Crusaders?

[Peacefulcrusader]

It's the Apostle Peter that you are arguing against not me, i'm just quoting Peter. In regards to your comments on the Shemites you may want to post that on my "Who are the Gentiles" thread and I will answer it there.



Well can I also ask you to not teach that Christians should pray for antichrists, and to stop changing the word of God.

1 Timothy 2:1-4

"This is good, and pleases God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and come to unto the knowledge of God."

Is this universal salvation? No God will say "depart from Me I never knew you", all men cannot be saved as it is written antichrists will be ****ed to Hell. So all men that come to knowledge of God have done so because of the will of God....It's quite simple.

Cup of Ruin, stop lying about what I've said and not said. I have never said that I believe that all people will get saved (socalled Universal salvation), but I have quoted verses which say that it is the good will of God that people would be saved. Because of this 1Tim 2 says that we should pray for all people.

That you try to twist my words pretending that I've said that I believe all people will be saved (which we know will not happen, because of lots of sayings by Jesus), is your own problem. Be careful about lying and twisting other's words.

I have not changed the word of God either. But I've noticed that you're trying to twist the understanding of it so it can fit your personal agenda. That remains to be your own problem.

As this discussion had turned out to be fruitless, I will heed the advice of Paul and withdraw from it, lest it will cause ruin to the readers (2Tim 2:23). There is no point in arguing about this, you simply refuse to accept central aspects of the New Testament.

Concerning the gentile-debate, in which I proved you wrong, I'll stop that as well.

I wish you all the best, but I won't bother more with answering you on this forum.
Peacefulcrusader

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Cup of Ruin, stop lying about what I've said and not said. I have never said that I believe that all people will get saved (socalled Universal salvation), but I have quoted verses which say that it is the good will of God that people would be saved. Because of this 1Tim 2 says that we should pray for all people.

That you try to twist my words pretending that I've said that I believe all people will be saved (which we know will not happen, because of lots of sayings by Jesus), is your own problem. Be careful about lying and twisting other's words.

I have not changed the word of God either. But I've noticed that you're trying to twist the understanding of it so it can fit your personal agenda. That remains to be your own problem.

As this discussion had turned out to be fruitless, I will heed the advice of Paul and withdraw from it, lest it will cause ruin to the readers (2Tim 2:23). There is no point in arguing about this, you simply refuse to accept central aspects of the New Testament.

Firstly I did not lie, as you said Christians should pray that all men should be saved, that's not God's wll, secondly, if you dont believe in Universal salvation why would you pray that all men should be saved? And thirdly you did change the word or either the Bible you are using changed the word 'will' to 'wants' 1 Tim. 2.

Concerning the gentile-debate, in which I proved you wrong, I'll stop that as well.

No you just got the chronological timeline wrong as regards when the Shemite gentiles arrived in the land of Grecia.

 

[Peacefulcrusader]

Firstly I did not lie, as you said Christians should pray that all men should be saved, that's not God's wll, secondly, if you dont believe in Universal salvation why would you pray that all men should be saved? And thirdly you did change the word or either the Bible you are using changed the word 'will' to 'wants' 1 Tim. 2.



No you just got the chronological timeline wrong as regards when the Shemite gentiles arrived in the land of Grecia.

You cannot make these accusations against me because you misunderstand what I'm saying. There is no real reason for your accusation against me that I preach "Universal salvation", in fact the debate over this from your part has only concerned that all people who aren't saved - the unsaved - should not be prayed for what so ever. So you have willfully tried to twist my words.

Besides, "Universal salvation" is far far away from the essence of the gospel, even Jesus was clear on that. You probably know this, and if it's the case that you thought I was preaching it, it's an enormous insult, so great that you should've been very, very careful with carrying it out against me!!!

