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

[studier]

Yes, I see a choice as well. And the unregenerate (hereafter TU) made the only choice they could make given their state of spiritual death, depraved heart and evil nature. But TU do not want to understand, so this is why they suppress the truth by their wickedness (v.18). And why do they suppress the truth? Because they do not want to retain the knowledge of God in their hearts and minds. So,if they don't want to understand because of their corrupt heart, then how can they?

If all TU do not want to understand, then how do we account for those from Abel onward in history who did want to understand?

How do we account for Noah when God said all flesh corrupted their way upon the earth?

How do we account for Ps14 in David's time and used by Paul in Rom3:11 speaking of fools while in the background were God's people? Were His people regenerate? Were they wicked and suppressing truth - all of them? Note I said in David's time there are God's people. Just as in Noah's time, was Noah not an exception to what Paul is saying?

All Paul is really doing is establishing that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and that Jews are not better than Gentiles. I see no way to make this into more than it is. I see no way to say that no man in history ever accepted God at GR. I do see times in history when things had gotten so bad that God looked down and stepped in. And I see that Jews were no better than Gentiles in this regard. All Paul has to do to make his case is that such times included both Jews and Gentiles.

Aren't all our choices driven by the desires of want or need?

I suppose to a large degree, yes. But then this suggests that no unregenerate person can ever have an altruistic personality, which I do not believe to be true. It doesn't make their works "good works" but I don't agree that the unregenerate can not be selfless.

Also, needs and desires can be for less suffering, a better life, better things for others we care for. How many have experienced the downside of living in sin and cried out for God to relieve us from it? How many cry out to God at times of intense personal desperation or the same of others we might see? Needs and desires can go both ways. And I don't see all people having rejected God at GR.

Yes, God made his existence clear to all men, especially to Adam! How did that work out for him? And Adam did not come into this world with any corrupt spiritual baggage, as all his progeny have for all these millennia.

Not well. But we are discussing men in Adam I and GR, and not Adam I himself. Adam made a choice. I see another choice at GR. TD in part is about men and their absolute inability to understand and choose.

God made certain things plain through Natural Revelation -- through his creation. But that is not the same as saying that God gives spiritual understanding to all men -- that he enlightens their minds and hearts so that they can understand. Or to borrow Creation language that Paul used with the Corinthians, Romans 1 doesn't say that God "made his light shine in men's hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of His majesty, glory, power and attributes through what he has made". I submit to you that this is why there is not even a hint in Romans 1 that any unregenerate ever responded positively to God's Natural Revelation. And we mustn't forget that God revealed things about himself through his creation from the very beginning! Adam (who by the way was a very brilliant man) saw everything all of us have seen for thousand of years, yet God did nothing to prevent him from disobeying.

And if you're wondering why I limit Romans 1 to unregenerate sinners, it's because of the concluding Indictment Paul makes of the "entire human race" in Romans 3 -- an indictment that cannot include God's chosen people, since all his elect are fully justified in Christ.

I think we've already touched on this. God's existence, eternal power, and divinity is spiritual truth. If it's not, then what is it? Romans 1:19-20 makes it clear that men know this spiritual truth and without excuse for rejecting Him. I've also covered a few times why I don't see Rom1-3 as you do. The historical record shows there have always been men who did not reject the light they had. I;ve also covered that Paul is simply making the case that Jews and Gentiles are all under sin and Jews are not better than Gentiles. No more, no less. But this is being turned into TD and then those opposed to TD as it's being presented and defined are accused of not understanding Grace and Pneumatology. As I've said, TD is a foundation and I see problems with it.

Re: God's chosen people, Paul's indictment includes them. This is the specific case he is making. Both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and Jews are no better than Gentiles. The historical record in Scripture is what Paul uses to prove this. And in general all Paul says is correct, but the same historical record shows that not all men rejected God as some or most did.

But do the exceptions make the Rule? This is a big question.

It depends what you mean. Again, the rule Paul is establishing is both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and Jews are not better than Gentiles. There were no exceptions to this. But I don't see him making the case that there have always been exceptions to men rejecting God at GR. At times the Text speaks of sets and subsets. The set is all under sin (Paul's case). There is a subset that rejects God at GR (Rom1). Historically there is a subset that does not reject knowledge of God's existence and responds to the light they have, but they still need Christ.

