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

[Rufus]

@Rufus Don’t you think that Jesus could possibly be calling both those who were chosen before the foundation of the world and those who rejected Him before the foundation of the world?

Nope.

 

[Magenta]

Ezekiel 36:25-26

 

[Rufus]

Unbelief is also choosing to not believe what God says in His Word.

Excellent! And this is the direct opposite of what saving faith is!

 

[Magenta]

Deuteronomy 30:6~
The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love Him
with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

 

[Rufus]

Someone was saying a day or so ago (I have been off work sick for more than a week and am generally losing track of the days in my dotage LOL) that being reformed does not necessarily mean Calvinist. Another person who seems to be a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist agreed with me that God does not make it impossible for any to believe, and yet, according to Calvinism, God has chosen ahead of time who will and who will not believe, which does make it impossible for those not chosen, to accept the offer of salvation, which is not, was not, and cannot be for them. And yet they will be punished for not believing. I have heard Calvinists say that God ordains everything, as if He were making everything happen, which also seems to me like they are ascribing evil to God, as if God causes men to act as they do, as if we are all puppets instead of men being responsible for the choices they make. Perhaps you have also seen me say that I do not believe man's will is free, which some take to mean we are incapable of making choices (which is obviously not what I mean). I say all that wondering where on the spectrum of this label do you rate yourself, if at all? Does saying you are somewhat reformed mean you are a Calvinist in some respects but not all? I am simply curious... I find it interesting also that so many outright reject the notion of total depravity even if they call themselves an Arminian, which also espouses the depravity of man. I do not consider myself either Calvinist or Arminian.

Did you miss the Shakespeare analogy I made some time back between God's sovereignty and man's moral responsibility?


All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts...

Think though this profound passage 's implications.

 

[Magenta]

1 Corinthians 2:9

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

You see why it's so naive and dangerous to use one translation to formulate doctrine? Or why it's dangerous to avoid determining word usage; Firstly, even if we go with the KJV, the term "might" (or even "may") is archaic [Old English] for have the ability. In fact, this is the very first definition in my M-W dictionary. But you're using the term in the sense of the third definition which is used to indicate possibility or probability .

Secondly, the Gr. term "sozo" (Strong's 4982) means:
sozo

NT:4982 sozo (sode'-zo); from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saoz, "safe"); to save, i.e. deliver or protect (literally or figuratively):

KJV - heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.
(New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003)

Of course, some of the the more modern translations (Formal and Dynamic Equiv. alike!) render v.17 on the order of the NIV:

John 3:17
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
NIV

The ASV renders the last phrase "should be saved".

The AMP renders this phrase "that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

The TLB renders the phrase "but to save it".

The NASB, renders this phrase "that the world should be saved".

The TEV renders this phrase "but to be its savior", etc., etc.

Moreover, your interpretation would also contradict numerous scriptures that teach that God and his Christ are ACTUALLY saviors -- not merely potential or possible saviors. There are no scriptures that teaches that God is only a possible or potential savior.

It also contradicts a large number of scriptures that teach the doctrine of omnipotence. This doctrine teaches that nothing is impossible with God, nothing is too hard for him -- that nothing and no one can frustrate his eternal decrees. And this teaching comports very well with the definition of the Gr. term above, as well as many renderings that teach that essentially teach that Christ came into the world to [actually] save it. Did not Jesus teach that all the Father gives to him WILL [indeed] come to him (Jn 6:37)!?

Finally, your interpretation contradicts the two centeral OT passages that reveal God's New Covenant promises (Jer 31 and Ezek 36). Those promies are unconditional and unilateral in nature! God declares in those promises exactly what he will do for his people -- not what he "might" (or perhaps) do as you erroneosly interpet this term.

I use the most original Greek we have. So if your version "DOES NOT" say what the original does, that makes it CLEAR why you have no idea what you speak about.

 

[Rufus]

I use the most original Greek we have. So if your version "DOES NOT" say what the original does, that makes it CLEAR why you have no idea what you speak about.

