Doctrine of devils

If Jesus Christ died for ALL people in the world, why the Bible told us that theres so many people will go to hell?

It means that Christ is a FAILURE...NO!

Christ came to earth, suffered and died on the cross, and risen to SAVE HIS PEOPLE... the Bible didn't say TRY to save His people or even the whole world...but HE DID! He saved ALL, and that ALL refers to HIS sheep! to His people...

Christ died for His elect sheep and for them ALONE...Not ALL men are His sheep...

John 10:26 says: "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto."

He DID NOT say: "ye are not my sheep because ye will not belive."

 

Classic example of wrenching Scripture by ignoring context.

This passage has nothing to do with predestination or pre-selection. It has to do with the fact that all of the sheep - believers - under the Old Covenant accepted Jesus as the Christ when He presented Himself to them. Those who did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah proved that they were not believers at all and therefore not His sheep.

He didn't say that these people could not possibly become believers. To the contrary, He called on the very same people to believe on Him on the same occasion. Just as Paul said of the non-elect in Romans chapter 11,

"And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in."

Here we have a most pointed and unassailble assertion of CONDITIONAL ELECTION - IF THEY ABIDE NOT STILL IN UNBELIEF - standing right alongside the SAVING ABILITY OF GOD - FOR GOD IS ABLE TO GRAFT THEM IN.

Mark Osgatharp

 

John the Baptist was right... no argument to that... but i think you are pointing to the word "world"? am i right?

by the way... Look, John said "the Lamb of God, WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN of the world!", did Christ take away the sin of the world? if your answer is yes, why there so many people will go to hell in judgement day? i'll bring back to you your question: Was John right or wrong?

i strongly believed that Christ took away the sin of the world and the word "world" there is referring to the ELECT people of God... coz the Bible uses the word "world" in so many ways...

 

You folks sound just like the evolutionists. Nothing is the way it is written in the Bible if it disagrees with you.

I'm glad I can read for myself, things like "Come unto me, ALL ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."

and "he is not willing that one should perish"

and "God so loved the world".

and "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross" (Col 1:19-20)

But, according to the Calvinists here, 'all' doesn't mean 'all', 'world' does not mean 'world', 'none' doesn't mean 'none'.

Yup, just like the folk who insist that 'day' doesn't mean 'day', 'kind' doesn't mean 'kind', etc. etc.

It's like a cult in both cases: "You must depend on us for the correct interpretation, because the average person just can't understand God's Word on his or her own. We are the enlightened ones. We will explain it to you."

Bull.

Jesus called fishermen to be His disciples, and a despised tax collector. Time and time again He rebuked the intelligensia of His day for their lack of understanding the simple truth He was presenting.

I'll take the Bible the way it has been written. That world means world, and God so loved the world. That all means all, and Jesus' invitation is to all and not phrased as some trick thing. That God truly is not willing that one should perish but that all should come to repentance. That all things in heaven and on earth were reconciled to God because of Jesus' shed blood on the cross. That 'choose this day whom you will serve' has real meaning for the ages. That John was right when he said Jesus took away the sin of the world. Took away. All of it. Took it all on Himself.

Why do people still sin? Why did they ever sin --? After all, He is the Lamb slain FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. The efficacy of His work was for all time, but worked out IN time.

People sin because they have chosen themselves instead of God. But all justice for all time was satisfied in Jesus. All law for all time was fulfilled in Jesus.

That is my Jesus. He is God, and big enough for all of us for all time. It is what each of us chooses to do about that which makes the difference between heaven and hell for each of us for eternity.

 

You are talking about the invitation of Christ, ok we'll discuss it...

The invitation is not for all mankind... the invitation is for the ELECT people of God only...

How come? As it is written: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (KJV)

You cite: "Come unto me, ALL ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."

Yup, I agree to that because it is written on the Bible, but it is very clear that the invitation to that verse is for the "Born Again"... how come... Born again is spiritually alive and recognize their labor and their heavy-laden while the non-born again are spiritually dead and doesnt recognize spiritual things...

... and only the sheep of God can recognize or hear the calling or voice of his Shepherd...no other than Jesus Christ...



I am not referring to the god of others that don't have any ABILITY or POWER to SAVE his people.. rather im referring to GOD, to the SOVEREIGN GOD of Moises, Jacob, and ....

 

You mean only the elect are those that labor and are heavy-laden?

I don't think so.

If predestination were a fact as Calvinism teaches it, then that invitation would never have to be given. The 'elect' would be His already whether they were laboring and heavy laden or not.

