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

[Rufus]

All men are physically born into Adam I, yes. But this does not mean that all men reject NR, nor that all men reject Natural Law, nor that all men in all of time do not seek God, which is where we began discussion.

But now we're out into theology instead of in Scripture. And there are several Scriptures that were pointed and counter-pointed and now may be left out of further discussion.

So, does Rom3:11 say that no unbeliever in all of history, seeks God?

Does Romans 1 say that no unbeliever in all of history seeks God?

Does Romans 1 say anything about Election?

How are either of these sections or verses of Scripture used to prove T or U or I assuming you adhere to these or some or?

Yes! "All men are physically born into Adam", which means all men come into this world spiritually stillborn!

I take it that you don't consider Rom 3:9-18 as God's Universal Indictment against mankind -- against Jews and Gentiles alike who are ALL under sin (v.9)? If not, then what is this passage about? Is it an indictment? If not, what is it? And who are the people being talked about in this passage: Believers, Unbelievers or Both?

I explained earlier why Rom 1 is describing the Total Depravity of the unregenerate, since it cannot be describing the regenerate.

As far as "no one seeks God" (v..11) is concerned, why would we expect anyone in Adam to do any differently than our first parents did after they sinned? Did A or E seek God after they sinned? Did either one of them, for that matter, own their sin and confess it to God? Or did they play the blame game, the point-the-finger game? And didn't they do this even though they knew they were guilty!? Even though they were both ashamed? The very fact that both of them reacted identically to the questions God put to them proves conclusively that once Eve bought into the Serpent's lie and Adam chose to follow in Eve's footsteps, they themselves became the lie they believed. Both of them were totally self-deceived. When they became separated from God, they became walking, talking dichotomies. They themselves became internally divided.

In one of your posts you appealed to man's conscience, I suppose as a means to understanding Natural Revelation, for seeking God, etc.? But the conscience is one of man's faculties that is seated in his heart -- a heart which is "desperately wicked and deceitful above all else", so I'm not sure how such a corrupt, seared, hardned conscience, unaided by effectual grace, can seek after the one true God who more fully reveals himself and mankind in Special Revelation. As stated previously, a lot of people do seek after their version of God, which accounts for all the world's religions.

 

[PaulThomson]

On the other hand, there is Eph 1:11. If God did not decree the Fall then this means sin that was spiritually and physically catastrophically disastrous to our first parents and to this earth found into this world apart from God's will. And this implies that someone or something is greater than God and was able to bring evil into God's "very good" creation in spite of God's goodness, power, and knowledge. How do we know evil will not intrude again in the eternal, visible kingdom?

There are no logical links between your premise
A.:"If God did not decree the Fall";
and your first conclusion
B: "then this means sin that was spiritually and physically catastrophically disastrous to our first parents and to this earth found [it's way?] into this world apart from God's will";
and your corollary conclusion
C: "And this implies that someone or something is greater than God."

We could present your argument more positively thus -

A. There is no one or nothing greater than God
B. Nothing can come to pass that is outside of God's will
Therefore,
C. God decreed the fall.

Or like this -

A: If God is greater than everyone and everything
B: and everything that comes to pass is according to God's will.
then, C: God decreed the fall.

That argument is valid. If both premises are true, then the conclusion is true.
However, although A is true, B is an unproven assumption.
Therefore your conclusion C is unsound.

 

[PaulThomson]

I take it that you don't consider Rom 3:9-18 as God's Universal Indictment against mankind -- against Jews and Gentiles alike who are ALL under sin (v.9)? If not, then what is this passage about? Is it an indictment? If not, what is it? And who are the people being talked about in this passage: Believers, Unbelievers or Both?

I explained earlier why Rom 1 is describing the Total Depravity of the unregenerate, since it cannot be describing the regenerate.

