Understanding the Gospel Through the Book of Life

[pnattmbtc]

Samie:Jesus Himself EXPLICITLY said that overcomers will not be blotted out, ergo, non-overcomers will be blotted out.  All sins WERE forgiven, including the sin of non-overcoming, but the sin of non-overcoming is the only reason our Lord Himself provided why a name will be blotted out.

Not overcoming sin is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.  Remember where Jesus said there were many who would call to Him, "Lord, Lord; Look at all these things we did in your name?" and Jesus will say, "Depart from Me, I never knew you?"  This is the cause of the problem; not having a relationship with Christ, which is being born again, or justification by faith, or having eternal life; there are a number of synonymns.  Being converted is another one.

A person who is converted will overcome evil with good, but that is a result of being born again, of having faith in Christ, of being a believer.  Overcoming evil with good is a *characteristic* of one who is a believer, of one who has eternal life.  It's not the *reason* the Lord provided for a name being blotted out, but a *characteristic* of those whose names are blotted out.

The reason for a person's being lost is unbelief.

Edited August 31, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[8thdaypriest]

Not overcoming sin is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.  Remember where Jesus said there were many who would call to Him, "Lord, Lord; Look at all these things we did in your name?" and Jesus will say, "Depart from Me, I never knew you?"  This is the cause of the problem; not having a relationship with Christ, which is being born again, or justification by faith, or having eternal life; there are a number of synonymns.  Being converted is another one.

A person who is converted will overcome evil with good, but that is a result of being born again, of having faith in Christ, of being a believer.  Overcoming evil with good is a *characteristic* of one who is a believer, of one who has eternal life.  It's not the *reason* the Lord provided for a name being blotted out, but a *characteristic* of those whose names are blotted out.

The reason for a person's being lost is unbelief.

BROKEN OFF

Romans 11:20  "Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.

Romans 11:23 "And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." (NKJ)

It is ALL about believing.  Believing is HOW you are "grafted in" (written in the Book for eternal life) and failure to believe is HOW you are "broken off" or "blotted out" of the Book. 

Believing (or faith) is a human response to the Spirit of God.  And resisting (hardening the heart) is also a human response to the Spirit of God.  It is this interaction - Spirit stimulus and human response (positive or negative) that determines ones "eternal life" or ultimate death.  

Believing is NOT a "work" (Romans 4:3-8).  I think resisting takes "work". 

[Samie]

Earlier you stated that the book of life records reality, it doesn't produce it.  What does having one's name written in the book of life mean?  I'll assume it means that if one were to die, one would be a part of the resurrection of the righteous.  Synonmyns for this would be having eternal life, being justified by faith, or being born again.

If your understanding of having your name written in the book of life is different, then you'll have to let me know.

I think I have already posted that my understanding is similar, more than a week ago, in this post. You even quoted that post in one of your replies.

[Samie]

Once again - out of context.  Paul is writing TO "the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse".  He is NOT writing to "all mankind". 

Really?  I thought you had posted somewhere in this forum that "all the world" includes both those who have heard the gospel and those who have not? If so, then why are you contradicting yourself now?  Try reading Col 1:1-6. Here's vv5, 6.

Colossians 1:5-6   ⁵ For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;  ⁶Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

[Samie]

   The believers WERE (past tense) DEAD.  But NOW they have been "made alive".  They have been "made alive" in two ways.  1. by the power of the indwelling Spirit of God - which gives life and 2. they have NOW been declared righteous (rather than "cursed" and condemned to death).  When did that happen????

I believe that happened when Christ resurrected, as the Bible says:

^NKJ Ephesians 2:5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)

 I think we both agree that "together " does not mean "one at a time".

 

If there WAS a TIME when these people "were dead" - WHEN was that time????? 

It was when Jesus had not yet died on the cross.

You Samie, say that everyone was "forgiven" and "washed" before time even began - from eternity, before the creation of anything. 

You forgot to include the phrase "Contingent upon the life, death and resurrection of Jesus"
 

You Samie, say that everyone was "forgiven" and "washed" before time even began - from eternity, before the creation of anything. 

So THERE WAS NO TIME when these people were ever "dead". 

Because Jesus already died.