Another thing is your misconception of 'spiritually dead.' It does not mean spiritually unconscious, or hell would have no meaning at all. It means separated from God, in the same way that spiritually alive means an intimate knowing of God (John 17:3). In the same way that physically dead means separated from the body.

Those who are separated from God, and therefore classified as spiritually dead, are still quite capable of responding. If not, then Isaiah 1:18-20 would have no meaning whatsoever. Thousands followed Jesus, responding to Him, but not nearly all of them became His followers in the sense of being disciples.

All people can respond to good things, and all good things come from God.

 

Even Satan can do miracle...

Even the very elect can deceived... there are so many people who make good things but are not elected before the foundation of the world... Even Satan did many good things... Many will say to the Lord at the last day saying "My Lord, my Lord" and the Lord will say unto them, "I dont know who you are, doers of wicked things"... many people followed Jesus Christ not because of the spiritual things but because of blessings (foods, etc..)

They are not the sheep of the Lord Jesus Christ but they are goats... goats can act what the sheep does, but whatever they did, they cannot become the sheep of God...

 

jc the Baptist,

You said, 'Even the very elect can deceived'

 

Helen you can not let your feelings dictate your theology, but rather the Scriptures. As has been shown over and over again men are sent to Hell because of their sins. To suggest that every ones sins have been paid for smacks of universalism.

The above quote is dangerous as it takes away the blame of not recieving Christ from the lost, and places it on the church, somthing that is very unbilical.

Not only that it sounds like God has failed in fullfilling the Great Commission. People don't believe because they are sinners and in bondage to their sin, blinded from the truth, not because some denomination, or chruch has "blurred" the issue.

 

This continues to be an extremely inadequate doctrine of sin. It is not even orthodox. By your standard, Adam didn't sin because what he did is nowhere found to be prohibited in the Law. You have just singlehandedly destroyed the Scripture. But God calls Adam's act "sin," even though not found in teh Law, and God imputed that "sin" to all of humanity. So God disagrees with you, Helen, and He plainly says so.

God commands belief. That is the definition of righteousness and sin.

I agreed to the verse, not to you understanding of it. Remember??? If hell is not a punishment for sin, then what is it? And why is it eternal torment? And what exactly did Christ save us from? Your conclusion that Jesus' death meant nothing has no basis either. That doesn't even make sense here.

So now sin is a social thing? Come on, Helen. You aren't that unorthodox and you certainly should be that uninformed. You seem to have never given this much though, in spite of all your talking on it.

Christ says the same thing. It is the heart that is sinful. And the actions that flow from that are sinful as well.

Where did I state this? Please show me.

To the contrary. I am one of hte few here willing to deal with all Scripture. You aren't. You just dismissed Rev 20 by a fallacious allusion to Matthews 25 redefining sin as social apathy. You didn't even address Rev 21:8. You are picking and choosing verses from hebrews because you think they help you. (They don't.) And then you say we destroying teh character of God because we insist that God's truthfulness means teh Bible is true about hell, sin, and what hell is for, and we insist that his judgment means that he doesn't punish people for all eternity for something that isn't sin, and we insist that he didn't punish Christ for sin and then turn around and punish sinners for teh same sin.

It is you, Helen, who are slandering the character, justice, and truthfulness of God, it seems to me. You have yet to make a coherent theological argument here.

The fact that this was taught in the Adelaide Bible Institute is hardly convincing theological support. Some of hte most well known theological schools in the country teach false doctrine. The question is not "what institution teaches it," but "Does God word teach it?" Clearly, Helen, the ideas you have put forth here have no support in Scripture. They are easily refuted.

 

Larry;

There you go again;

This is what I mean when I say you don't know what you're talking about. What Adam did was against the law of God. God told him no to even touch the tree. But he did, and that is sin. No where in scripture, are we ever told to believe as in a comandment, such as what was given to Adam. You're being dishonest again.
Even though we wind up in hell because we reject the truth of Christ. There isn't a law against it.

In The light Of Christ;
Mike

 

There was never any doubt about what you meant when you said that, but you have never been able to prove it.

I agree. ABut notice several things, which you should have seen before you responded. First, I made no reference to the law of God, but to the Law. In theology, Law with a capital L is used usually to refer to the Mosaic Law. So when you say that Adam disobeyed the law of God, he did. There is no dispute there. But he did not disobey the Law. The Law wasn't even in existence yet.

Secondly, But you need to follow the context of the conversation here. Helen quoted Rom 7 and referenced Rom 5 about sin and the Law. It is a rather long and technical argument for which this forum is not well suited, and for which I don't have time to get involved with. But in that context, the Law is the Mosaic Law, not merely a command of God. Therefore, Adam disobeyed God's command.

