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

[Rufus]

First you say no one can know, then you say you do know... that's a contradiction. And I already said that we can know according to Scripture, so your pretense that I don't understand is just that -> a pretense.

I never said anyone can't know. I quoted 1Jn 5:13 earlier to prove that we can know and should know!

 

[Rufus]

Those speaking calvinist talking points are usually calvinists

That's keepin the deal real no matter how you feel






That's exactly what the calvinist are claiming.

Then they claim they are the only ones that are saved and those that disagree with them are not saved.[/QUOTE]

I for one never said that. I'm certainly not omniscient.

 

[Magenta]

Why can't any professing believer in this life know if they're saved or not?

We can all see what you said, which you now deny.

 

[Rufus]

We can all see what you said, which you now deny.

I never said what you claim. I know my biblical theology fairly well. Why would I quote 1Jn 5:13 that teaches the exact opposite of what you claim I said?

P.S.
AND Why can't any professing believer in this life know if they're saved or not?

 

[brightfame52]

Since you are quoting the Reformed Principles verbatim, I made a decision to start quoting Scholars and Theologians who know and which you are not of their educational level.

Here, just so you know what the scholars say about "Might Be Saved"

used to express the possibility that something will happen although not very likely:

That is what you keep doing by placing this to the Elect, they might be saved although not likely.

You are saying the Elect are not saved!

Your biggest failure is to understand the prepositions of the koine Greek, which you are using the KJV and far from that form of Greek.

You are attempting to define word for word but that is not how JOHN wrote it. Whenever one uses the koine Greek, they will use a multitude of prepositions. And since you choose to lack the understanding concerning this, you will always be INCORRECT.

Again you been told, you are without excuse

 

[Magenta]

I never said what you claim. I know my biblical theology fairly well. Why would I quote 1Jn 5:13 that teaches the exact opposite of what you claim I said?

I have multiple times quoted you saying what you now claim you didn't, and you only gave that Scripture verse after I made mention of it.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Again you been told, you are without excuse

And again you've been corrected by those who know better than you do:

Since you are quoting the Reformed Principles verbatim, I made a decision to start quoting Scholars and Theologians who know and which you are not of their educational level.

Here, just so you know what the scholars say about "Might Be Saved"

used to express the possibility that something will happen although not very likely:

That is what you keep doing by placing this to the Elect, they might be saved although not likely.

You are saying the Elect are not saved!

Your biggest failure is to understand the prepositions of the koine Greek, which you are using the KJV and far from that form of Greek.

You are attempting to define word for word but that is not how JOHN wrote it. Whenever one uses the koine Greek, they will use a multitude of prepositions. And since you choose to lack the understanding concerning this, you will always be INCORRECT.

 

[Rufus]

Again you been told, you are without excuse

What Mr. Shiloh wants to do with his vaunted scholars is beyond rich and ironic and hypocritical! I haven't seen any Reformed person here refer to any extra-biblical works to support his belief in the Five Doctrines of Grace. He now wants to appeal to "scholars" because he can't support his argument from scripture, nor does he want to tell us that he favors the well-known corrupt, least reliable Alexandrian manuscripts when it's convenient for him to do so, e.g. with Jn 3:17.

 

[Rufus]

I have multiple times quoted you saying what you now claim you didn't, and you only gave that Scripture verse after I made mention of it.

Is this the quote of mine you're referencing:

Why can't any professing believer in this life know if they're saved or not?

 

[Rufus]

And again you've been corrected by those who know better than you do:

Since you are quoting the Reformed Principles verbatim, I made a decision to start quoting Scholars and Theologians who know and which you are not of their educational level.

Here, just so you know what the scholars say about "Might Be Saved"

used to express the possibility that something will happen although not very likely:

That is what you keep doing by placing this to the Elect, they might be saved although not likely.

You are saying the Elect are not saved!

Your biggest failure is to understand the prepositions of the koine Greek, which you are using the KJV and far from that form of Greek.

You are attempting to define word for word but that is not how JOHN wrote it. Whenever one uses the koine Greek, they will use a multitude of prepositions. And since you choose to lack the understanding concerning this, you will always be INCORRECT.