Your position is we are made alive when we believe. That looks like not  made "alive together with Christ", as Scriptures EXPLICITLY say.

 

 

[Samie]

It is ALL about believing.  Believing is HOW you are "grafted in" (written in the Book for eternal life) and failure to believe is HOW you are "broken off" or "blotted out" of the Book.

Can you 8thdaypriest, blot out of your list what you have NOT written there in the first place?

Believing (or faith) is a human response to the Spirit of God.  And resisting (hardening the heart) is also a human response to the Spirit of God.  It is this interaction - Spirit stimulus and human response (positive or negative) that determines ones "eternal life" or ultimate death. 

Sorry. It is God Who determines who are for eternal life and who are for the lake of fire.  And He EXPLICITLY told us that only those whose names are in the Book of Life can make it to heaven; all others, lake of fire.

Believing is NOT a "work" (Romans 4:3-8).  I think resisting takes "work". 

Funny. You said both are human responses in the interaction, better yet interACTION.  Since when is ACTION not work? 

Believing is EXERCISING faith, a spiritual act, only the spiritually alive can do. People CAN believe because they have been made spiritually alive TOGETHER with Christ.

[pnattmbtc]

Once again - out of context.  Paul is writing TO "the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse".  He is NOT writing to "all mankind". 

Really?  I thought you had posted somewhere in this forum that "all the world" includes both those who have heard the gospel and those who have not? If so, then why are you contradicting yourself now?  Try reading Col 1:1-6. Here's vv5, 6.

Colossians 1:5-6   5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;  6Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

Jumping in here, context often determines the meanings of words.  In fact, it's always good to consider the context.  Here "all the world" means everywhere the gospel had been being presented, as it talks about "bringing forth fruit".  Rachel made the point that Paul was addressing the church at Collossae.  How does the fact that Paul speaks of the gospel bearing fruit everywhere it had been presented change this?  It seems like you're like for certain phrases or words, as opposed to considering what the meaning is.  Yes, the phrase "all the world" is used, but what does it mean?  Does is mean "all mankind"?  If so, how can that be, since the gospel had only, at that time, been bearing fruit in a portion of the world near Israel? 

[pnattmbtc]

1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

One in Christ

11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Samie, a question for you.  Sorry if you already answered this, but I don't recall it being asked.

Above is the text of Ephesians 2, 1:13.  As I understand it, your understanding of the above is that Paul is not talking about anything those to whom he was writing had done; so you disagree with the common understanding that we are saved by grace through faith when we accept Christ (or, at least, that this is what Paul had in mind here), but your idea is that Paul was saying that they were saved by grace through the faith of Christ when Christ died and was resurrected.  Do you believe this happened at the time Christ died and was resurrected?

That is, were those to whom Paul addressed this epistle saved by grace through faith at the time that Christ died and was resurrected?  If that's the case, then what about those who died before the cross? 

[Samie]

Jumping in here, context often determines the meanings of words.  In fact, it's always good to consider the context.   Here "all the world" means everywhere the gospel had been being presented, as it talks about "bringing forth fruit".

Problem is, more often than not, context is what the reader wants the phrase to mean NOT what the writer actually means.  To put it bluntly, context is what the interpreting reader puts into the writer's mouth to suit his own proposition.  Reminds me of defenders of Calvinism. Reading John 3:16 saying "For God so loved the world", they say, considering the context "the world" means "the world of the elect."

Rachel made the point that Paul was addressing the church at Collossae.  How does the fact that Paul speaks of the gospel bearing fruit everywhere it had been presented change this?

A better question would have been, since Paul was addressing the church at Collossae, why would those in America and the Philippines be included?

 

It seems like you're like for certain phrases or words, as opposed to considering what the meaning is.  Yes, the phrase "all the world" is used, but what does it mean?  Does is mean "all mankind"?

Paul, the writer of the letter to the Collossians, is the BEST source of what he meant by "all the world" to where the gospel was preached. Not the context you want it to have. Here's what he said:

^NIV Romans 10:18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."

Yes, the phrase "all the world" is used, but what does it mean?  Does is mean "all mankind"?  If so, how can that be, since the gospel had only, at that time, been bearing fruit in a portion of the world near Israel? 

