Eternal Security

[Doug Brents]

Doug, this is really a different subject~so, I will only say a few words for now.

No, not really a different subject, but you are welcome to your opinion.

To teach that none were saved from sin and condemnation before the cross is to put one's bible ignorance on display. No pun intended, but truth is truth.
So, what you are suggesting is for us to rip Hebrews eleven out of our bibles? David preached the truth of imputeth righteousness! HAve you not so much as read this?

LOL, yes, I have. And as I said, the people who were saved before Christ were saved based on God's foreknowledge of Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus' sacrifice paid the price for the sins of not only the people who lived in His time, and the people who lived after Him, but also for the people who lived before Him (Heb 10). No one could have been saved without the perfect sacrifice (Jesus) dying to pay the penalty for those sins. David was not perfect, and even though he offered sacrifices to cover his sins, those sacrifices could not pay the price for his sin. Even the life of his son did not redeem him for his murder of Uriah and his adultery with and theft of Uriah's wife.

Paul quoted David in Romans 4:

I may come back to these scriptures later, but not now. OT saints had their sins forgiven! Christ was a lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Abraham was a friend of God and God does not have unforgiven sinners as his friends....... he doesn't fellowship with children of darkness!

True, our sins were legally paid for at Calvary, yet through imputeth righteousness ~ God does and can declare a man righteous based upon his everlasting counsel and purposes~ for none can defeat God will and purposes which he purposed within himself. See Ephesians one.

LOL, No, God cannot simply forgive sin without the penalty for that sin being paid. God is just (Deut 32:4, Psalm 89:14), and because He is just He cannot simply overlook some sin and punish other sin (that would be unjust and a violation of who and what God is). So the OT saints were imputed righteousness because of God's knowledge that their sin would be paid for in Christ. But if Christ had not come, then no one, not even Elijah and Enoch who never knew death, would have been saved.

 

[Fool4Christ]

No, not really a different subject, but you are welcome to your opinion.

LOL, yes, I have. And as I said, the people who were saved before Christ were saved based on God's foreknowledge of Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus' sacrifice paid the price for the sins of not only the people who lived in His time, and the people who lived after Him, but also for the people who lived before Him (Heb 10). No one could have been saved without the perfect sacrifice (Jesus) dying to pay the penalty for those sins. David was not perfect, and even though he offered sacrifices to cover his sins, those sacrifices could not pay the price for his sin. Even the life of his son did not redeem him for his murder of Uriah and his adultery with and theft of Uriah's wife.

LOL, No, God cannot simply forgive sin without the penalty for that sin being paid. God is just (Deut 32:4, Psalm 89:14), and because He is just He cannot simply overlook some sin and punish other sin (that would be unjust and a violation of who and what God is). So the OT saints were imputed righteousness because of God's knowledge that their sin would be paid for in Christ. But if Christ had not come, then no one, not even Elijah and Enoch who never knew death, would have been saved.

God most definitely can forgive sin without the penalty for that sin being paid. Jesus forgave people before he went to the cross. The most notable example would be...

Matthew 9:2–8
2 Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”

3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 Then the man got up and went home. 8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

Then there's the second person is the sinful woman who came to Jesus while He ate at Simon the Pharisee’s house. Seeing her reverence, the Lord contrasted her love with Simon’s lack of love. “Then Jesus said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven’” Luke 7:48

 

[Doug Brents]

God most definitely can forgive sin without the penalty for that sin being paid. Jesus forgave people before he went to the cross. The most notable example would be...

Matthew 9:2–8
2 Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”

3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 Then the man got up and went home. 8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

Then there's the second person is the sinful woman who came to Jesus while He ate at Simon the Pharisee’s house. Seeing her reverence, the Lord contrasted her love with Simon’s lack of love. “Then Jesus said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven’” Luke 7:48

Jesus was able to forgive sin because He was looking forward to the sacrifice He was going to make.

"For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where there is a covenant, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when people are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And almost all things are cleansed with blood, according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Heb 9:15-22

 

[Fool4Christ]

Jesus was able to forgive sin because He was looking forward to the sacrifice He was going to make.

"For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the violations that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where there is a covenant, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when people are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And almost all things are cleansed with blood, according to the Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Heb 9:15-22

Right I knew that was Coming. But I'm not buying it. Jesus forgave without the shedding of the blood because he is God and only God can forgive sins.

Jesus Heals a Paralytic
Mark 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and thinking in their hearts, 7“Why does this man speak like this? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8At once Jesus knew in His spirit that they were thinking this way within themselves. “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts?” He asked.…

I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. Isaiah43:25

 

[Doug Brents]

Right I knew that was Coming. But I'm not buying it. Jesus forgave without the shedding of the blood because he is God and only God can forgive sins.

