For free will believers out there

[DNB]

No. That usually appears on the pages of my Bible, to point me to something that the Lord might want to say to me.

You freak me out half the time!

 

[DNB]

The very word "propitiation" means "appeasement of wrath".

The following passage indicates that Christ suffered and died as a payment for the penalty of our sins.

1Ti 2:5, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6, Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Yes, Christ's death was an oblation that followed the pattern of the Levitical sacrificial system, clearly!
So, no matter what metaphors, figures of speech, allegories or euphemisms are used to describe the atoning aspect of blood being shed as an appeasement of wrath, we all understand that the sins of men were not quantified (and cannot be) in order to find a commensurate sacrifice.
Quite ignoring the point JBF, if the blood of bulls and goats were sufficient to effectuate Yom Kippur, then the propitiation is not in the object of the sacrifice itself (its intrinsic value), but the meaning that God puts behind it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

My head is not in Catholic doctrine.

You have me confused with @theefaith.



Of course. However, they are not punished for rejecting Christ, they are punished for their sins.

They are not forgiven of their sins because they rejected Christ; and therefore they are punished for their sins as the direct result of rejecting Christ.



Right. I don't disagree with any of these statements. Except I will say that they are punished for their sins, not for rejecting Christ. They are punished for their sins because they rejected Christ and therefore they have rejected forgiveness which is offered by Christ. If they are not forgiven, then they will be punished for their sins.

Kapiche?



Of course. They are punished for their sins as a direct result of rejecting the forgiveness that Christ offers.

Sorry for confusing you with thee faith.

But we may be saying the same things indiffferent ways.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Interpretation: "I don't have an answer for that, so I'm going to accuse you of being juvenile."

Well we are done.

You would rather vomit out ad-hominems rather than engage in serious debate. So we have reached the end. Have the last word if you wish, but I shall continue no further with this now useless dialogue. YOu serve no useful purpose i nthis.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I disagree with what you said here.

Of course you do, you have been indoctrinated with Watchtower false doctrine.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Oh, the Irony! The funny thing is, we actually agree on this, but, you have a theology that makes this impossible. No one can reject Christ if he is individually chosen before creation to be saved and no one can accept Christ if he isn't chosen in your theology. So, what do you mean by rejecting Christ?

See I showed you from SCripture where my "theology" comes from and you reject it for human wisdom.

No one can accept Christ unless led to do so! All reject christ by nature as the bible clearly and unambiguously shows! But have th elast word. I am finished with you and your lies about me.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Perhaps you need to ask questions. I know for my part that any answers offered without having asked questions are usually pretty shallow if not useless.

And what does that mean?

I asked of god many things and He showed me in His Word! I draw my conclusions based on what is written as it is written.

For the 35 of my 46 years of walking with the Lord that I have accepted what is called the "5 points of Calvinism", every argument that people throw at me are based on taking a verse, implying things not found in the verse, or simply just throwing out human logic, that sounds good, but has no basis in Scripture. that is not a way to establish sound Godly doctrine.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Of course you do, you have been indoctrinated with Watchtower false doctrine.

Say what you want about the watchtower, I don't expect you who would rather believe a lie than the truth to say anything good about anybody who disagrees with you.

 

[Grailhunter]

So we got one guy that denies the deity of Christ and another that believes God has all the characteristics of Satan!
Whatz next Voodoo dolls and chicken sacrifices? Do we need an exorcism on this forum. Anybody got a manual I am a little rusty?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Say what you want about the watchtower, I don't expect you who would rather believe a lie than the truth to say anything good about anybody who disagrees with you.

I have lots of good to say about some people who disagree with me.

But the Watchtower denies the SCriptures in the key issues and they keep themselves and you out of the kingdom and that angers me.

 

[Truther]

Well then you either have to say that Peter and Paul were preaching two methods of salvation or that in Acts something different was occuring with the Jews gathered right after pentecost.
But water baptism does not remit sins, the blood of jesus does and only believers get baptized! YOu become a christian first then you get baptized!

And no I am not an Acts skipper. I just keep it in its proper place and context.

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I think Peter and Paul were in agreement but your modern theology is wrong.

Paul even ordered the rebaptism of John's disciples to immediately be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Paul taught everyone to do every word or deed in the name of Jesus, knowing baptism is both word and deed.

You should check your sources, and make sure that who ever taught you what I highlighted wasn't pulling your leg.

 

[Renniks]

See I showed you from SCripture where my "theology" comes from and you reject it for human wisdom.

No one can accept Christ unless led to do so! All reject christ by nature as the bible clearly and unambiguously shows! But have th elast word. I am finished with you and your lies about me.

So you already said about four times.
I'm just pointing out the illogical nature of your theology.
No one can accept Christ unless convicted, correct. Jesus said he would draw all men to himself, Not some men. John 12:32 Truth by known, everyone gets their shot at redemption.

 

[Wrangler]

So, in your estimation, all babies who die are damned?

I can only tell you what Scripture says:

Not an answer but I understand wanting to avoid personal examination.

 

[theefaith]

I'm not certain that I understand your question.



1Pe 5:10, But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

2Th 3:3, But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep you from evil.

salvation is more than faith alone

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I think Peter and Paul were in agreement but your modern theology is wrong.

Paul even ordered the rebaptism of John's disciples to immediately be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Paul taught everyone to do every word or deed in the name of Jesus, knowing baptism is both word and deed.