How sure are you? Were you there? Paul's thought is not your thought, nor mine. Hear his words:

Romans 2:14-16   ¹⁴ For when Gentiles who do not have ¹the Law do ^2ainstinctively the things of the Law, these, not having ¹the Law, are a law to themselves,  ¹⁵ in that they show ^athe work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,  ¹⁶ on the day when, ^aaccording to my gospel, ^bGod will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

God has His own unique way of dealing with everyone in a way best suited for an individual. He knows us BETTER than we know ourselves.

[Samie]

Samie, a question for you.  Sorry if you already answered this, but I don't recall it being asked.

Above is the text of Ephesians 2, 1:13.  As I understand it, your understanding of the above is that Paul is not talking about anything those to whom he was writing had done; so you disagree with the common understanding that we are saved by grace through faith when we accept Christ (or, at least, that this is what Paul had in mind here), but your idea is that Paul was saying that they were saved by grace through the faith of Christ when Christ died and was resurrected.  Do you believe this happened at the time Christ died and was resurrected?

That is, were those to whom Paul addressed this epistle saved by grace through faith at the time that Christ died and was resurrected?  If that's the case, then what about those who died before the cross? 

Adam & Eve and all their descendants were saved by grace before time began CONTINGENT upon the life, death and resurrection of our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ:

^NKJ 2 Timothy 1:9-10   ⁹ [God] has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,  ¹⁰ but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel

[pnattmbtc]

Me:Jumping in here, context often determines the meanings of words.  In fact, it's always good to consider the context.   Here "all the world" means everywhere the gospel had been being presented, as it talks about "bringing forth fruit".

Samie: Problem is, more often than not, context is what the reader wants the phrase to mean NOT what the writer actually means.  To put it bluntly, context is what the interpreting reader puts into the writer's mouth to suit his own proposition.  Reminds me of defenders of Calvinism. Reading John 3:16 saying "For God so loved the world", they say, considering the context "the world" means "the world of the elect."

     20 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
Rachel made the point that Paul was addressing the church at Collossae.  How does the fact that Paul speaks of the gospel bearing fruit everywhere it had been presented change this?

A better question would have been, since Paul was addressing the church at Collossae, why would those in America and the Philippines be included?

Well, they weren't, of course.  Paul hadn't been there.

     20 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
It seems like you're like for certain phrases or words, as opposed to considering what the meaning is.  Yes, the phrase "all the world" is used, but what does it mean?  Does is mean "all mankind"?
Paul, the writer of the letter to the Collossians, is the BEST source of what he meant by "all the world" to where the gospel was preached. Not the context you want it to have. Here's what he said:

NIV Romans 10:18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."
     20 hours ago, pnattmbtc said:
Yes, the phrase "all the world" is used, but what does it mean?  Does is mean "all mankind"?  If so, how can that be, since the gospel had only, at that time, been bearing fruit in a portion of the world near Israel?
 
How sure are you? Were you there? Paul's thought is not your thought, nor mine. Hear his words:

Romans 2:14-16   14 For when Gentiles who do not have 1the Law do 2ainstinctively the things of the Law, these, not having 1the Law, are a law to themselves,  15 in that they show athe work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,  16 on the day when, aaccording to my gospel, bGod will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

God has His own unique way of dealing with everyone in a way best suited for an individual. He knows us BETTER than we know ourselves.

This had nothing to do with Colossians.  Paul was making a different point.  Rather than just grabbing a text here or there without regards to the context, why not consider what the point is that is being made?  To whom was Romans written?  What was Paul's purpose in writing Romans?  What point was he making in Romans 1 and 2?  And then ask the same questions in regards to Collosians.

[Samie]

Well, they weren't, of course.  Paul hadn't been there.

And so, when Paul said in Col 2:13 that Jesus forgave all sins on the cross, only those in Colossae were forgiven? Sounds funny. That's where somebody's context brings us.

This had nothing to do with Colossians.  Paul was making a different point.  Rather than just grabbing a text here or there without regards to the context, why not consider what the point is that is being made?  To whom was Romans written?  What was Paul's purpose in writing Romans?  What point was he making in Romans 1 and 2?  And then ask the same questions in regards to Collosians.