Your understanding of 1Tim 2 can be discussed - but I think that we agree on it. The meaning is that God wishes all men to be saved, not that he has decided that it will happen (cause we know that all men won't be saved). If you decided to interpret my words with the consequence that you believed I was preaching "Universal salvation", you have misunderstood the text in itself. And as I said in the last paragraph, you have shown very little care concerning your serious accusations. My good advice to you is to be more careful with what you say to others, especially when it is later revealed that you have misunderstood things - with no good reason. Looking at what I've written earlier in this debate, you should have known that I was not supporting a "Universal salvation"-doctrine.

Concerning the Greeks I see that you won't stop and maybe change your mind, well, we won't discuss it any more, I see no point after showing you all those verses.


Summing up the other point, I think that we agree on it. Because of that it appears to me as very sad that you have misunderstood me so much that you've been throwing out very harsh accusations against me. As a general rule as Christians we shouldn't be quick to judge. It's better to investigate matters, before doing such a thing.

God bless you

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Your understanding of 1Tim 2 can be discussed - but I think that we agree on it. The meaning is that God wishes all men to be saved, not that he has decided that it will happen (cause we know that all men won't be saved).

You changed the word again, now you change it to 'wishes', that's not what it says, it says 'will' - "Who will have all men be be saved", why do you keep changing it?

wish - to want; desire, long for.
will - the faculty of concious and esp. of deliberate action.

This refers in 1 Tim 2 to the deliberate action of God in the salvation of all men, no man comes to God unless God wills it, the word is 'will' not 'want' or 'wish', or prayer.

Which is why Jesus said your prayer should be 'Thy will be done, Thy kingdom come'.....

 

[MahogonySnail]

Cup of Ruin does it or does it not say that God wills all men to be saved?

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Cup of Ruin does it or does it not say that God wills all men to be saved?

Yes it does. God wills ALL men to be saved.

Will - faculty on concious, esp. deliberate action

 

[Peacefulcrusader]

Hi Cup.
The problem here is not that I change words. The problem is language/translation problems.

But as you have admitted, it is indeed the case that "God wills ALL men to be saved", to quote what you said last. This is what I have been trying to say all the way, but I believe that language problems have caused us both to misunderstand each others.

Hooray, we agree on this. So there is no more need for debate. Discussion closed.

 

[greatkraw]

Hi Cup.
The problem here is not that I change words. The problem is language/translation problems.

But as you have admitted, it is indeed the case that "God wills ALL men to be saved", to quote what you said last. This is what I have been trying to say all the way, but I believe that language problems have caused us both to misunderstand each others.

Hooray, we agree on this. So there is no more need for debate. Discussion closed.

So how did we get from Crusaders to Doctrine of Election?

 

[jcspartan]

So how did we get from Crusaders to Doctrine of Election?

Good question. It came by way of Greeks and other european people being decended from the lost tribes of Israel. What that has to do with the crusaders . . . it was an illustration point that developed a life of her own and morphed.

 

[suaso]

Basically, every thread in Bible Discussion inevitably leads to a debate/argument regarding Who is saved, how they are saved, and if they can or cannot lose their salvation, and how what version of the Bible they are using will effect this determination.

 

[jcspartan]

Basically, every thread in Bible Discussion inevitably leads to a debate/argument regarding Who is saved, how they are saved, and if they can or cannot lose their salvation, and how what version of the Bible they are using will effect this determination.

Maybe we should just cut and past your post as a new thread and get rid of all the other threads.

 

[suaso]

Then that thread would also devolve into a debate/argument regarding Who is saved, how they are saved, and if they can or cannot lose their salvation, and how what version of the Bible they are using will effect this determination, simply because I mentioned it. haha.

 

[jcspartan]

The shame of it is that there were some interesting thoughts begining to be discussed. I got a few of them as emails things like how does government influence perspective? What is the role of the Christian in society? In Government? Can you have Christian Government? Separation of Church and State? How can Christians defend themselves? To what extent can Christians defend others? Although it was in the context of the Crusades the emails and discussions had very practical application today.

 

[Peacefulcrusader]

So how did we get from Crusaders to Doctrine of Election?

Hi Great. Look at post 94, (Cup of Ruin). This is the reason why the topic was dramatically changed. But we can continue discussing the real topic.