Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

[PaulThomson]

Then your interpretation of those events contradict the scriptures I quoted and cited yesterday, don't they? But I can't help but notice that you don't even attempt to reconcile your contradictions. Why is that? Clearly, you imply that scripture is wrong and you're right!

False dichotomy: either I agree with your interpretation of scriptures or I disagree with scripture. Maybe your interpretation of scripture is wrong.

Rufus said:
Because there is a difference between you and the Sovereign King of the Universe. What God intends will always come to past because his Word will never returns to him void (Isa 55:11), and all things are possible with him (Mat 19:26). God's intentions or plans can never be frustrated.

I say: Special pleading is a logical fallacy. God's word never returns void. His word is asharp two-edged sword dividing between bone and marrow , between soul and spirit.God's word will judge us on the last day. Those who resisted and frustrated God's words will not escape being judged according to that word. Yes, they thwarted His word and frustrated Him at times . But no, that same word will not return void. God is able to reroute his [plans to get tohis end goal, even though we frustrate and thwart some of His stated intentions.

Rufus said:
Prov 21:30
30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan
that can succeed against the LORD.
NIV

I say.: As above. God's end will be achieved even if He needs to reroute events to mitigate our refusals to submit to His will.

Rufus said:
And,

Job 42:2
2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.
NIV

The Not Inspired Version (NIV) is wrongly translated here.

Job 42:2 I know that you can do everything, and that no thought can be withheld from you. King's justified Version. KJV;

...and not can-be-withholden from-thee a-thought.
vs. ... and not ... can-be-thwarted of-you a-plan

a-plan-of-you in Hebrew would be indicated by a -Ka pronomial suffix on M-ZiMMaH

It says can- be-withheld YiBaTseR from-you MiM-Ka

 

[PaulThomson]

I've heard that before many times, but nobody has been able to enlighten me about this mysterious third position.

I did not say there was only one other possibility. I said there are not just two. The fact that many have said but no one has been able to enlighten you indicates that the propblem iswith your ability to receive communication that conflicts with your hardened mindset.

 

[PaulThomson]

Also, you confuse God's eternal decrees with his desires.

Do you think that God can desire something but does not have enough power and sovereignty to have whatever he desires?

It saddens me to learn, sir, that you,. evidently, have a pretty low view of the majesty and glory and power and wisdom of God. But I have found that this is not unusual for those whose theology is Reformed; for R theology also extends to Eschatology, which is inextricably entwined with Soteriology and all the other branches of theology, as well.

 

[PaulThomson]

I've heard that before many times, but nobody has been able to enlighten me about this mysterious third position. If such a position existed, the Church would have united 500 years ago.

There are two main camps in the Church. 1. Man centered gospel, which claims that salvation is by works that's the (Armininian) camp. 2. God centered gospel, which claims that we are saved by grace, and that not of ourselves.

I suppose you believe that salvation is a team effort, where Jesus needs you to complete the atonement, because He failed to Finnish the job. I would love to hear about this third position you guys keep pushing but never sharing, with anyone. Is it the teaching of some kind of secret society?

Jesus' atonement doesn't "save" anyone. Jesus' resurrection is what saves us, IF WE believe he rose from the dead.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

On the other hand, maybe Webster was familiar with this divine passage:

Gen 6:8
8 But Noah found favour in the eyes of Jehovah.
Darby

A very literal translation, by the way...

In other words, Noah found God's grace.

Darby, the well known heretic?

You most certainly do know how to pick your heroes.. all the way from secular to heretic.

 

[PaulThomson]

There are two main camps in the Church. 1. Man centered gospel, which claims that salvation is by works that's the (Armininian) camp. 2. God centered gospel, which claims that we are saved by grace, and that not of ourselves.

You are asserting there are only circles, and ellipses do not exist. Circles have one centre or focus. Your two exclusive options are both circles: either God only as the focal point; or man only as the focal point. There are theological perspectives that have more than one focal point. A theological ellipse has both God and man as focal points. For instance, God can be free AND man can be free, and what happens can be an ongoing relationship of give and take by both.