Jesus Heals a Paralytic
Mark 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and thinking in their hearts, 7“Why does this man speak like this? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8At once Jesus knew in His spirit that they were thinking this way within themselves. “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts?” He asked.…

I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins. Isaiah43:25

Only God can forgive sin, because God is the "damaged party". He is the one who was wronged, so He is the only one who can forgive. But His forgiveness is only possible because He, being a JUST God, created a way for His justice to be satisfied while not absolutely destroying those who wronged Him. Jesus did not forgive without the shedding of blood, because He knew the plan God had for Him to shed His blood and create a way to forgive our sins. His shedding of His blood was planned from before the world was even created.

 

[Fool4Christ]

Only God can forgive sin, because God is the "damaged party". He is the one who was wronged, so He is the only one who can forgive. But His forgiveness is only possible because He, being a JUST God, created a way for His justice to be satisfied while not absolutely destroying those who wronged Him. Jesus did not forgive without the shedding of blood, because He knew the plan God had for Him to shed His blood and create a way to forgive our sins. His shedding of His blood was planned from before the world was even created.

I hear what you're saying and I agree with it except for the part about Jesus not forgiving sin without the shedding of blood. Because obviously there's a few times in the Bible where he just spoke forgiveness and there was no Shedding of blood. You better remember with God all things are possible. Just because we humans get something stuck in our minds doesn't mean we're allowed to put God in a box and tell him what he can do and can't do.

Looking forward to the cross wasn't something Jesus had to do. He actually ask God to take that burden from him, But said not my will be done but yours. That doesn't sound a lot like looking forward to the Cross to me.

 

[Red Baker]

You make a good case here, and I can see how you would come to your conclusion from these passages.

Greetings Doug,

Actually, my posts are far short of most men's ability who know the truth~whatever convincing arguments presented by any man, come through knowing the truth, for the scriptures have so much more to provide any student of the scriptures, on any subject than most of us are able to locate, and after seeing truth to retain all of it. At almost seventy six years old, I have trouble remembering and retaining what I once could remember and retain.

But your image of God is not consistent with the image we see of God in Scripture. GOD IS LOVE. It is not that God loves some and hates others.

Doug, it is very consistent with the word of God, maybe even more so than what I teach. I have heard this many times over in the past fifty years.......

But … does not the Bible teach that God is love?​

Yes, the Bible teaches that God is love in Ist John 4:8 and Ist John 4:16. But these words do not prove (1) God is only love, (2) God loves all men, (3) God loves any man, (4) God loves you, (5) how long God loves, or (6) just about anything else you imagine. It simply and only teaches that one characteristic of God is that He loves, and He does love. But He is also holy and righteous, which John introduced first in this very epistle (Ist John 1:5). While God is love, God cannot love sin or sinners, as we proved above.

But … particular love makes God unfair, cruel, and a respecter of persons?​

Paul knew long ago man in the flesh would raise this objection. His answer? God forbid (Romans 9:14-24)! Man do not even understand their own objection, for how is it respect of persons to choose to love someone for nothing in them whatsoever, but altogether contrary to what is in them? How does it make God unfair? Because He does not love all? Do all deserve love? We are sinful rebels, why must He love us? He is unfair by loving any, which is why it is called grace! If folks are so concerned about the character of God, why not argue for God loving the devil?

God hates sin and sinners because He is holy.​

God is holy, and His absolutely holy nature requires that He hate sin wherever He finds it. The definition of true holiness and righteousness includes hatred for sin (Psalms 45:7; Hebrews 1:9). The great God is of purer eyes than to behold evil or look on iniquity approvingly (Hab 1:13). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is holy … undefiled … and separate from sinners (Hebrews 7:26). God is so pure in His holiness that angelic sin was not accepted in His sight (Job 15:14-16). Any man who truly fears and loves God will hate sin with Him (Proverbs 8:13; Psalms 45:7; Hebrews 1:9). God’s holiness requires that He hate sin (Psalm 5:4-6; 53:5; 73:20; Proverbs 6:16-19; Zechariah 8:17). SO much more could be said~but enough for now on this point.

Much more could be said, but I must move on.

Not all of the Jews are part of the Children of Promise, that is correct. But John is not speaking only to the Jews in 1 John. All of John's writings were written long after the other writings of the NT. He was writing to the Church as a whole, not just the Jews. By the time John began writing his Gospel, the first of his books, the Gentiles had been in the Church for about 45 years (Cornelius' conversion around 37AD, John written 80-90AD). Only 2 John and 3 John were addressed to a particular person or group. The Gospel of John, 1 John, and Revelation were not addressed to anyone in particular but are for the Church as a whole without distinction.