Rom. 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is being revealed (apokaluptetai: present passive indicative) from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who keep on suppressing (katechontOn: present active participle) the truth in [their] unrighteousness.
19 But what is known (to gnOston: nominative singular neuter adjective) of God is being (esti: present tense) manifest (phaneron: nominative singular neuter adjective) among them, for God showed (ephanerOsen: aorist active indicative) it to them.
20 For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, being understood (nooumena: present passive participle) by the handiwork (poiEmasin: dative plural neuter), are being clearly seen, (kathoratai: present passive infinitive) even His aeonous power and Godhead for them to be (einai: present infinitive) without excuse,
21 because having known God at some point (ton theon gnontes: 2nd aorist active participle), they did not glorify (edoxasan: aorist active indicative) [him] not as God, nor did they thank (eucharistEsan: aorist active indicative) [him]; but they became vain (emataiOthEsan: aorist passive indicative) in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened (eskotisthE: aorist passive indicative).

You don't believe in Total Depravity. You don't believe they are as depraved as they could be. You believe in Omni-faceted Imperfection.

The above text says that God's wrath IS BEING REVEALED (at the time Paul is writing) to men who ARE SUPPRESSING the truth (at the time the truth is being revealed). It says that what IS KNOWN of God IS MANIFEST (at the time Paul is writing) for God showed WHAT IS KNOWN to them. PoiEma is only used twice in scripture. In its other occurrence it refers to the saints as God's workmanship (Eph. 2:10). So primarily this is about the Jewish and Gentile contemporaries of Paul and their response to the gospel's revelation of God's invisible deity and power being manifest through the saints. The wrath of God is being revealed against those opposing the gospel in Paul's day, as they harden their hearts against repentance and dive deeper into corrupt immoral behaviour. It does not seem to me to be a treatise on the behaviour of humankind from Adam. It seems to be about the first century behaviour of Jews and Greeks to the Gospel being preached not just in word only, but in power and the Holy Spirit and much assurance but in present-time.

It's seems to be describing the growing depravity that overtakes those who actively reject and oppose the gospel and keep on doing so, not those who have never heard the gospel.

 

[PaulThomson]

As far as "no one seeks God" (v..11) is concerned, why would we expect anyone in Adam to do any differently than our first parents did after they sinned? Did A or E seek God after they sinned? Did either one of them, for that matter, own their sin and confess it to God? Or did they play the blame game, the point-the-finger game? And didn't they do this even though they knew they were guilty!? Even though they were both ashamed? The very fact that both of them reacted identically to the questions God put to them proves conclusively that once Eve bought into the Serpent's lie and Adam chose to follow in Eve's footsteps, they themselves became the lie they believed. Both of them were totally self-deceived. When they became separated from God, they became walking, talking dichotomies. They themselves became internally divided.

No one keeps on seeking God. If it meant "No one ever seeks God", and it's written for Jews in the psalms, King David never sought God. Samuel never sought God. Do you really believe that is what the psalms are saying?

 

[maxamir]

I'd prefer to remain in Rom1 and see if we can come to agreement there. Then move on. But since I've gone this far, I'll continue and try to keep these posts separate for separate discussions.

In Romans 3 Paul is making the case against the unbelieving Jew. In doing so he is pulling from several places in the OC Scriptures to substantiate what he says, that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin. But, again, Ps14 speaks of fools and God's people. And as I said earlier, "fool" is not limited to Gentile in the Text. And lack of understanding is related to the fool in the Ps. Again, it seems to me we're heading out of context to make this universal and in all time.

In Matt13:19 Jesus speaks of the first soil as men who hear the word/message of the Kingdom and don't understand it. But this is not universal. It's only the first soil and "understand" is the same word Paul uses in Rom3:11. So, Matt13:19 seems to argue against universal lack of or inability to understand.

What does it mean that the Gospel is God's power for salvation or power from God for salvation Rom1:16? It's explained in the next verse: the Gospel reveals God's righteousness. And there's another consideration here because Paul is proclaiming the Gospel to believers and the Gospel and Salvation are not topics limited to entrance into Christ, but also development in Christ. But, back to universal lack of understanding and seeking, it seems God's Gospel has some power to save from this.

Jer17:9 rhetorically says men cannot understand their own heart, so 17:10 YHWH searches the heart - He evaluates the mind and recompenses them accordingly. This speak of a total inability to understand truth, maybe especially not truth with God's power to save men. I'd take Jer17:9 more into the realm where Paul says he doesn't even judge himself [beyond a point] but let's God do it (1Cor4:3-4).

