The following is an exchange with a Limited Forgiver who plays gymnastics with God's word.
Listener: “1Cor 15:17 does, in fact, prove that NO one was forgiven AT the cross. IF Christ had not risen, according to that verse, who/how many could have been forgiven AT the cross? Praise God, He did raise from the dead, enabling all who trust in His work to receive forgiveness and justification.”
TTR: Why you want to present a moot point as an argument is beyond me, but have at it. The more you say “If Christ had not risen” while knowing that He absolutely did raise – you prove your own argument as irrelevant.
By continuing with your objections, you are just putting on display the fact that you absolutely do not comprehend what took place on the cross, and how the resurrection verifies what happened AT THE CROSS for the entire world, including you. If you really knew what God did on your behalf, it's unlikely that you'd be here “right-fighting” in an attempt to gain some sort of credit for what Christ did for you, without consulting you first, and without waiting for you to believe it so He could do it. Understanding the full implications of the finished crosswork tends to result in thankfulness to God, and humility – knowing that He forgave you while you were still His enemy. But, instead, you're begging for some credit. You've just got to have your fingers on it somewhere.
That's the difference between self-righteousness and the righteousness of Christ. There isn't much space for Christ's righteousness to dwell in a prideful heart.
Listener: “I read your explanation for Acts 26:18; it makes no sense. The payment was made for all, and is available, waiting to be received through faith. IF forgiveness was automatically applied, no one would need to "receive" it.”
TTR: It doesn't make sense to you because you are missing it on purpose. Forgiveness is something to be “applied?” Since when? You're just making stuff up now.
If I forgive you for a wrong, even if you don't think you did anything wrong – then according to your argument, my forgiveness toward you is irrelevant, non-existent, illogical, and in vain – all because you did not receive it as a valuable thing. Get over yourself. When someone else forgives you – it isn't about you. Only an impenitent, self-absorbed, self-important, reprobate would think that the value of forgiveness is in the guilty party's acceptance of it. You're still operating in the religious mindset of “God waiting for you to come to Him and apologize” to receive forgiveness. As if He's like carnal man, sitting up there with His arms crossed, holding a grudge against the world until they come and beg for forgiveness. If that's the god you're here to defend, then it's best you move on.
Listener: “It would work like sin; we don't "receive" sin; it's an automatic, involuntary fact of reality. Why would Paul beseech people to be reconciled, if they were already sinless, and therefore, right in God's eyes?”
TTR: Sin isn't being imputed, but that doesn't mean anyone is “sinless” -so I don't even know what you're talking about. You seem to have an odd idea about how “sinning” works. Otherwise, you wouldn't make blanket statements like “it's involuntary.” People voluntarily sin all the time. There isn't just “one type” of sin. The fact is that ALL sin was once being imputed (counted against us) but no longer is, because of the finished crosswork.
When you say “if they were already sinless” --- who is the “they” you're talking about? The lost world? Have you looked at yourself, lately? Are you “sinless, and therefore right in God's eyes?” (Surely you aren't going to answer “yes” to that.) Of course you're not. You probably committed sin since posting your last comment here, and you may even be sinning now as you read this. So what is your point? Why would you ask something about “them” that you, yourself have not even achieved the status of?
Let me say this slowly:
Sinless. People. Don't. Need. Forgiveness.
Please read that last sentence as many times as you need to for it to sink in.
Listener: “Those at the WTJ will be judged according to their works, but you teach that they have no "bad works"/sins to be judged for?”
TTR: We do not teach that. This is yet another false assertion from someone who has failed to educate themselves before making a knee jerk judgment.
Listener: “Why did Jesus teach degrees of punishment, if everyone in hell will one day be perfectly sinless, just spiritually dead, all on equal ground?”
TTR: First of all, we have an entire podcast about different degrees of punishment. It's called “Is All Sin Equal?” Secondly, there you go with that “sinless” thing again – and now you're adding to the drama with “perfectly sinless.”
Listener: “You say "Saved people have His justification, because He is just." Yet, at the same time, you teach that a just, an Holy God (whose requirement to be made holy in His sight has been met by the payment of Christ's shed blood) is still condemning sinless, washed souls to a place of horrible punishment?”
TTR: “condemning sinless, washed souls to a place of horrible punishment” - Another false assertion that doesn't deserve a response.
Listener: “Are we "sanctified" because sanctified is an attribute of Christ?”