What context?  Is not the context of the whole Scriptures Christ and Him crucified for us ALL and not just for those in Colossae or Rome?  You can't localize to Colossae or Rome what Jesus did for the world, even if verses that say it are in letters for those places. When Colossians 2:13 speaks of ALL sins forgiven through Christ, that MUST include all people because Jesus died for everyone, unless Jesus died for those in Colossae alone.  That's a better context, I think, than what you are proposing. And I guess, very Biblical too.

[pnattmbtc]

Well, they weren't, of course.  Paul hadn't been there.

Samie:And so, when Paul said in Col 2:13 that Jesus forgave all sins on the cross, only those in Colossae were forgiven? Sounds funny. That's where somebody's context brings us.

Why do you keep jumping around?  Why would you think what Paul said in Col. 2:13 be impacted by what he said in 1:6?  This is a whole chapter later.

You're not considering Paul's thoughts or reasoning; just plucking verses out of context hither and yon.

 

This had nothing to do with Colossians.  Paul was making a different point.  Rather than just grabbing a text here or there without regards to the context, why not consider what the point is that is being made?  To whom was Romans written?  What was Paul's purpose in writing Romans?  What point was he making in Romans 1 and 2?  And then ask the same questions in regards to Collosians.

Samie: What context?  

The context of Romans 1 and 2.  I wrote that right above.

Is not the context of the whole Scriptures Christ and Him crucified for us ALL and not just for those in Colossae or Rome?  

The context of a conversation has to do with what the subject is.  People think in thought units.  I'm amazed I have to point this out.

In the first part of Romans, Paul is making an argument, which is that all are without excuse.  He is laying the foundation for the importance of justification by faith.  He is demonstrating the need of all for Christ, whether Gentile or Jew.  This is the context for the Scriptures from Romans 1 and 2 that you quoted from.  This argument is universal.

When Paul was writing in 1:6 about the progress of the Gospel, he was talking about the work that he, Paul, was doing.  This is not universal, because Paul had not been everywhere.

 

You can't localize to Colossae or Rome what Jesus did for the world, even if verses that say it are in letters for those places. When Colossians 2:13 speaks of ALL sins forgiven through Christ, that MUST include all people because Jesus died for everyone, unless Jesus died for those in Colossae alone.  That's a better context, I think, than what you are proposing. And I guess, very Biblical too.  

This isn't the subject under discussion.  Context is important when you are talking to other people too, Samie.  What we were talking about was the meaning of the phrase "the whole world" in Col. 1:6.

Also, in general, we are discussing how to interpret Scripture.

I did a google search on "How to Interpret Scripture", and the following is from the first listing.  I'm curious if you agree with this, or have some other idea.

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." -2 Timothy 2:15 (NIV)

The Bible contains God's messages to us, but if we cannot properly interpret what it says, we're destined to become confused, misinterpret and probably misapply biblical content. As Paul writes to Timothy, we need to "correctly" handle "the word of truth." But how do we go about interpreting the Bible? This article will cover some basic principles of interpretation that will go a long way towards equipping everyone to correctly interpret God's Word.

Understanding the Context

Interpreting the Bible is part of a field of study known as hermeneutics. While this sounds complicated, its underlying principles aren't that difficult to grasp and can be applied to any written form of communication. Trying to understand what the text says is, in short, hermeneutics.

Applied to the Bible, principles of interpretation are meant to help, not hinder, our ability to make sense of what the Bible records. Another article in this series will address how to handle Bible difficulties, but having a basic foundation in hermeneutics will often help in that area, too.

Unlike some postmodern approaches to written texts that claim there really is no objective meaning to writing, throughout the centuries Christians have interpreted the Bible and continuously drawn out Christianity's essential foundations. The Bible, then, does indeed communicate objective truths.

The Importance of Context

Perhaps the greatest principle of biblical interpretation is context. Too often passages or portions of Scripture are quoted, cited or otherwise used to make a point or argue against a point when in reality the entire context of the passage is ignored. Although there are many books in the Bible, it is a cohesive whole wherein God distinctly communicates to us. This means that every passage is part of not only its immediate context, but also a broader context.