Right. And your "original Gr. " INTERPRETATION presents multiple contradictions. How does your "original Gr." define "sozo"? Different from Strong's 4982?

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Right. And your "original Gr. " INTERPRETATION presents multiple contradictions. How does your "original Gr." define "sozo"? Different from Strong's 4982?

Koine Greek died out around the year 300 A.D..
The Strong's can only reference by using the modern Greek in the KJV (1600's A.D.) which "IS NOT" remotely close to being the same. The Textus Receptus only was able to reference to the Latin in the 10th Century per claim by the author Erasmus.

Like I said, now I know why you're so clueless.

 

[brightfame52]

That's why they cannot be the "Might be Saved," because might be saved ARE NOT SAVED!

That's why they cannot be the "Might be Saved," because might be saved ARE NOT SAVED!

Thats the elect world, its saved.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Thats the elect world, its saved.

Are the Elect SAVED or Might be Saved which is Not Saved?

If the Elect are Saved then they are not part of verse 17 who ARE NOT SAVED.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Thats the elect world, its saved.

You claim the ELECT are saved before Creation.
Then it is impossible that verse 17 is about the Elect because Might Be Saved = NOT SAVED!

So, if you now say verse 17 is the Elect when you also claim they're saved before creation, you just made YOURSELF out to be a LIAR of your OWN WORDS!

 

[brightfame52]

Are the Elect SAVED or Might be Saved which is Not Saved?

If the Elect are Saved then they are not part of verse 17 who ARE NOT SAVED.

the elect world, its saved.

 

[brightfame52]

You claim the ELECT are saved before Creation.
Then it is impossible that verse 17 is about the Elect because Might Be Saved = NOT SAVED!

So, if you now say verse 17 is the Elect when you also claim they're saved before creation, you just made YOURSELF out to be a LIAR of your OWN WORDS!

Thats the elect world, its saved.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Thats the elect world, its saved.

So you are claiming that you lied, Got it!

I agree with you that you lied.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

the elect world, its saved.

Verse 17 is about non-Elect and you're calling them Elect.

Your understanding of the Bible should be in Comedy shows. I can't stop laughing.

 

[Rufus]

Koine Greek died out around the year 300 A.D..
The Strong's can only reference by using the modern Greek in the KJV (1600's A.D.) which "IS NOT" remotely close to being the same. The Textus Receptus only was able to reference to the Latin in the 10th Century per claim by the author Erasmus.

Like I said, now I know why you're so clueless.

Oh...so Greek language scholars don't know "Koine" Greek? They're clueless as well. But even so...you still have at least three contradictions with which to contend with your definition.

But meanwhile...why don't you share your definition of your "original" Gr. word with us?

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Oh...so Greek language scholars don't know "Koine" Greek? They're clueless as well. But even so...you still have at least three contradictions with which to contend with your definition.

But meanwhile...why don't you share your definition of your "original" Gr. word with us?

Strong's has made their own claim to only be relative to the KJV. That means they're worthless for the originals. Don't you know how to READ?


Here's their disclaimer:
Strong's Numbers come from a reference book known as "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible". A concordance is an alphabetical list of words and definitions just like a dictionary except they only apply to one book (in our case the King James Bible).
Textus-Receptus Bibles

 

[Rufus]

Verse 17 is about non-Elect and you're calling them Elect.

Your understanding of the Bible should be in Comedy shows. I can't stop laughing.

Jn 3:17 is about the elect Gentiles, as I demonstrated from the larger context a couple of weeks or so ago. There's two groups of people being talked about in the larger context. The "whosoevers" and the ones who already stand condemned. Jesus did not come save the latter, only the former.

 

[Rufus]

Strong's has made their own claim to only be relative to the KJV. That means they're worthless for the originals. Don't you know how to READ?

Why aren't you giving me the "original" Gr. word and its definition? What are you hiding? Also while you're at it, in what manuscript is this "original" word found?