In 1Cor2 Paul explains how he did not come to the Corinthians in his own abilities but wit the power of the Spirit being demonstrated, so their faith would be by God's power. So, in Paul's mind God's Gospel has power and God's power was being demonstrated by His Spirit in Corinth to assist in Paul's ministry.

By the time Paul gets to 1Cor2:14 he is speaking to Christians - even to mature Christians (2;6) who have had the "deep things" of God - the "things God has prepared for those who love Him" revealed to them by His Spirit. This is not talking about the foundational Gospel. In context, the natural/soulish/unspiritual man does not receive these deep things of God - they are foolishness (note the correlation fools) to him - he is not able (cannot) to know them.

TULIP has always concerned me. But I've chosen to look at any and every Scripture presented no matter what theological system is presenting it.

I'm discussing gifted faith with @maxamir on another thread.

The basis of TULIP is the letter T which stands for Total Depravity and it is only because man is totally depraved in all of his being that all of the rest of the letters are necessary.

 

[maxamir]

Arminians and Calvinists are a subset of Christendom. Who cars whether Arminians agree with Calvinists on something. philosophically What does the Bible say? It certainly does not say anyrhing like "God ordained the fall." Not that "Before God created He already knew whaat the future would be."

To make the fall impossible, for limited beings, God would have had to make love impossible.

Implying that my view is that evil coming into the universe was a surprise for God is a strawman. God was not surprised, he knew it was possible. Why else would He say, "Man has become LIKE US, knowing both good and evil. God had obviously encountered evil before, and knew how it comes about. But Adam and Eve choosing to distrust God and instead trust the devil, was not inevitable.

You ask, "Wouldn't a loving human parent not do all in their power to protect their child from imminent danger thereby preserving the child's welfare?" No, helicopter mothers are stunting their children's growth toward maturity.

You ask, "Isn't one of the qualities of "agape" love is that it "protects" (1Cor 13:7)?" But you did not quote the verse and highlight where it mentions "protect". Because it doesn't say protect. You rad that into the text, like you do so many other things into so many other texts. You wrest two specific events of God protecting from other parts of the Bible, and hitch then to 1 Cor. 13:7 as if they are related to 1 Cor. 13:7 , which does not mention protecting at all. This is a typical Calvinist practice.

You ask, "If God knew how to protect Sarah from a wicked king, then why didn't he protect Eve from the Serpent?" God did protect Eve from the serpent. He had told Eve the truth. She was forewarned and forearmed. She chose not to use the weaponry God had supplied that would have kept her safe. How will anyone learn the danger of some threat, if they are delivered every time from ever engaging with the threat?

If God did not decree all things that come to pass then prophecy would be impossible.

God decreed that evil should enter the world though the choice of men at the temptation of the devil to demonstrate His holy hatred of evil to the praise of the glory of His eternal justice and to demonstrate His holy love in saving His people from that evil to the praise of the glory of His eternal grace found in Christ Jesus. Without the Fall, His people would not be able to know His holy attributes.

Gen 50:20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.

 

[studier]

I explained earlier why Rom 1 is describing the Total Depravity of the unregenerate, since it cannot be describing the regenerate.

What does "Total Depravity" mean to you. I know you're well capable of defining it on your own, so would you like to do so, or would you like to provide a link to another's definition that you agree with? I hesitate to pick one and assume you accept it.

 

[studier]

I take it that you don't consider Rom 3:9-18 as God's Universal Indictment against mankind -- against Jews and Gentiles alike who are ALL under sin (v.9)? If not, then what is this passage about? Is it an indictment? If not, what is it? And who are the people being talked about in this passage: Believers, Unbelievers or Both?

I do agree that all men are born under sin and are condemned. Until someone takes me through the context of single verses used by a theological system to "prove" their case that no man at any time seeks God, I'm going to challenge it if I see something that I think needs explanation. So, I appreciate not only your question, but also some verses you think we should look at in close context.

One problem with theological systems, as you know, is that our views can change over time. You responded positively about NCT, which means to me that you likely held other views before NCT came into play. Another problem is how they list certain verses that are supposed to prove their view but don't explain them in context.

