Born spiritually dead

[nrajeffreturns]

Because you can't have it both ways. If you believe that all of us are sinners, then the Bible says that Christ suffered for all of us.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Because you can't have it both ways. If you believe that all of us are sinners, then the Bible says that Christ suffered for all of us.

Actually, Jeff, the Bible says Christ died for the Church: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...atonement.html

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Actually, Jeff, the Bible says Christ died for the Church:

You are entirely correct. It does say that. What it does NOT say is that Christ died ONLY for the church. That is the fact that it seems to be really hard to get some folks to realize and acknowledge.

It's like if you said that you bought a potato today. Would it be safe to ***ume that the potato was the ONLY thing you bought? If you also bought an apple, a pumpkin, and a new Corvette today, wouldn't it still be true that you bought a potato today?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

What it does NOT say is that Christ died ONLY for the church. That is the fact that it seems to be really hard to get some folks to realize and acknowledge.

But if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven. You haven't adequately addressed this Jeff. This was also brought up in the article by John Piper that Apologette quoted in her post--a section of that link is reproduced below.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...atonement.html
We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

You are entirely correct. It does say that. What it does NOT say is that Christ died ONLY for the church. That is the fact that it seems to be really hard to get some folks to realize and acknowledge.

Matthew 1:21 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

John 10:14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Acts 20:28 28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

You are saying that people who have no capacity to sin, are evil, and that the reason they sin is because they are sinners. Isn't that self-contradictory? It's like saying that a cow with no capacity to kill and eat lions, is a killer and eater of lions...

Not at all when a big cat (Lion, Tiger, Cheetah) give birth, their cubs have no ability to kill. These cubs however are still killers. It is what they are in their base nature. They don't need to kill to be killers they are killers by their base nature. That is what they are they can't change that. Humans are sinners by our base nature. It is what we are. We can't change that. A human child doesn't need to commit sin to be what they are. They are born sinners like a lion cub is born a killer. There is no contradiction in that. Even your own scripture teaches that the natural man is an enemy of God. There is NOTHING more natural than a newborn baby. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

No. All will not be made alive in Christ spiritually. But all will be made alive physically through Christ's resurrection. The 15th chapter of 1Cor was speaking specifically about the resurrection.

We are speaking of two different topics.. I have no problem with two resurrections one of the just unto life and the other unto ****ation. You have correctly seen that 1 \cor 15 is about resurrection and not about the final estate of mankind.. There are major differences between mortality and the resurrection. If you could see that you would start learning.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven.

That ***umption is still as incorrect as the first time you stated it and we refuted it, Billy.

Using your logic, if RealFakeHair made cupcakes for everyone, then everyone would eat one. Why can't you see the flaw in the bolded part of that thinking?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Not at all when a big cat (Lion, Tiger, Cheetah) give birth, their cubs have no ability to kill. These cubs however are still killers. It is what they are in their base nature. They don't need to kill to be killers they are killers by their base nature.

Doves are harmless. Even the Bible says so. I guess that's what they are in their base nature. They don't need to kill, so neither do us humans, right? When we kill deliberately, it's because we choose to.

LOWER life forms may be forced to act on instinct only. They may not be able to use stuff like reasoning, comp***ion, intellect, a knowledge of history, etc. when making decisions. News flash: We are DIFFERENT from those animals. We can actually think. It's a gift that God gave to our species. Even you believe that humans were made in God's image. Of all the life forms on Earth, only humans have the God-given ability to mature into beings who possess God's qualities and personality traits.

Even your own scripture teaches that the natural man is an enemy of God. There is NOTHING more natural than a newborn baby. IHS jim

How about Baby Jesus? You're saying He was an enemy of God because He was a baby? I don't buy that, sorry. And our scripture does not say that the natural BABY is an enemy of God. You have misunderstood the scripture. The term "the natural man" refers to people who REFUSE to embrace the spark of deity that is in them. Some people REFUSE be more than mere animals, and that does NOT please God. God wants us to realize that of all species on Earth, WE are the only one who can and should act like more than mere animals.
One thing Jesus demonstrated during his 3 decades on Earth was that it is possible to NOT act like a barbarian. He lived as an example of what we should try to be like.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

That ***umption is still as incorrect as the first time you stated it and we refuted it, Billy.