TTR: If you're saved, you are also sanctified; made holy, because He is Holy; set apart by being placed into His Body. We don't teach Sonship Edification here.
Listener: “Do you think Alexander the coppersmith was forgiven all sin?”
TTR: Yes. That's an odd question, even for you. Under your “Limited Forgiveness” doctrine which requires belief for forgiveness to be “applied,” do you know if he ever believed the gospel? Paul turned him over to Satan so that he'd learn not to blaspheme. (Just like the guy in 1 Corinthians 5.) Are you assuming that he never believed Paul's gospel, therefore, according to your false doctrine of Limited Forgiveness, he was never forgiven? Why are you bringing up someone who may have been no more "unsaved" than the guy in 1 Cor. 5?
Listener: “What will the Lord be "rewarding" him for?”
TTR: His works. Just like Paul says.
Listener: “Remembering that a "reward" can be something bad, not just a good thing.”
TTR: Yep. -I don't know who you think you're preaching to here. The word used is "reward" not "award."
Listener: “Why will God punish those who persecuted the Thessalonians with everlasting destruction, if those pursecutors are sinless?”
TTR: I'm not answering a question that is based on your false premise that people can somehow be “sinless.” That's a “you” problem.
Listener: “For that matter, why is there a day of God's wrath and vengeance coming at all?”
TTR: Again, this is a “you” problem, based on your own assumptions. We don't teach that people are “sinless.” We teach that people are forgiven.
Also, what you're referring to is a different dispensation. We don't preach other gospels for salvation, either. And we don't conflate different aspects of instruction, terminology, and doctrine just to make mainstream christianity comfortable here. -Likely the reason why we've rubbed you the wrong way.
Listener: “It isn't just Israel that will suffer through the Tribulation; the whole world will endure His wrath.”
TTR: Ok? And that relates to this conversation, how? --- You're still arguing against your assumptions about what we teach.
Listener: “Sin is not being imputed presently, that does not equate into automatic forgiveness for all during this, or any dispensation."
TTR: So, which non-imputed sin do you need to get forgiven during THIS dispensation? I'll wait.
Also, we do not teach “automatic forgiveness” for other dispensations. That would be unscriptural. Maybe do a little research on who you are criticizing before creating strawman arguments. That would save us a lot of time.
Listener: “Look up the definition for Justify/Justified/Justification (I realized you prefer to create your own definitions for words, such as you did for "regeneration", but, honestly, it's ok to consult an old dictionary, like Webster's 1828.)”
TTR: No one's creating “new” definitions. Just letting the King James say what it says. You should try it. It's unfortunate that you have an issue with that and feel the need to “consult” other sources as your final authority. But I'll entertain your irrelevant claims for a second:
“new birth” (which is the definition of regeneration being strongly pushed lately) and RE-birth are not even the same thing.
NEW (never before)
RE (again)
If the best I could do was claim that “new” and “again” were both the same thing, I'd probably just shut up. -And I definitely would not preach entire sermons on it. -But that's just me.
Also, if I want an extrabiblical source for helping to define words from 17th century text, I usually find it more appropriate to look at the available sources from that same time period. Do etymological research, consult the contextual usage of that word in other relevant sources, etc. -Instead of putting all my trust in something from 200 years after that time period, which contains obviously proven incorrect definitions of other words. But again, that's just me.
Listener: There are several examples to give, but here are just a few. Justify a. :to prove or show to be just, RIGHT, or reasonable (When a soul has no sin on their account, therefore they are forgiven, how can they not be "right" in God's eyes?)”
TTR: Just because I don't hold your wrongs against you doesn't mean you didn't commit those wrongs. However, if you were “justified” in committing those “wrongs” then the “wrongs” wouldn't be wrong. -Kind of like 1st degree murder vs. self-defense homicide. One is unjustifiable and one is justified.
Listener: “Justification a. :the act or an instance of justifying something: VINDICATION 2 c. Archaic: ABSOLVE-to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt To pardon or forgive (a sin): to remit (a sin) by absolution”
TTR: These definitions remind me of how Christendumb defines the word “repent.” Also looks a little bit like Roman Catholic lingo. By the way, you ever looked up the word “repent” in your beloved 1828?
Listener: “Eph 1:7 & Col 1:14"In whom (when we are IN Christ) we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." If what you teach is true, then no one need to be IN Christ to be redeemed or forgiven.”
