The Gospel of Reconciliation

[Rightglory]

Lets discuss the post. If you want to discuss the incarnation, start a thread on it, I will participate

Your statement is about the Incarnation. That is why I asked the question. If you didn't know that, then you don't understand what you stated, they are directly connected.

 

[brightfame52]

So we know that Christs death wasn't for all without exception when we honestly consider Rom 5:10

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Understand, those who had been reconciled to God while enemies, the promise unto them is that they shall be saved [future tense passive voice] by Christ's Life !

Now since we know scripture doesn't teach that all without exception will be saved, because Jesus says some shall not see life, which is future tense Jn 3:36, hence Christ couldn't have died for them, or His word is false and untrue ! 22

 

[brightfame52]

That is so not true.

If the blessing of reconciliation is not by faith, but is accomplished by the death of Christ, then it would have been universal. The distinction between those reconciled and those not reconciled is that those reconciled believed in God, in Jesus, in the Gospel. But of course that is not consistent with your false Calvinistic views and the reason that the false Calvinist doctrine of Election had to be invented.

Your false version of John 3:16 says, ""For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever is Elected should not perish but have eternal life." A complete bastardization of the text.

It is true, you just dont believe it.

 

[brightfame52]

Your statement is about the Incarnation. That is why I asked the question. If you didn't know that, then you don't understand what you stated, they are directly connected.

I take it you just dont want to discuss the post points. Thats fine

 

[JBO]

It is true, you just dont believe it.

And neither did any of the apostles.

 

[Rightglory]

I take it you just dont want to discuss the post points. Thats fine

I asked the question. So where is the answer. A discussion is a two-way street.

 

[brightfame52]

I asked the question. So where is the answer. A discussion is a two-way street.

I gave you my reply

 

[Rightglory]

I gave you my reply

It does not answer the question? A reply that is a non answer like the one above is worthless.

 

[brightfame52]

It does not answer the question? A reply that is a non answer like the one above is worthless.

Thats too bad then

 

[brightfame52]

Now Christ's death for the Elect does bring about their subjective reconciliation to God [conversion] 1 Pet 3:18

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 22

 

[JBO]

Now Christ's death for the Elect does bring about their subjective reconciliation to God [conversion] 1 Pet 3:18

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 22

There is nothing in that passage to support your false made-up doctrine of election.

 

[brightfame52]

There is nothing in that passage to support your false made-up doctrine of election.

Yes it is, but you cant see it. 1 Pet 3 18 is about the subjective reconciliation of Gods elect. Look who Peter is writing to 1 Pet 1:2

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

I cant help if you dont see it.

 

[JBO]

Yes it is, but you cant see it. 1 Pet 3 18 is about the subjective reconciliation of Gods elect. Look who Peter is writing to 1 Pet 1:2

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

I cant help if you dont see it.

I don't see it because it is not there. It is there only in a Calvinist warped view of soteriology. Foreknowledge is not predestination.

 

[Rightglory]

Now Christ's death for the Elect does bring about their subjective reconciliation to God [conversion] 1 Pet 3:18

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 22

Your statement does not match the text you cited.
There is no mention of elect, either directly, or implied. BUT it is describing the Incarnation. So my question to you again, what is your understanding of the Incarnation?

 

[brightfame52]

I don't see it because it is not there. It is there only in a Calvinist warped view of soteriology. Foreknowledge is not predestination.

Oh its there, unfortunately you cant see it.

 

[brightfame52]

Your statement does not match the text you cited.
There is no mention of elect, either directly, or implied. BUT it is describing the Incarnation. So my question to you again, what is your understanding of the Incarnation?

Thats your opinion it doesnt match, but its the Truth

Christ's death for the Elect does bring about their subjective reconciliation to God [conversion] 1 Pet 3:18

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Matt poole says of 1 Pet 3:18

That he might bring us to God; i.e. reconcile us to God, and procure for us access to him with freedom and boldness, Romans 5:2 Ephesians 3:12.

John Gill

that he might bring us to God; nigh to God, who, with respect to communion, were afar off from him; and in peace and reconciliation with him, who were enemies to him by wicked works; and that they might have freedom of access, with boldness, unto God, through his precious blood, and the vail of his flesh; and that he might offer them unto God, as the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions render it; as a sacrifice acceptable unto God, presenting them to him unblamable and unreproveable in his sight; that he might bring them into his grace and presence here, and, as the great Captain of their salvation, bring them to him in glory hereafter:

 

[JBO]

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

For sins, not for the so-called elect. There is nothing said there about the elect.

1Jn_2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Rightglory]

Thats your opinion it doesnt match, but its the Truth

Only in your opinion. What I explained to you about the Incarnation has been the understanding of Christians from the beginning, It is historical fact that I gave to you, not my opinion.

Christ's death for the Elect does bring about their subjective reconciliation to God [conversion] 1 Pet 3:18

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

First, it does not say elect. It says "just for the unjust". There is also no conversion mentioned or implied in the context nor verse. That word "quickened" means to make physically alive. That will happen in the eschaton for all of mankind. Do you believe in hell? If you do, you have a huge contradiction based on your statement of I Pet 3:18, That same Spirit that gave life to Christ's human nature at His resurrection will also give life to all mankind in the last day, I Cor 15:54-53,
Any fifth grader will tell you, one cannot insert words into a text that are not there. That implicitly makes it unscriptural.

Matt poole says of 1 Pet 3:18

That he might bring us to God; i.e. reconcile us to God, and procure for us access to him with freedom and boldness, Romans 5:2 Ephesians 3:12.

John Gill

that he might bring us to God; nigh to God, who, with respect to communion, were afar off from him; and in peace and reconciliation with him, who were enemies to him by wicked works; and that they might have freedom of access, with boldness, unto God, through his precious blood, and the vail of his flesh; and that he might offer them unto God, as the Vulgate Latin and Syriac versions render it; as a sacrifice acceptable unto God, presenting them to him unblamable and unreproveable in his sight; that he might bring them into his grace and presence here, and, as the great Captain of their salvation, bring them to him in glory hereafter:

Matt and John are Calvinist. Maybe you should quote (Iraneous, or Titian, Theophilus who lived in the second century or Athanasius who lived in the third century and wrote a book on the Incarnation. They gave to us what the Apostles taught to the first century Christians.

 

[brightfame52]

For sins, not for the so-called elect. There is nothing said there about the elect.

1Jn_2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Its written to the elect so its their sins 1 Pet 1:2

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

 

[Duck Muscles]

()
Matt and John are Calvinist. Maybe you should quote (Iraneous, or Titian, Theophilus who lived in the second century or Athanasius who lived in the third century and wrote a book on the Incarnation. They gave to us what the Apostles taught to the first century Christians.

Just a small yet necessary correction here.

The gospel books of Matthew and John are not Calvinist.

The Calvinist,Reformation,doctrine was born in the 16th century.


The gospels attributed to Matthew and John date to 85ce and 100 ce respectively.

If the intention is to imply Reformed doctrine was gleaned through those gospel books,then I suggest there can be no contention against the Reformed doctrine or Calvinism being contrary to the gospel of Christ Jesus being they are accepted as accounts of his ministry.