A new take on an old argument

[Thaddaeus]

You have simply to show me from the text itself out of Phillippians that the Greek word was meant to be understood otherwise. I don't care about what dead, rotting Pope thinks. I couldn't care less.

that is a real laugh. Don't you know that the language of the culture in the first century was Greek. The Apostles spoke, taught and wrote in Greek. The Early Chruch was ONLY Greek for the first 500 years. Latin was only reintroduced after the fall of Rome and only in the west. Russian does not come into the picture until the 8th century and your telling me that they do not understand Greek. You need to study your history a little more.

As to the Pope, I fully agree with you. After all it was the Popes that taught your protestant forefathers to use Sola Scripturea. He thought he had that sole power and authority of a church, but protestants elevated it to one person over only themselves. You are proving to be a master of personal interpretation of scripture. For the same reason, your personal interpretation has as much value.

No, YOU cite passages that outline and describe this mythical partnership. I want to see the specific passages from the New Testament that specifically, and epxressly describe and explain this "partnership." If you cannot produce them, then I there is no reason to believe anything you say.

Matt 28:16-20, John 21:17b, Rom 1: 5-6,Rom 12:6-8, Rom 14:18, I Cor 3:9-10, I Cor 4:1-2 II Cor 6:1, I Cor 12, II Cor 5:19-20, II Cor 6:1,4, Eph 6:20, Gal 6:9-10,

Furthermore, you don't need to believe anything I say. What I say is meaningless, but the Gospel spoken and taught from the beginning is the power unto salvation.

The New Covenant was not made betwen God and mankind. The New Covenant is between the Father and Jesus. Jesus stood as man's covenant representative before God and the New Testament was cut in the blood of Jesus, not in our blood. You are beneficiary of that covenant, you receive the benefits of the Covenant, but you are not mutually in covenant with God.

Wrong covenant. You have such a shallow understanding that you cannot even use common words to describe relationships that use the same word in our secular world. Is a business covenant, something sealed in blood?

We enter into Christ on a promise. We promise that we will be faithful to Him. If we are then He will be faithful to us. If we no longer desire to be faithful to him, He will not continue with us either. If we deny Him, He will deny us. It is a mutual agreement, covenant, contract, whatever word you need to use to show that there are two parties, each with obligations and conditions. That is a covenantal understanding. We have one with Christ.

Sorry but the Bible does not teach that. Salvation is universally available, but it is not universally, unilaterally applied to each person. While the Bible makes it clear Jesus is the Savior of the world, it also qualifies that assertion with the truth that Jesus's Saviorship is ONLY realized on a personal basis. Salvation is here, and it is available and waiting, but that is not the same thing as saying that all men are saved. The Bible makes no such assertion.

Never stated that relative to the salvation of our souls. What was meant is that the Gospel is universal in scope, once Given. It was not given in a peace meal fashion and given partially to one and different to another. In other words it is not a private matter. God revealed Himself to man, all men the same.

But when it says the Christ is the Savior of the Word, you can take that as literal as you can. He redeemed everything in this universe. All, the world and man, suffered from the corruption of the fall. Nothing escapted that pollution as nothing escapted that reconciliation. We have in fact, been literally saved from the fall, every single soul. You cannot even accept, change it, or even deny it. It is an accomplished fact. But because He has accomplished this work, He now can seek union and fellowship with all men. All men have been reconciled to God, at peace with God, so that the offer can go out to all and each then will be held responsible for their personal choice of accepting the offer of communion or reject it. It is our fulfillment of our being created in His Image. It is what we fell from, it is not the fall. We don't need to be saved from what we were created to do, but enabled to do it.

Salvation is here, and it is available and waiting, but that is not the same thing as saying that all men are saved. The Bible makes no such assertion.

That is because you don't understand the whole of salvation. The salvation of mankind, or from death, from the fall, is not the same as the salvation of ones soul. They are not addressing the same thing.

Yes, God, through Christ reconciled the world through Himself, and yes Christ's redemptive work is universal, but it does not follow and is not taught in Scripture that these things are automatically the possession of all mankind.

Really, just what does it mean then to say that ALL the dead shall rise in the last day. Read carefully I Cor 15 which speaks of the central purpose of Christ's resurrection to life of all mankind. It aligns with John 6:39, with Rom 5:18-19. If you believe that all men die, then all men shall arise on the last day. It fits the formula of

"As in Adam we all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. Who did we miss here?

God has reconciled the world to Himself, and this simply means that God's justice has been satisfied and that God isn't holding anything against mankind any longer as Jesus has paid the price and satisfied the righteous demands of the law. And while God's redemptive work was for the whole world, again, the Bible qualifies that with the fact that salvation, while universally available must be and can ONLY be personally appropriated by trusting in God's grace.

The first part is correct. That is precisely what it means. As long as man remained condemned through Adam, there will be no eternal existance, no life, no hell or heaven for that matter. All men would simply revert to dust as God stated in Gen 3:19.

You are still confusing and conflating the aspects of salvation. You still want man to be saved from what he was created to do, rather than from the fall. If the fall is not corrected, all the rest is moot. See I Cor 15:14-19.

I sorry, I gues you don't understand. I am making a distinction between "SIN" (what we are born into) and "SINS" (the things we commit, evil works). This dichotomy is borne out in Romans 1:1-5:11 where Paul talks about SINS and the work of Christ's blood, and Romans 5:12-8:39 where Paul talks about SIN and the work of the cross. My SIN was nailed to the cross according to what Paul said in Eph. 2:15 and Col. 2:14.

You have created a dicotomy that does not exist. All you are doing is separating the sins of the world, or the total of all individuals, with just you, one individual. It is the same thing. My sin was nailed there also, thus now it is sins that were nailed to the cross, yours and mine.

Confession of sin has nothing to do with being accepted into Christ. It pertains to the cleansing of the conscience. We are accepted into the Christ upon receiving Him Lord and Savior and trusting in His finished work on the cross.

It is the ONLY way by which we enter into Christ. Sin and God do not mix. That is the whole purpose of the atonement. To blot out our sin. This is only done upon repentance, confession. The very first thing one does upon faith, belief is to confess our sins. We are cleansed through baptism. Without it your faith is vain, moot. Faith must be followed by evidence of obedience. Repentance is the first act of obedience.

[Thaddaeus]

Shiloh,

Shiloh,

No, the Bible states that eternal life is in Christ alone. He alone is eternal life and it is not found outside of Christ (1 John 5:11-13)

Truer words were never spoken. That confirms everything the Bible is saying about Christ's redemptive work. It confirms all those texts I gave to you above. It confirms without question that Christ is the first born of the dead, All the dead will rise on the last day. It is so inclusive, complete that not a single soul was lost to death, John 6:39. Then to separate out believers, that is confirmed in the next vs 40, those that believe shall also have eternal life, but with HIM. A very important distinction. The latter is impossible without the former.

My use of Eternal is consistent form the standpoint of longevity. Eternal life encompasses far, far, more than that, though. I simply use the term "eternal" do describe the longevity of the curse upon those who reject Christ. I could have easily used the term everlasting, and maybe that would have been a better word, but nonetheless, I did not contradict anything

they mean the same thing. We, as human beings, whether we are in heaven or hell will live eternally. Forever. period. There is no difference, not disctinction as to time. It means without time.

The gospel is very personal. God is concerned about both the world and each person. He numbers our hairs. God can walk with each person simultaneously while caring for the world as a whole.

I'm glad you agree with me. But how come you subscribe to a personal revelation of that Gospel. You have yet to show that yours is that Gospel given to all for all. All I have read is your personal opinion, which is a gospel of one for one. Can you show that your gospel is not your personal gospel but the universal gospel, once given.

Here we have both aspects of the personal and the universal. We see that God loved the entire world, and wants the world to be saved. However, it does not declare that the world is automatically saved. It is for "whosever" and "he that beleiveth." It is very personal, and to say otherwise is to deny the clear teaching of scripture.

It is simply a text. A text that you have repeatedly showed, quite consistantly that you do not adhere to the universal understanding of that text by all Christians since the Apostles. It clearly states He loved mankind, all mankind, the World in fact. He is the Savior of that World, simply because He loved that World, not just those that would believe. He needed to save the World in order that even some could believe. Without saving the world, none would believe, none would ever be able to commune with God for an eternity. Death would reign eternally instead. Satan would be the victor as his power is through death.

[Thaddaeus]

Shiloh,

Our keeping of the commandments according to those to verses only demonstrate what I am saying. 1John 3:24 simply states that keeping His commandments shows that we are abiding in Him. John says that if you dwell in Christ you will keep His commandments. Nothing in that verse says you dwell Him BECAUSE you keep the commandments, rather the text indicates that obedience is the product of dwelling in Christ. Abiding in Christ produces the obedience, according to John. Obedience does not produce the abiding.

Neither of those verses indicate that we are saved by what we do.

One verse does not make doctrine, though some try to do so.

Works are an evidence of faith. But the converse is also true. If we have no works, then we also have no faith. Thus, no faith, no salvation. We are saved through our faith.

In John 14:15-16, Jesus says that our obedience is the out working of our love for Him. "If you love, me, demonstrate it by keeping my commandments." Keeping the commandments are necessary for demonstrating our relationship with Christ and our love for Him.

Yes, absolutely, therefore, If if no longer love God, or no longer love my enemies which is also not loving God, then I am no longer IN Christ. If one is not IN Christ, one is not being saved, will not inherit the promise at the end which is given to those that endure, that are faithful, NOT UNFAITHFUL, NOT TO THOSE WHO DON'T LOVE HIM.

One cannot separate faith and works. They should be treated as synonyms in the NT. We are saved through faith, which is saying by what we do. We will be judged on WHAT WE DO. No place does it say you will be judged on your faith or belief.

The very simple reason is that works shows that faith and belief and vice versa.

[Smalcald]

But faith and intellectual belief are not the same thing.

[Thaddaeus]

Smalcald,

But faith and intellectual belief are not the same thing.

Depends on what you mean by faith here.

But intellectual faith, or belief is a false belief. It is worthless. That is why works which are evidences of that faith makes that faith real. It validates faith.