Born spiritually dead

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

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

You believe the first part which is bolded. . ."i. . .you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person. . .BTW we have gone over this multiple times now and you still don't see the problem with your position. You don't have a good answer for me on this issue. On the one hand you believe that Jesus paid for EVERY sin for EVERY person. But if this is the case then there would be no basis for sending anyone to Hell because ALL of their sins would be forgiven including the sin of unbelief.

It seems like you are getting a little testy--but I guess I can't blame you because it is hard to defend a defenseless position.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

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.

I have already gone over this with you in a prior post. Perhaps you missed it so I will be kind to you and go over it with you again. Perhaps this time you will see the problem with your position. I can only hope.

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?[/B] 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 is offered salvation by Christ be he decides not to accept His free offer. (By doing so he is committing a sin because he is commanded to come to Christ). In cupcake lingo the person who doesn't accept Christ (which is a sin) is like the "person [who] doesn't eat the cupcake even though he was offered a cupcake". The person who doesn't accept the cupcake is ****ogous to the person who doesn't accept Christ's offer of salvation by faith. If this is a sin and this sin has been PAID for in full then the person doesn't have any sins that can be charged against him. On the other hand if you believe that this sin was not paid for by Christ then he is guilty of the sin of unbelief and will certainly not go to heaven because he is guilty. But this would mean that you would have to accept position number one which is "1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men."

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

You believe the first part which is bolded. . ."i. . .you believe that Jesus PAID for every sin for EVERY person. . .BTW we have gone over this multiple times now and you still don't see the problem with your position.

Because there isn't any problem with my position. What is uncertain is whether you realize my point is valid, and are just faking being unaware of it, or whether you truly are that oblivious. Either way, it's a sad commentary on you.

You don't have a good answer for me on this issue.

RealFakeHair had a GREAT answer for you on this issue. Coincidentally, it was similar to my answer. Your position seems to be out in left field, virtually all alone, as evidenced by the fact that no one is posting any support of your position.

On the one hand you believe that Jesus paid for EVERY sin for EVERY person. But if this is the case then there would be no basis for sending anyone to Hell because ALL of their sins would be forgiven including the sin of unbelief.

Your HUGE fallacy continues to be your belief that if Jesus paid the price for everyone's sins, then everyone's sins have been forgiven. You continue to make this non sequitur fallacy, and it is quite troubling that even when we give you a grade-school-level explanation, complete with "low information voter"-level cupcake ****ogy, you FAIL to acknowledge that you understand it.

Again, what is uncertain is whether you really "don't get it" or whether you're just faking it. Either way, it is really disappointing.

But I will give you an "A" in the category of "sheer Obama-like temerity," since you, like Obama, claim that the other side has the defenseless position when really it's you. And hey, that is working for Obama somewhat--he has had some success in getting some people to believe that it's the pro-Cons***ution people who are the threat to the USA.

[Apologette]

Christ's Atoning sacrifice ON THE CROSS was SUFFICIENT to pay for every sin ever committed. It is only EFFICIENT for the Body of Christ! Christ's Blood is not wasted on those who scorn Him, belittle Him, or replace Him with another.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Christ's Atoning sacrifice ON THE CROSS was SUFFICIENT to pay for every sin ever committed. It is only EFFICIENT for the Body of Christ! Christ's Blood is not wasted on those who scorn Him, belittle Him, or replace Him with another.

Translation: "Christ didn't die for Mormons."

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Translation: "Christ didn't die for Mormons."

Did I say that? But naturally, I believe that those for whom Christ died must have faith in the Biblical Christ. However, there is always hope that many Mormons, like many in the Community of Christ, will change their belief from the counterfeit Mormon Jesus to the Biblical Jesus. Many already have. However, in the end, this is the work of God's Spirit. All we can do is share the truth in love.

That's why we post, to share the truth.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Did I say that?

You did say exactly that, a while back. I saved the quote on my C drive. But anyone who claims that it would be a waste if Jesus had paid the price for everyone's sins, is saying that Jesus didn't die for the sins of those who don't convert to the "true Jesus of the Bible."