And the larger ones even are the kinds of questions I asked toward the end of my 5673. The huge question that is begging to be answered is Why and How did the exceptions differ from the general rule? Were the Abels, Enochs, Noahs, Abrahams, Moseses, Davids, Joshuas, etc. fundamentally different spiritually from all the reprobates who perished in their sins?. Or since these exceptions did indeed respond differently to God than their counterparts, could it be that God himself is the fundamental difference that accounts for why these exceptions even exist in the first place!? As for me and my household, I say the answer is to be found in this latter question. And I'm quite confident of this for two reasons: First, because Unconditional Election occurred in the post-fall Garden; and, secondly, because Paul essentially tells us that all men (in the distributive sense) come from one lump of clay; yet, the Potter had the divine prerogative to make a second lump from the first (Rom 9:21). Lump Number 1 = Adam from whom all the human race descends naturally and spiritually. Lump Number 2 = ultimately the Last Adam who descended from Eve's godly line, as opposed to the Serpent's ungodly spiritual seed.

So..."What do you think?"

I'm not in agreement with the T or the U.

As I've said, there are a lot of things going on. I think God has a big case to make and prove and the adversary is not the idiot with horns that charlatans like to pretend they are casting out of people in order to fill arenas and make profits in our times.

As I said, I have no objection to the potter and the clay as it's put forth in context, but I see it as a part of the case, not the entirety. I have no issue with Him hardening who He sees fit to harden and that He makes some for honor and some for dishonor. As I said about John the Baptist, the fact that God dropped him into history when He did without asking anyone for approval is good enough for me. And all is done by Him per His perfect essence. I don't question Him in this or any regard (I do ask Him questions, a lot) and I don't get bogged down in all the arguments of men who can't fathom the God of Love in the NC being the same God who wiped out all of humanity but 8 at one point. Or the same God who dropped a fire-bomb on an entire perverted culture and made a salt statue of someone who disobeyed Him. Or the same God who in fighting for His people wiped out something like 180,000 of their enemies while his people slept. They woke, went out from their tents, and their enemies were all dead.

I see this all as a case being made that will cover every and all allegations and accusations made against Him. And this is not as cut and dry and simplistic so as to fit this or that doctrine of men.

Another example that trends into this. Have you ever looked at something that shows all the different "isms" of socio-political theories over the ages? While all the other legal matters are being proven He at the same time is proving that we were never designed to rule apart from Him. One teacher I know once said something to the effect, we can't even rule our own little piece of dirt that our spirit and soul live in.

So, just for the record, I do not have a high view of man (and I am one). But this applies to doctrines and traditions of men also. Again, I think there are layers to parts of Romans and I think we have to stay tight to the case Paul is focused on making.

At first glance I don't think I'd include Messiah in the lump of clay. But that's part of what's interesting in some of these threads. Some will make us think things we've previously not considered.

 

[studier]

I in no way meant to discount or diminish scholarly efforts put in by those who have been called to do just that. We are all called to study the Word diligently, carefully and prayerfully. But at the same time, I try to avoid straining at gnats just to swallow camels whole. I'm a big fan of the KISS principle. And while there is milk and meat to God's word, I also know there is a profound simplicity to the Word so that even a child can grasp the gospel.

Close enough. Thanks.

 

[studier]

Fair enough. But this is why I''m hoping you will address my questions, as you find time, that I presented to you in 5673 & 5718 re the fundamental spiritual differences that must exist between believers and unbelievers that will account for why and how the former accepts spiritual truth, while the latter rejects it. There has to be some qualitative spiritual difference between the two groups that would adequately explain their choices.

Actually I'm kind of hoping you'll get busy with something else for awhile! Between you and another at the moment, this is a full time job and the coating is wearing off of my keyboard keys. Seriously!

The unregenerate do not experience the intense spiritual conflicts that Paul did. TUs are generally pretty comfortable in their sin.

Again, I think you generalize too much here. I think from the Text and observing humanity for several decades, there is a wide range of people and our Father is proving vast and complex legal case with a breath of proofs we can't fathom. One thing I'm sure of is that I'm not in anyone else's head and heart. I can't even accept my own thoughts apart from considering and evaluating them. We are all in conflict of one sort and degree or another. If all consciences were completely hardened there would be no more man.

 

[Rufus]

If all TU do not want to understand, then how do we account for those from Abel onward in history who did want to understand?

How do we account for Noah when God said all flesh corrupted their way upon the earth?

How do we account for Ps14 in David's time and used by Paul in Rom3:11 speaking of fools while in the background were God's people? Were His people regenerate? Were they wicked and suppressing truth - all of them? Note I said in David's time there are God's people. Just as in Noah's time, was Noah not an exception to what Paul is saying?

All Paul is really doing is establishing that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and that Jews are not better than Gentiles. I see no way to make this into more than it is. I see no way to say that no man in history ever accepted God at GR. I do see times in history when things had gotten so bad that God looked down and stepped in. And I see that Jews were no better than Gentiles in this regard. All Paul has to do to make his case is that such times included both Jews and Gentiles.



I suppose to a large degree, yes. But then this suggests that no unregenerate person can ever have an altruistic personality, which I do not believe to be true. It doesn't make their works "good works" but I don't agree that the unregenerate can not be selfless.

Also, needs and desires can be for less suffering, a better life, better things for others we care for. How many have experienced the downside of living in sin and cried out for God to relieve us from it? How many cry out to God at times of intense personal desperation or the same of others we might see? Needs and desires can go both ways. And I don't see all people having rejected God at GR.



Not well. But we are discussing men in Adam I and GR, and not Adam I himself. Adam made a choice. I see another choice at GR. TD in part is about men and their absolute inability to understand and choose.



I think we've already touched on this. God's existence, eternal power, and divinity is spiritual truth. If it's not, then what is it? Romans 1:19-20 makes it clear that men know this spiritual truth and without excuse for rejecting Him. I've also covered a few times why I don't see Rom1-3 as you do. The historical record shows there have always been men who did not reject the light they had. I;ve also covered that Paul is simply making the case that Jews and Gentiles are all under sin and Jews are not better than Gentiles. No more, no less. But this is being turned into TD and then those opposed to TD as it's being presented and defined are accused of not understanding Grace and Pneumatology. As I've said, TD is a foundation and I see problems with it.

Re: God's chosen people, Paul's indictment includes them. This is the specific case he is making. Both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and Jews are no better than Gentiles. The historical record in Scripture is what Paul uses to prove this. And in general all Paul says is correct, but the same historical record shows that not all men rejected God as some or most did.



It depends what you mean. Again, the rule Paul is establishing is both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and Jews are not better than Gentiles. There were no exceptions to this. But I don't see him making the case that there have always been exceptions to men rejecting God at GR. At times the Text speaks of sets and subsets. The set is all under sin (Paul's case). There is a subset that rejects God at GR (Rom1). Historically there is a subset that does not reject knowledge of God's existence and responds to the light they have, but they still need Christ.



I'm not in agreement with the T or the U.

As I've said, there are a lot of things going on. I think God has a big case to make and prove and the adversary is not the idiot with horns that charlatans like to pretend they are casting out of people in order to fill arenas and make profits in our times.

As I said, I have no objection to the potter and the clay as it's put forth in context, but I see it as a part of the case, not the entirety. I have no issue with Him hardening who He sees fit to harden and that He makes some for honor and some for dishonor. As I said about John the Baptist, the fact that God dropped him into history when He did without asking anyone for approval is good enough for me. And all is done by Him per His perfect essence. I don't question Him in this or any regard (I do ask Him questions, a lot) and I don't get bogged down in all the arguments of men who can't fathom the God of Love in the NC being the same God who wiped out all of humanity but 8 at one point. Or the same God who dropped a fire-bomb on an entire perverted culture and made a salt statue of someone who disobeyed Him. Or the same God who in fighting for His people wiped out something like 180,000 of their enemies while his people slept. They woke, went out from their tents, and their enemies were all dead.

I see this all as a case being made that will cover every and all allegations and accusations made against Him. And this is not as cut and dry and simplistic so as to fit this or that doctrine of men.

Another example that trends into this. Have you ever looked at something that shows all the different "isms" of socio-political theories over the ages? While all the other legal matters are being proven He at the same time is proving that we were never designed to rule apart from Him. One teacher I know once said something to the effect, we can't even rule our own little piece of dirt that our spirit and soul live in.

So, just for the record, I do not have a high view of man (and I am one). But this applies to doctrines and traditions of men also. Again, I think there are layers to parts of Romans and I think we have to stay tight to the case Paul is focused on making.

At first glance I don't think I'd include Messiah in the lump of clay. But that's part of what's interesting in some of these threads. Some will make us think things we've previously not considered.

 

[Rufus]

If all TU do not want to understand, then how do we account for those from Abel onward in history who did want to understand?

How do we account for Noah when God said all flesh corrupted their way upon the earth?

This is what I've been asking you. Your soteriology implies that the difference between believers and unbelievers lies in the two groups themselves. The believers must be somehow superior to the unbelievers to have overcome the evil desires of their heart, their sin nature, and their hatred for God...and the most stupendous feat of all was they must have overcome their state of spiritual DEATH -- a state in which those therein are totally helpless. (Again, I take these metaphors seriously!) We shouldn't forget that Jesus said the world (of unregenerates) HATES him. This is an awful lot of spiritual baggage to shake -- but somehow you, evidently, believe that many unregenerates did overcome it.

And...not only did they ingeniously overcome this humongous spiritual handicap, TUs managed to do something that God himself cannot do. These inherently evil people who cannot not sin pulled off the impossible feat of making good spiritual choices -- choices that run contrary to their sin nature. Conversely, it is said of God in scripture that he cannot lie, cannot deny himself, etc., which I have to think is due to God's thrice holy nature. So, while God is totally sovereign and autonomous, apparently He does not possess a free will in the libertarian sense. God does not possess the power of absolute, unrestricted liberty of thought, will and action whereby he would be capable of making a moral choice contrary to his good, holy and righteous nature. Not only can't God sin, but he can't do anything else contrary to his nature, such as perform an absurd act. Since God is a a Being of Order and Harmony and Logic, I don't believe he can create square circles or create an immovable object that would withstand an irresistible force, etc. Yet, in spiite of all this, unregerate image-bearers of God apparently have this kind of libertarian free will whereby they have this power of absolute, unrestricted liberty of thought, will and action that enable these evildoeers to make good choices. That's a huge horse pill I could never swallow!

How do we account for Ps14 in David's time and used by Paul in Rom3:11 speaking of fools while in the background were God's people? Were His people regenerate? Were they wicked and suppressing truth - all of them? Note I said in David's time there are God's people. Just as in Noah's time, was Noah not an exception to what Paul is saying?

The term "fool" is another term used for unregenerate sinner. Conversely, "the wise" often denotes the godly. In the case of Israel, we must remember that while they were in a "covenant relationship" with God, the nation as a whole was steeped in apostasy. How often was this apostate nation referred to by God in the most unflattering terms, including being characterized as "fools".

I think God very likely imparted life to the remnant of God's OT people, although scripture for the most part is silent on this matter. Of course, God dealt in very speical way with his chosen prophets -- perhaps these prophets, such as David, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., are types of NC people of God (the Church)

Evidently, you do not see Rom 3:10ff. as a universal indictiment of mankind, as I do. The idictment is against all people who rejected Natural Revelation, Intuitive Revelation or Special Revelation (the written code of the Law) that was talked about in the previous two chapters. So, I do not see any of God's elect included in that indictment.

All Paul is really doing is establishing that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and that Jews are not better than Gentiles. I see no way to make this into more than it is. I see no way to say that no man in history ever accepted God at GR. I do see times in history when things had gotten so bad that God looked down and stepped in. And I see that Jews were no better than Gentiles in this regard. All Paul has to do to make his case is that such times included both Jews and Gentiles.

Nor do I. All we have to do is read the Psalms, the Prophets and the Wisdom books to see how God's people extolled God and praised him for the awesome works of his Creation. They got it! The rest of mankind...not so much.

I suppose to a large degree, yes. But then this suggests that no unregenerate person can ever have an altruistic personality, which I do not believe to be true. It doesn't make their works "good works" but I don't agree that the unregenerate can not be selfless.

No, I don't think it does. Even Jesus said that evil people know how to give good gifts -- to others on the horizontal level. But what is their relationship with God!? Most parents, I think would sacrifice their own lives to save their kids' -- but still be God haters! One thing we should always keep in mind about unbelieves who we consider to be "good" on the horizontal level: They are still living in sin 24/7 because they neither trust the Lord nor do they love Him. The saddest thing about the human condition and Hell is that hell will be loaded with nice, moral people who strived to live "good"lives -- who were hard workers, good family people, lived sacrifically for their family, supported "good" causes, were law-abiding, paid their taxes, etc, etc. But at these same time, they had no regard for God -- at least for the God of the Bible. They never acknowledged him. Or if they did, it was mere lip service.

Gotta run. Plus thisi is aleady too long.

P.S. Did I ever mention that you'll find "U" in the post-fall account in Genesis 3 <g>?

 

[Rufus]

Actually I'm kind of hoping you'll get busy with something else for awhile! Between you and another at the moment, this is a full time job and the coating is wearing off of my keyboard keys. Seriously!



Again, I think you generalize too much here. I think from the Text and observing humanity for several decades, there is a wide range of people and our Father is proving vast and complex legal case with a breath of proofs we can't fathom. One thing I'm sure of is that I'm not in anyone else's head and heart. I can't even accept my own thoughts apart from considering and evaluating them. We are all in conflict of one sort and degree or another. If all consciences were completely hardened there would be no more man.

Indeed we are! But the unregenerate are in conflict with the God they naturally hate. Whereas, true, born again believers are often in conflict with themselves and our own stupidity, and our own foolish decisions, and all the ways we still sin...even though we often don't mean to. How can God-hating, rebellious unregenerates be in conflict with God on one hand, and with themselves for offending the God they hate and are rebelling against!? This would be analogous to saying that TUs hate Good and Evil all at once and simultaneously.

 

[maxamir]

As I just said, max, all done. So, just reiteration. You mistake not bowing to your fallacious argumentation with failure.

I asked you the question below on another thread and now ask it to you again here. I am not asking what your opinions are but what does Scripture say about this?

Did Christ die for those who are in Hell?

 

[PaulThomson]

Just flagging you. I'm heading out for the day. If you have time and care to, would you translate John 6:39-40 including any context you think important as you propose it should be translated? I'll look back later assuming I return.

Do you think hina+subj is ever substantival? More particularly appositional? I'd note that you'd have to be going against Greek scholarship if you said, No.

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever keeps on coming to me shall not hunger, and whoever keeps on believing in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever is coming to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, in order that (hina) I might lose nothing of everything that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, in order that (hina) everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him might have aeonous life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

v. 35 It is those who keep on coming to Jesus will never hunger while coming. To those hungry for the knowledge and understanding that will give them a right standing with God, Jesus can supply that truth.
Those who keep on believing in Jesus will never thirst while believing. To those thirsting for the power to practice righteousness, Jesus can supply to them the Spirit, who will be to them a well of water springing up to aeonous life, so that they can both will and do what pleases God..
v. 36 But many were coming to Jesus to watch Him in action, who despite seeing what ws doing, still did not believe in him.
v. 37 Jesus was allowing the Father to arrange His daily schedule in all details, and therefore everything that Jesus experienced was ordained by the Father. Since everyone coming to Jesus was being drawn to Him by the Father, Jesus graciously received everyone wanting to come to hear and watch Him and receive something from Him, no matter what their attitudes and motives were in doing so.
v. 38 Jesus was required to do the Father's will in all things, because doing the Father's will and not His own will was the reason/purpose for His coming down from heaven.
v. 39 That Jesus must graciously allow access to everyone wanting to come to hear and watch Him and receive something from Him, no matter their attitudes and motives in doing so, was the will of God for Jesus. The intention or purpose behind that will, was two-fold -

Firstly, to test Jesus' qualification to be the Messiah If He was perfectly faithful, He would be given authority to raise up a new creation like the present creation, but without corruption. If Jesus failed to deal graciously with the people God drew to Him, He would be rebelling against God's will, and would lose everything that the Father had so far given Him, and not be qualified to raise it all up on the last day.

v. 40 Secondly, God had calculated that you catch more bees with honey. So, the most persuasive strategy, to maximise the likelihood of aeonous life being given, through repentance and faith, to those coming to Jesus to observe Him, was to receive them all and forcibly eject none. Jesus will raise on the last day, in the first resurrection at the beginning of the 1000 year reign, all those who are believing in Him as they gaze upon Him.

In thumbnail, my approach to Biblical exegesis is to begin with the text in the original language as it was recorded, What does each word mean, conjugated and declined and parsed. Given those meanings, what grammatically coherent arrangements of those words are possible, and what do those arrangements say.
If there is an obvious grammatically and semantically coherent way to express those words in English, that is probably the meaning intended. If there is no obviously grammatically and semantically coherent way to express those words in English, maybe one or more of those words have other meanings that I have not factored in. Maybe a figure of speech or idiom is being used which I don't get, through being from a foreign culture to the original author. Maybe there is an ellipsis and I need to add English words to convey the intended meaning.
Does the meaning I have drawn from the text sit comfortably with what I see in the rest of the chapter, book and Bible?

The primary, and and almost always obvious, meaning of hina is "in order that, so that". It seems to be used to introduce an intentional or result clause. If a grammatically and semantically coherent translation of a text is possible while giving hina this meaning, there is no reason to introduce a different meaning into that text.

I am not insisting that there are no scriptures where hina cannot possibly mean "in order that". But those who want to introduce an unusual reading of hina into a text bear the burden to prove that such anomalies exist, and that their unusual reading is necessary to make the text semantically and grammatically coherent. So, where are they?

 

[Mem]

I asked you the question below on another thread and now ask it to you again here. I am not asking what your opinions are but what does Scripture say about this?

Did Christ die for those who are in Hell?

Yes.
Think over what it actually means where scripture says, "For our God is a consuming fire."

 

[Mem]

Yes.
Think over what it actually means where scripture says, "For our God is a consuming fire."

Might that, because Jesus died for all be the reason why unbelievers go to hell? Keep in mind that I do not believe hell to be the generally accepted ECT.

"...And now, lest he reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever...”

 

[Mem]

^and this encourages my adoption of this notion as a possibility, especially; that unbelievers must suffer a "2nd" death that has no power over believers

 

[studier]

This is what I've been asking you. Your soteriology implies that the difference between believers and unbelievers lies in the two groups themselves. The believers must be somehow superior to the unbelievers to have overcome the evil desires of their heart, their sin nature, and their hatred for God...and the most stupendous feat of all was they must have overcome their state of spiritual DEATH -- a state in which those therein are totally helpless. (Again, I take these metaphors seriously!) We shouldn't forget that Jesus said the world (of unregenerates) HATES him. This is an awful lot of spiritual baggage to shake -- but somehow you, evidently, believe that many unregenerates did overcome it.

This is also what I've been asking you. As I understand you and as I understand TD, no man has any ability whatsoever (TD) to know anything spiritual. Yet all men know something spiritual - God's eternal power and divinity - God's existence. And there are men throughout history who did not reject God. So how is it that no man in Adam I can know anything spiritual - anything about God - when God has made Himself clear to all men?

It's not a matter of superiority. It simply seems that some men do not reject whatever spiritual information they have about God. Why they don't is a matter for discussion. But it seems vividly clear that some do not reject what God has revealed about Himself in them.

It seems to me the TD interpretation of spiritual death is wrong. It simply foes too far. In spiritual death men have lost relationship with God, but obviously not spiritual knowledge of God. And in spiritual death men are under sin's dominion, imprisoned in penal servitude, and unable to free themselves. This spiritual death - the loss of relationship with God - is not a lack of existence nor a lack of having some spiritual knowledge - but an inability to restore the relationship they've lost and to free themselves from their condition under sin.

Men have not had to overcome their state of spiritual death to have and even retain certain spiritual knowledge God made certain they had. Totally helpless to restore and free themselves does not mean they have no spiritual knowledge of God and no ability to retain that knowledge about God that God has put into them.

