" I never knew you " --- Literal or Figurative

[francisdesales]

What you did is dismiss my argument by not even answering any of the response I gave to each of your premises. I made my case and you just ignored it and stated over again what you have previously said. That may work for politicians but it isn't itellectually honest in a true debate. You didn't respond to my argument with an actual rebuttal but with a dismissal as though it had no merit at all and wasn't worthy of a response. That is the tactic of a defeated opponent. Make your case against what I actually said or admit that you can't respond to it.

I am thinking your response is intellectually dishonest, because I reiterated my point on Romans 5 and all you are doing now is name calling...

Apparently, you think that Adam's sin was more powerful than Christ's redemptive act - and you prefer to not address that and call me names. What a wonderful Christian you are. :bigfrown

 

[mlqurgw]

I am thinking your response is intellectually dishonest, because I reiterated my point on Romans 5 and all you are doing now is name calling...

Apparently, you think that Adam's sin was more powerful than Christ's redemptive act - and you prefer to not address that and call me names. What a wonderful Christian you are. :bigfrown

I did address that point but you ignored it. You would have the number be the determiner of effectiveness but it isn't how many who are affected but who it was who affected it as Paul is clearly saying. You want to focus on us and Paul always focuses on Christ.

You didn't respond to my point about representation or my explanation of the passages at all but repeated your assertion as though it must be true because you assert it. That isn't being intellectually honest no matter how you wish to think it is.

 

[mlqurgw]

When one side ignores the statements and points being made by the other side the discussion becomes pointless. I don't intend to waste my time with pointless discussions. Either deal with what I said concerning Rom. 5 and your interpertation of it or we are done.

 

[savedbygrace57]

francis:

Apparently, you think that Adam's sin was more powerful than Christ's redemptive act

Apparently you do, unless Christ has saved all who sinned in Adam ! Do you believe that ?

 

[francisdesales]

I did address that point but you ignored it.

No I didn't. I made fun of it because it was ridiculous and an attempt to misdirect the fact that Christ's work was sufficient for ALL men, just as Adam's work was sufficient for ALL men.

You explain that perhaps John meant men of other eras, but not those who were within earshot of "look, there goes the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". Now, if we follow your slippery logic to its pitiful conclusion, then Christ's work was ineffective for particular eras of history. Heck, we don't even know if it was effective for anyone TODAY!!! Most certainly, John would not claim that "there is the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" and refer to a time past ONLY. This would be an amazingly pointless statement. Clearly, John was refering to HIS day and age at the very least. Thus, the "world" must mean everyone.

Yes, I addressed this all before, but you prefer to wallow in name calling.

You would have the number be the determiner of effectiveness but it isn't how many who are affected but who it was who affected it as Paul is clearly saying. You want to focus on us and Paul always focuses on Christ.

Sin of the world is universal. You are clearly defending a doctrine that does not take into account the Biblical accounts. Paul is saying that the church is 'catholic', universal - open to all who have faith. ALL men (women) are potentially enabled to enter the Kingdom, not just those born of Jewish descent - and thus, all men are under the work of Christ on the cross. No one is excluded. Not just men and women predetermined but UNKNOWN to anyone but God. That is not salvation, if you don't even know you have it. Romans 5 is crystal clear in its comparison. Adam's sin universally effects ALL men (didn't Paul make that clear only a few chapters before???). The logic is unescapable. Christ's work undoes the work of Adam.

You didn't respond to my point about representation or my explanation of the passages at all but repeated your assertion as though it must be true because you assert it. That isn't being intellectually honest no matter how you wish to think it is.

You are again being intellectually dishonest by making such silly claims. All we have to do is go back a few pages and read my responses to disprove your sad attempt to make an excuse for not addressing what I have already said several times. Romans 5 disproves that Christ's work was only partially redemptive for some men. The "if-then" argument is irrefutable. You know this, so you are now trying to turn the tables by crying that I never addressed your argument. I don't have time for such childish games. If you don't have anything to add, just bow out.

 

[francisdesales]

francis:



Apparently you do, unless Christ has saved all who sinned in Adam ! Do you believe that ?

I do not intend on allowing you to avoid answering my questions by changing the subject and asking me more follow ups. Get back on topic and address where the Bible says that Christ died only for the elect. I have given you verses that back up my point and you have done nothing but try to ask more questions to get off topic...

 

[savedbygrace57]

francis:

Get back on topic and address where the Bible says that Christ died only for the elect.

As soon as you show me the one that says Christ did not die only for the elect.

 

[savedbygrace57]

francis:

I have given you verses that back up my point

You have given speculation, The scripture specifically says who Christ died for, The Sheep Jn 10:15 and the Church eph 5:25

Both of which, The Sheep and the Church are the Elect ! Anything beyond these is pure speculation and not of Faith.

 

[savedbygrace57]

francis:

No I didn't. I made fun of it because it was ridiculous and an attempt to misdirect the fact that Christ's work was sufficient for ALL men, just as Adam's work was sufficient for ALL men.

Ok, Adams work was sufficent to constitute all men sinners, so then, much more Jesus christ work was sufficent to constitute all men righteous.

rom 5:


18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Now lets see who is consistent.

 

[Elijah674]

francis:



Ok, Adams work was sufficent to constitute all men sinners, so then, much more Jesus christ work was sufficent to constitute all men righteous.

rom 5:


18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Now lets see who is consistent.

NO ONE is disagreeing with those verses! The Word of God IS ALL CONDITIONAL SALVATION! Unless Christ's Words are FALSE in John 3:3 (and THEY ARE TRUTH!) Only these ones meet the FIRST CONDITION. Got that??