TTR: Just more "gotcha verses." It's apparent that you Limited Forgivers have allowed your prejudices to blind you from truth. This is basic grammar from 8th grade English class. The "in whom" refers to the person of Christ being the SOURCE of forgiveness and not the location one must be in to GET forgiveness.
Do you not respect the word of God enough to just allow it say what it says in context, instead of searching verses out to support your argument? If you could refrain from ADDING “the body of” in the middle of the words “in Christ” you wouldn't have this problem. Stop reading things into the scriptures. If that's all you're going to use the Bible for, then you'd be better off closing it. Maybe one day you and your ilk will realize that we don't respect your word searches and cherry picking scriptures to fit your agenda, and move on.
The words “the body of” are no where in those verses, and no one has been redeemed YET.
Listener: "Universal Forgiveness is a dangerous error; a 1/2 step away from Universal Salvation.”
TTR: The Limited Forgivers have been saying this at least since 2013. Yet you haven't been able to give even ONE example of it happening. However, one of your own mid actors turned into a full blown unapologetic universalist, didn't he? And the silence about his “universal forgiveness doctrine” leading to it – is DEAFENING. You can't very well say that he got that from universal forgiveness because he never taught universal forgiveness. “1/2 step” huh?
It is actually your leader who is responsible for the initial propagating of this lie of forgiveness on the cross leading to universalism, and I see you all are still parroting it with zero evidence. Nearly 10 years of saying the same thing over and over - expecting different results. (Can someone say "insanity?)
10 years of creating all out campaigns which caused confusion, further divisions, and contention where before, there was none. Mud-slinging, false accusations, deception – all to push a self-aggrandizing agenda... Continuing to fuel the fire, cause further divisions, and without the ability to just let it go and move on. He's obsessed with proving himself right, and yet he does a terrible job of it. I have zero respect for the so-called “history and social justice teacher” that you have so much admiration for. He's a blemish to the body of Christ, IF he's even in it. Don't come here promoting his nonsense. No one's delusions of grandeur will be entertained here and neither will your promotion of such.
Listener: “John 8:24 is an example of faith being required in any dispensation. There are many trans-dispensational truths in scripture; necessary FAITH in God and His instruction is just one example.”
TTR: Who said “faith” isn't required in any dispensation? Who are you arguing with about this? You may have time to waste, but as ministers of reconciliation we do not!
Listener: “After the cross, Jesus told his apostles that "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." That was speaking of individual's, not national Israel's; that could've applied to Gentiles, as well.”
TTR: “could've applied?”
This. Was. Before. The. Cross. No one can “remit” sins today. - Not even according to your Limited Forgiveness Doctrine.
So what are you talking about?
Listener: “Are Jewish saints in 1 John already forgiven?”
TTR: Their past sins are: Romans 3:25. Future sins will be blotted out. You may listen to us, but do you pay attention to what you're hearing?
Listener: “That means some were obviously not forgiven. Your universal forgiveness doctrine does not hold up against the whole of scripture. You cherry pick verses, then twist them, and redefine words, to make them try to fit. No matter how you contort, you still end up with a just God condemning sinless souls, who also would had to have been "washed" by the blood sacrifice of Christ, in eternal torment, although they had been made "right"/justified in His eyes, because if you're sinless, all your "wrongs" are gone, and you are justified “
TTR: I told you to stop using that type of fallacious argument in my last response to you. If you want to come here and debate, try learning the rules of debating. You can't use a faulty premise to come up with a logical conclusion. It invalidates the point you're trying to make.
The only way to respond to a logical fallacy is by showing the lack of logic contained. I've already done that once, and yet you refuse to stop and use logic correctly. -So we're done here.
I pray that you will learn to take your eyes off man and his flawed reasoning, and put your sights on God's Word. More importantly, understand and believe the implications of the FINISHED crosswork, and what occurred on the cross without your belief in the equation.
God didn't need you to be a part of what He did. You just need to believe what He did. First, you've got to stop putting yourself where you don't belong. You play NO PART in the gospel.
You are not invited to “help” God do what He's already done. Salvation is not getting your sins forgiven. It's believing they already ARE!
Please do your homework. Then if you still don't agree - fine. Move on and stop wasting your time here. We will not be changing our mind concerning the finished cross-work of Christ. We are not like the "mid actors" who simply give it lip service. We actually BELIEVE it.
Add comment
Comments