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

[PaulThomson]

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.

By A, do you mean the idea of permanently saved from any chance of being cast into the lake of fire?

 

[Rufus]

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.

No, you didn't but you snidely implied it.

Since I'm not a original language scholar, I check multiple translations because my goal is to capture the sense of what the writer is conveying. My goal is not to stroke my own back when I find that my understanding harmonizes with many or most translations in my arsenal, but to actually learn truth. Scripture tells me that I can actually know [absolute] truth -- not perfectly but nonetheless essentially and substantially.

And I did prove my position with the additional passages I cited plus my arguments from God's omniscience, especially. To be omniscient means to have infinite awareness, understanding and insight and to possess instantaneously and spontaneously universal knowledge of all things at once. The Omniscient One never acquires knowledge. He never has to learn. Nor is he ever surprised by new of different knowledge. Nor does he ever forget anything. All knowledge infinitely and innately resides in him. Clearly, you do not believe this about God since you believe that He must adjust his game plan every now and again. He must regroup, as it were. He must examine his options. Therefore, the passages I quoted in Job and Proverbs clearly comport very well with conservative, evangelical understanding of what it means in scripture to be omniscient, as well as with other relevant passages. Whereas your understanding of "omniscience" puts God virtually on the same level as his finite, fallible creatures, which do have to do the things you have mistakenly ascribed to God in earlier posts.

 

[Rufus]

By A, do you mean the idea of permanently saved from any chance of being cast into the lake of fire?

If you mean like the "P" in TULIP, then yes!

 

[Rufus]

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.

Life -- especially Eternal Life -- is expressed in terms of rebirth (John 3) and in resurrection language (Col 3:1). The writers of holy writ employed different metaphors to teach us different aspects to a particular truth. In one sense eternal life is analogous to rebirth; in another it's analogous to resurrection, since all mankind is spiritually dead.

So, back to my question: Did Lazarus participate in his own resurrection? Did he contribute anything?

 

[PaulThomson]

Life -- especially Eternal Life -- is expressed in terms of rebirth (John 3) and in resurrection language (Col 3:1). The writers of holy writ employed different metaphors to teach us different aspects to a particular truth. In one sense eternal life is analogous to rebirth; in another it's analogous to resurrection, since all mankind is spiritually dead.

So, back to my question: Did Lazarus participate in his own resurrection? Did he contribute anything?

No one will raise themselves from the dead. The Lord will command and they will rise. Physical resurrection has nothing to do with regeneration.

 

[PaulThomson]

If you mean like the "P" in TULIP, then yes!

Then the answer is "There is not enough information given in Scripture."

 

[PaulThomson]

No, you didn't but you snidely implied it.

Since I'm not a original language scholar, I check multiple translations because my goal is to capture the sense of what the writer is conveying. My goal is not to stroke my own back when I find that my understanding harmonizes with many or most translations in my arsenal, but to actually learn truth. Scripture tells me that I can actually know [absolute] truth -- not perfectly but nonetheless essentially and substantially.

And I did prove my position with the additional passages I cited plus my arguments from God's omniscience, especially. To be omniscient means to have infinite awareness, understanding and insight and to possess instantaneously and spontaneously universal knowledge of all things at once. The Omniscient One never acquires knowledge. He never has to learn. Nor is he ever surprised by new of different knowledge. Nor does he ever forget anything. All knowledge infinitely and innately resides in him. Clearly, you do not believe this about God since you believe that He must adjust his game plan every now and again. He must regroup, as it were. He must examine his options. Therefore, the passages I quoted in Job and Proverbs clearly comport very well with conservative, evangelical understanding of what it means in scripture to be omniscient, as well as with other relevant passages. Whereas your understanding of "omniscience" puts God virtually on the same level as his finite, fallible creatures, which do have to do the things you have mistakenly ascribed to God in earlier posts.

You assume God has the kind of omniscience you ascribe to omniscience, and you assume your present theology is correct, and you insert those assumptions into scripture, and then claim you have proven your belief. That's not how truth learning happens.

 

[Rufus]

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.

Life -- especially Eternal Life -- is expressed in terms of rebirth (John 3) and in resurrection language (Col 3:1). The writers of holy writ employed different metaphors to teach us different aspects to a particular truth. In one sense eternal life is analogous to rebirth; in another it's analogous to resurrection, since all mankind is spiritually dead.

So, back to my question: Did Lazarus participate in his own resurrection? Did he contribute anything?

 

[Rufus]

You assume God has the kind of omniscience you ascribe to omniscience, and you assume your present theology is correct, and you insert those assumptions into scripture, and then claim you have proven your belief. That's not how truth learning happens.

No, I defined omniscience from a biblical perspective. And all the passages I either cited or quoted (.e.g. Prov 21, Job 42, etc.) are entirely consistent with that biblical definition. No tenet of anything in my theology contradicts another. That's how I know I'm on the right track. The Law of Noncontradiction keeps me on the straight and narrow; for God cannot lie.