The words used are important, as is the context of those words. Whenever seeking to rightly interpret the Bible, make sure you understand the immediate context. What is the passage about? What comes before the passage you are examining? What comes after? Along these lines, not only is immediate context important, but so is the broader context. In other words, given a particular passage that speaks to a certain topic, what does the Bible as a whole say on the subject? Don't overlook the immediate context or the broader context.

It's also wise to avoid citing passages selectively just to try and bolster a particular point without keeping the context in mind. That's why theologians caution against building elaborate doctrines on obscure or isolated passages, or doing so by only referencing passages that appear to agree with our particular pet doctrine, while ignoring other significant passages that tend to argue against our position.

[Samie]

Pnatt;

I admire your jumping in to my discussion with Rachel that stemmed from Col 2:13 that says all our sins were forgiven on the cross. 

I believe all sins of all people for all times including those yet to be born were all forgiven through the death of the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world.  Rachel believes otherwise, reasoning that Col 2:13 is not to be generally applied since it was written for the Colossians, not to everyone.  Since forgiveness stems from the gospel, I countered that Paul was not merely referring to the Colossians as far as the Gospel is concerned citing Col 1:5,6.  Then you jumped in with your CONTEXT, and all else is history.

I have explained my position that when the Gospel is the issue, anything in the Bible, even if written to a specific person or to a group of persons, MUST be generally applied. That's my position because Christ and Him Crucified died for us all.  In this regard, what I need is not a course and diploma on CONTEXT, but a simple, Bible-based explanation why this specific position of mine is wrong.  Can you do that, please?

I hope I have made myself clear.

[pnattmbtc]

Pnatt;

I admire your jumping in to my discussion with Rachel that stemmed from Col 2:13 that says all our sins were forgiven on the cross. 

I believe all sins of all people for all times including those yet to be born were all forgiven through the death of the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world.  Rachel believes otherwise, reasoning that Col 2:13 is not to be generally applied since it was written for the Colossians, not to everyone.  Since forgiveness stems from the gospel, I countered that Paul was not merely referring to the Colossians as far as the Gospel is concerned citing Col 1:5,6.  Then you jumped in with your CONTEXT, and all else is history.

I have explained my position that when the Gospel is the issue, anything in the Bible, even if written to a specific person or to a group of persons, MUST be generally applied. That's my position because Christ and Him Crucified died for us all.  In this regard, what I need is not a course and diploma on CONTEXT, but a simple, Bible-based explanation why this specific position of mine is wrong.  Can you do that, please?

I hope I have made myself clear.

There are two considerations here.  One is the idea itself, and the other is whether the idea is what Paul is talking about.  What Rachel has been arguing, I think, is more the latter, that this isn't what Paul is talking about.  And I think this is correct, that is, your idea is not what Paul is saying (not discussing here the merit of your idea).  This is a difficult text, especially the "handwriting of ordinaces", but you are talking primarily about verse 13.  Before getting into that, please answer the question I asked previously (and I apologize if you answered it, and I missed it, plus we have two threads, so I might have asked it on the other one), but please answer why if the forgiveness being spoken of here is everybody's sin, why are you tying it to the death of Christ?  That is, why would God need the death of Christ in order to forgive our sins?  What I see is that God forgave everybody's sin, and the cross is evidence of that fact.

[Samie]

There are two considerations here.  One is the idea itself, and the other is whether the idea is what Paul is talking about.  What Rachel has been arguing, I think, is more the latter, that this isn't what Paul is talking about.  And I think this is correct, that is, your idea is not what Paul is saying (not discussing here the merit of your idea).  This is a difficult text, especially the "handwriting of ordinaces", but you are talking primarily about verse 13.  Before getting into that, please answer the question I asked previously (and I apologize if you answered it, and I missed it, plus we have two threads, so I might have asked it on the other one), but please answer why if the forgiveness being spoken of here is everybody's sin, why are you tying it to the death of Christ?  That is, why would God need the death of Christ in order to forgive our sins?  What I see is that God forgave everybody's sin, and the cross is evidence of that fact.

It's in the other thread, in this post.

[Samie]

Why is the cross necessary for forgiveness?

