ..."

"... He set aside and cleared completely out of our way by nailing it to [His] cross."

Nothing to do with "born again". Everything to do with "nailing it to the cross."

[

 

[Behold]

Nothing to do with "born again". Everything to do with "nailing it to the cross."

[

When a person is "Born again".. then what Jesus has accomplished on The Cross, including nailing the law to it.... is hereby applied to them, forever.
This is why the born again are "NOT under the Law, but UNDER Grace".

Whereas the unbeliever is still under the Law.

Here is the situation regarding being "under Grace"..

A.) ""Christ has redeemed US, (the born again) from the CURSE of THE LAW""

What is the curse?

The curse is that the law has dominion over a person, who is "UNDER IT".. and that means the LAW defines the person as a SINNER.

See that defining? That is a CURSE...

So, when the Law can't do that any more... because "the born again are not under the law, but under Grace" then the curse is gone and the person is "made free from the Law".

 

[St. SteVen]

When a person is "Born again".. then what Jesus has accomplished on The Cross, including nailing the law to it.... is hereby applied to them, forever.
This is why the born again are "NOT under the Law, but UNDER Grace".

So, the work of the Atonement was incomplete? (nope)

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

[

 

[Behold]

So, the work of the Atonement was incomplete? (nope)

Can you post something that is related to my post, next time?

We were talking about the law, and Christ dealing with it, on The Cross... and now you are on a different tangent, ... "atonement".

We can talk about the Atonement, and what that means....... but, only if we are concluded talking about "not under the LAW, but under Grace".

 

[St. SteVen]

if we are concluded talking about "not under the LAW, but under Grace".

I contend that not under law applies to everyone. Not just those under grace.
You claim it only applies to those who are "born again".

Galatians 3:23-25 NIV
Before the coming of this faith,[a] we were held in custody under the law,
locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.
24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

Hebrews 8:7, 13
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant,
no place would have been sought for another. ...
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete;
and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

[

 

[Behold]

I contend that not under law applies to everyone.

[

That is the demonic doctrine of Universalism, that you are stating.

And that is the LIE that everyone is become a Christian, without having to believe in Jesus.

This is such a obvious lie.. that even you should be able to see it, and get away from it.. . however, the power of Satanic deception, is designed to prevent that...........

The NT refers to this as being "Mind Blinded by the Devil"., ,is How Paul describes it.

 

[St. SteVen]

That is the demonic doctrine of Universalism, that you are stating.

This is where I stopped reading.

[

 

[Behold]

This is where I stopped reading.

Just remember, you are teaching the LIE, that everyone is a Christian.... "already saved".
So, you are teaching that UNBELIEVERS, who have never trusted in CHRIST.. are "universally saved".

You are teaching a "doctrine of Devils".

 

[St. SteVen]

Just remember, you are teaching the LIE, that everyone is a Christian.... "already saved".

That's a LIE. I teach NO such thing!

[

 

[Behold]

That's a LIE. I teach NO such thing!

[

Yes you do.

Notice this that you believe and teach..

""""""" all humans will ultimately receive salvation and be reconciled to God."""""""


THe "all humans" means that those who died in unbelief, as a Christ Rejector, never born again, will one day be deemed to be CHRISTIANS.. just like those who are saved by trusting in Christ before they died..

So that is the FALSE teaching that unbelievers are CHRISTIANS eventually, (after they died in UNBELIEF, never born again).

So, that is YOUR LIE.. and that is the "doctrine of devil's" that is Universalism.

 

[JohnDB]

There exists a phenomenon in modern politics that infuriates both sides.
(I promise this is going somewhere)

RINO & DINO members of each political party.

People who claim party affiliation but then acts opposite of what each political party espouses.

The same can be said of Christians vx Heathens and Atheists.
There are plenty of people who claim Christ but then behave consistently opposite of what they claim.

The trick is to figure this out quickly when brand new to Christianity.

 

[Verily]

The compiler flags an open-bracket without a close-bracket as a syntax error. You need @Verily's right bracket to make the whole program work. The whole world could fly off its axis otherwise.

(Geek humor.)

Yeah, ^this^ whatever you just said Lambano

So these open bracket posters cannot say to any closed bracket posters, "I have no need of you"

Nay rather (read the above!) LOL!

 

[St. SteVen]

[thanks]
[/thanks]

This might make more sense.

[bold]Thanks[/bold]

 

[BarneyFife]

The compiler flags an open-bracket without a close-bracket as a syntax error. You need @Verily's right bracket to make the whole program work. The whole world could fly off its axis otherwise.

(Geek humor.)

Show-off.

:)

 

[BarneyFife]

This is where I stopped reading.

[

There's virtually no risk to keeping some folks on your ignore list.



:)

 

[St. SteVen]

There's virtually no risk to keeping some folks on your ignore list.

So true.
I check in now and then to see if they are behaving themselves.
I'll take them off IGNORE if they seem to have learned their lesson.
Not in this case. (sigh)

[

 

[BarneyFife]

So true.
I check in now and then to see if they are behaving themselves.
I'll take them off IGNORE if they seem to have learned their lesson.
Not in this case. (sigh)

[

You're like a brother from another mother.

We barely even need to talk.

:)