You should check your sources, and make sure that who ever taught you what I highlighted wasn't pulling your leg.

Well as I quoted Paul in Romans 10 and the fact Paul did almost no baptizing I stand on sure ground.

JOhns baptism was not salvific in nature.

Baptism is a command, but it is commanded after on ehas believed and has been saved.

The baptism that does save is the Baptism of the Spirit. that occurs th emoment we believe.

Romans 10:9-13
King James Version

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

There is a real reason that Paul did not include baptism in the formula to be saved. Because it is not needed to be saved.

YOu forget Acts is a transition for Jews from the law to grace. Baptism is a public identification of what one already believes.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

So you already said about four times.
I'm just pointing out the illogical nature of your theology.
No one can accept Christ unless convicted, correct. Jesus said he would draw all men to himself, Not some men. John 12:32 Truth by known, everyone gets their shot at redemption.

I can only tell you this about how much you depend on logic:

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Not an answer but I understand wanting to avoid personal examination.

YOu really suck at reading peoples minds. But nonetheless, if God chooses to save babies, He didn't inspire it to be in His Word which is our guide.

But if forced to speak from Scripture alone? If a baby is not born again, no they don't see the kingdom of God!

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

This is the only place where there is room for babies to be saved other than by being born agqain.

But to establish a doctrine from this "possibility" is foolhardy.

I just know that God is just and He will do according to His Will all the time. if it is to save babies- He didn't declare it in His Word. If it is to condemn them, Then that is just even if it seems illogical and unjust to us!

 

[Renniks]

YOu really suck at reading peoples minds. But nonetheless, if God chooses to save babies, He didn't inspire it to be in His Word which is our guide.

But if forced to speak from Scripture alone? If a baby is not born again, no they don't see the kingdom of God!

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

This is the only place where there is room for babies to be saved other than by being born agqain.

But to establish a doctrine from this "possibility" is foolhardy.

I just know that God is just and He will do according to His Will all the time. if it is to save babies- He didn't declare it in His Word. If it is to condemn them, Then that is just even if it seems illogical and unjust to us!

I guess abortion would be a blessing if what you believe is true? If you kill the baby before being born, he can't go to hell!

This was one of the supposed reasons for infant baptism you know. They thought it saved the baby from hell. My Mom had two kids who didn't live but a few days or weeks. I am quite sure they aren't in hell. Because I know God is love and I know Jesus said to become as little children.

 

[justbyfaith]

And what does that mean?

I asked of god many things and He showed me in His Word! I draw my conclusions based on what is written as it is written.

For the 35 of my 46 years of walking with the Lord that I have accepted what is called the "5 points of Calvinism", every argument that people throw at me are based on taking a verse, implying things not found in the verse, or simply just throwing out human logic, that sounds good, but has no basis in Scripture. that is not a way to establish sound Godly doctrine.

John 6:37 is a verse that I often use to deal with a common understanding that people have when they hear the doctrines of Calvinism. They think, "if I am not of the elect, then I cannot come to Jesus Christ even if I wanted to."

I would say to them that they can come to Jesus Christ and that if they come to Him He will in no wise cast them out. In coming to Him they will prove that they were of the elect all along.

But hyper-Calvinism would say that even if the non-elect were to come to Jesus it would be of no avail for them because they are of the non-elect.

salvation is more than faith alone

Salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 5:1-2) apart from works (Titus 3:5 (kjv), Romans 4:5-6, Romans 11:5-6 (kjv)).

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

I have lots of good to say about some people who disagree with me.

But the Watchtower denies the SCriptures in the key issues and they keep themselves and you out of the kingdom and that angers me.

Well people can talk about the watchtower all they want, but it's just as easy to say the same thing about other peoples beliefs and how they're reasoningng on the scriptures. I can believe them to be false prophets just because they disagree with the watchtower.
I think people are imperfect human beings who have the right to their beliefs and express their beliefs, but that doesn't mean I'm going to necessarily agree with them, which I have the right to do. I'm going to choose who I honestly believe are in agreement with the scriptures. I don't agree with something that obviously isn't true just because if I don't agree they call me brainwashed, because frankly I can say the same thing about those who disagree with me, it's that easy.
When someone uses a scripture such as Revelation 1:7 to try to prove to me that Jesus will literally be seen when he returns the second time but that scripture doesn't prove that, then I'm not going to say it does. Like when that scripture says all eyes will see him which includes those who pierced him, which we know we're the Roman soldiers, I'm not going to believe that these Roman soldiers who pierced Jesus have lived for two thousand years and will literally see Jesus when Jesus is destroying the wicked at Armageddon. Anyone who want to be angry or call me brainwashed or whatever because I won't believe that, then do so.
The scripture at Revelation 1:7 shouldn't be interpreted as the eyes in this scripture are literal eyes because it makes the eyes that pierced Jesus literal, who like I said we're Roman soldiers. This scripture isn't saying those Roman soldiers who pierced Jesus would literally be seeing him at Armageddon. The eyes in this scripture are symbolic. This scripture is taking us right to when the war of Armageddon begins. People will not be seeing anything except the destruction being caused by Armageddon and people will know they're being destroyed by The True God using his Only Begotten Son to do it. This is all in agreement with the fact that it will be just like the days of Noah.