Featured God died for James Holmes

Heard that sam of Son and Bundy receive Christ also!

 

God the Son died on the Cross...

NOT ALL of the Godhead!

And that was a physical Death, Hid deity did not die on Cross!

 

Physically-----God has a body----His physical body died on the cross----His physical heart stopped beating on the cross----His physical blood stopped circulating on the cross-----God's physical blood was what was used to purchase His Church-----God in Human form died or there would be no salvation/redemption wrought through God being resurrected from the dead three days later!!----God in human form was raised from the dead----God in human form is now in invisible Heaven--waiting to be revealed on the last day!! Throughout all eternity---God will always reside in a human body!!:type::type::type:-----not meaning to rain on anyone's parade---but the Bible teaches that "in Jesus resides the fullness of the Godhead bodily"

 

Well, lets just look at 1 jn 2:2 in more detail without the rose tinted spectacles of our traditions shall we

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Now if we are saying this verse means 'every single person who has ever lived' when it uses the term 'world' we have to ask what exactly has Jesus Christ for 'every person who has ever lived.' and the text says he has become the 'propitiation' which means more then 'atoneing sacrifice' it has the sense of appeasement to it as well - ie it turns the nager of God into the smile of God. So God is appeased in relation to the sin of every person who has ever lived, and christ Jesus has atoned for all their sin. Simply put then, they cannot go to hell, because is no longer angry with them!

Hewnce are left with only two conclusions either 'world' does not mean what you want it to, or John was teaching universalism.

 

Would say that ho9s death was/is sufficient to save ALl that come to Him to get saved, but that the Elect are those that will come to Him!

 

Thanks for the response

But do we have the right to pick and choose a version simply because it presents a verse in the way we like best. 'Atoning sacrifice' is a bad translation of ἱλασμός which means to appease or propiatiate. However even taking the NIV rendering you still have the same issue. Has the sacrifice atoned for the sin of all men or not? If it has why do some go to hell? You still end up at universalism my friend unless you redefine the meaning of words, and make 'atoning sacrifice' to mean 'potentially atoning sacrfice'

And here we see you using an idiom, just like the biblical writers did - do you really just mean man, or man, women and child? Now if you can speak idomatically why couldn't the biblical writers?

Now a few things to notice to here are that the text clearly distinguishes between two groups, one that are merely saved, and one that are especially saved by faith - onbavioulsy this last group is Christains, but who are the first group and how are they saved?

Notice that for both groups the saviour is presented as accomplishing the work the only conclusion nwe can draw is that there is a differnce between the way God is the saviour of those who believe and those who do not

Perhaps we aught to notice also that this verse is not speaking specifically of the Lord Jesus Christ, but of God who is saving people every second of every day by simply giving them their next breath to breathe, but he also especially saving those who believe.

So now this verse does not say Jesus died for everyone.

So we have a God who accomplishes all that he pleases, ps 115:3, ps 135:6 and yet he would have all people everywhere who have ever lived to be saved as you present this verse - yet clearly every person to ever live is not saved? So which is it?

Or do we do some real exegesis and notice that more then then not when the bible says 'all' or 'all men' it refers to all with in a specific group and not everyone who will ever live, eg Luke 6:26.

Now if you take v4 to mean everyone who ever lived to be consistant you must also take v6 to mean the same - and again you end up at universalism. If however you understand 'all men' in reference to the earlier verses where Paul says we should pray for 'all men' for kings etc, you see that he using the term in relation to all kinds of men, in a similar way to how Jesus does in John 12:32

Who is the everyone in context? All people who have ever lived, or the 'we' that the writer keeps addressing?

Not a reference to all men but clearly to a specific group so without getting into the emaning of 'bought' in context I see no need to examine the text further. So far the texts you have presented either do not speak directly of the atonement of christ as a propitation for sin, or the 'all' to which there erefr must be understood in a more narrow way then 'all people everywhere who will ever live' because if you take it to mean that you are saying Jesus christ has achieved their salvation - ie universalism - that is the only consistant conclusion that can be drawn.