Really? Where? Can you show us this?

So when God says to "believe," and commands all men everywhere to "repent," that isn't a command of God? That is really wierd stuff.

Belief and repentance (which aer necessary for salvation) are commanded by God, as we have shown. Belief is a part of worship which is also commanded by God. To say that unbelief isn't sin is simply wrong.

This homespun theology you guys are spouting is a good case for a Catholic type of a teaching magesterium. However, my commitment to Scripture prevents me from going that route and leads me, for some strange reason, to keep entering these surreal conversations in hopes that people actually learn.

Let's close with this. Why do you keep making this charge and then fail to demonstrate it? If I am being dishonest, you can show where. When I made that charge against you, I clearly demonstrated it in irrefutable proof. You still are refusing to stand up like a man and deal with that. But every time you make the charge, you offer no evidence.

 

Larry;

Of course it wasn't writen down how ever a comandment from God is the Law. Capitol "L" or not. The Mosaic Law hadn't been writen yet, but Cain was punished for killing his brother Able. The Law of God was writen on our hearts from the beginning. We are born with it in our hearts. It's plain old right from wrong always has been. It was only writen down so man would have no excuse. The Jews in there ignorance called it the Mosaic Law. Moses only brought it down from the mountain. He didn't write it, God Him Self did. It is not the law of Moses it is the comandments of God. God is the Lawgiver. Man only adds to it.

Yes I can heres your proof. I believe that makes you wrong;
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

I just know you're going to say this says something else just to save face. However you are wrong yet again.

Really? Where? Can you show us this?

"Belief and repentance are necessary for Salvation." Your sounding more like an anti Calvinist everyday Larry. You at least got the sequince right.

The rest you got backwards Larry. Unbelief is wrong, yet it isn't sin and we go to hell for it as well. By the way the statement directly above is a dishonest statement. You have never shown a comandment to believe. There is a difference between telling someone how to do something, and commanding them to do something.

Maybe it's God trying to get you to absorb the truth instead of someone else's twisted idea of it.
The only thing I've learned from you Larry is how not to be like you. This includes Calvinism, which by the way is heresy and the direct denial of the truth of Scripture. As far as Catholicism You stand for it more than anyone I know. I mean you are for the reformation of the Catholic Church which in effect makes you a reformed Catholic.

No Sir you did not you only claimed to just like all your other claims they are all false.

Not true Larry in our latest disscussion I proved you wrong with out a doubt. and the proof you brought was ficticious. The professor that wrote that garbage lied and you carried over here for him. Dave Hunt only gave his opinion of Spurgeon you turned it into a false charge of him lying. After reading the entire quote from Russel55 of Spurgeons entire statement It still said he could not accept atonement as being limited in any way. You owe Dave Hunt and me an appology for your false accusations. Yet you aren't man enough to stand up and admit you were wrong.

Not true Larry. You just refuse to acknowledge the evidence. You dodge it and then claim falsely that I have no evidence. You are being dishonest again.
In The Light Of Christ
Mike

 

Cass:

I rarely have time these days. I am still very behind with work, among other things. If you notice, my posts are short and few---its all I have time for, sigh. It'll change in about a month or so, but now, I do not have hours to post, but a few minutes, so I bash a heresy I hate more than the new version justifications--Calvinism.


Show me WHERE the Bible says Christ DID NOT die for the sins of the whole world. Go ahead, show where the Bible clearly, and unambiguously limits the atonement and the blood to the elect.

We all KNOW there are no such verses for the Bible teaches no such thing. It teaches our Lord atoned for, and died for the sins of all the world, all men, that He terasted deat "FOR EVERY MAN", etc. This jibberish about "limited" atonement is more Calvinistic LSD trips wherein the proponent sees things in Scripture not thtere, and cannot see what is there because of a dogged a prioiri committment to Calvinism.

 

Larry;
By the way Larry You're the one who started this dishonesty thing. If you don't like it then do as you would have others do unto you. Learn to be humble and helpful instead of accusiing and judgemental.
In the Light Of Christ;
Mike

 

T Cassidy;

Where'd you get'em from a reformed bible version maybe.
In The Light Of Christ;
Mike

 

I always was taught that the Devil did not want men and women to become saved. Now we have people who tell us that Jesus does not want most sinners. Do these people have the inner fortitude to enter the doors of the Lord's House--the House of Prayer? I would be afraid the Lord would split me down the center from the top of my head to the soles of my feet with a flaming bolt of His unquenchable light for these teachings that disgrace our God and my Savior.