 

[Magenta]

Hear! Hear! Spoken like a true Agnostic! We're all under the dark, heavy yoke of ignorance, are we? We just can't know, can we? Or is it the other brand of agnosticism that says truth is unknown? It all boils down to personal preferences, opinions or conjecture? So much for divine revelation which God gave us to impart spiritual knowledge to mankind. And so much for the ministry of the Holy Spirit (himself the Spirit of Truth) who will lead all God's chosen ones into the truth. It looks like God has deserted his Church, for we've all become helpless mishaps, hopelessly stuck on stupid because we can't extricate ourselves from the muck and mire of our personal whims and fancies and delusions, can we? We must be the most miserable people on this dark, forlorn planet!

But having said that...YOUR "jury" may still be out; but I know what the truth is, thank you! And that, too, only by the effectual grace of God!

We are to be convinced in our own minds... whether we agree on specifics, or not. It does not mean that
God has deserted His Church, or that we've all become helpless mishaps, hopelessly stuck on stupid because
we can't extricate ourselves from the muck and mire of our personal whims and fancies and delusions.
If your words describe you, own them, but don't project them onto others as if they deserve to wear them.

 

[Charlie_2024]

I did not say there was only one other possibility. I said there are not just two. The fact that many have said but no one has been able to enlighten you indicates that the propblem iswith your ability to receive communication that conflicts with your hardened mindset.

No Sir, you failed to understand what I said. All I stated was that none of those people, including yourself who believe in the existence of extrabiblical doctrines have every have ever provided a single shred of evidence to support any of the supposed diverse doctrines.

If you want someone to take you seriously, you need to give a reason why someone like me is wrong and you're right. You saying so means nothing unless you have some kind of foundation or something. Words are cheap, without any foundation.

I have clearly stated that no third position exists, and you say it does but you don't know what it is. That's just demonstrates wishful thinking and it has nothing to do with the truth.

 

[Charlie_2024]

You are asserting there are only circles, and ellipses do not exist. Circles have one centre or focus. Your two exclusive options are both circles: either God only as the focal point; or man only as the focal point. There are theological perspectives that have more than one focal point. A theological ellipse has both God and man as focal points. For instance, God can be free AND man can be free, and what happens can be an ongoing relationship of give and take by both.

I agree there a thousands of weird and wonderful interpretations of the gospel. But there is only one true gospel. We have a choice to believe what God clearly said about salvation, or we can chose to believe one of the thousands of conflicting interpretations of men.

If you believe there are many truths, I will disagree of the bat. Jesus said "I am the truth". Notice He didn't include any denominations in His statement. That tells me that God is not a respecter of persons, He never debated or discussed anything with anyone. He said, "let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything else is from the Devil".

We don't see Jesus entertaining a bunch of different interpretations or playing word games. He is not the author of confusion, the enemy Satan is responsible for all the confusion.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I've heard that before many times, but nobody has been able to enlighten me about this mysterious third position. If such a position existed, the Church would have united 500 years ago.

There are two main camps in the Church. 1. Man centered gospel, which claims that salvation is by works that's the (Armininian) camp. 2. God centered gospel, which claims that we are saved by grace, and that not of ourselves.

I suppose you believe that salvation is a team effort, where Jesus needs you to complete the atonement, because He failed to Finnish the job. I would love to hear about this third position you guys keep pushing but never sharing, with anyone. Is it the teaching of some kind of secret society?

Bible doesn't teach Calvinism, so there had better be a third position.

 

[PaulThomson]

I agree there a thousands of weird and wonderful interpretations of the gospel. But there is only one true gospel. We have a choice to believe what God clearly said about salvation, or we can chose to believe one of the thousands of conflicting interpretations of men.

If you believe there are many truths, I will disagree of the bat. Jesus said "I am the truth". Notice He didn't include any denominations in His statement. That tells me that God is not a respecter of persons, He never debated or discussed anything with anyone. He said, "let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything else is from the Devil".

We don't see Jesus entertaining a bunch of different interpretations or playing word games. He is not the author of confusion, the enemy Satan is responsible for all the confusion.