So if you believe that Jesus didn't die for anyone who doesn't become a "true Christian," and if you believe that LDS people follow a false Christ, then yeah: You believe that Jesus didn't die for LDS people, or JW people, or Jews, or Buddhists, or whatever group you believe don't follow the real Jesus.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

You did say exactly that, a while back. I saved the quote on my C drive. But anyone who claims that it would be a waste if Jesus had paid the price for everyone's sins, is saying that Jesus didn't die for the sins of those who don't convert to the "true Jesus of the Bible."

So if you believe that Jesus didn't die for anyone who doesn't become a "true Christian," and if you believe that LDS people follow a false Christ, then yeah: You believe that Jesus didn't die for LDS people, or JW people, or Jews, or Buddhists, or whatever group you believe don't follow the real Jesus.

Jesus of the Holy Bible went to the Cross that all men MIGHT be Saved. So even a TBM, JW, or even a democrate has been given a chance to be SAVED, but most don't take the offer.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Jesus of the Holy Bible went to the Cross that all men MIGHT be Saved. So even a TBM, JW, or even a democrate has been given a chance to be SAVED, but most don't take the offer.

Exactly! Thanks for posting this. You have a talent for stating this clearly, simply, and succinctly. Hopefully, anyone who has been confused over this issue in the past will "see the light" thanks to your post.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Because there isn't any problem with my position. What is uncertain is whether you realize my point is valid, and are just faking being unaware of it, or whether you truly are that oblivious. Either way, it's a sad commentary on you.

There certainly is a problem with your position and we have gone over it multiple times now.

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

RealFakeHair had a GREAT answer for you on this issue.

And I addressed that here.

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 is offered salvation by Christ be he decides not to accept His free offer. (By doing so he is committing a sin because he is commanded to come to Christ). In cupcake lingo the person who doesn't accept Christ (which is a sin) is like the "person [who] doesn't eat the cupcake even though he was offered a cupcake". The person who doesn't accept the cupcake is ****ogous to the person who doesn't accept Christ's offer of salvation by faith. If this is a sin and this sin has been PAID for in full then the person doesn't have any sins that can be charged against him. On the other hand if you believe that this sin was not paid for by Christ then he is guilty of the sin of unbelief and will certainly not go to heaven because he is guilty. But this would mean that you would have to accept position number one which is "1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men."

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Your HUGE fallacy continues to be your belief that if Jesus paid the price for everyone's sins, then everyone's sins have been forgiven.

So Jesus PAID for sins but he didn't really pay for them? If I PAID off your mortgage would you still owe the bank money for your mortgage?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

Jesus of the Holy Bible went to the Cross that all men MIGHT be Saved. So even a TBM, JW, or even a democrate has been given a chance to be SAVED, but most don't take the offer.

So did Jesus pay for every sin for every person?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So did Jesus pay for every sin for every person?

With the exeption of my mother-in-Law, yes,. lol,

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

With the exeption of my mother-in-Law, yes,. lol,

If I PAID off your car loan would you still owe the bank money for your car loan?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So did Jesus pay for every sin for every person?

Why don't you ask Him:

"Jesus, did you pay for all of MY sins?"

And if He answers "Yes" then ask Him:

Are other people any less deserving of having their sins paid for than I am?"

and see what He says.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

You did say exactly that, a while back. I saved the quote on my C drive. But anyone who claims that it would be a waste if Jesus had paid the price for everyone's sins, is saying that Jesus didn't die for the sins of those who don't convert to the "true Jesus of the Bible."

So if you believe that Jesus didn't die for anyone who doesn't become a "true Christian," and if you believe that LDS people follow a false Christ, then yeah: You believe that Jesus didn't die for LDS people, or JW people, or Jews, or Buddhists, or whatever group you believe don't follow the real Jesus.

Jeff, this is what I believe: Christ Shed His Blood for the Church! The Bible clearly states that. Although His Shed Blood is SUFFICIENT TO PAY FOR ALL SINS, it is only EFFICIENT FOR BELIEVERS. In order to be part of the Church, a person must have faith in the Biblical Christ. NoT one drop of Christ's Blood is efficient for those who deny Him, ridicule Him, hate Him or replace Him. Sorry, but that's what the Bible teaches. When you come to Christ in the future, as I think you will, Christ's Blood will become EFFICIENT TO CLEANS YOUR SINS TOO. We're praying for you!

