Who did Jesus give Himself a ransom for ?

Got scripture for this, or are you guessing?
1. The angel said that there is no hope for those who both worship the beast and his image AND take his mark. 2. This means no repentance, no forgiveness. 3. Jesus stated there is only one unpardonable sin, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. So... in what way does taking the mark resemble the unpardonable sin, since the angel basically said it is unpardonable.
So it's not this below then?

Mark 3:28-30
28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
If this is the only way it is presented, then there is no unpardonable sin. So if people can be forgiven for all their sins, and every slander they utter, then that means God is evil for not doing that, right? Isn't that the basis of your argument against God?
30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”
Yes. Yes He did. So I guess that means that a whole bunch of people who don't have to go to hell, since God can forgive them, go to hell because God hates them, and won't.
Can he lie, he can't do that? Can he deceive people?
Post modernist clap trap.
Jesus is the truth.
Yet that isn't the gospel. The gospel is that Jesus took your place on the cross.
You make it sound like you are different from them. If I recall Calvinists believe that no one has the ability to repent and believe in Christ, so you also rejected the gospel, it's only because God made you believe it, according to Calvinism, that you believe, isn't it?
No one, in and of themselves, has the ability to repent and be saved, because JESUS SAID SO. Who then can be saved? With man this is only sometimes possible, if the moon is blue, and at a weird angle. He said it is IMPOSSIBLE. If I recall, that means that it is slightly possible, if you will it hard enough that all the veins in your skull pop out.
You have stated that the lost reject the gospel that is why they are not saved, but you rejected it, you could not, would not accept it either, it's only because God made you accept it, that you did, so for a Calvinist, the reason they did not receive salvation, wasn't because they rejected the gospel, God would not enable them to receive it. That is the reality, isn't it?
No. They aren't saved because they reject the gospel. When did I say that? It is scripture that says that, so I just repeat what scripture says. The reality is that they cannot accept it unless God makes it possible. Jesus said that. Take it up with Him, if you hate what He said so much.
That of course, is not what scripture teaches, but it's what Calvinist teach.
Wait, if Calvinists teach it, then by definition it is what scripture teaches... (it goes both ways.)
 
1. The angel said that there is no hope for those who both worship the beast and his image AND take his mark. 2. This means no repentance, no forgiveness. 3. Jesus stated there is only one unpardonable sin, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. So... in what way does taking the mark resemble the unpardonable sin, since the angel basically said it is unpardonable.

If this is the only way it is presented, then there is no unpardonable sin. So if people can be forgiven for all their sins, and every slander they utter, then that means God is evil for not doing that, right? Isn't that the basis of your argument against God?
Mark 3:28-30
28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

That doesn't sound like taking the mark, it's sounds like slander of the Holy Spirit, that seems like a verbal thing, NOT a physical thing.
Yes. Yes He did. So I guess that means that a whole bunch of people who don't have to go to hell, since God can forgive them, go to hell because God hates them, and won't.
If God hates them, why does he command people to repent and believe in the gospel then?
Post modernist clap trap.
You claimed God can do whatever he wants, but when I point out some things he can't do, you answer with this.
Yet that isn't the gospel. The gospel is that Jesus took your place on the cross.
Are you trying to tell me what the gospel is, because you think I don't know it?
No one, in and of themselves, has the ability to repent and be saved, because JESUS SAID SO. Who then can be saved? With man this is only sometimes possible, if the moon is blue, and at a weird angle. He said it is IMPOSSIBLE. If I recall, that means that it is slightly possible, if you will it hard enough that all the veins in your skull pop out.
So you are no different to those sinners who can't repent either then. You also rejected the gospel, so why do you try and make a claim that you are different from them, everyone has no ability to repent according to Calvinists.

No one can make themselves born again, that is impossible for man, true, but they can repent and trust in God, that is possible I believe.
No. They aren't saved because they reject the gospel. When did I say that? It is scripture that says that, so I just repeat what scripture says.
You are no different from the unrepentent sinners, no ability to repent and believe, that is what Calvinists claim, so why make a special argument that the non elect rejected the gospel? Did you not reject it, until God made you receive it, gave you the power to receive it?