So, the [potential] problem that I've put forth re: the universal indictment view of no [unbelieving] man ever seeking God, is how for one thing this ties back to Rom1. There, as I said earlier, I currently see Paul explaining that some men reject NR. What about those who don't, do they never seek God? Then, do we even know what "seeking God" means in Scripture? Do we know if Ps14 quoted in Rom3:11 is speaking about a point or period in time or is it a judgement of YHWH re: all time? Until I know such things, I can't accept single verses making the case for systematic theological system.

So, we have a post in process re: Rom1 and what "Total Depravity" means.

And here we have a post re: Rom3:9-18 to see how Ps14 is being used in Rom3:11 and how it compares to Rom1. Would you like to start on these verses or would you like me to? One thing I note that seems to deserve some focus is Rom3:12 which may have a time marker to analyze.

 

[studier]

The basis of TULIP is the letter T which stands for Total Depravity and it is only because man is totally depraved in all of his being that all of the rest of the letters are necessary.

View attachment 263994

You are the prince of the graphics! Thanks.

I was not raised under Reformed Theology, but I was taught it decades ago (mainly from the perspectives of how it's wrong). Now and for quite some time, I don't choose sides in such things. What I will do in any discussion I involve myself in and as long as I remain interested or energetic is look at each and every verse a systematic thinker from whatever system would like to explain exegetically to prove the interpretation of it as best we can.

Would you like to pick one of the above Scriptures and look at it? I note from the graphic that @Rufus has mentioned 1Cor2:14 and Jer17:9 and that I responded briefly to each. How about we start with 1Cor2? Maybe you and I and @Rufus can go through it. Whatever it says in context it says.

So, it's nothing personal, but I don't accept systems anymore. The one I had aggressively drilled into me while teaching how the others were wrong, I had many checks in my spirit about along the way. Later, once trained to do my own exegesis, I came to view the system as being wrong. At this point for me it's a 'make your point on your own in individual areas of Scripture - one at a time - or thank you for the information.

At this stage of life, both temporal and spiritual, I find the most refreshing discussions to be those rare and surprising ones wherein is some agreement or some ability to get a little deeper into analyzing parts of the Text. At the end of all this is the Word and the Spirit in Christ and ultimately there has to be some some corporate unity therein (Eph4:13). We seem to be far from being corporately mature.

 

[Rufus]

There are no logical links between your premise
A.:"If God did not decree the Fall";
and your first conclusion
B: "then this means sin that was spiritually and physically catastrophically disastrous to our first parents and to this earth found [it's way?] into this world apart from God's will";
and your corollary conclusion
C: "And this implies that someone or something is greater than God."

We could present your argument more positively thus -

A. There is no one or nothing greater than God
B. Nothing can come to pass that is outside of God's will
Therefore,
C. God decreed the fall.

Or like this -

A: If God is greater than everyone and everything
B: and everything that comes to pass is according to God's will.
then, C: God decreed the fall.

That argument is valid. If both premises are true, then the conclusion is true.
However, although A is true, B is an unproven assumption.
Therefore your conclusion C is unsound.

But you don't believe God decreed the Fall, right? If not, then the Fall occurred outside God's will. And if this is the case, then someone or something is greater than God.

So...did God decree the Fall or not?

 

[Rufus]

What does "Total Depravity" mean to you. I know you're well capable of defining it on your own, so would you like to do so, or would you like to provide a link to another's definition that you agree with? I hesitate to pick one and assume you accept it.

Man's depravity (corruptness) is total in the quantitative sense; for man is not as [qualitatively] corrupt as he could be; nonetheless all his faculties (mind, passions, conscience and will) , which are seated in his heart, have been corrupted. Because of this corruptness or depravity or indwelling sin, if you will, Jesus declared that men are [inherently] evil (in their essence) and that only God alone is [inherently] good (in his essence).

So, herein is man's incurable problem stated in biblical principles:

"A little leaven (depravity, corruptness, sin, evil) leavens the entire loaf" (Gal 5:9)

-or-

"Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?" (Jas 3:11). Can salt water produce fresh?

 

[studier]

Man's depravity (corruptness) is total in the quantitative sense; for man is not as [qualitatively] corrupt as he could be; nonetheless all his faculties (mind, passions, conscience and will) , which are seated in his heart, have been corrupted. Because of this corruptness or depravity or indwelling sin, if you will, Jesus declared that men are [inherently] evil (in their essence) and that only God alone is [inherently] good (in his essence).

So, herein is man's incurable problem stated in biblical principles:

"A little leaven (depravity, corruptness, sin, evil) leavens the entire loaf" (Gal 5:9)

-or-

"Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?" (Jas 3:11). Can salt water produce fresh?

Thanks.

So, in spite of man not being totally corrupted qualitatively, man is unable to understand anything spiritual?

How does man understand NR and know God (to the degree NR reveals God in unregenerate men? Are God's eternal power and divinity not spiritual truths?

 

[Rufus]

[QUOTE="studier, post: 5305170, member: 330481"]I do agree that all men are born under sin and are condemned. Until someone takes me through the context of single verses used by a theological system to "prove" their case that no man at any time seeks God, I'm going to challenge it if I see something that I think needs explanation. So, I appreciate not only your question, but also some verses you think we should look at in close context.

One problem with theological systems, as you know, is that our views can change over time. You responded positively about NCT, which means to me that you likely held other views before NCT came into play. Another problem is how they list certain verses that are supposed to prove their view but don't explain them in context.

So, the [potential] problem that I've put forth re: the universal indictment view of no [unbelieving] man ever seeking God, is how for one thing this ties back to Rom1. There, as I said earlier, I currently see Paul explaining that some men reject NR. What about those who don't, do they never seek God? Then, do we even know what "seeking God" means in Scripture? Do we know if Ps14 quoted in Rom3:11 is speaking about a point or period in time or is it a judgement of YHWH re: all time? Until I know such things, I can't accept single verses making the case for systematic theological system.

So, we have a post in process re: Rom1 and what "Total Depravity" means.

And here we have a post re: Rom3:9-18 to see how Ps14 is being used in Rom3:11 and how it compares to Rom1. Would you like to start on these verses or would you like me to? One thing I note that seems to deserve some focus is Rom3:12 which may have a time marker to analyze.[/QUOTE]

Got lots on my platter the next few days, so let's see if we can take this in little chunks at a time.

We must ask who is "no one" in Rom 3:11?

A. Many?
B. All in the distributive sense?
C. All in limited sense, i.e. all in a certain class or category of men? And which class?

Then once we answer this, it should be asked, I would think:

Why doesn't anyone in A, B or C seek God?

A. Heart problem?
B. Spiritual problem?
C. Essence problem (what man is by nature)?

 

[studier]

Got lots on my platter the next few days, so let's see if we can take this in little chunks at a time.

We must ask who is "no one" in Rom 3:11?

A. Many?
B. All in the distributive sense?
C. All in limited sense, i.e. all in a certain class or category of men? And which class?

Then once we answer this, it should be asked, I would think:

Why doesn't anyone in A, B or C seek God?

A. Heart problem?
B. Spiritual problem?
C. Essence problem (what man is by nature)?

Busy here too, so whenever is fine.

I think we've already touched on some of this at a surface level. It seems more prudent to begin with the context of Rom3:9-18 as you identified.

Paul's argument seems pretty obvious in 3:9. Paul et.al. previously alleged that both Jews and Gentiles, all are under [subjection to] sin and thus he says Jews are not superior to Gentiles. 3:10a begins Paul's substantiation of this allegation from Scripture by saying "just as it has been [and now stands] written, that...

Paul goes on to draw from at least 5 Psalms, 1 of Proverbs, and Isaiah 59. The focus of each must be to show that sin is universal among men thus Jews are not superior to Gentiles. His explanation for this non-superiority of Jews is his previous allegation that all men are under subjection to sin and he will use OC Scriptures to prove that all men are under subjection to sin.

So, unless we have something to add to or modify Rom3:9-10a, it's 3:10b - 18 and seeing what it says and doesn't say and how it flows with our take(s) on Rom1.

As for Rom3:9-10a cf. Rom1, I currently see Rom1 saying some men reject what God has revealed in them via NR. So, unless I'm wrong about Rom1, whatever point(s) Paul is making in Rom3:10a-18, he cannot be saying that this being under sin keeps some men from being able to accept what God has reveled in them via NR.

 

[Rufus]

Thanks.

So, in spite of man not being totally corrupted qualitatively, man is unable to understand anything spiritual?

How does man understand NR and know God (to the degree NR reveals God in unregenerate men? Are God's eternal power and divinity not spiritual truths?

Yes, man is unable because he's not spiritually capable of arriving at substantial and essential understanding of spiritual truth; for either God has blinded men's eyes and deadened their hearts (Jn 12:40), or the devil has blinded the minds of unbelievers (2Cor 4:40), or worse of all is that the spiritual dead (men w/o the Spirit) do not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and they cannot understand them (1Cor 2:14). And Rom 1 bears this truth out because men actively suppress spiritual truth in their wickedness, not wanting to retain God in their knowledge. It's impossible for these kinds of men to please God because they have no desire to want to know him, to want to understand him, to want to draw close to him. Their darkened mind that is enslaved to the sin nature makes it impossible for them to please God (Rom 8:8), for such a mind is naturally hostile toward God (Rom 8:7)

To your second question: Because man bears the image of God, he can still understand some truth even though that image is badly marred. He can still see something through the darkness of his own soul, but not clearly. Plus Natural Revelation does not reveal the Gospel of Salvation.

 

[PaulThomson]

But you don't believe God decreed the Fall, right? If not, then the Fall occurred outside God's will. And if this is the case, then someone or something is greater than God.

So...did God decree the Fall or not?

Doing something outside of God's will does not mean you are greater than God, if God has the freedom to decree a world where creatures can do things He does not want them to do. Your God is not free to create such a world. Your God is not free.

 

[Cameron143]

We should probably start a petition to free God.

 

[PaulThomson]

To your second question: Because man bears the image of God, he can still understand some truth even though that image is badly marred. He can still see something through the darkness of his own soul, but not clearly. Plus Natural Revelation does not reveal the Gospel of Salvation.

If the natural man can still see something, enough to understand and believe God's deity and power, but not clearly, how do you know that he cannot see the truth of the gospel, enough to understand and believe that?

 

[PaulThomson]

We should probably start a petition to free God.

No need to do that. God IS free. It is calvinists who need to be freed from their vain desire to bind God and limit what He can do..

 

[maxamir]

You are the prince of the graphics! Thanks.

I was not raised under Reformed Theology, but I was taught it decades ago (mainly from the perspectives of how it's wrong). Now and for quite some time, I don't choose sides in such things. What I will do in any discussion I involve myself in and as long as I remain interested or energetic is look at each and every verse a systematic thinker from whatever system would like to explain exegetically to prove the interpretation of it as best we can.

Would you like to pick one of the above Scriptures and look at it? I note from the graphic that @Rufus has mentioned 1Cor2:14 and Jer17:9 and that I responded briefly to each. How about we start with 1Cor2? Maybe you and I and @Rufus can go through it. Whatever it says in context it says.

So, it's nothing personal, but I don't accept systems anymore. The one I had aggressively drilled into me while teaching how the others were wrong, I had many checks in my spirit about along the way. Later, once trained to do my own exegesis, I came to view the system as being wrong. At this point for me it's a 'make your point on your own in individual areas of Scripture - one at a time - or thank you for the information.

At this stage of life, both temporal and spiritual, I find the most refreshing discussions to be those rare and surprising ones wherein is some agreement or some ability to get a little deeper into analyzing parts of the Text. At the end of all this is the Word and the Spirit in Christ and ultimately there has to be some some corporate unity therein (Eph4:13). We seem to be far from being corporately mature.

We are not simply dealing with systems but with the plain truth of the Holy Scriptures and it is fundamental to know what happened to man after the Fall to realise that his salvation must be completely of the Lord who declared man to be "only evil continually" (Gen 6:5) and therefore it is only God who can raise man from his spiritual death by choosing to send His Son to secure the salivation of those He had chosen before the foundation of the world by His perfect life, death and resurrection and the Holy Spirit who seals them forever. These are the truths the Reformers made famous in the Five Solas below.