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Why don't you ask Him:

"Jesus, did you pay for all of MY sins?"

And if He answers "Yes" then ask Him:

Are other people any less deserving of having their sins paid for than I am?"

and see what He says.

Mormons are very nearly Universalists - the only ones that won't be saved in one of their "kingdoms" are those who reject Joseph Smith. They can reject Christ and still be saved according to the Universalism of the Mormon cult. It's Joey that is the dividing line.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Jeff, this is what I believe: Christ Shed His Blood for the Church!

And today, while at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels.

I also paid for some milk, and for some Yakisoba (I learned to love them while I was in Japan).


Anyway, I did state that while at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels. Should you jump to the unwarranted conclusion that I paid ONLY for Toaster Strudels?

Did I say "while at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels ONLY" ??

If I were to say "while at the store, I paid the price for some milk" would it be right to conclude that milk was the only thing I paid for while I was at the store?

See the eisegesis going on with "Christ shed His blood for the church" ?? You have no good, sound reason to conclude that He shed His blood ONLY for the church. The reason is that the word "only" DOESN'T APPEAR IN THE TEXT.

Now suppose I wrote a book, and in one chapter of the book I said "While at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels."

And in a later chapter of the book, I also said "While at the store, I paid to price for every item in the store."

And then someone came along--someone who claimed to love my book and to be a believer of every word in my book--and that person said "He says in his book that he only paid for the Toaster Strudels."

And when that person was asked where the book said this, the person replied "In the chapter where it says he paid for the Toaster Strudels."

What would you think of this person's reading skills? Or honesty?


1. The Bible is a book that says, in one chapter, that Christ shed His blood for the church.
2. And in another chapter it says that He died for everyone--for the whole world, for all, etc.
3.NOWHERE does it say that He paid the price for the sins of the elect ONLY. IT. NEVER. SAYS. THAT.

So, putting those three facts together, is it correct to conclude that the Bible teaches that Jesus atoned for the sins of ONLY THE CHURCH?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Mormons are very nearly Universalists - the only ones that won't be saved in one of their "kingdoms" are those who reject Joseph Smith. They can reject Christ and still be saved according to the Universalism of the Mormon cult. It's Joey that is the dividing line.

Remember when you were claiming that you always provide links to support your statements?

Any chance you will provide some to support the bold part of the above claim? Thanks.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

And today, while at the store, I paid the price for some Toaster Strudels.

I also paid for some milk, and for some Yakisoba (I learned to love them while I was in Japan).

Can the store charge you again for something that you have already paid for?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Why don't you ask Him:

"Jesus, did you pay for all of MY sins?"

And if He answers "Yes" then ask Him:

Are other people any less deserving of having their sins paid for than I am?"

and see what He says.

Those who do not come to Christ by faith will not have their sins paid for.

Jeff can you tell me how a just God could punish someone who has had ALL of their sins PAID for in full?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Are other people any less deserving of having their sins paid for than I am?"

and see what He says.

Why do you believe that those who have broken God's laws AND who have REJECTED Christ "deserve" to have their sins paid for?

[theway]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Can the store charge you again for something that you have already paid for?

No.... But you believe you can go out and borrow more money using the item as collateral, all the while believing that either you will not have to pay back the loan, or you believe that your dad will step in and cover your new debt.

This is what is called the "Sin for free Salvation credit card".

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by theway

No....

Then why do you think that a person can have ALL of his sins paid for and then expect God to punish him?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by theway

.. But you believe you can go out and borrow more money using the item as collateral, all the while believing that either you will not have to pay back the loan, or you believe that your dad will step in and cover your new debt.
.

You certainly have a strange view of the atonement. We don't pay for our own sins--Christ has paid for our sins. Do you really believe that you are paying for your own sins?

[theway]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Then why do you think that a person can have ALL of his sins paid for and then expect God to punish him?

Why in the world would you think that I believe that God will punish you for sins you have not done?

That's just silly Billy.