You are trying to make a false distinction between the non elect and the elect on the basis they were unwilling to do something you were willing to do, but the reality is, according to Calvinists, you we both unwilling to accept the gospel or even trust in God.
The reality is that they cannot accept it unless God makes it possible.
and neither could you, so what is the point of saying this, how does that make them worse than anyone else?
Jesus said that. Take it up with Him, if you hate what He said so much.
Why do I hate what Jesus said, my interpretation of scripture is different to yours.
Wait, if Calvinists teach it, then by definition it is what scripture teaches... (it goes both ways.)
My interpretation of scripture is different to yours, so I don't believe what Calvinist teach is biblical.
 
No one can make themselves born again, that is impossible for man, true, but they can repent and trust in God, that is possible I believe.
Perhaps the two of you should have a Dialectic Debate about the ability of the Stones, when Jesus said he could make Children of Abraham out of these stones?

Christian's Dialectic Debate Thread would be a good place to do so...
 
Mark 3:28-30
28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

That doesn't sound like taking the mark, it's sounds like slander of the Holy Spirit, that seems like a verbal thing, NOT a physical thing.

If God hates them, why does he command people to repent and believe in the gospel then?

You claimed God can do whatever he wants, but when I point out some things he can't do, you answer with this.

Are you trying to tell me what the gospel is, because you think I don't know it?

So you are no different to those sinners who can't repent either then. You also rejected the gospel, so why do you try and make a claim that you are different from them, everyone has no ability to repent according to Calvinists.

No one can make themselves born again, that is impossible for man, true, but they can repent and trust in God, that is possible I believe.

You are no different from the unrepentent sinners, no ability to repent and believe, that is what Calvinists claim, so why make a special argument that the non elect rejected the gospel? Did you not reject it, until God made you receive it, gave you the power to receive it?

You are trying to make a false distinction between the non elect and the elect on the basis they were unwilling to do something you were willing to do, but the reality is, according to Calvinists, you we both unwilling to accept the gospel or even trust in God.

and neither could you, so what is the point of saying this, how does that make them worse than anyone else?

Why do I hate what Jesus said, my interpretation of scripture is different to yours.

My interpretation of scripture is different to yours, so I don't believe what Calvinist teach is biblical.
yes the oxymorons are obvious that you pointed out.
 
Perhaps the two of you should have a Dialectic Debate about the ability of the Stones, when Jesus said he could make Children of Abraham out of these stones?

Christian's Dialectic Debate Thread would be a good place to do so...
can you tell me where Christ ever held a ‘debate’ with His followers?

I find where He answered questions asked by His accusers but not any ‘debating’.

I see where he pointed out He was betrayed but where is even one debate?
 
can you tell me where Christ ever held a ‘debate’ with His followers?

I find where He answered questions asked by His accusers but not any ‘debating’.

I see where he pointed out He was betrayed but where is even one debate?

Because He spoke as one who knew. Isaiah 55:8

He had no need for those words, because Spirit just is. Is just - truth.
 
Dialectical history:

Plato
Dialectic as pertains to a process of discerning the ‘forms’ or gods, and arriving at them.

Aristotle
Dialectic as delineation of the process of causality in a hierarchy of substance-accident where all material things are accident. Substance is a form: the pagan mover unmoved.

Augustine
A disciple of Plato and Aristotle, proposing God’s conformity to Plato and Aristotle (as logic, platonic substance etc.) and claimed this allowed him to become a ‘christian’

Descartes
A dialectic using Augustine‘s version of christianized Plato/Aristotle to force God to conform to ‘science’ and also posing the ‘I think‘ as God.

Leibniz
A hybrid Aristotelian dialectic applied to proto evolutionary theory/ causality/ occasionalism/ determinism in context of material reality where all is causally determined and God as the ‘only cause’ is material ‘nature‘ itself as conscious.

Kant
A strange hybrid of Leibniz and Descartes, where finally by dialectic means God is reduced to the ‘thing in itself’, a strange non-personal transcendental consciousness - Kant’s term - that produces the Aristotelian accidental illusions - (all material reality)

Hegel
By application and extension of the transcendental consciousness in the previous, shows how God became a god, how consciousness becomes a god, spiritual evolution, history of consciousness, consciousness as dialectical process, and freedom as dialectic.

Marx
an even stranger mix of atheist Left Hegelianism and Kant that extends dialectical reality to social manipulation of evolution, and expresses that evolution as a process to be directed to political objectives

Scripture:
no dialectic.
 
Last edited:
Plato pointed out in his opinion the Big Flaw of religious people (which he felt dialectic would solve):

they just obey and listen to God, and do not question or argue with God.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top