Christ died for them not appointed to Wrath.

[Arial]

Because it says Before of old. If it would have just said of old, that's pretty old, but to add Before of old, thats timeless.

The KJV is the only version that translates it "before of old" and it does so because that was the type of vocabulary used at the time. But even so, it does not mean timeless. It means in time past. Nothing there indicates that it was at creation. When in time past is not stated, but because of the things I said in the post you are responding to but did not address, only repeated yourself, it cannot mean at creation can it? Everything was very good as God created it.

I agree that in time past (before Jude wrote that), those people infiltrating the church that Jude is writing about were ordained to condemnation. But that is not the issue. The issue is your claim that God created at creation some for condemnation and some for mercy. It was his decree that all would fall into condemnation through Adam, he ordained the means of that, and that some would receive mercy. They had to all be under condemnation in order for any to receive mercy. You keep ignoring that, never ever addressing it, and simply begin posting scriptures that say some are condemned and some receive mercy.

NO ONE DISAGREES WITH THAT!

You make a claim that pertains to before the fall and then change the subject to only showing scriptures that say some are condemned and some are shown mercy, something that applies only to after the fall, and treat all other posters as if they deny what they agree with and have said they agree with it. Frankly, it is an egregious way of posting. You have yet to even actually address your original claim that creation is when God created both good and evil people. It is as though you cannot distinguish between the eternity of God, and the plan of redemption that takes place in the boundaries of time.

If you respond, please address what I have said. Don't just repeat doing the same thing I just described.

 

[brightfame52]

Then it is NOT about anyone else,

That shows you that some were destined to disobedience. Even though Rom 10 is about jews, its true of some gentiles as well. Just like both jew and gentile were made vessels of mercy Rom 9:22-24

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

So there, why would you think some gentiles are excluded from being vessels of wrath , when they arent excluded from being vessels of mercy.

You have jews destined to disobedience 1 Pet 2:8 and Gentiles. What you think to all them gentiles God left them to themselves for centuries, not sending them any knowedge of Himself or Christ ?

Now Christ didnt die for them appointed to wrath, but them appointed to eternal life through Him

 

[brightfame52]

The KJV is the only version that translates it "before of old"

That's enough, so does the

Also the AKJV

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Besides that, it was way b4 they were born, so when they were born, their condemnation was sealed. Also see the comments by John Gill, we agree

 

[brightfame52]

You make a claim that pertains to before the fall a

I believe all of Gods eternal purposes were decided b4 the fall. I think b4 the fall, before Adam was created, God had already purposed Christ to redeem the elect from sin 1 Pet 1:20

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Adam was finally created in Gen 1 his sin was predetermined by God, and also the fate of all his posterity

 

[Arial]

I believe all of Gods eternal purposes were decided b4 the fall. I think b4 the fall, before Adam was created, God had already purposed Christ to redeem the elect from sin 1 Pet 1:20

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Adam was finally created in Gen 1 his sin was predetermined by God, and also the fate of all his posterity

There is no dispute with that!! That is not the issue!!! Address the posts!!!!!!!!!!!

You make a claim that pertains to before the fall and then change the subject to only showing scriptures that say some are condemned and some are shown mercy, something that applies only to after the fall, and treat all other posters as if they deny what they agree with and have said they agree with it. Frankly, it is an egregious way of posting. You have yet to even actually address your original claim that creation is when God created both good and evil people. It is as though you cannot distinguish between the eternity of God, and the plan of redemption that takes place in the boundaries of time.

Address the posts!!!!!!!!!

The KJV is the only version that translates it "before of old" and it does so because that was the type of vocabulary used at the time. But even so, it does not mean timeless. It means in time past. Nothing there indicates that it was at creation. When in time past is not stated, but because of the things I said in the post you are responding to but did not address, only repeated yourself, it cannot mean at creation can it? Everything was very good as God created it.

I agree that in time past (before Jude wrote that), those people infiltrating the church that Jude is writing about were ordained to condemnation. But that is not the issue. The issue is your claim that God created at creation some for condemnation and some for mercy. It was his decree that all would fall into condemnation through Adam, he ordained the means of that, and that some would receive mercy. They had to all be under condemnation in order for any to receive mercy. You keep ignoring that, never ever addressing it, and simply begin posting scriptures that say some are condemned and some receive mercy.

NO ONE DISAGREES WITH THAT!

 

[Arial]

That's enough, so does the

Also the AKJV

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Besides that, it was way b4 they were born, so when they were born, their condemnation was sealed. Also see the comments by John Gill, we agree

Adress the posts!!!!!!!!!

The KJV is the only version that translates it "before of old" and it does so because that was the type of vocabulary used at the time. But even so, it does not mean timeless. It means in time past. Nothing there indicates that it was at creation. When in time past is not stated, but because of the things I said in the post you are responding to but did not address, only repeated yourself, it cannot mean at creation can it? Everything was very good as God created it.

 

[Josheb]

That shows you that some were destined to disobedience.

Yes..... and those people were destined after creation. Long after creation. According to the text of scripture they were assigned that destiny during the era of the prophets, not beforehand.

Even though Rom 10 is about jews, its true of some gentiles as well.

Perhaps, but not according to Romans 1:16. That verse was misused and it's time for you to stop trying to find a way to prove Post 48 correct when it is not. It would be better of you to acknowledge the mistake and start over rather than to try and continue to prove the error correct.

Just like both jew and gentile were made vessels of mercy Rom 9:22-24

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

So there, why would you think some gentiles are excluded from being vessels of wrath , when they arent excluded from being vessels of mercy.

I addressed this earlier. You've bold-faced the wrong text. The fact of the text in question is that Paul is arguing a hypothetical. Nowhere di Paul state that is what God has actually done. He simply asked, rhetorically, "What if God did do that?"

• What if God made people stand on their heads when they professed Christ as Lord and Savior?
• What if God burned a visible circle on the tops of the heads of people He's saved?
• What if God made Christians grow a third arm?
• What if God turned the skins of the damned polka-dotted?
• What if God made His glory known by making the earth change its direction of rotation?
• What if God made His power known in the vessels of wrath?

So, here again, you've screwed up the exegesis by assuming a hypothetically rhetorical argument is a factual statement.

You have jews destined to disobedience 1 Pet 2:8 and Gentiles.

Nope. There are no Jews mentioned in that verse.

1 Corinthians 1:2-25
20Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, 24but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than mankind, and the weakness of God is stronger than mankind.

When the NT writers spoke of a "stumbling block" they were using an idiom common to their day. It was an idiom that had its origin in the prophetic words of God and it applied solely to the Jews. The pagan, Gentile version of the stumbling block was that of foolishness.

• The apostles preached the gospel.
• To the Jew, the gospel was a stumbling block.
• To the Greek/Gentile, the gospel was foolishness.

Romans 9:30-33
30What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, but the righteousness that is by faith; 31however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though they could by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33just as it is written: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

This is another example when the idiom is used and, again, it is used exclusively for the Jews and no one else. Who is the "they" in this passage? Jews!!! Jews stumbled over the stumbling stone. Where was the stumbling stone laid? In Zion! God did not lay the stumbling block in Rome, or Alexandria, or any Gentile city. He laid it in Zion where the Jews live.

The gospel tripped them up! They were expecting a Messiah. The Gentiles had no such expectation. That expectation was uniquely Judaic. Judaism was quite divided over the matter because the Sadducees were nihilists (they believed a person lived one life and then died and there was no resurrection, nor life after death) and the smaller sect, the Pharisees we not (they believed there was a resurrection from the grave and life after death). Jesus came along and explicitly affirmed the minority sect's point of view but they ALL still rejected him. Why? Because he claimed equality with God.

Huge stumbling block for Jews.

The Gentiles, on the other hand, had a much different response to the gospel. In the pagan mythologies gods came down from their realm in human appearance quite frequently. It was hard to find pagan god that hadn't come down and appeared in human form. Their problem was humans do not come back from the grave, and it cannot possibly be a Jew who managed to pull that off. Furthermore, that wretched Jew is now supposed to be King of ALL kings so even Caesar has to bow the knee! pffft! All of it is absurd.


Acts 17:16-35 (excerpted for the sake of space)
16Now while Paul was waiting for them in Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he observed that the city was full of idols. 17So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be present. 18And some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers as well were conversing with him. Some were saying, “What could this scavenger of tidbits want to say?” Others, “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? 20For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean.” ....22So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious in all respects. 23For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ .................Therefore, since we are the descendants of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by human skill and thought. 30So having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now proclaiming to mankind that all people everywhere are to repent, 31because He has set a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising him from the dead.” 32Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to scoff, but others said, “We shall hear from you again concerning this.” 33So Paul went out from among them. 34But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

Gentiles scoff. Jews stumble. Jews stumble over the cornerstone God laid in Zion. Gentiles scoff at the entire premise of anything Jewish having authority over them.

 

[Josheb]

What you think to all them gentiles God left them to themselves for centuries, not sending them any knowedge of Himself or Christ ?

I think it is irrelevant to this discussion of Post 48 and I will not be baited into a change of topic until the matter of Post 48 is resolved. Ask anyone here: when you trade posts with me you are trading posts with someone who will rely on scripture (not doctrine) and be relentless doing so. You're trading posts with someone exceedingly practiced in forensic analysis and often unyielding when it comes to staying on topic.

I am happy to discuss just about anything with just about anyone but I do not chase squirrels around the forum from topic to topic to topic and this scripture and that scripture and, oh! Look! There's another verse! And what about this one! because those people are disingenuous.

That, and I don't trade posts with trolls.

Post 48 is wrong. I was asked about Post 48 and I answered and addressed that post. You seem to recognize the verses are, in fact, about Jews but you're having difficulty letting go of the over-generalization. It would be better for you to be honoest and forthcoming and better for this conversation and the entire thread for you to acknowledge Post 48 is incorrect. Once that's resolved you can then attempt another argument for what you believe but I will not wantonly change from one scripture to another until you acknowledge the facts already in evidence.
The verses quoted in Post 48 do NOT support the premise God made two different peoples at creation. Those verses - ALL THREE OF THEM - are specifically and explicitly about Jews only and the conditions that existed for the recipients of those letters due to the function of God's prophecies.

And you should not be delaying any further. You should be saying, "Yes, Josh, I see what you posted is correct. May I attempt to prove my case another way?"

To which I will most likely say, "Sure. Have at it. I'll give it a read."

Ask anyone here and they'll tell you that is what I do. I will a) affirm that which bears integrity with scripture, b) inquire about that which either I do not understand or is not itself clear, and b) I will refute that which does not bear integrity with whole scripture. That's exactly what I have done over the last five pages and in the other op you authored. Where you got something correct, I affirmed it. Yep, that's true. Yep, that's correct. I asked many questions of questions (some of them are still unanswered). And when I came upon something that clearly does not reconcile with the whole of scripture, I corrected it with scripture.

It's time for you to acknowledge Post 48 is incorrect before moving on to other matters.

Now Christ didnt die for them appointed to wrath, but them appointed to eternal life through Him

I agree .

I completely agree but that statement can be misleading. Christ's sacrifice is sufficent for everyone who has ever lived and ever will live to be saved. The power inherent in the work of Christ on Calvary and his shed blood is infinite. In spite of that fact, or perhaps because of that fact, most people will not be saved. Why? Because the sacrifice of Christ is efficient only in the lives of those God actually saves. Monenergists and synergists divide over this last point because monergists attribute ALL of salvation solely to God while synergists attribute some of salvation to the sinner's volitional agency. The former will say Christ is efficient only in the lives of those who God chose, who God called, who God dragged to Christ, those to whom God gave salvific faith as part of His saving them. Synergists will say the sinner has an inherent ability to choose God even when still dead in sin and enslaved therein but both will agree Christ's sacrifice is effective only in the lives of those God actually saves.

And, if I read your posts correctly, you and I appear to agree God decided who He was going to save before He created a single human. We divide over who it was He saved because you believe an object of mercy was never an object of wrath despite his having been a sinner, someone who by nature is unrighteous.

And at this point in the conversation, we need to resolve the matter of Post 48 before moving on. If I continue to read procrastination, or any other effort at obfuscation I will move on to another thread because there's no sense in either of use repeating ourselves. Close out Post 48. I think the refutation of Post 48 proves fatal to your position but if you want to attempt another proof I will read it....

...after the failure of Post 48 has been acknowledged. Those verses do not state what they were made to say.

 

[Josheb]

I believe all of Gods eternal purposes were decided b4 the fall......

There is no dispute with that!!

And I agree. God deciding His purposes (eternal or otherwise) before the fall does not preclude a chronology existing within the history of creation. It does not preclude vessels of mercy from ALSO experiencing wrath, either. It is not eternal purpose that is disputed. It is the falsehood of two peoples at the onset of creation and the false dichotomy of wrath versus mercy (and the misuse of scripture when trying to prove these errors).