No, he's not! YOU are with your foolish interpretation that contradicts numerous scriptures! Your "scholars" care as little about contradictions as you do, apparently.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

No, he's not! YOU are with your foolish interpretation that contradicts numerous scriptures! Your "scholars" care as little about contradictions as you do, apparently.

hahaha actually they have an education unlike the reformed I seem to be debating, and they know the koine Greek unlike those who use the Strong's Concordance to define the Reformed doctrine. If this was a truly real debate between the Reformed and the Scholars/Theologians, it would be comedy hour watching them obliterate your excuse of interpretation.

 

[Rufus]

hahaha actually they have an education unlike the reformed I seem to be debating, and they know the koine Greek unlike those who use the Strong's Concordance to define the Reformed doctrine. If this was a truly real debate between the Reformed and the Scholars/Theologians, it would be comedy hour watching them obliterate your excuse of interpretation.

Well... now we know why God hasn't chosen very many of the wise of this world. At least most of the Reformed understand and appreciate the fact that God cannot lie, which means whatever we own for our theology, it must not contradict God's Word. And this makes me very comfortable in my "reformed" skin.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Well... now we know why God hasn't chosen very many of the wise of this world. At least most of the Reformed understand and appreciate the fact that God cannot lie, which means whatever we own for our theology, it must not contradict God's Word. And this makes me very comfortable in my "reformed" skin.

Being that (their Education) is WISE in God's Word which equals Godly Wisdom, not worldly...just "reveals" that once again you have proven you understand nothing.

 

[Rufus]

Being that (their Education) is WISE in God's Word which equals Godly Wisdom, not worldly...just "reveals" that once again you have proven you understand nothing.

The educated scribes, lawyers and Pharisees thought they were wise in God's Word, too; and where did that land them and the nation they led down the path to hell!?

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

The educated scribes, lawyers and Pharisees thought the were wise in God's Word, too; and where did that land them and the nation they led down the path to hell!?

But these Scholars/Theologians believe in Jesus.
This is beyond your pay grade.
But if you wish to continue I have no issue breaking it down for you.

 

[Rufus]

But these Scholars/Theologians believe in Jesus.
This is beyond your pay grade.
But if you wish to continue I have no issue breaking it down for you.

And so did the scribes, lawyers and Pharisees believe in the coming of a Messiah -- just not in God's brand of Messiah. And you can't logically or biblically make the claim that your scholars are all believers. You're omniscient, are you?

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

And so did the scribes, lawyers and Pharisees believe in the coming of a Messiah -- just not in God's brand of Messiah. And you can't logically or biblically make the claim that your scholars are all believers. You're omniscient, are you?

Coming Messiah and believing who Jesus is are 2 different concepts. Like I said, you don't understand. Just look at the questions you present. Common sense could answer them but it's taking a second party to explain it for you.

 

[Niki7]

I haven't read every single post in this thread. What's the matter: Have you forgotten your prooftext? You can't even cite it? But I do know this: God didn't desire the salvation of either Ishmael or Esau in Romans 9. So...there's that. And since those two are explicitly excluded, then God cannot havbe desired in eternity the salvation of all in the distributive sense, could he?

You really cannot say that God did not desire the sinful behavior of Ishmael or Esau to change. They are excluded because they did not choose what is right just as so many today.

 

[Niki7]

Yes, you got that right. View attachment 261848 I’m a Christian—I don’t hold to any label.

yes I did not think you were not a Christian. But that is not what I asked you. You don't have to answer of course, but you do seem to indicate you believe that Christianity is a 2 tier system.

 

[Niki7]

No, I don't know better. The common mantra of NRs is that our eternal destiny ultimately lies in our own hands. WE DECIDE to be in Christ when we believe the gospel. Isn't that what you did? It was YOUR free will choice, even though you were dead in your sins, that put you in Christ, was it not?

Well that is not at all true but I would not expect you to say otherwise. I have yet to exchange posts with any Calvinist that does not sooner or later declare what you do above. You just did it sooner