The reason you only see two options is because you arbitrarily assign any persons perspective on soteriology to one of the only two options you allow to exist and eliminate all but one focal point from being the causative agency in the various soteriological schemata. If someone says God initiates salvation by offering salvation by grace through faith as a means of reconciliation and God requires the one offered this salvation to listen to the gospel with humility and put their trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, you assign that perspective, which really has two causative agencies, to your circular man-centred category, even though it belongs in an elliptical God and man centred category.

Your problem in understanding other options is your unwillingness to see beyond your prejudices.

 

[Rufus]

False dichotomy: either I agree with your interpretation of scriptures or I disagree with scripture. Maybe your interpretation of scripture is wrong.

Rufus said:
Because there is a difference between you and the Sovereign King of the Universe. What God intends will always come to past because his Word will never returns to him void (Isa 55:11), and all things are possible with him (Mat 19:26). God's intentions or plans can never be frustrated.

I say: Special pleading is a logical fallacy. God's word never returns void. His word is asharp two-edged sword dividing between bone and marrow , between soul and spirit.God's word will judge us on the last day. Those who resisted and frustrated God's words will not escape being judged according to that word. Yes, they thwarted His word and frustrated Him at times . But no, that same word will not return void. God is able to reroute his [plans to get tohis end goal, even though we frustrate and thwart some of His stated intentions.

Rufus said:
Prov 21:30
30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan
that can succeed against the LORD.
NIV

I say.: As above. God's end will be achieved even if He needs to reroute events to mitigate our refusals to submit to His will.

Rufus said:
And,

Job 42:2
2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.
NIV

The Not Inspired Version (NIV) is wrongly translated here.

Job 42:2 I know that you can do everything, and that no thought can be withheld from you. King's justified Version. KJV;

...and not can-be-withholden from-thee a-thought.
vs. ... and not ... can-be-thwarted of-you a-plan

a-plan-of-you in Hebrew would be indicated by a -Ka pronomial suffix on M-ZiMMaH

It says can- be-withheld YiBaTseR from-you MiM-Ka

God does not need to re-route his plans because all knowledge with him is spontaneous and instantaneous. You obviously think God is not omniscient but rather is like us his creatures of clay -- finite; for we often do in space and time have to make changes to our plans, don't we?

On the other hand Re Job 42:2, which you didn't like in the NIV and prefer your [implied] KJV over, the two most literal translations read:

Job 42:2
2 Thou hast known that [for] all things Thou art able, And not withheld from Thee is [any] device:
YLT

And,

Job 42:2
2 I know that thou canst do everything, and that thou canst be hindered in no thought of thine.
Darby

Or what about the NASB, which is also of the Formal Equivalency family?

Job 42:2
2 "I know that Thou canst do all things,
And that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted.
NASB

Wow! Look at that! The text immediately above is not very far removed from the NIV is it? Or for that matter from the ESV or the ASV or the RSV or the NRSV -- all of which are of the FE genre of translations. And all of these are very much in agreement with how various Dynamic Equivalency versions read! So...it looks like your wooden, stilted KJV (as "divinely inspired" as you may think it is ) is sadly an outlier in this instance. And it rightly should be, given this text and many others explicitly teach the omniscience and omnipotence of God, e.g. Gen 18:4; Jer 32:17; Dan 4:35; Mk 10:27, etc. No plan of man can succeed against God that would require the Lord God Almighty to redraw his battle plans -- to rethink his strategy as though God's thoughts are as progressive as ours. Sadly, your very low view of God resembles those of skeptics and atheists rather than a born again child of God.

 

[Rufus]

Bible doesn't teach Calvinism, so there had better be a third position.

Really? All Five Doctrines of Grace are taught therein -- for your info.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Really? All Five Doctrines of Grace are taught therein -- for your info.

I got tulip down, yes I know. The Bible does not teach Calvinism.

 

[Rufus]

We are to be convinced in our own minds... whether we agree on specifics, or not. It does not mean that
God has deserted His Church, or that we've all become helpless mishaps, hopelessly stuck on stupid because
we can't extricate ourselves from the muck and mire of our personal whims and fancies and delusions.
If your words describe you, own them, but don't project them onto others as if they deserve to wear them.

I don't believe they describe me, for I strenuously and meticulously strive by the power of God's Spirit within to arrive at the purity of God's Holy Word. Unlike very many in the Church (at least here in the West) I do study the scriptures to show myself approved of God; for I truly do want to divide his Word rightly. His Word is the only Truth we have in this very dark world of which Satan, the father of lies, rules.

Further, my words you quote were only in rebuttal to a poster by taking his position to it logical conclusion. I DO NOT share that poster's worldly, ungodly view.

 

[Rufus]

I got tulip down, yes I know. The Bible does not teach Calvinism.

While, I agree that the term "Calvinism", like "Trinity" is not a term found in holy writ, nonetheless like the concept of the latter like the former, too, is found cover to cover in the Good Book.

 

[Rufus]

I did not say there was only one other possibility. I said there are not just two. The fact that many have said but no one has been able to enlighten you indicates that the propblem iswith your ability to receive communication that conflicts with your hardened mindset.

Ahh...the ol' Syncretism Argument? Tell me, sir, when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, what role excactly did he play in his own resurrection? How did he contribute to his own "rebirth"? I'm very much interested in being informed on this matter by your much softer mindset.

 

[PaulThomson]

Ahh...the ol' Syncretism Argument? Tell me, sir, when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, what role excactly did he play in his own resurrection? How did he contribute to his own "rebirth"? I'm very much interested in being informed on this matter by your much softer mindset.

Which scripture says that Lazarus was reborn when he was eesurrected? Read the context. Jesus was demonstrating his power to physically resurrect the dead on the last day. He was not demonstrating regeneration through faith.

 

[PaulThomson]

God does not need to re-route his plans because all knowledge with him is spontaneous and instantaneous. You obviously think God is not omniscient but rather is like us his creatures of clay -- finite; for we often do in space and time have to make changes to our plans, don't we?

On the other hand Re Job 42:2, which you didn't like in the NIV and prefer your [implied] KJV over, the two most literal translations read:

Job 42:2
2 Thou hast known that [for] all things Thou art able, And not withheld from Thee is [any] device:
YLT

And,

Job 42:2
2 I know that thou canst do everything, and that thou canst be hindered in no thought of thine.
Darby

Or what about the NASB, which is also of the Formal Equivalency family?

Job 42:2
2 "I know that Thou canst do all things,
And that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted.
NASB

Wow! Look at that! The text immediately above is not very far removed from the NIV is it? Or for that matter from the ESV or the ASV or the RSV or the NRSV -- all of which are of the FE genre of translations. And all of these are very much in agreement with how various Dynamic Equivalency versions read! So...it looks like your wooden, stilted KJV (as "divinely inspired" as you may think it is ) is sadly an outlier in this instance. And it rightly should be, given this text and many others explicitly teach the omniscience and omnipotence of God, e.g. Gen 18:4; Jer 32:17; Dan 4:35; Mk 10:27, etc. No plan of man can succeed against God that would require the Lord God Almighty to redraw his battle plans -- to rethink his strategy as though God's thoughts are as progressive as ours. Sadly, your very low view of God resembles those of skeptics and atheists rather than a born again child of God.

Did I say the KJV was divinely inspired and inerrant? No. It is however, translated from the Greek text family that 99% of all surviving mss belong to. The question is, what does the Hebrew actually say And what is the context of the statement by Job which may colour the semantic range of the words.?

You cannot PROVE your preferred interpretation correct by selecting scholarly translations that are worded in a way that sounds most like your preferred interpretation and dismissing other scholarly translations that give the text a different nuance. If you are honest, you will admit there are a range of possible meanings, and your preferred sense of that text is not irrefutable from the Hebrew and LXX versions I'm just saying the Hebrew does not prove your interpretation. The burden is on you to prove it does, since you are making the absolutist claim that it does.

 

[Rufus]

I have a serious question for all you NR folks regarding the Fall. I would like know how y'all understand the post-fall account that is recorded for us in Gen 3:6-4:26. To be more more specific, do you believe there is enough data in this particular passage and, even more generally, within the macro context of scripture to reasonably determine if God...

A. saved both our first parents ,
B. neither of them,
C. just one of them;
D. and if C, which one and why?
E. Or if A or B, why?
F. Or Scripture is inconclusive.

I would encourage one and all, for that matter, to read through this passage very carefully and also apply your general knowledge of scripture before answering.