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

[selahsays]

29 For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be firstborn among many brethren

30 and whom he predestinated, these he also called; and whom he called, these he also declared righteous; and whom he declared righteous, these he also made glorious.

Verse 30 is clearly Jesus in the portion [that he might be firstborn among many brethren 30 and whom he predestinated]
The ending of verse 29 and beginning of verse 30 is a continuation on who is PREDESTINED...Jesus.

No, friend. The predestined are all the believers (Christians). Our inheritance is everything Christ has promised us, including our salvation.

 

[Cameron143]

29 For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be firstborn among many brethren

30 and whom he predestinated, these he also called; and whom he called, these he also declared righteous; and whom he declared righteous, these he also made glorious.

Verse 30 is clearly Jesus in the portion [that he might be firstborn among many brethren 30 and whom he predestinated]
The ending of verse 29 and beginning of verse 30 is a continuation on who is PREDESTINED...Jesus.

Incorrect. The only part of those verses speaking of Jesus is that He is firstborn. Basic grammatical syntax and understanding singular and plural bears this out.
What you accused me of earlier about having a predetermined doctrine is actually true of you. Any plural pronoun cannot be referring to a singular entity.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Incorrect. The only part of those verses speaking of Jesus is that He is firstborn. Basic grammatical syntax and understanding singular and plural bears this out.
What you accused me of earlier about having a predetermined doctrine is actually true of you. Any plural pronoun cannot be referring to a singular entity.

There's nothing plural in verse 29 at all.

29 For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be firstborn among many brethren

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

How are you guys missing...

verse before 29-30
28 But we know that to those who love God all things work together for good, to those who are called according to his purpose.

and

verses after 29-30
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?

32 He indeed that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how will he not also with him freely give us all things?

33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

I was waiting for someone to post these verses ^

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

That's proof you only know the verses attached to your doctrine and not the whole meaning.

 

[Rufus]

[QUOTE="Cameron143, post: 5286778, member: 314370"]Whom and them are equated in verse 30, not whom and He.[/QUOTE]

Hah. A minor point. You gonna quibble over personal pronouns?

 

[Rufus]

29 For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be firstborn among many brethren

30 and whom he predestinated, these he also called; and whom he called, these he also declared righteous; and whom he declared righteous, these he also made glorious.

Verse 30 is clearly Jesus in the portion [that he might be firstborn among many brethren 30 and whom he predestinated]
The ending of verse 29 and beginning of verse 30 is a continuation on who is PREDESTINED...Jesus.

The passage has nothing to do about the predestination of Jesus. It has to do with the elect who are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, so that Jesus MIGHT (which according to you means possibly, maybe, perhaps, potentially) be firstborn (if He's lucky, of course) among many elect (brethren).

And who are "these" in v. 30? Are these mice hidden under Jesus' robe? Can we expect righteous mice in heaven? Or would "these" be the "many brethren"?

 

[Cameron143]

[QUOTE="Cameron143, post: 5286778, member: 314370"]Whom and them are equated in verse 30, not whom and He.

Hah. A minor point. You gonna quibble over personal pronouns? [/QUOTE]
You either get it or you don't. You seem to have a disagreeable disposition. You can find a way to argue with even those making the same point you are.

 

[Rufus]

By the way, Mr. Shiloh, the doctrine of Predestination has to with the eternal destiny of a particular group of sinners. So, when you say that Jesus is the one being predestined, you make him out to be a sinner who needed to be saved. God called Jesus, justified him and glorified him. We have God justifying his Son by imputing Jesus' own righteousness back to Himself. A rather absurd notion to most...but not to you. You'll come up with any ol' interpretation as long as fits in nicely with your heresy. Also, check out Eph 1:5,11 some day.

 

[Cameron143]

How are you guys missing...

verse before 29-30
28 But we know that to those who love God all things work together for good, to those who are called according to his purpose.

and

verses after 29-30
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?

32 He indeed that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how will he not also with him freely give us all things?

33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.

The subject of the passage those who love God. Unless that means only Jesus then it's plural. It is this group that is the whom and those of verse 30.

 

[Rufus]

Hah. A minor point. You gonna quibble over personal pronouns?