In 1 John 2:1-2, John is talking to "my little children" which is anyone in the Church over which He was an overseer (and by extension, to all the Church everywhere and for all time). His "little children" are both Jews and Gentiles in that congregation, and He is telling them that Jesus died not only to cover their sins (the sins of the saved), but also for the sins of everyone in the whole of the world (the saved and the unsaved).

Doug, I agree that all of the word of God is for all of God's children, no problem there on my part. 1st Corinthians 10:11....

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Yet John the apostles was a minister to the circumcision~per Galatians 2:9

" And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

John wrote unto the circumcision. So, my position is valid, and supported by the scriptures. Besides, many other scriptures demands that interpretation, for Jesus Christ did not paid for the sins of all men. Consider John Owens' unanswerable consideration concerning Christ's death.:

"God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ died for, either

(1) all the sins of all men, or
(2) all the sins of some men, or
(3) some sins of all men.

If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved;

If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.

 

[civic]

Greetings Doug,

Actually, my posts are far short of most men's ability who know the truth~whatever convincing arguments presented by any man, come through knowing the truth, for the scriptures have so much more to provide any student of the scriptures, on any subject than most of us are able to locate, and after seeing truth to retain all of it. At almost seventy six years old, I have trouble remembering and retaining what I once could remember and retain.

Doug, it is very consistent with the word of God, maybe even more so than what I teach. I have heard this many times over in the past fifty years.......

But … does not the Bible teach that God is love?​

Yes, the Bible teaches that God is love in Ist John 4:8 and Ist John 4:16. But these words do not prove (1) God is only love, (2) God loves all men, (3) God loves any man, (4) God loves you, (5) how long God loves, or (6) just about anything else you imagine. It simply and only teaches that one characteristic of God is that He loves, and He does love. But He is also holy and righteous, which John introduced first in this very epistle (Ist John 1:5). While God is love, God cannot love sin or sinners, as we proved above.

But … particular love makes God unfair, cruel, and a respecter of persons?​

Paul knew long ago man in the flesh would raise this objection. His answer? God forbid (Romans 9:14-24)! Man do not even understand their own objection, for how is it respect of persons to choose to love someone for nothing in them whatsoever, but altogether contrary to what is in them? How does it make God unfair? Because He does not love all? Do all deserve love? We are sinful rebels, why must He love us? He is unfair by loving any, which is why it is called grace! If folks are so concerned about the character of God, why not argue for God loving the devil?

God hates sin and sinners because He is holy.​

God is holy, and His absolutely holy nature requires that He hate sin wherever He finds it. The definition of true holiness and righteousness includes hatred for sin (Psalms 45:7; Hebrews 1:9). The great God is of purer eyes than to behold evil or look on iniquity approvingly (Hab 1:13). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is holy … undefiled … and separate from sinners (Hebrews 7:26). God is so pure in His holiness that angelic sin was not accepted in His sight (Job 15:14-16). Any man who truly fears and loves God will hate sin with Him (Proverbs 8:13; Psalms 45:7; Hebrews 1:9). God’s holiness requires that He hate sin (Psalm 5:4-6; 53:5; 73:20; Proverbs 6:16-19; Zechariah 8:17). SO much more could be said~but enough for now on this point.

Much more could be said, but I must move on.

Doug, I agree that all of the word of God is for all of God's children, no problem there on my part. 1st Corinthians 10:11....

Yet John the apostles was a minister to the circumcision~per Galatians 2:9

John wrote unto the circumcision. So, my position is valid, and supported by the scriptures. Besides, many other scriptures demands that interpretation, for Jesus Christ did not paid for the sins of all men. Consider John Owens' unanswerable consideration concerning Christ's death.:

"God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ died for, either

(1) all the sins of all men, or
(2) all the sins of some men, or
(3) some sins of all men.

If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved;

If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.

This is so bad on so many levels with numerous fallacious arguments especially regarding sin and sinners. I’ll address it after work today

 

[Doug Brents]

I hear what you're saying and I agree with it except for the part about Jesus not forgiving sin without the shedding of blood. Because obviously there's a few times in the Bible where he just spoke forgiveness and there was no Shedding of blood. You better remember with God all things are possible. Just because we humans get something stuck in our minds doesn't mean we're allowed to put God in a box and tell him what he can do and can't do.

Was it man who said that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin? No. That was the Holy Spirit who authored that line. I try not to make emphatic statements that are not directly from Scripture. If it is just my opinion, I try to make sure I say as much. And this is not my opinion. Even God would not violate His character by being unjust and forgiving sin without the penalty for that sin being paid. Jesus forgave sin, because His blood was shed from the foundation of the world. He could look forward in time and see that the penalty had been paid, and so forgive sin even before the blood had been shed.