Jeff you haven't refuted it at all. And Apologette posted basically the same argument from Piper in her post which you haven't refuted either.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...atonement.html
We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

So which of the three choices to you believe is true?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Jeff you haven't refuted it at all.

You're like a flat-Earth believer who has been shown how there's no way the Earth could be flat, and who then says "You haven't refuted the claim at all."

A student in a beginning logic cl*** should be able to see the flaw in the if-then non sequitur

"if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven."

I am not talking about the OTHER obvious flaw, where you say that if I believe that Jesus paid for all those sins, then all those people will go to heaven. Whether they will go to heaven does not depend on what I believe.

I am talking about the flaw that RealFakeHair explained so well, which I adapted:

To ***ume that if RealFakeHair made cupcakes for everyone, then everyone would eat one

is as incorrect as ***uming that if Jesus paid for everyone's sins, then everyone would get eternal life.

So which of the three choices to you believe is true?

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say.

Glad to see the Arminians are thinking logically.

But then why are not all saved?

For the same reason that RealFakeHair could make cupcakes for everyone and it would be illogical to ***ume that everyone would eat one just because he made them for everyone. That's why. How is this simple logic continuing to escape your understanding?[/COLOR]

[theway]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Jeff you haven't refuted it at all. And Apologette posted basically the same argument from Piper in her post which you haven't refuted either.

1 John 2:22 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Heb. 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting

Rom. 5:66 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by theway

1 John 2:22 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Heb. 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting

Rom. 5:66 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Great verses, from The Bible, refuting the idea that Jesus went through so much suffering for just a few people and abandoned the rest to the impossibility of salvation.

[James Banta]

[nrajeffreturns;145431]Doves are harmless. Even the Bible says so. I guess that's what they are in their base nature. They don't need to kill, so neither do us humans, right? When we kill deliberately, it's because we choose to.

Doves are harmless to us. yet they are what they are flying birds and by being such Fly and eat that which God provided (Matthew 6:26). Doves don't need to kill yet they will when they have need for food. Humans don't need to kill at all yet we do. Why is that do you think? Because we love one another? No, it's because our base nature is to do evil (Matthew 15:19).

LOWER life forms may be forced to act on instinct only. They may not be able to use stuff like reasoning, comp***ion, intellect, a knowledge of history, etc. when making decisions. News flash: We are DIFFERENT from those animals. We can actually think. It's a gift that God gave to our species. Even you believe that humans were made in God's image. Of all the life forms on Earth, only humans have the God-given ability to mature into beings who possess God's qualities and personality traits.

Yes we can think and those thoughts come all to often from our nature and our nature is to do evil (Jer 17:9). To change that nature requires a new creation from God (Psalm 51:10). A new heart (nature) which thinks first of godly matters and not those of the flesh. No matter how hard we try in ourselves we are sinners born and raised.. yes I believe that a man is created differently from mere animals. They are as you have stated instinct driven their nature is purely physical. There is no mind or spirit within them. Man is triune reflecting the being of God. He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are body mind, and spirit. If the Son suddenly became nonexistent then God would die. When our spirit is taken from our body we die. Our human traits, until we are born again of God are always used for sin. We haven't the ability to do good anymore than we have the ability to jump off a cliff and fly.. It just isn't our nature..

How about Baby Jesus? You're saying He was an enemy of God because He was a baby? I don't buy that, sorry. And our scripture does not say that the natural BABY is an enemy of God. You have misunderstood the scripture. The term "the natural man" refers to people who REFUSE to embrace the spark of deity that is in them. Some people REFUSE be more than mere animals, and that does NOT please God. God wants us to realize that of all species on Earth, WE are the only one who can and should act like more than mere animals. One thing Jesus demonstrated during his 3 decades on Earth was that it is possible to NOT act like a barbarian. He lived as an example of what we should try to be like.