Because without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness, people cannot be cleansed from sin.

^NAS Hebrews 9:22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

The blood of animals can NEVER cleanse from sin:

^NKJ Hebrews 10:11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

Only the Blood of the Savior could:

^NKJ Hebrews 9:26 [Christ] then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

And He died for EVERY MAN:

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

[pnattmbtc]

Why is the cross necessary for forgiveness?

Because without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness, people cannot be cleansed from sin.

^NAS Hebrews 9:22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

The blood of animals can NEVER cleanse from sin:

^NKJ Hebrews 10:11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

Only the Blood of the Savior could:

^NKJ Hebrews 9:26 [Christ] then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

And He died for EVERY MAN:

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

Yes, but this is all for man, not God.  Where do you get the idea that God needs these things to forgive?  As Peter puts it

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; (1 Pet. 3:18)

We need to be brought to God, not the other way around.  God needs nothing to forgive us.  *We* need Christ to be forgiven; the problem is all on our end.  God so loved the world that He gave His Son.  *We* were in need, so God gave us His Son.

[Samie]

I don't major in SEMANTICS, brother.  When I say without the cross, I mean "without Christ".  Hope that settles the issue.

[Samie]

When I said, the cross is necessary for forgiveness, I actually meant Christ is necessary for forgiveness.  And I think you knew that is what I meant.  If not, then you know now.

[Samie]

 

Yes, but this is all for man, not God.

Are we not discussing forgiveness, and forgiveness is FOR man?  Ergo, I gave you verses that you say are FOR man.  What's your point in "but this is all for man"?  Are you questioning my use of the verses or reinforcing my use of them?

Where do you get the idea that God needs these things to forgive?

Which things? The cross? I  have said that by the cross, I meant Christ.  If the Father did NOT need the Son to forgive us, why did He send Him to the world to give it life?  Death is necessary for forgiveness, so the Bible says. And the Father cannot die. So He needed the Son to die for the sins of the world, "for God SO loved the world". Only through the death of the Son CAN there be forgiveness.

[pnattmbtc]

I don't major in SEMANTICS, brother.  When I say without the cross, I mean "without Christ".  Hope that settles the issue.

What's this is reference to?

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: When I said, the cross is necessary for forgiveness, I actually meant Christ is necessary for forgiveness.  And I think you knew that is what I meant.  If not, then you know now.

 The same question would apply.  Why would God need Christ in order to forgive us?

[pnattmbtc]

Me: Yes, but this is all for man, not God.

Samie: Are we not discussing forgiveness, and forgiveness is FOR man?  Ergo, I gave you verses that you say are FOR man.  What's your point in "but this is all for man"?  Are you questioning my use of the verses or reinforcing my use of them?

I'm questioning your use of them.  If the verses or for man, then they must involve something man does.  If man has no particiation in what is happening, then the verses involve something God does for man.  If God doesn't need the cross or Christ to forgive us, then the verses must involve something man does.

 

Me: Where do you get the idea that God needs these things to forgive?

Samie: Which things? The cross? I  have said that by the cross, I meant Christ.  If the Father did NOT need the Son to forgive us, why did He send Him to the world to give it life?  

Because man needed life, and life is in Christ, as He said, "I am the life" and "But you will not come to Me, that you might have life."

Death is necessary for forgiveness, so the Bible says. 

Right, but why?  Who needs the death, man or God?

And the Father cannot die. So He needed the Son to die for the sins of the world, "for God SO loved the world". Only through the death of the Son CAN there be forgiveness.

Same question; why?  If God doesn't need the cross or Christ to forgive, and man does, how does Christ's death help man be forgiven?

[Samie]

I'm questioning your use of them.  If the verses or for man, then they must involve something man does.

Nothing in the verses is about what man does, and you know it, don't you?

If man has no particiation in what is happening, then the verses involve something God does for man.

Yes, the verses involve something God does for man, and you know it, I suppose.

 If God doesn't need the cross or Christ to forgive us, then the verses must involve something man does.

And since the verses involve something God does for man, then by your own logic, God does need the cross or Christ to forgive us.  And you have just proven your own contention wrong that God does not need the cross to forgive us.