Perhaps you should resolve to learn what scripture teaches about this attribute of God; for you obviously do not believe he is all-knowing, and if he's not this then neither can he be all wise.

https://www.gotquestions.org/God-omniscient.html

And then there is this from my non-inspired NIV:

Isa 40:14
14 Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge
or showed him the path of understanding?
NIV

 

[Rufus]

Then the answer is "There is not enough information given in Scripture."

Okay...fair enough.

I sure wish this forum's software had poll-taking features. Is any other NR on this thread going to opine on the question I asked in 2261?

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

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.

Because of Adam, everyone born afterwards began life in sin. Which even God knows is not fair. Everyone is being punished over the actions of one person. This is why Jesus was sent to bring salvation to the world, as in ALL people.

John 3:17 clarifies this point.
17 For God sent not the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

We know this verse cannot be "only" for the saved because they are saved, they are not in the category of "might be saved." So we know God died for all humans so they "might be saved."

Therefore, your post is illogical.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Because of Adam, everyone born afterwards began life in sin. Which even God knows is not fair. Everyone is being punished over the actions of one person. This is why Jesus was sent to bring salvation to the world, as in ALL people.

John 3:17 clarifies this point.
17 For God sent not the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

We know this verse cannot be "only" for the saved because they are saved, they are not in the category of "might be saved." So we know God died for all humans so they "might be saved."

Therefore, your post is illogical.

Even in the time of Noah, God gave the world a chance to be saved. Noah preached for 120 years, built the Ark before them, even as Noah was loading the Ark they had a chance to enter and rejected.

John 3:17 For God sent not the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him...
...shows God was the same as in the Days of Noah and will continue being the same until His Return.

 

[Rufus]

Then the answer is "There is not enough information given in Scripture."

Okay...fair enough.

I sure wish this forum's software had poll-taking features. Is any other NR on this thread going to opine on the question I asked in 2261?

 

[Rufus]

Because of Adam, everyone born afterwards began life in sin. Which even God knows is not fair. Everyone is being punished over the actions of one person. This is why Jesus was sent to bring salvation to the world, as in ALL people.

John 3:17 clarifies this point.
17 For God sent not the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

We know this verse cannot be "only" for the saved because they are saved, they are not in the category of "might be saved." So we know God died for all humans so they "might be saved."

Therefore, your post is illogical.

I would ask why my 2261 that deals with the Fall is illogical and what that has to do with Jn 3:17; but I don't have time to get entangled in the deep, dark webs of your mind. So, I'll just put you down that you chose an option off the map.

 

[Rufus]

Because of Adam, everyone born afterwards began life in sin. Which even God knows is not fair. Everyone is being punished over the actions of one person. This is why Jesus was sent to bring salvation to the world, as in ALL people.

John 3:17 clarifies this point.
17 For God sent not the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

We know this verse cannot be "only" for the saved because they are saved, they are not in the category of "might be saved." So we know God died for all humans so they "might be saved."

Therefore, your post is illogical.

Explain, please, how that is "unfair". And does that mean God is morally obligated to make things right?

I'll be waiting with bated breath....

 

[Cameron143]

Because of Adam, everyone born afterwards began life in sin. Which even God knows is not fair. Everyone is being punished over the actions of one person. This is why Jesus was sent to bring salvation to the world, as in ALL people.

John 3:17 clarifies this point.
17 For God sent not the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

We know this verse cannot be "only" for the saved because they are saved, they are not in the category of "might be saved." So we know God died for all humans so they "might be saved."

Therefore, your post is illogical.

God knows it's not fair? Wasn't it God who chose Adam as the representative for the human race?

 

[Magenta]

I sure wish this forum's software had poll-taking features. Is any other NR on this thread going to opine on the question I asked in 2261?

What does NR mean? Also, fyi, there is a poll-taking feature, when starting a thread.

I am not sure how it works, but I do know it is available.

 

[Rufus]

God knows it's not fair? Wasn't it God who chose Adam as the representative for the human race?

NR views of God are always much lower than they should be, and their views of man far, far higher than justified by scripture. I guess Shiloh thinks God screwed up big time.

 

[Rufus]

What does NR mean? Also, fyi, there is a poll-taking feature, when starting a thread.

I am not sure how it works, but I do know it is available.

Oh, thanks for tip on the polls. And NR means N0N-REFORMED. Since you fall into this camp, I would love for you to answer my 2261, if you feel you're ready to.

 

[Magenta]

Oh, thanks for tip on the polls. And NR means N0N-REFORMED. Since you fall into this camp, I would love for you to answer my 2261, if you feel you're ready to.

What does non-reformed mean? Not a Calvinist? That I don't believe God makes it impossible
for some to choose Him, and then punishes them forever after for failing to choose Him?

You are welcome...

PS ~ post #2261 is by somebody else.