You either get it or you don't. You seem to have a disagreeable disposition. You can find a way to argue with even those making the same point you are.[/QUOTE]

I see you don't appreciate Don Rickles-type sarcastic humor. My bad. Did not intend to offend.

 

[Cameron143]

You either get it or you don't. You seem to have a disagreeable disposition. You can find a way to argue with even those making the same point you are.

I see you don't appreciate Don Rickles-type sarcastic humor. My bad. Did not intend to offend.[/QUOTE]
I'm never offended. And Don Rickles is a choir boy next to you.

 

[notmyown]

There's nothing plural in verse 29 at all.

29 For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be firstborn among many brethren

whom is plural, as is many and brethren.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

The passage has nothing to do about the predestination of Jesus. It has to do with the elect who are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ, so that Jesus MIGHT (which according to you means possibly, maybe, perhaps, potentially) be firstborn (if He's lucky, of course) among many elect (brethren).

And who are "these" in v. 30? Are these mice hidden under Jesus' robe? Can we expect righteous mice in heaven? Or would "these" be the "many brethren"?

I decided to get an independent viewpoint since we are at an impasse.


From Scholars and theologians:
1. This verse (30) has been called the Golden Chain. It describes God at work before creation, right through to the new creation .Jan 29, 2023

2. Predestination appears to involve a more rigorous necessity. It must not be interpreted in any sense that excludes free-will. Free-will is a postulate on which all the superstructure of morals and religion must rest.

To summarize definition 1 and 2:
Verse 29-30 is about the Predestination of Christ and the works of God.

And the usage of "them" are those who are saved by Free-Will.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

The subject of the passage those who love God. Unless that means only Jesus then it's plural. It is this group that is the whom and those of verse 30.

I decided to get an independent viewpoint since we are at an impasse.


From Scholars and theologians:
1. This verse (30) has been called the Golden Chain. It describes God at work before creation, right through to the new creation .Jan 29, 2023

2. Predestination appears to involve a more rigorous necessity. It must not be interpreted in any sense that excludes free-will. Free-will is a postulate on which all the superstructure of morals and religion must rest.

To summarize definition 1 and 2:
Verse 29-30 is about the Predestination of Christ and the works of God.

And the usage of "them" are those who are saved by Free-Will.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

whom is plural, as is many and brethren.

I decided to get an independent viewpoint since we are at an impasse.


From Scholars and theologians:
1. This verse (30) has been called the Golden Chain. It describes God at work before creation, right through to the new creation .Jan 29, 2023

2. Predestination appears to involve a more rigorous necessity. It must not be interpreted in any sense that excludes free-will. Free-will is a postulate on which all the superstructure of morals and religion must rest.

To summarize definition 1 and 2:
Verse 29-30 is about the Predestination of Christ and the works of God.

And the usage of "them" are those who are saved by Free-Will.

 

[notmyown]

I decided to get an independent viewpoint since we are at an impasse.


From Scholars and theologians:
1. This verse (30) has been called the Golden Chain. It describes God at work before creation, right through to the new creation .Jan 29, 2023

2. Predestination appears to involve a more rigorous necessity. It must not be interpreted in any sense that excludes free-will. Free-will is a postulate on which all the superstructure of morals and religion must rest.

To summarize definition 1 and 2:
Verse 29-30 is about the Predestination of Christ and the works of God.

And the usage of "them" are those who are saved by Free-Will.

with respect to you, the scholars and theologians you're quoting don't seem to be very independent.

why must it not be interpreted in any sense that excludes free will? that's bringing a pre-determined idea to the text, rather than just looking at the text.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

with respect to you, the scholars and theologians you're quoting don't seem to be very independent.

why must it not be interpreted in any sense that excludes free will? that's bringing a pre-determined idea to the text, rather than just looking at the text.

Because the Text is meant to show the process of God but the usage of some words reveal you are attempting to make into a LAW when there's no such intention.

You are taking the usage of "τούτους" to create a meaning not intended.

Kind of like John 3:16 usage of "world" and turning it into only the saved when it means the entire world.
+
Whosoever to mean someone specific.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

There's the Word of God
There's the correct meaning to the Word of God
Then there's personal interpretation which typically is not aligned with the Word of God.
And this is what the Reformed has done.