Agreed, which is why my interpretations stand because I understand everyword said within it's full semantic range but every time we read words like reddemed, saved, ransomed etc you have to insert a sense of mere potentiality that makes the work of Christ depenedent upon our believing if it is to be effective.

No, we stop those opposed to our views from decontextualising a verse and looking at it in isoltaion. All you have to do in 2 Pet 3:9 is trace the pronoun through.

In 3:1 he makes it clear who he is addressing, "I now write to you." he does the same in v2, in v8 it becomes more definite,
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, so he is addressing christains when he says;

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

The promise he is refering to is a promise made to christains not to everyone and the longsuffering is shown towards christians so that not of the christains will perish. Again the 'all' is refering to all within a specific group.

As for a 16th century system - well a little more church history reading will show you that the early church was largely monergistic, and that synergsitic systems were repeatedly rejected and only found acceptence in the church of Rome. Indeed the 16th and 17th century rejections of monergistic soteriology were nothing but a retrun to the teachings of the council of Trent depending up prevenient grace (which is nowheer to found int he word of God) to make their systems works.

Did he? Then why are they not saved if he has died in their place?

Yes he does, because he has foreknown them. By the way foreknow must mean more then just know before hand on three simple counts;

1) God knows everything - so it is meaningless to say to say he foreknows some whom he will call, justify and glorify Rom 8:29-30

2) The bible teaches that God foreknows people and not just what they will do. Like Adaming knowing eve this must be something deeper then simply knowldge.

3) The bible uses foreknowledge and determined purpose in relation to God's actions synonoumsly for emphasis - eg Acts 2:23

Thanks, I ahve read it, and I have read the response to it by J White, the 'potters freedom' as well. I am sad to say that whilst I find Norm to be helpful on many subjects on this one he seesm blinded by tradition and he does not fairly represent the reformed position especially in regards to the will of man. It also seems to me that Norm merely assumes a view on free will and never proves it from scripture - it all seems philosphical to me.

 

Considering what Human death is, (body dies, spirit does not; Living spirit is separated from the body); I think it is not inaccurate to say "God Died on the Cross." Vague and imprecise, yes...incomplete, yes...but not NECESSARILY false.

Jesus (who was God and man) experienced death (separation of spirit from body) on the cross. His body ceased to have life... His spirit continued to exist separate from his body.

Is it also inacurate to say ANYONE died on the cross? Must we always specify that only their body Died?

What if we put it this way. God's body died on the cross?

 

:applause::applause: I like this. Hallelujah. Pray for him as well as the families.

 

Ah...so I have taken the time to explain and contextualise every verse you have posted and you have not intercated with the vast majority of what I have said but I am the one who is hard to reason with

I think you will find that I have read it my freind


But I will close with this comment.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The whoever is anyone that responds to the invitation. Obviously only the elect will reply, but the call is for all of mankind.[/quote]

Is it? Based on what exegesis? need I remind you that 'whosever' is a really poor translation of the belief is a present active particple which means those who go one believing will be saved through the gift God sent into the world, the verse does not speak of who the gift is for, it does not speak of the origin of this onging faith - the verse says nothing towards either monergistic regeneration of synergistic!

Already got it

But why won't you talk you these verse through with me?

 

Well I think White was more Biblical the reality of this difference of opinions is our respective theologies I am sure

 

James Holmes has already heard the truth and he has also been prayed for by many people around this nation and the world. it is now up to him to receive the truth or continue to reject it. Hopefully he will become a brother in Christ before it is too late.

 

I think the main reason why it does not bother arminian holding bethren the question of the limit of the atonment is that many of them would hold to a non penal substitutionary view on the Cross, and mor emaybe like a moral influence, government type!

So in that view, Jesus did NOT really die in the place of us, but to 'show us the way!"

 

And the married men, too! :laugh: