 |
|
|
"Our next breath could be a breath of celestial air"
-- Jim Custer
|
|
| |
Contexts for “Universalistic” Texts - Part 2 (1 Tm. 2:4-6)
Posted on Saturday, October 15 @ 10:26:31 PDT by Randall East |
|
Erick submitted: " The purpose of this article is to offer a valid alternative interpretation to a verse that is often used to support the idea that Christ’s death on the cross was for each and every human being. It is my conviction that a better approach is to see the multi-national scope of Christ’s work according to the promise made to Abraham (Gen. 12:3 cf. Rev. 7:9-10), and the first century authors combating a spirit of Jewish superiority and covenant exclusivity based on God’s choosing their nation. Though Israel was God’s chosen nation that was never meant to imply every person in that nation was chosen (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39, 44; Rm. 9:8; 11:2), nor that God never planned to reveal himself in and through other nationalities – i.e. including Gentiles in the New Covenant “Israel” (Eph. 2:19).
The two respective views (universal atonement, and particular redemption) have a long history, and are not new to the current preterist movement, but both can affect eschatological views about life for mankind in the New Covenant age and so it is important to get both the CROSS as well as the parousia correct. Indeed, where we fall short in understanding the one we will inevitably fall short in the other, and our message to the world will be at best compromised, and at worse yet another false testimony about the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is my opinion that the view labeled “Limited Atonement” or “Particular Redemption” is most in line with the scope of Scripture, and the big picture of God’s redemption of mankind in Christ according to the promise made to Abraham. The following will simply seek to establish context for one of the most common proof-texts cited against this view.
“… [God] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time...” 1 Tim. 2:4-6
Can we through context establish that Paul is not implicitly teaching a universal redemption? I believe so. First, Paul is writing to Timothy, a half Jewish disciple (Act 16:1) sent to minister to the Ephesian church to which this letter was sent (1 Tim. 1:3). Earlier Paul had Timothy circumcised because of the constant contact he would have with Jews in Derbe and Lystra, and the ethno-centric Jew of the first century in Ephesus would no doubt also have a serous aversion to Timothy without this drastic step being taken. Also, the Jews who were already despised by the local Gentile worshippers of Diana (Act. 19:34) would not be so warm-hearted toward these pagans, nor the local authorities that thought little of this “sect.” Paul saw that Timothy would be the right guy to help bridge some ethnic and theological gaps in this city, and so stayed him there to minister and rebuke those who wanted to focus on genealogies and “be teachers of the law” (1 Tim. 1:7) to the spiritual detriment of the poor Gentile Christians.
We know that this community of believers started out largely Jewish, with about twelve disciples who were baptized by John (I assume “the Baptist” (Act. 19:3,7)). For three months Paul taught the kingdom in the synagogues (Act. 19:8), to which many Jews responded in faith. After some hardened their hearts he spent two years “reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus,” from which we can deduce that some Greeks as well as Jews may have begun to fellowship together (Act. 19:10 -20). By virtue of the fact that Paul later devotes a whole letter almost exclusively to the Gentiles in Ephesus (Eph. 2:11-12) correcting their notion that they are second class citizens in the kingdom (as opposed to first class Jewish believers), we know that the Gentile numbers would eventually be as significant as the Jewish.
Another point worth considering is that we also see in Revelations 2:6 that Jesus compliments this church in the last days for hating the practices of the Nicolaitans - a group thought by some to have been started (though it cannot be proved) by a “fallen from grace” Jewish proselyte deacon Nicholas (Act 6:5). If it were assumed that Nicholas was the founder of this group, he (and his ilk from Jerusalem) may have been zealous for the Law - having undergone circumcision at a later age to join the Jewish community (contrast this with Timothy who was circumcised later to spread the message of grace). If this is the case, we must ask how did this church come to “hate” such legalistic deeds (as contrasted with licentious deeds of the Neo-Balaams in Pergamos (Rev. 2:14-15 both of which the Lord hated)). What was it that transformed this church from a legalistic Jewish dominated community (this can be demonstrated without reference to the Nicolaitans), to one that apparently “hated” legalism?
As I stated, Paul left the right man for the job in the city to deal with the tensions between Jew and Gentile believers - the young man Timothy. Who else could bridge such gaps? He was in essence Jew and Gentile, circumcised out of love for the Jew, spreading the gospel with Paul out of love for the Gentile as well. He was mentored by Paul who emphasized his glorious ministry to the Gentiles (e.g. 2 Tm. 1:11; 4:17). He was not predisposed to hate either group, nor be ethno-centric, for he was a “mixed breed.” Timothy was taught the Old Testament by his grandmother and mother from his youth (2 Tm. 3:15) and so no Jewish sectarian could stump him with the Scriptures. This was the first step in nurturing this hurting church.
Secondly, Paul wrote a letter primarily devoted to the Gentiles in Ephesus in which he explains to them that they were not afterthoughts in God’s redemption plan, nor born-again illegitimately, but were God’s very own “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared before hand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). He goes on to explain to them that they are now joined to the “commonwealth of Israel” (2:12) as one Body with the Jewish believers. He repeatedly emphasizes this point, calling them “fellow citizens” (2:19) and reminds them that of God he was predestined to be a minister to the Gentiles (1:9; 3:1-13). He admonishes them not to loose heart over their tribulations, and informs them that for this reason, “I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom THE WHOLE FAMILY in heaven and on earth is named” that they would be able to realize how much God loves His Gentile children (3:19). He realizes there are problems going on between them and the Jewish Christians and so explicitly tells them to do their part to behave in this “one body” with “one God and Father of ALL [Jews and Gentiles] who is above ALL [people from every nation], and through ALL [Jew and Gentile believer], and in YOU ALL [Christians from the JEWS and GENTILES]” (4:4-6) (unless one believes that God is in every individual, but I think I‘ve shown from the context that that is untenable - or at least an unlikely interpretation).
Lastly, Paul wrote specifically to Timothy about how to handle among other things the Jewish (or Jewish sympathizing) Christians in Ephesus who “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm” (1 Tm.1:7-8). Timothy was instructed to “wage the good warfare” at Ephesus with the pure gospel of Christ in those last times when some would depart from the faith and speak lies to others, “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1:18, 4:1-3). This then is the broader context of Paul’s first letter to Timothy, and quite frankly the broader context of much of the first century, i.e. ethno-centric Jews consigning Gentiles to second-class citizens in God’s kingdom (keeping them in their “Gentile court” outside the temple) and Jesus, Paul, et al. correcting them with doctrines such as the one to the ethno-centric Jewish teacher of Israel Nicodemus, “for God so loves the WORLD [Jews and Gentiles] that WHOSOEVER [Jew or Gentile] believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16).
Consequently, why would it be thought strange when we see that in Eph. 4:4-6 “all” means Jew and Gentile Christians, and that the broader context of Paul’s letter to Timothy in Ephesus could easily support this contention? Moreover, the qualifiers to the “all” of 1 Tim. 2:4 are blaring out at us in 3D Technicolor. Paul shows that he means all TYPES of people when he immediately adds, “for kings and all who are in authority.” Now if Paul simply meant all individuals, wouldn’t that necessarily cover the king? But the point is that they were to “pray for those [in this case Gentiles] who persecute you.” If Paul literally meant for them to pray for every individual (if that’s who God supposedly desired to save) wouldn’t that require knowing everybody, or at least a lot of time on one‘s hands. I must admit, I pray for a lot of people, but I can’t imagine that God is going to grant my request to save EVERY individual. But on top of this, Paul - after telling them to pray for ALL [types of] MEN (like GENTILE kings) -- reiterates to these ethno-centric legalists that this pleases God who wants ALL [types of] MEN (and woman) to be saved, and how does he put the last nail in the coffin of their bigoted, discriminatory, anti-authority/anti-Gentile prayer life? First, in verse 5, he appeals to the mediatorial work of Christ for ALL men (and where have we heard about this ethno-inclusive gospel that was to be testified about “in due time” more clearly than in Ephesians 3:1-7 regarding this “mystery” concerning the Gentile elects’ redemption). He further appeals to his own Christ commissioned Apostolic ministry, “for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle - I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying - a teacher OF THE GENTILES in faith and truth.” (2:7).
In light of the context, universalists ought to take another look at what Paul’s point is in this particular verse. Paul saying, “God wants SOME to be saved” or "a ransom for SOME," would completely defeat his point, and add fuel to the fire already in Ephesus (who already believed God wanted some to be saved - i.e. the faithful JEW). As preterists, we of all people know that words like “world” “earth” “all” etc. are often qualified by the context. Is it possible that the same thing is going on in 1 Tm. 2:4? I believe I have provided sufficient contextual evidence based on exegesis to support the case for a muli-national (without implying "omni-individual") understanding of this passage, and do hope that those holding to concepts of universal redemption based on this particular passage are rethinking the use of it for supporting their beliefs.
Erick Blore
"
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Contexts for “Universalistic” Texts - Part 2 (1 Tm. 2:4-6) (Score: 1)
 by vinster on Saturday, October 15 @ 11:38:06 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Great Job, Bro!!
I'm reposting a comment I made on your first article:
The Universalist Gospel is This: "Eat, Drink, and be Merry, for tomorrow we die".
Why bother believing and living 10,20 or 50 years of your life dedicated to Christ, when the Christ hating Jew, Muslim, and Atheist will all be spending their eternity with the Christian in eternal bliss anyway.
I'll believe the truth: Salvation, redemption, and reconciliation is through faith alone, in Christ alone, and through no other possible means.
Vinster |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Saturday, October 15 @ 12:04:20 PDT
- by MichaelB on Saturday, October 15 @ 12:08:53 PDT
- by Ed on Saturday, October 15 @ 15:20:44 PDT
- by MichaelB on Saturday, October 15 @ 18:09:53 PDT
- by Ed on Saturday, October 15 @ 19:53:30 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 11:50:00 PDT
- by Ed on Sunday, October 16 @ 12:45:47 PDT
- by Virgil on Saturday, October 15 @ 20:08:08 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 11:15:38 PDT
- by Virgil on Sunday, October 16 @ 11:26:46 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 12:11:43 PDT
- by Virgil on Sunday, October 16 @ 12:15:07 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 12:34:19 PDT
- by davo on Saturday, October 15 @ 21:08:39 PDT
- by vinster on Sunday, October 16 @ 04:35:19 PDT
- by Ed on Sunday, October 16 @ 10:45:26 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 21:02:38 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 11:54:53 PDT
- by Ed on Sunday, October 16 @ 12:56:24 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 21:26:48 PDT
- by Ed on Wednesday, October 19 @ 13:31:02 PDT
- by protemple on Tuesday, October 18 @ 12:12:44 PDT
- by vento on Tuesday, October 18 @ 12:43:13 PDT
- by davo on Tuesday, October 18 @ 15:26:35 PDT
- by vento on Tuesday, October 18 @ 16:01:46 PDT
- by davo on Tuesday, October 18 @ 16:58:04 PDT
- by vinster on Sunday, October 16 @ 04:21:07 PDT
- by Barry on Sunday, October 16 @ 05:38:17 PDT
- by vinster on Sunday, October 16 @ 06:29:36 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, October 16 @ 07:51:28 PDT
- by vinster on Sunday, October 16 @ 08:09:48 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, October 16 @ 10:37:22 PDT
- by vinster on Sunday, October 16 @ 12:47:18 PDT
- by Paige on Sunday, October 16 @ 14:24:19 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, October 16 @ 15:42:19 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, October 16 @ 07:23:41 PDT
- by Ed on Sunday, October 16 @ 18:55:19 PDT
- by vinster on Monday, October 17 @ 06:10:55 PDT
- by Barry on Tuesday, October 18 @ 19:29:35 PDT
- by Barry on Wednesday, October 19 @ 06:04:05 PDT
- by Erick on Saturday, October 15 @ 15:46:38 PDT
Re: Contexts for “Universalistic” Texts - Part 2 (1 Tm. 2:4-6) (Score: 1)
 by davo on Saturday, October 15 @ 12:50:05 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) |
1Tim 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Erick: In light of the context, universalists ought to take another look at what Paul’s point is in this particular verse. Paul saying, “God wants SOME to be saved” or "a ransom for SOME," would completely defeat his point, and add fuel to the fire already in Ephesus (who already believed God wanted some to be saved - i.e. the faithful JEW).
Well Erick I have to agree – anybody saying Paul's "all men" means "SOME" totally misses what he is saying to his audience – hence audience relevance is vital in understanding what it is he is exactly saying.
God's "desire" shows that He gave these people in that "end of the age" transitional period AD30-70 a choice to believe and thus find deliverance [be saved] from the forthcoming covenant ending divine wrath – a wrath that was not limited to the borders of Palestine or Jerusalem. A wrath ministered through His arm, the legions of Rome.
Coming "to a knowledge of the truth" was then the means of their salvation i.e., deliverance, and THAT was through "faith" in following Christ's words to get out of Jerusalem and or following the prophetic word of His inspired and ordained apostles. Thus Paul's "all men" is contextually bound to the age – that age.
The above understanding is pantelistic and NOT universalist.
davo – pantelism.com –
"And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 1Jn 2:2
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Erick on Saturday, October 15 @ 15:06:22 PDT
- by davo on Saturday, October 15 @ 16:01:41 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 11:56:23 PDT
Just to clarify further (Score: 1)
by davo on Saturday, October 15 @ 21:48:15 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) |
Erick, what I wrote above I wrote in passing on my night shift here down-under, and reading back on it now I can see it looks a little incomplete:
1Tim 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Without a doubt in my mind the temporal nature of upcoming events were paramount in Paul's mind in line with Jesus' own prophetic words of the coming "end" – prophetic words that no doubt would have been echoed by his inspired apostles etc. Yet along with the temporal expectations was the over-riding covenantal reality of the realization of the fulfillment of forgiveness that was coming in the Parousia. This would mean more than "just" their literal deliverance [being saved], but more significantly the sealing of their "salvation" as it pertained to their "relationship" with God through faith in Christ, i.e., "relational" or better know as "eternal" life.
Thus those who came "to a knowledge of the truth" i.e., that Jesus IS Lord, were dully "saved" – both on the literal and covenantal planes. One was a reality in process while the other an event to be experienced, and both very real.
Peter's injunction I see as following a similar line of appeal in that it was relevant to the age – his age, and was indicative of what changing one's mind [repentance] about the gospel message could do for his hearers i.e., they would not perish in the last days madness:
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Again this echoes Jesus' words: "…he who believes in me shall not perish…". This is what I see as the pręteristic consistency of pantelism, both prophetically AND redemptively.
davo – pantelism.com –
"And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." 1Jn 2:2
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
The Kingdom, The Covenant (Score: 1)
by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 11:42:02 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Davo writes:
Being "outside the covenant" as you have it does not mean being outside the kingdom.
Davo says that people can be OUTSIDE of the New Covenant but still be in the kingdom.
But the scripture says that those who did certain things could not enter the kingdom, and that the kingdom was the inheritance.
1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
In fact the only way to have had those sins forgiven was to be in the New Covenant.
Matthew 26
28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Not only that but it was only those that were in the New Covenant by faith that would receive the INHERITANCE.
Hebrews 9
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance
The inheritance WAS THE KINGDOM.
Matthew 25
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
Therefore: Davo is in error about the kingdom and the covenant.
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by davo on Sunday, October 16 @ 11:58:57 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 12:28:13 PDT
- by Erick on Sunday, October 16 @ 18:11:16 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, October 16 @ 20:18:03 PDT
- by Paige on Sunday, October 16 @ 19:12:02 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 20:56:38 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, October 16 @ 22:01:02 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 22:57:08 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, October 16 @ 23:21:26 PDT
- by davo on Monday, October 17 @ 05:32:47 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 09:15:51 PDT
- by Paige on Monday, October 17 @ 10:08:56 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 11:29:43 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 11:46:02 PDT
- by Paige on Monday, October 17 @ 12:46:27 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 13:09:20 PDT
- by Paige on Monday, October 17 @ 13:34:07 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 14:05:08 PDT
- by Paige on Monday, October 17 @ 14:46:56 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 15:59:05 PDT
- by davo on Monday, October 17 @ 15:03:06 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 16:07:15 PDT
- by davo on Monday, October 17 @ 16:29:17 PDT
- by davo on Monday, October 17 @ 12:28:52 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 13:13:24 PDT
Is This Really What Universalism Leads to? (Score: 1)
by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 16:35:31 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Davo writes:
Being "outside the covenant" as you have it does not mean being outside the kingdom – it does mean NOT "entering" in on or "seeing" the kingdom blessings as we have them as believers in Christ, through faith in Him. The "covenant" is the working mandate of the kingdom, i.e., those under it [in it] are God's priests called to serve in and to His creation
but scripture says forgiveness occurs IN THE COVENANT.
Matthew 26
28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Paige writes:
I'm really not sure that we ENTER INTO a covenant with God that has already had the FULNESS of the Gentiles come in. Do you see at all what I'm saying? They already received their rewards. I don't think we receive their reward.
but the scripture says that Jesus' priesthood is FOREVER and PERMANENT.
Hebrews 7
23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.
So - Universalism leads you to:
no forgiveness (per Davo people do not have to be in the covenant to be forgiven - scripture says otherwise),
no covenant (per Paige it was only during the transition period or 70 AD - scripture says otherwise)
and without a Priesthood (per Paige it ended at AD70 - scripture says otherwise).
"Zeal without doctrine is like a sword in the hand of a lunatic" - John Calvin
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Paige on Monday, October 17 @ 17:58:02 PDT
- by Paige on Monday, October 17 @ 18:45:14 PDT
- by Paige on Monday, October 17 @ 20:12:08 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 20:58:22 PDT
- by Paige on Monday, October 17 @ 21:31:29 PDT
- by davo on Monday, October 17 @ 21:52:41 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 22:05:12 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 22:05:32 PDT
- by davo on Monday, October 17 @ 23:09:18 PDT
- by Paige on Monday, October 17 @ 21:51:57 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 22:09:12 PDT
- by Barry on Monday, October 17 @ 22:27:29 PDT
- by davo on Monday, October 17 @ 23:05:26 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 23:19:25 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 23:30:41 PDT
- by davo on Monday, October 17 @ 23:54:02 PDT
- by Barry on Monday, October 17 @ 22:53:21 PDT
- by MichaelB on Monday, October 17 @ 23:28:22 PDT
MICHAEL'S MEALY-MOUTHED MISREPRESENTATIONS (Score: 1)
by davo on Monday, October 17 @ 21:05:15 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) |
As can be seen from the above posts MichaelB has an issue with handling truth i.e., he doesn't. Due to what one must conclude is either his shear ignorance or insipid immaturity MichaelB insists on attributing certain teachings to people with whom he disagrees, which in fact are NOT true, but are a reflection of his spin due to his interpretation of partial quotes he deliberately misuses – basically because he cannot work through any depth of though he simply finds it easier to misrepresent through half truths [half quotes] and thus spins a lie.
However, context is a wonderful thing; it always helps clarify the misrepresentation of others, of which MB is a master – he persistently claims that "davo says … thus and so" of things that I [and others] actually do not say. What he does is to place his limited logic onto what I or others have said then dully spins it to a conclusion that suits his needs – somewhat dishonest, but that is MB's "modus operandi" nonetheless.
What did I actually say re Christ's covenant and God's kingdom? I'll post it again with some instructive explanations:
[Quote] Vinster: …what happens to those who are outside of the covenant based on their unbelief in this life, for relationship with God is still based on faith in Christ.
Being "outside the covenant" as you have it does not mean being outside the kingdom – it does mean NOT "entering" in on or "seeing" the kingdom blessings as we have them as believers in Christ, through faith in Him. The "covenant" is the working mandate of the kingdom, i.e., those under it [in it] are God's priests called to serve in and to His creation i.e., humanity. "Salvation" beyond that of the temporal event, is covenantally speaking of being delivered [saved] into this "call of God" for service – hence the phrase I use of being – "saved to serve". [End quote]
As I stated: [The "covenant" is the working mandate of the kingdom…]. In other words those who through faith have entered into relationship with God are thus living in the benefits of covenantal life – the true life of the kingdom they are in i.e., God's kingdom. Those not in Christ based covenant "relationship" with God are still nonetheless in the kingdom, but are not benefiting from it to the degree they could be – yet they are still under God's grace [Lk 6:35b] in His Kingdom.
Unlike what MichaelB is wrongly concluding and thus trying to put HIS WORDS into my mouth [what a horrid though] – the blood of Christ's covenant is effectual for all in that all have been atoned for and thus IN GOD'S EYES are redeemed, reconciled and restored – it is just that so many are not aware of this truth, locked up in their own self-righteousness – the gospel however is about the revelation of God's righteousness not ours [Rom 1:17].
Indicative of MB's misguided alacrity for so called accuracy, is the following:
MichaelB: but scripture says forgiveness occurs IN THE COVENANT.
Matthew 26
28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Christ's "forgiveness of sins" comes to "many" BECAUSE OF the covenant – those who grasp it in faith consequently LIVE IN the benefits of in this life i.e., the love, peace and assurance of God.
Notice how MichaelB deliberately misuses even the words of Jesus – though not a surprise for someone with his form. He simply redefines them according to HIS own shallow interpretation and makes sweeping carte blanche statements saying "so and so says…" or "scripture says…" where neither is actually the case in the light of context.
Further along we have:
[Quote] vinster: What you're saying is that everyone is O.K. in God's eyes, even if they hate Him?!?!
Yes vinster; in God's eyes due His Faith in Christ, humanity i
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by MichaelB on Tuesday, October 18 @ 00:16:22 PDT
- by scargy on Tuesday, October 18 @ 01:07:09 PDT
- by Ed on Wednesday, October 19 @ 13:57:38 PDT
- by scargy on Wednesday, October 19 @ 16:09:37 PDT
- by Ed on Wednesday, October 19 @ 18:08:35 PDT
- by davo on Tuesday, October 18 @ 03:17:43 PDT
| 
|