Looking forward to the cross wasn't something Jesus had to do. He actually ask God to take that burden from him, But said not my will be done but yours. That doesn't sound a lot like looking forward to the Cross to me.

He wasn't looking forward to it like a man does his wedding night: with anticipation and excitement. No. He looked forward in time to see that the price had been paid, and so He could forgive sin on God's behalf because God is outside of time and not bound by it limitations.

I hope that makes more sense.

 

[Doug Brents]

Greetings Doug,

Actually, my posts are far short of most men's ability who know the truth~whatever convincing arguments presented by any man, come through knowing the truth, for the scriptures have so much more to provide any student of the scriptures, on any subject than most of us are able to locate, and after seeing truth to retain all of it. At almost seventy six years old, I have trouble remembering and retaining what I once could remember and retain.

Well, young man, it is good to know you.

Doug, it is very consistent with the word of God, maybe even more so than what I teach. I have heard this many times over in the past fifty years.......

But … does not the Bible teach that God is love?​

Yes, the Bible teaches that God is love in Ist John 4:8 and Ist John 4:16. But these words do not prove (1) God is only love, (2) God loves all men, (3) God loves any man, (4) God loves you, (5) how long God loves, or (6) just about anything else you imagine. It simply and only teaches that one characteristic of God is that He loves, and He does love. But He is also holy and righteous, which John introduced first in this very epistle (Ist John 1:5). While God is love, God cannot love sin or sinners, as we proved above.

No, it does not say that God loves. It says that God IS Love. That is not a character trait, it is a fundamental part of what and who He is.
God loves because He is love. He is also Just (therefore He can never be unjust). He is also Holy (therefore He can never be unholy). He is also righteous (therefore He can never be unrighteous). His Holiness and Justice mean that He cannot abide sin. He loves the person, but cannot allow the sin to remain. What is the difference between cutting a branch off and pruning it? Both include pain and damage to the branch. But cutting it off removes the branch all together. Pruning it removes the dead and harmful parts of it so that it can grow larger, stronger, and produce more fruit. That is what God says he does to people. Those who believe in Jesus are pruned, but those who do not believe in Him are cut off and thrown into the fire.

But … particular love makes God unfair, cruel, and a respecter of persons?​

Paul knew long ago man in the flesh would raise this objection. His answer? God forbid (Romans 9:14-24)! Man do not even understand their own objection, for how is it respect of persons to choose to love someone for nothing in them whatsoever, but altogether contrary to what is in them? How does it make God unfair? Because He does not love all? Do all deserve love? We are sinful rebels, why must He love us? He is unfair by loving any, which is why it is called grace! If folks are so concerned about the character of God, why not argue for God loving the devil?

God does love Satan, but He cannot accept Him because he rebelled and would not (some might argue cannot) repent. God has the ability to make some for noble use and some for base use, but that does not mean that He did (Rom 9:19-24).

God hates sin and sinners because He is holy.​

God is holy, and His absolutely holy nature requires that He hate sin wherever He finds it. The definition of true holiness and righteousness includes hatred for sin (Psalms 45:7; Hebrews 1:9). The great God is of purer eyes than to behold evil or look on iniquity approvingly (Hab 1:13). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is holy … undefiled … and separate from sinners (Hebrews 7:26). God is so pure in His holiness that angelic sin was not accepted in His sight (Job 15:14-16). Any man who truly fears and loves God will hate sin with Him (Proverbs 8:13; Psalms 45:7; Hebrews 1:9). God’s holiness requires that He hate sin (Psalm 5:4-6; 53:5; 73:20; Proverbs 6:16-19; Zechariah 8:17). SO much more could be said~but enough for now on this point.

And I agree 100% with this.

Doug, I agree that all of the word of God is for all of God's children, no problem there on my part. 1st Corinthians 10:11....
Yet John the apostles was a minister to the circumcision~per Galatians 2:9
John wrote unto the circumcision.

Gal 2:9 does not say that John wrote ONLY to the circumcision. John ministered all through his life to the Jews, but when he wrote his letters, they were general letters to the whole of the Church, not to just the Jews. Paul was dedicated primarily to the Gentiles, but he started in the synagogues in almost every town he entered.

So, my position is valid, and supported by the scriptures. Besides, many other scriptures demands that interpretation, for Jesus Christ did not paid for the sins of all men. Consider John Owens' unanswerable consideration concerning Christ's death.:

"God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ died for, either

(1) all the sins of all men, or
(2) all the sins of some men, or
(3) some sins of all men.

If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved;

If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.

The conclusion here is based on a false premise. Man is condemned already because of sin. All men of every age have sinned, and so are cut off from God. That being the case, belief or unbelief in Jesus has no relation to sin. It is a condition that God set on man's reception of the promised gift of salvation. The proper choice is (1). All the sins of all men of every generation from Adam to the Judgement were paid for by Jesus' death. That is an infinite pool of forgiveness from which each and every man can draw and be saved. But it requires that man believe in Jesus (John 3:16 and so many other passages), repent of his sins (Acts 3:19), confess Jesus as Lord (Rom 10:9-10), and be baptized into Christ (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, John 3:5, Eph 5:25-26) in order to receive that forgiveness.

 

[Fool4Christ]

Was it man who said that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin? No. That was the Holy Spirit who authored that line. I try not to make emphatic statements that are not directly from Scripture. If it is just my opinion, I try to make sure I say as much. And this is not my opinion. Even God would not violate His character by being unjust and forgiving sin without the penalty for that sin being paid. Jesus forgave sin, because His blood was shed from the foundation of the world. He could look forward in time and see that the penalty had been paid, and so forgive sin even before the blood had been shed.

He wasn't looking forward to it like a man does his wedding night: with anticipation and excitement. No. He looked forward in time to see that the price had been paid, and so He could forgive sin on God's behalf because God is outside of time and not bound by it limitations.

I hope that makes more sense.

Oh for sure.

David prayed for forgiveness Psalm 51:2 and received it. “Blessed is the one whose transgressions are forgiven” Psalm 32:1

Then you have Isaiah. As he touched Isaiah with a coal from the altar, an angel declared the prophet’s forgiveness: “Your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for” Isaiah 6:7

Now the blood of animals in the temple sacrifices did not remove sin it covered it for one year and they had to do it over. Now Jesus his shedding of his blood took care of sin completely. It's no longer is an issue as long as you accept Jesus as your lord and savior all your sins are forgiven past present and future. But that occurs after the cross.

And as I've already posted there were people that were forgiven of their sins before the cross. Now you want to try to convince me that Jesus was looking forward to the Cross when he forgave them. You can't see what a stretch that is. You don't believe that the god that created the universe by his spoken word could just tell someone your sins are forgiven and it would happen. See I have a big God that can do Mighty things. I don't try to limit my God and put him in a box.

So we seem to be at an impasse where we have to agree to disagree. No offense you're allowed to believe in put your faith and whatever you would like to in the same goes for myself.

 

[TibiasDad]

That's on the subject of love. God commanded saved people to love ONLY saved people. God never commanded His saved people to love the unsaved.

Matt 5:43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor i and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


Doug

 

[Fool4Christ]

You nailed it Doug. Love is where it's at. I like songs that are about love.
Love is but a song we sing
Fear's the way we die
You can make the mountains ring
Or make the angels cry
Though the bird is on the wing
And you may not know why
Come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
Some may come and some may go
He will surely pass
When the one that left us here
Returns for us at last
We are but a moment's sunlight
Fading in the grass
Come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
Come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
Come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
If you hear the song I sing
You will understand, listen
You hold the key to love and fear
All in your trembling hand
Just one key unlocks them both
It's there at your command
Come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
Come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
I said come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
Right now
Right now

 

[Red Baker]

The conclusion here is based on a false premise.

Doug~This one paragraph is loaded with errors, more than one post can cover, and maybe more than I desire at the moment to even address.

Actually, the truth is, that your understanding of the scriptures causes you to believe that John Owens' proposals for others to answer to help them to see their error on the atonement is based upon his false premises. You said:

Man is condemned already because of sin. All men of every age have sinned, and so are cut off from God.

Doug, men in every age have indeed sin, yet not all have in Adam's similitude, like infants, yet death has passed upon even them! They (that died in infancy) did not sinned after Adam's similitude.

Romans 5:12-14~"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

So, my question to you is this: "when did all sinned?" All sinned in Adam the head of all flesh!

1st Corinthians 15:21,22~"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

God did not deal with mankind as with a field of corn, where each stalk stands upon its own individual root; but He dealt with it as with a tree, all the branches of which have one common root and trunk. If you strike with an axe at the root of a tree, the whole tree falls~not only the trunk, but also the branches: all wither and die. So it was when Adam fell. God permitted Satan to lay the axe at the root of the tree, and when Adam fell, all his posterity fell with him. At one fatal stroke Adam was severed from communion with his Creator, and as the result “death passed upon all men.”

Here, then, we learn what is the formal ground of man’s judicial condemnation before God. The popular idea of what renders man a sinner in the sight of heaven is altogether inadequate and false. The prevailing conception is that a sinner is one who commits and practices sin. It is true that this is the character of a sinner, but it certainly is not that which primarily constitutes him a sinner. The truth is that every member of our race enters this world a guilty sinner before he ever commits a single transgression. It is not only that he possesses a sinful nature, but he is directly “under condemnation.” We are legally constituted sinners neither by what we are nor by what we are doing, but by the disobedience of our federal head, Adam. Adam acted not for himself alone, but for all who were to spring from him.

On this point the teaching of the apostle Paul is plain and unambiguous. The terms of Romans 5:12-19, are too varied and distinct to admit of any misconception: that it is on account of their sin in Adam, men, in the first instance, are accounted guilty and treated as such, as well as partake of a depraved nature, not partial, but totally. The language of 1st Corinthians 15:22 is equally unintelligible except on the supposition that both Adam and Christ sustained a representative character, in virtue of which the one involved the race in guilt and ruin, and the other, by His obedience unto death, secured the justification and salvation of all who were in him. The actual condition of the human race, throughout its history, confirms the same: the apostle’s doctrine supplies the only adequate explanation of the universal prevalence of sin.

But it will be said, It was unjust to make Adam our federal head. How so? Is not the principle of representation a fundamental one in human society? We see the wisdom of God in making a perfect, upright man, with no sin nature, living in a perfect world, with one simple commandment to keep.

"Also, The father is the legal head of his children during their minority: what he does, binds the family. A business house is held responsible for the transactions of its agents. The heads of a state are vested with such authority that the treaties they make are binding upon the whole nation. This principle is so basic it cannot be set aside. Every popular election illustrates the fact that a constituency will act through a representative and be bound by his acts. Human affairs could not continue, nor society exist without it. Why, then, be staggered at finding it inaugurated in Eden?

Consider the alternative. “The race must have either stood in a full grown man, with a full orbed intellect, or stood as babies, each entering his probation in the twilight of self-consciousness, each deciding his destiny before his eyes were half opened to what it all meant. How much better would that have been? How much more just? But could it not have been some other way? There was no other way. It was either the baby or it was the perfect, well equipped, all—calculating man—the man who saw and comprehended everything. That man was Adam” (G. S. Bishop). Yes, Adam, fresh from the hands of his creator, with no sinful ancestry behind him, with no depraved nature within. A man made in the image and likeness of God, pronounced by Him “very good,” in fellowship with heaven. Who could have been a more suitable representative for us?

This has been the principle on which and the method by which God has acted all through. The posterity of Canaan were cursed for the single transgression of their parent (Genesis 9). The Egyptians perished at the Red Sea as the result of Pharaoh’s wickedness. When Israel became God’s witness in the earth it was the same. The sins of the fathers were to be visited upon the children: in consequence of Achan’s one sin the whole of his family were stoned to death. The high priest acted on behalf of the whole nation. Later, the king was held accountable for the conduct of his subjects. One acting on behalf of others, the one responsible for the many, is a basic principle both of human and divine government. We cannot get away from it; wherever we look, it stares us in the face.

Finally, let it be pointed out that the sinner’s salvation is made to depend upon the same principle. Beware, my reader, of quarreling with the justice of this law of representation. This principle wrecked us, and this principle alone can rescue us. The disobedience of the first Adam was the judicial ground of our condemnation; the obedience of the last Adam is the legal ground on which God alone can justify the sinner. The substitution of Christ in the place of His people, the imputation of their sins to Him and of His righteousness to them, is the cardinal truth of the gospel. But the principle of being saved by what another has done is only possible on the ground that we are lost through what another did. The two stand or fall together. If there had been no covenant of works there could have been no death in Adam, there could have been no life in Christ." (A. W. Pink)

Part one of 2

 

[Red Baker]

That being the case, belief or unbelief in Jesus has no relation to sin.

Sure it does~have you forgotten such scriptures:

John 3:18,18~"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

The True light came into the world in the person of Jesus Christ, revealing to us that no salvation is in any other name, except through his faith, and obedience to God, for those he was made the head of, by the election of God's grace, according to the purpose of his own will.

It is a condition that God set on man's reception of the promised gift of salvation.

Doug, there are no conditions set by God upon man in order to receive the gift of the forgiveness of our sins. We are forgiven on the behalf of Jesus Christ, not own certain conditions met by us. Conditions equal works on man's part, and salvation from sin and condemnation was secured by Jesus' obedience not ours.

Romans 5:19~"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

The free gift of eternal life are by two immutable acts of God~His oath and His promises of grace to the children of Jesus Christ, those given to him by God's grace.

The proper choice is (1). All the sins of all men of every generation from Adam to the Judgement were paid for by Jesus' death.

So wrong! I'm coming back to this and make one post addressing only this point.

 

[Doug Brents]

Oh for sure.

David prayed for forgiveness Psalm 51:2 and received it. “Blessed is the one whose transgressions are forgiven” Psalm 32:1

Then you have Isaiah. As he touched Isaiah with a coal from the altar, an angel declared the prophet’s forgiveness: “Your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for” Isaiah 6:7

Now the blood of animals in the temple sacrifices did not remove sin it covered it for one year and they had to do it over. Now Jesus his shedding of his blood took care of sin completely. It's no longer is an issue as long as you accept Jesus as your lord and savior all your sins are forgiven past present and future. But that occurs after the cross.

And as I've already posted there were people that were forgiven of their sins before the cross. Now you want to try to convince me that Jesus was looking forward to the Cross when he forgave them. You can't see what a stretch that is. You don't believe that the god that created the universe by his spoken word could just tell someone your sins are forgiven and it would happen. See I have a big God that can do Mighty things. I don't try to limit my God and put him in a box.

So we seem to be at an impasse where we have to agree to disagree. No offense you're allowed to believe in put your faith and whatever you would like to in the same goes for myself.

No, my friend, I am not putting God into a box. Jesus, being God and knowing from outside of time that He was going to sacrifice Himself as the price for all the sin in the world, could forgive sin at His discretion. Thus he was "looking forward to the cross". As you agreed, without the one sacrifice of Jesus' blood that forever covers sin, there would have been no forgiveness of sins, because as you said, the blood of bulls and goats only rolled it forward to the next year. If that had continued without Jesus, then at the end of time all of that sin would have come due, and there would be none saved, because God cannot go against His character and unjustly forgive sin.

I hope this helps.

 

[Doug Brents]

Doug~This one paragraph is loaded with errors, more than one post can cover, and maybe more than I desire at the moment to even address.

Actually, the truth is, that your understanding of the scriptures causes you to believe that John Owens' proposals for others to answer to help them to see their error on the atonement is based upon his false premises. You said:

Doug, men in every age have indeed sin, yet not all have in Adam's similitude, like infants, yet death has passed upon even them! They (that died in infancy) did not sinned after Adam's similitude.

So, my question to you is this: "when did all sinned?" All sinned in Adam the head of all flesh!

Infants are not born guilty of Adam's sin. They are born with the nature of sin, the propensity to sin, but they are not born guilty of sin. Sin is only imputed when there is knowledge of right and wrong and wrong is chosen.

God did not deal with mankind as with a field of corn, where each stalk stands upon its own individual root; but He dealt with it as with a tree, all the branches of which have one common root and trunk. If you strike with an axe at the root of a tree, the whole tree falls~not only the trunk, but also the branches: all wither and die. So it was when Adam fell. God permitted Satan to lay the axe at the root of the tree, and when Adam fell, all his posterity fell with him. At one fatal stroke Adam was severed from communion with his Creator, and as the result “death passed upon all men.”

Here, then, we learn what is the formal ground of man’s judicial condemnation before God. The popular idea of what renders man a sinner in the sight of heaven is altogether inadequate and false. The prevailing conception is that a sinner is one who commits and practices sin. It is true that this is the character of a sinner, but it certainly is not that which primarily constitutes him a sinner. The truth is that every member of our race enters this world a guilty sinner before he ever commits a single transgression. It is not only that he possesses a sinful nature, but he is directly “under condemnation.” We are legally constituted sinners neither by what we are nor by what we are doing, but by the disobedience of our federal head, Adam. Adam acted not for himself alone, but for all who were to spring from him.

On this point the teaching of the apostle Paul is plain and unambiguous. The terms of Romans 5:12-19, are too varied and distinct to admit of any misconception: that it is on account of their sin in Adam, men, in the first instance, are accounted guilty and treated as such, as well as partake of a depraved nature, not partial, but totally.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law."
Your comment here is just funny. We are not born guilty of sin, else Jesus would have been born guilty of sin, and so could not be our savior. David anticipated seeing his son again in Heaven, knowing that his son was born innocent and so would be going to Heaven, David said, "But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I am going to him, but he will not return to me." 2 Sam 12:23

The language of 1st Corinthians 15:22 is equally unintelligible except on the supposition that both Adam and Christ sustained a representative character, in virtue of which the one involved the race in guilt and ruin, and the other, by His obedience unto death, secured the justification and salvation of all who were in him. The actual condition of the human race, throughout its history, confirms the same: the apostle’s doctrine supplies the only adequate explanation of the universal prevalence of sin.

But it will be said, It was unjust to make Adam our federal head. How so? Is not the principle of representation a fundamental one in human society? We see the wisdom of God in making a perfect, upright man, with no sin nature, living in a perfect world, with one simple commandment to keep.

"Also, The father is the legal head of his children during their minority: what he does, binds the family. A business house is held responsible for the transactions of its agents. The heads of a state are vested with such authority that the treaties they make are binding upon the whole nation. This principle is so basic it cannot be set aside. Every popular election illustrates the fact that a constituency will act through a representative and be bound by his acts. Human affairs could not continue, nor society exist without it. Why, then, be staggered at finding it inaugurated in Eden?

Consider the alternative. “The race must have either stood in a full grown man, with a full orbed intellect, or stood as babies, each entering his probation in the twilight of self-consciousness, each deciding his destiny before his eyes were half opened to what it all meant. How much better would that have been? How much more just? But could it not have been some other way? There was no other way. It was either the baby or it was the perfect, well equipped, all—calculating man—the man who saw and comprehended everything. That man was Adam” (G. S. Bishop). Yes, Adam, fresh from the hands of his creator, with no sinful ancestry behind him, with no depraved nature within. A man made in the image and likeness of God, pronounced by Him “very good,” in fellowship with heaven. Who could have been a more suitable representative for us?

This has been the principle on which and the method by which God has acted all through. The posterity of Canaan were cursed for the single transgression of their parent (Genesis 9). The Egyptians perished at the Red Sea as the result of Pharaoh’s wickedness. When Israel became God’s witness in the earth it was the same. The sins of the fathers were to be visited upon the children: in consequence of Achan’s one sin the whole of his family were stoned to death. The high priest acted on behalf of the whole nation. Later, the king was held accountable for the conduct of his subjects. One acting on behalf of others, the one responsible for the many, is a basic principle both of human and divine government. We cannot get away from it; wherever we look, it stares us in the face.

Finally, let it be pointed out that the sinner’s salvation is made to depend upon the same principle. Beware, my reader, of quarreling with the justice of this law of representation. This principle wrecked us, and this principle alone can rescue us. The disobedience of the first Adam was the judicial ground of our condemnation; the obedience of the last Adam is the legal ground on which God alone can justify the sinner. The substitution of Christ in the place of His people, the imputation of their sins to Him and of His righteousness to them, is the cardinal truth of the gospel. But the principle of being saved by what another has done is only possible on the ground that we are lost through what another did. The two stand or fall together. If there had been no covenant of works there could have been no death in Adam, there could have been no life in Christ." (A. W. Pink)

Part one of 2

Sure it does~have you forgotten such scriptures:

The True light came into the world in the person of Jesus Christ, revealing to us that no salvation is in any other name, except through his faith, and obedience to God, for those he was made the head of, by the election of God's grace, according to the purpose of his own will.

Our faith, not His faith. It is our faith which makes us pleasing to God, and our obedience which is the condition for our reception of His grace.

Doug, there are no conditions set by God upon man in order to receive the gift of the forgiveness of our sins. We are forgiven on the behalf of Jesus Christ, not own certain conditions met by us. Conditions equal works on man's part, and salvation from sin and condemnation was secured by Jesus' obedience not ours.

By these statements you make Scripture out to be a liar. Rom 10:9-10 contains two direct and specific conditions upon which salvation is received or not. Acts 3:19 contains a condition upon which forgiveness of sin (salvation) is received or not. Acts 2:38 contains two conditions upon which salvation is received or not. And there are many other examples. Heb 5:9 is very clear that Jesus is the author, the source, of salvation to those who obey Him.

 

[Fool4Christ]

No, my friend, I am not putting God into a box. Jesus, being God and knowing from outside of time that He was going to sacrifice Himself as the price for all the sin in the world, could forgive sin at His discretion. Thus he was "looking forward to the cross". As you agreed, without the one sacrifice of Jesus' blood that forever covers sin, there would have been no forgiveness of sins, because as you said, the blood of bulls and goats only rolled it forward to the next year. If that had continued without Jesus, then at the end of time all of that sin would have come due, and there would be none saved, because God cannot go against His character and unjustly forgive sin.

I hope this helps.

I disagree

 

[TibiasDad]

You nailed it Doug. Love is where it's at. I like songs that are about love.
Love is but a song we sing
Fear's the way we die
You can make the mountains ring
Or make the angels cry
Though the bird is on the wing
And you may not know why
Come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
Some may come and some may go
He will surely pass
When the one that left us here
Returns for us at last
We are but a moment's sunlight
Fading in the grass
Come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
Come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
Come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
If you hear the song I sing
You will understand, listen
You hold the key to love and fear
All in your trembling hand
Just one key unlocks them both
It's there at your command
Come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
Come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
I said come on, people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another right now
Right now
Right now

Great song; late 60’s covered by several artists!

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Infants are not born guilty of Adam's sin. They are born with the nature of sin, the propensity to sin, but they are not born guilty of sin. Sin is only imputed when there is knowledge of right and wrong and wrong is chosen.

Doug