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

[FollowerofShiloh]

And I replied by saying that this logic is flawed for 2 reasons:
1. God gives fuller understanding over time throughout history. So one should expect later writings in scripture to inform earlier writings.
2. All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Whether or not a writer believed he was giving his own opinion, the fact that it is in scripture means it is the word of God and is as authoritative as if Jesus Himself had said it.

God is the SAME when He had the Prophets speak about it and the SAME when Paul wrote about it, but what Paul said "DOES NOT" align to the Prophets.

 

[Rufus]

You don't know anything!
YES they did talk about Election!

2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say: 'Wherein hast Thou loved us?' Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD; yet I loved Jacob;

Verse 2 shows us ELECTION that God made between Jacob and Esau!

I am tired of you saying things you know nothing about!

That passage could easily be understood as God loving Jacob in time and space. Where is eternity in your text?

 

[Rufus]

God is the SAME when He had the Prophets speak about it and the SAME when Paul wrote about it but what Paul said "DOES NOT" align to the Prophets.

Nonsense. The passages align beautifully because the writers were addressing different topics about the twins.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

That passage could easily be understood as God loving Jacob in time and space. Where is eternity in your text?

Only YOU would deny it clearly shows Election.
Stop talking to me.

 

[Cameron143]

So I am aware... none of that changes the fact that the twins were identified as two different nations. One of those nations is representative of God's chosen people; the other nation is God's enemies.

Again, I don't disagree. But this wasn't the substance of the discussion I was engaged in.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Nonsense. The passages align beautifully because the writers were addressing different topics about the twins.

They are both talking about Election. So they should match 100% and do not.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

That passage could easily be understood as God loving Jacob in time and space. Where is eternity in your text?

Nonsense. The passages align beautifully because the writers were addressing different topics about the twins.

Within back to back posts you have completely contradicted yourself.

It's impossible to align if there's 2 different meanings...

Unbelievable!
Reformed at its finest...

 

[Rufus]

And I replied by saying that this logic is flawed for 2 reasons:
1. God gives fuller understanding over time throughout history. So one should expect later writings in scripture to inform earlier writings.
2. All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Whether or not a writer believed he was giving his own opinion, the fact that it is in scripture means it is the word of God and is as authoritative as if Jesus Himself had said it.

And all the NT was in fact spoken by Jesus if we are to believe

John 16:12-15
12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
ESV

 

[Magenta]

The elect are never referred to as sinners but as saints. They were saints in eternity and sinners in time. But it was in eternity that God loved his elect. He didn't just decided to love them in space and time when they were still sinners. Furthermore, your understanding of the passage would contradict more than a few passages that speak of God's hate toward sinners.

Your position has God demanding we do that which He chooses not to. We were children of wrath just like any others were.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

And all the NT was in fact spoken by Jesus if we are to believe

John 16:12-15
12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
ESV

And Jesus would align to what He spoke to the Prophets.

 

[Rufus]

They are both talking about Election. So they should match 100% and do not.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that God loved Jacob and hated Esau in eternity in Mal 1:2-3. Make your case.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

The burden of proof is on you to prove that God loved Jacob and hated Esau in eternity in Mal 1:2-3. Make your case.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you since Paul does not align with Malachi.

You so desperately need Paul or your doctrine is a sham. This is priceless.

 

[Cameron143]

God is the SAME when He had the Prophets speak about it and the SAME when Paul wrote about it, but what Paul said "DOES NOT" align to the Prophets.

