Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR
- Thread starter MerSee
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Good thing Jesus did all the work. Because what you are asking us to do would still not be good enough to earn salvation. Because we would still fall short in the end.
I think people need to realise what seperates us from God. They like to see themselves as prety good people. Faithful people well prety good is not good enough.
I think people need to realise what seperates us from God. They like to see themselves as prety good people. Faithful people well prety good is not good enough.
Look up the greek for this verse. you will see that the word for "that" in "that ye believe" is not hoti, but is hina.
hina means so that, in order that. So the last phrase is not giving a definition of the work of God, but a reason for the work of God. And the work of God is the referent of "This ", Read the preceding verses and find what Jesus is referring to as "This".
You will find that it is "labour... for the food that perishes not". They are told to labour for the food that does not perish. They are to labour in order that they might believe in the one God sent. Because the will of God is that they labour for the food that does not perish, so that when they hear the word (the food Jesus is giving them) they might start believing in Him.
So, the text is not identifying faith as a work at all , but as a response to finding the food that one is working to find.
hina means so that, in order that. So the last phrase is not giving a definition of the work of God, but a reason for the work of God. And the work of God is the referent of "This ", Read the preceding verses and find what Jesus is referring to as "This".
You will find that it is "labour... for the food that perishes not". They are told to labour for the food that does not perish. They are to labour in order that they might believe in the one God sent. Because the will of God is that they labour for the food that does not perish, so that when they hear the word (the food Jesus is giving them) they might start believing in Him.
So, the text is not identifying faith as a work at all , but as a response to finding the food that one is working to find.
-
1
- Show all
[QUOTE="Stan_the_Man, post: 5274007, member: 328243"
Well, nowadays being deceived is not an excuse to live in sin as some suppose.[/quote]
Never said it was.
.
God talked to the Serpent after the Fall, too. Your point?
And I totally agree with those scholars. BUT Again... that doesn't mean Adam necessarily accepted that provision by faith. There's evidence Eve did; but none for Adam.
But is there any saint anywhere in scripture that comes even close to having all the negative knocks Adam has against him?
There's no sense in continuing on this merry--go-round indefinitely. You seem content to put all your eggs in one passage of scripture as iron-clad proof that God elected Adam and Eve, I suppose. Whereas I'm putting all mine in numerous passages and in typology. With the four additional typological points I made earlier today that compared Adam to Satan, that would add much more weight to the preponderance of evidence previously accumulated. I'm personally comfortable with all that evidence.
Well, nowadays being deceived is not an excuse to live in sin as some suppose.[/quote]
Never said it was.
.
God talked to the Serpent after the Fall, too. Your point?
And I totally agree with those scholars. BUT Again... that doesn't mean Adam necessarily accepted that provision by faith. There's evidence Eve did; but none for Adam.
But is there any saint anywhere in scripture that comes even close to having all the negative knocks Adam has against him?
There's no sense in continuing on this merry--go-round indefinitely. You seem content to put all your eggs in one passage of scripture as iron-clad proof that God elected Adam and Eve, I suppose. Whereas I'm putting all mine in numerous passages and in typology. With the four additional typological points I made earlier today that compared Adam to Satan, that would add much more weight to the preponderance of evidence previously accumulated. I'm personally comfortable with all that evidence.
Isaiah 55:10-11...For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither,but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Yes, God covered the shame of A&E's nakedness. But where is the evidence of faith on Adam's part? Whatever God does for any sinner must be accepted by faith, for without that it's impossible to please Him. The evidence that God elected both our first parents to salvation is extremely flimsy at best. I have to think there was very good reason why scripture bypassed Adam and names Abraham as the father of all who have faith.
Anyhoo...if there's any comfort in numbers, I'd say most Christians probably believe as you and Stan do. So there's that...
Anyhoo...if there's any comfort in numbers, I'd say most Christians probably believe as you and Stan do. So there's that...
An answer to your ongoing question "is God just if he sends people to hell....", yet to be answered satisfactorily, has just occurred to me while I was considering that we all are going to get justice. or be justified. But you're question implied that God doesn't accept the (Jesus') payment for the sins of those in hell, or rather that it doesn't apply to them (with offered reasoning that He must not have died for them). Because there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood, for the wages of sin is death, and so death is the (only) acceptable payment for sin. And assuming that we agree on that, that leaves the question whether God is just if, given that it was possible that God would accept a double payment? And if not, who would receive the refund on that?
And yes, this question does exclude the possibility that man's sins are so grievous that he has to spend an eternity "paying" and still can never fulfill the debt, but rather assumes that it is possible that man pays for his own sin, by death.
And yes, this question does exclude the possibility that man's sins are so grievous that he has to spend an eternity "paying" and still can never fulfill the debt, but rather assumes that it is possible that man pays for his own sin, by death.
Yes, God covered the shame of A&E's nakedness. But where is the evidence of faith on Adam's part? Whatever God does for any sinner must be accepted by faith, for without that it's impossible to please Him. The evidence that God elected both our first parents to salvation is extremely flimsy at best. I have to think there was very good reason why scripture bypassed Adam and names Abraham as the father of all who have faith.
Anyhoo...if there's any comfort in numbers, I'd say most Christians probably believe as you and Stan do. So there's that...
Anyhoo...if there's any comfort in numbers, I'd say most Christians probably believe as you and Stan do. So there's that...
And God did more than cover their shame. He deliberately spilled blood and provided the covering of His choosing. I'm afraid the significance of this is not registering with you. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. And apart from the imputed righteousness of Christ...His covering...we remain naked and undone before God.