John UK wrote: -----However, we went into this business in great depth some time ago concerning the value of the atonement, and I came down on the same side as Ingleesi, who said that the atoning value of the cross was infinite because of the eternal nature of the Person who was both Priest and Sacrifice. Maybe that is Amyraldy, I don't know. What I do know for sure is that God was doing something very specific in the atonement - saving his people from their sins.
Your last sentence is spot on. I understand what you are trying to say about the death of Christ being of infinite value, but I don't believe that DOG people have ever meant by this that the saving efficacy of his death extends to everyone. All it has ever meant is that had God decided to save the entire human race nothing more would have been required of Christ as the mediator, prophet, priest and king.
John UK wrote: Observe: Romans 5:6 KJV 6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. Let me think now. What are the alternatives? The Saviour died to save all ungodly men and therefore died for all ungodly men? Or the Saviour died to save some ungodly men and therefore died for some ungodly men? -----
John, forgive me, but I think you are reading too much into the text.
The verse starts "For when WE were...." what follows is therefore restricted in application to the "WE". Look at the following verses they all confirm the "WE" application. IOW what God has done for those he saves. Certainly before we are saved we are ungodly (v6), sinners (v8), and enemies (v10). We could therefore equally say he died for sinners, and for his enemies! But to extend this to all sinners, all his enemies would entail a penal sacrifice for them.
Reading your post one would think that you have turned Amyraldian! But maybe I am not understanding you aright.
John UK wrote: Okay, well you try convincing the insensible ungodly sinners that Christ died for the ungodly, namely them, and you will get some short shrift from such. Such as, "Who are you calling ungodly?" and "Well I'm not a sinner." But maybe you have not done any evangelism yet? I recommend it, it really hones your theology, when you meet real sinners in the flesh, and hear what they have to say.
Do you not believe John that those for whom Christ died will certainly be saved? If so, then since by your own admission not all the ungodly are saved, how could he have died for all the ungodly?! Not so long ago you were speaking of Christ's death being a vicarious death. If he really stood in the place of all the ungodly, why would they be punished when their surety has taken their punishment for them?
John UK wrote: Aye Mike, it's too tricky for us to attempt to answer, lest we slip down the Rockies and are never seen again. One thing is certain, which is that there is hope for the ungodly when they come to realise they are ungodly. Until then, nothing.
Your explanation is somewhat different to the text. The text simply said Christ died for the ungodly, not those who realise themselves to be ungodly. That is the line the hypers take to restrict their message to "sensible" sinners!
St. Paul wrote: "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." -1 Corinthians 11:2
The Greek word is paradosis, "a giving over," either by word of mouth or in writing; then that which is given over, i.e. tradition, the teaching that is handed down from one to another.
The word is used by Paul when referring to his personal Christian teachings to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica (1 Corinthians 11:2 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6). In this sense the word in the singular is better translated "instruction," signifying the body of teaching delivered by the apostle to the church at Thessalonica (2 Thessalonians 3:6). But Paul in the other two passages uses it in the plural, meaning the separate instructions which he delivered to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica.
It was after all the apostles who were led into all the truth and the ongoing Christian church was to remain faithful to apostolic doctrine.
No "tradition" here in the RCC sense viz. made up nonsense with no Scriptural foundation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob wrote: What versions did satan use during the 20th and 21 century to promote; The denial of divine inspiration? Women as pastors? Homosexual clergy? The purpouse diven church? The Emergent movement? Socialism? Anti KJV? Whatever prferences you may have Jim; you are a terrible logician.
I think it is your logic that is errant. What bible were the Judaizers using? Or the Pharisees, or the Saducees? Or all the false teachers that contended with Paul and the other apostles?
Not once do we read in the NT that they had the wrong bible!!
Satan does not need a false bible. He can easily pervert the truth!
Cepacol wrote: Where do you get that I fit into that catagory? All I said is that I read the King James. You said that all of us that read the King James were warned.
I was only writing about those who say that there is only one true Bible viz. KJV. If that was not clear then I apologize.
Cepacol wrote: You are new to thse forums yet you come in acting like you know better than people who have been here for over 10 yrs. You should look at yourself before calling other people judgmental.
How long have you been on SA?
I have been on SA for a lot longer than 10 year! I have been quietly observing and occasionally contributing. So I know the personalities who post regularly. I used the term "pharisees" deliberately!
Lockerman wrote: I for one am in agreement with you about this poster. At least when Jim posts he at times posts a comment directed to to news article. This guy, like a few others only refutes what others have said. Many times the people were not even addressing him. Iv'e decided to use Prov. 14:7 KJV for him and a few others. Jim included
Cough It UP Already wrote: Ahem, I know you will probably ignore this or make light of it or ridicule it,like you've done to others.However,I will attempt to ascertain from you why you always find it necessary to act so much above everyone else on these threads? You seem to have a serious problem with getting along well with others.Why do you always take the low road,is it because the higher road is too difficult for you to travel? You can well blow this off as nothing but some nobody,well beneath you,asking impertinent questions.Perhaps though,it may do you good to consider this seriously.
I don't see you write like this to everyone who seems assured in what they say. But then I guess you are not at all biased!
Just open your eyes and see what people have written to Jim Lincoln. Where were you then? Or were their actions justified because you are in their camp?
Fair Ya See wrote: Wow! you really are becoming a hateful person. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Pharisee. And then Laughing Out Loud about it. Guess you must be real proud of yourself. In just a few months you have figured out that the majority of S/A listeners are AV people. Now you and Jim can forget all other christian teaching, and spend all your time straightening us all out. Maybee after you finish with all of us ignorant Pharisees you can go to AmTrac's web site and preach against trains. After all, if your in the minority, and you oppose everyone, youv'e got to be right. Well; I got to get back to my Pharisee business of leading people to the Lord, helping the brokenhearted, and the addictided, and comforting the young widow. But by all means; keep up your name calling. I'm sure Jeuse is pleased.
You are the one who identified with my comments. So if the hat fits..!