OK: Acts 5:32 DOCUMENTS THE ETERNAL 'FIRST' CONDITION of one being Born Again. OBEDIENCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ETERNAL CONDITION! Not the false doctrines that you [post] up from 2 Peter 2:17-22! See verse 19 ibid of PROMISING THEM [LIBERTY]!

Forum: Even see Rev. 22:9 for the ANGELS! + Heb.'s other worlds in the plural. 1:2 & Heb. 11:3

but 'i' question 'some' ones (myself!!) being Rom. 8:14 LED with these Titus 3:9-11 [constant] 'contentions'? & Acts 9:5-6 'kickings against the Holy Ghost', regardless if if be me or another!

Yet, I realize that there are the John 10:16 + Christ's blind ones as seen in Rev. 18:4 to be reached. So, it is you that is my burden!

--Elijah

 

[Drew]

I believe I can but don't have the time to do so at the moment. Rom. 10. is a good start though.

I do not see how Romans 10 shows that people who have not heard of Jesus are lost. Or at least, I do not see how this text is not as "problematic" for your position as it is for mine.

Here is the relevant text:

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED." How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

I suspect your argument is basically this:

1. Paul says that if you call on the name of the Lord, you will be saved.
2. He then suggests that in order to call on the name of the Lord, you need to have "heard" about the Lord, otherwise, they will not be able to call on Him.

The problem is this: Paul does not say "The only people who will be saved are those who call on the name of the Lord." If he had said this, then, yes, one would have to conclude that those who have never heard about Jesus are lost. But the statement he actually makes leaves open the possibility that you can be saved without having "heard" the name of the Lord.

But if you are right in respect to your take on Romans (or at least what your take appears to be) this would be as problematic for you as it would be for me. For if people are really pre-destined to be saved, and if Paul is saying that only those who hear about the Lord can be saved, then all those people who lived before Jesus, or lived in Timbuctu can not have been pre-destined. And that seems rather odd, to say the least.

In a past post, you argued that Abraham was "preached the gospel". Fair enough. I assume you might also argue that all those are pre-destined and otherwise did not hear about Jesus in "the usual way" were also given this kind of "special revelation". That way you could reconcile your take on Romans 10 with the pre-destination view.

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The "free willer" could make a similar claim - those who never heard the gospel in "the usual way" were given a special revelation of it.

I see not problem for the "free will" position here in respect to this issue of "needing to hear the gospel" that is not equally a problem for the pre-destination position.

 

[Drew]

I did address the argument when I said that you were using a general to denote a specific. It just isn't very good logic. I perceive you as being a logical person but when it comes to this you have abandoned your logic in favor of your emotion.

Sorry, my argument is valid, and here you are just evading my question. Unsupported statements about me abandoning logic in deference to emotion are not going to be convincing to the objective reader. You need to engage the actual argument I am making.

Here is the text yet again:

I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”

You have claimed that, in the following text, Jesus cannot be speaking about all humans when He uses the phrase "the world":

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world

And you have grounded your position in an assertion that there are no Biblical examples of the unqualified use of the phrase "the world" where the author's (or speaker's) intent was to refer to the whole world (all people). Well the text about "leaving the world" is not explicitly qualified. So if you are correct, Jesus cannot be leaving all people when He leaves "the world".

So, again, since your position requires that Jesus cannot be leaving all the people of the world behind, who are the people who are not left behind?

 

[Oats]

Matthew 7:21-23

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

I try not to chime in one threads like this....however I think Jesus is addressing unfruitful Christians. I believe someone could have once been a Christian and did miracles in the name of Jesus, but the fell away and used God to their "advantage".

Take Binny Henn for example.



I don't think that someone could be a Christian....commit acts of lawlessness unrepentant and be saved...


Is there something in the Bible to refute this...

Essentially you can lose salvation, because you truly weren't saved.

 

[savedbygrace57]

I try not to chime in one threads like this....however I think Jesus is addressing unfruitful Christians.

Then why He said I never knew you ?

 

[Oats]

Then why He said I never knew you ?

Wow...Jesus has the right to speak informally too...

I never knew you as in- You're works don't speak for your faith.


Many people call themselves Christians...but an unfruitful, unrepentant, unloving "Christian" wasn't one to begin with.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Wow...Jesus has the right to speak informally too...

I never knew you as in- You're works don't speak for your faith.


Many people call themselves Christians...but an unfruitful, unrepentant, unloving "Christian" wasn't one to begin with.

He said I never knew you ! He knew them He died for Jn 10:

14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

He knows people who has not repented, for He says !

Rev 3:



15I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

18I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

That destroys your feeble philsophy.

 

[savedbygrace57]

oats:

I don't think that someone could be a Christian....commit acts of lawlessness unrepentant and be saved...

One cannot have been a Christian period and Christ says I never knew you !

 

[Oats]

oats:



One cannot have been a Christian period and Christ says I never knew you !

That's just like me saying how could they then cast out demons in Christ name...


watch the way you talk to me...i'm warning you:fullauto

 

[John Zain]

Let's also throw this into the discussion ...

Hebrews 6:
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted
the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again
for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it,
and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God;
8 but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed,
whose end is to be burned.
9 But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you,
yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner.
10 For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have
shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence
to the full assurance of hope until the end,
12 that you do not become sluggish, but imitate those who through
faith and patience inherit the promises.

 

[francisdesales]

francis:



As soon as you show me the one that says Christ did not die only for the elect.

I did several times already. Maybe you should learn to read.

The Lamb of God takes away the Sin of the WORLD.

How does Jesus take away ANY sin? By His death on the cross. FOR THE WORLD!

Your "doctrine" is a tradition of men. Time to bail out, IF you believe that the Bible is the Word of God.