It informs and adds to what the prophets said. Didn't Jesus come and inform and add to OT scripture. Likewise, NT writers did the same. The OT doesn't limit the NT, but the NT does add understanding to the OT. For example, how do we know who the promised seed is in Genesis 3? Does it tell us in the OT? How do we know who the suffering servant is from Isaiah 53? Are we informed of this in the OT?
When we read the NT, we read it as more information concerning the past, and not something to be discarded if it doesn't agree exactly with OT understanding.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

It informs and adds to what the prophets said. Didn't Jesus come and inform and add to OT scripture. Likewise, NT writers did the same. The OT doesn't limit the NT, but the NT does add understanding to the OT. For example, how do we know who the promised seed is in Genesis 3? Does it tell us in the OT? How do we know who the suffering servant is from Isaiah 53? Are we informed of this in the OT?
When we read the NT, we read it as more information concerning the past, and not something to be discarded if it doesn't agree exactly with OT understanding.

It ADDS?
God said if one ADDS he will be lost forever.

It does not add because Paul is using it to explain election. It's merely a mention. Like saying speaking in tongues is angelic language. It's hyperbole to make a point of what is being said.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Paul uses a lot of hyperbole.
Everyone knows that in order to make his point.

 

[Rufus]

Your position has God demanding we do that which He chooses not to. We were children of wrath just like any others were.

But not in eternity we weren't! It seems you want to conflate eternal reality with temporal reality. But even worse, you say that the "us" in Rom 5:8 are sinners. But Paul's epistle is not addressed to the sinners of the world; it are addressed to the saints (Rom 1:7). And I submit to you that this fact accounts for the past tense of "were" in 5:8 and the present tense of "demonstrates" -- that is to say God presently demonstrates his love toward the apostle and his audience -- which you say are sinners, yet 1:7 says differently. Also, you'll need to reconcile your interpretation with numerous passages that contradict it. You may want to avail yourself of my 2837 wherein I cited about 20 passages that teach God's hatred toward sinners. And that list isn't comprehensive either!

Lastly, I have no idea what you're trying to say in the red bolded part above. What exactly do you think I would have "God demanding we do that which he chooses not to"?

 

[Rufus]

It ADDS?
God said if one ADDS he will be lost forever.

It does not add because Paul is using it to explain election. It's merely a mention. Like saying speaking in tongues is angelic language. It's hyperbole to make a point of what is being said.

Oy vey! By definition divine progressive revelation has added to God's revelation for about 1, 500 years. The prohibition of adding to God's word applies only to non-inspired, man-made additions/traditions.

When are you going make your case that Mal 1:2-3 is talking about eternal election?

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Oy vey! By definition divine progressive revelation has added to God's revelation for about 1, 500 years. The prohibition of adding to God's word applies only to non-inspired, man-made additions/traditions.

When are you going make your case that Mal 1:2-3 is talking about eternal election?

Are you saying when Paul wrote Speaking in Tongues it is the real language of Angels?
He wrote it.
Isn't it Inspired and True and Factual?

By your logic and others [Reformed] you need to say, yes...

 

[Magenta]

But not in eternity we weren't! It seems you want to conflate eternal reality with temporal reality. But even worse, you say that the "us" in Rom 5:8 are sinners. But Paul's epistle is not addressed to the sinners of the world; it are addressed to the saints (Rom 1:7). And I submit to you that this fact accounts for the past tense of "were" in 5:8 and the present tense of "demonstrates" -- that is to say God presently demonstrates his love toward the apostle and his audience -- which you say are sinners, yet 1:7 says differently. Also, you'll need to reconcile your interpretation with numerous passages that contradict it. You may want to avail yourself of my 2837 wherein I cited about 20 passages that teach God's hatred toward sinners. And that list isn't comprehensive either!

Lastly, I have no idea what you're trying to say in the red bolded part above. What exactly do you think I would have "God demanding we do that which he chooses not to"?

You have no idea that God wants us to love our enemies? While you say He cannot love sinners? We were dead in our sins when Christ died for us. That fact is offered as proof of His love for us.

 

[Cameron143]

It ADDS?
God said if one ADDS he will be lost forever.

It does not add because Paul is using it to explain election. It's merely a mention. Like saying speaking in tongues is angelic language. It's hyperbole to make a point of what is being said.

The scripture wasn't complete yet. That admonition doesn't come until the end of Revelation.