How about Jesus baby or not a baby. He is GOD! His nature followed Him into mortality as did His divinity. He never shared the sinful nature of mankind. Sin was impossible for Him as not sinning is for us. I see you have separated children from humanity. I have not. All children new born or unborn are human, all part of OUR Race, the human race.. If they are not what we are then babies wouldn't cry to be feed when mom is tired. Small 2 and three year olds would never lie. Five and six year olds would never talk back. They would obey without question and yet they don't. They lie and sash, torment other who aren't just like them. They are evil by their very nature. Their heart are deceitful above all thing as they are desperately wicked.. Jesus showed us how we should act and then acted as he did so He could share His righteousness with us.. As I said he is God and has always had the nature of God. We are men and have always had the nature of men. If we could generate our own righteousness that could be acceptable to God then Jesus died in vain. Our own righteousness would be enough and we would never have need to be imputed with His (Romans4:23-24).. We are no different than any barbarian it is our nature to do sin always ( Ecclesiastes 7:20 ).. Jesus is far m ore than an example He is our only hope. Only by Him and through Him is there hope for life. Without Him no matter how righteousness we try to be we never come up to the requirements of God for life. Only in His righteousness can we be seen by God to stand worthy before Him (2Cor 5:21). IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

So let's summarize your beliefs, Jim. You believe that:

Human babies are created and born evil, but dove babies, for some strange reason, are not.


So you believe that the Fall didn't affect any of the lower animals but did cause God to create all humans as evil? Or do you believe that it affected some animals but all humans?

Why would God create Baby James Banta evil, but create baby doves as such peaceful creatures that the Holy Spirit became one? Does that really make any sense to you?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by theway

1 John 2:22 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Heb. 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting

Rom. 5:66 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...atonement.html
We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

So which of the 3 choices do you subscribe to?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by theway

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

True. "Us" and "we" are who are believers or will in the future be believers.

Originally Posted by theway

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting

True. Anyone who places their faith in Christ will be saved. But this doesn't speak about limited atonement so I am not sure why you used this verse.

Originally Posted by theway

Rom. 5:66 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

True. Christ died for the ungodly. Again this doesn't say anything about limited atonement so I am not sure why you picked this verse.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Great verses, from The Bible, refuting the idea that Jesus went through so much suffering for just a few people and abandoned the rest to the impossibility of salvation.

Great verses but they don't speak about limited atonement.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

"if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven."

I am not talking about the OTHER obvious flaw, where you say that if I believe that Jesus paid for all those sins, then all those people will go to heaven. Whether they will go to heaven does not depend on what I believe.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshol...atonement.html
We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

"Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? "

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

For the same reason that RealFakeHair could make cupcakes for everyone and it would be illogical to ***ume that everyone would eat one just because he made them for everyone.

Your explanation doesn't address the problem Jeff. You don't seem to even realize that. In your example a person doesn't eat the cupcake even though he was offered a cupcake. Likewise a person who doesn't place his faith is Christ is committing a sin because we are all commanded to do so. Do you believe that the sin of unbelief is not covered by the blood of Jesus (i.e. that Jesus died for some sins but not all sins--which is choice #1)?

[theway]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Great verses but they don't speak about limited atonement.

That's right Billy, keep telling yourself that.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Your explanation doesn't address the problem Jeff.

Sure it does; You don't seem to even realize that.

In your example a person doesn't eat the cupcake even though he was offered a cupcake.

JUST LIKE Christ could offer all of us salvation by atoning for our sins and making it available to us, and still a person might reject it.

It is EXACTLY ****ogous.

[Apologette]

Jeff, what is to be "born again" according to Jesus, and what does that mean?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Jeff, what is to be "born again" according to Jesus, and what does that mean?

Will the answer help Billy understand the fallacy of thinking that

"if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven" ???

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

"if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven" ???

That is what you believe Jeff, yet you believe that some sins are not paid for it they were paid for then there would be not basis for sending anyone to Hell.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

That is what you believe Jeff

What the heck are you lying about now? I don't believe that

"if you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person then every single person will go to heaven" !!

If I believed that, why have I been REFUTING that idea for lo these many posts????

What's ironic is that just a few minutes ago, I saw you deny that you distort what I believe.

And here you are, doing what you had just claimed you don't do.

yet you believe that some sins are not paid for it they were paid for then there would be not basis for sending anyone to Hell.

All I can say to that blithering nonsense is: Go back and read the RealFakeHair ****ogy--WHICH I CITED as evidence that your claim is false.