By the time Jesus said the world hates Him, He was speaking to men who loved Him. Some men rejected God at GR. Some didn't. Maybe there's a trend herein that we should not negate.

And...not only did they ingeniously overcome this humongous spiritual handicap, TUs managed to do something that God himself cannot do. These inherently evil people who cannot not sin pulled off the impossible feat of making good spiritual choices -- choices that run contrary to their sin nature. Conversely, it is said of God in scripture that he cannot lie, cannot deny himself, etc., which I have to think is due to God's thrice holy nature. So, while God is totally sovereign and autonomous, apparently He does not possess a free will in the libertarian sense. God does not possess the power of absolute, unrestricted liberty of thought, will and action whereby he would be capable of making a moral choice contrary to his good, holy and righteous nature. Not only can't God sin, but he can't do anything else contrary to his nature, such as perform an absurd act. Since God is a a Being of Order and Harmony and Logic, I don't believe he can create square circles or create an immovable object that would withstand an irresistible force, etc. Yet, in spiite of all this, unregerate image-bearers of God apparently have this kind of libertarian free will whereby they have this power of absolute, unrestricted liberty of thought, will and action that enable these evildoeers to make good choices. That's a huge horse pill I could never swallow!

I don't see the issue. Men with sin natures also have consciences that can cause them to strive to do good instead of evil, whether in response to natural law or written Law. Men's free will is not unrestricted, or unimpeded. They struggle between good and evil and they fail miserably at making choices for good. But they can and do choose for good even under sin. But good is not good enough for perfect righteousness and forgiveness is in Christ.

The term "fool" is another term used for unregenerate sinner. Conversely, "the wise" often denotes the godly. In the case of Israel, we must remember that while they were in a "covenant relationship" with God, the nation as a whole was steeped in apostasy. How often was this apostate nation referred to by God in the most unflattering terms, including being characterized as "fools".

I think God very likely imparted life to the remnant of God's OT people, although scripture for the most part is silent on this matter. Of course, God dealt in very speical way with his chosen prophets -- perhaps these prophets, such as David, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc., are types of NC people of God (the Church)

Evidently, you do not see Rom 3:10ff. as a universal indictiment of mankind, as I do. The idictment is against all people who rejected Natural Revelation, Intuitive Revelation or Special Revelation (the written code of the Law) that was talked about in the previous two chapters. So, I do not see any of God's elect included in that indictment.

In Ps14 the fool says there is no God. This compares well to those who reject God at GR (Rom1:21-22). In 1Cor15:36 Paul says those Christians who don't understand the importance of the resurrection are foolish. The word like most words needs to be looked at in context. In Rom1 & 3 it's used for God rejecters.

I'll pass on the speculation about God imparting life in the OT.

I'm not discussing election at this point. This is part of the issue with TULIP IMO. Once implanted and sprouted it becomes the norm to use it all and to insert it as a natural part of T or any of the other petals.

I've already said many things about a universal vs. general indictment in Rom3 and why I see layers in what Paul is speaking about. Once again, all Paul is establishing is that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and Jews are no better than Gentiles. I see no warrant to turn this into TD or TI depending on what someone means by the theological construct. I don't agree that all men throughout history reject God at GR. I do agree with Paul that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and that Jews are not better than Gentiles.

Nor do I. All we have to do is read the Psalms, the Prophets and the Wisdom books to see how God's people extolled God and praised him for the awesome works of his Creation. They got it! The rest of mankind...not so much.

Sneaky. It's not lost on me that you've loaded "God's people" here. So, a universal indictment is not universal? Some men were not TD? Some men did not have TI to retain spiritual knowledge about God that they were given along with men who did reject it and Him? Is this why we have to consider importing from silence some concept of regeneration/imparted life back into OT men?

So, again, what exactly is TD? An inability to know anything spiritual - i.e. God's existence, eternal power, divinity, righteous judgment? Or an inability to free oneself from being under sin, and an inability to restore oneself to relationship with God = to undo spiritual death and give oneself life from spiritual death?

No, I don't think it does. Even Jesus said that evil people know how to give good gifts -- to others on the horizontal level. But what is their relationship with God!? Most parents, I think would sacrifice their own lives to save their kids' -- but still be God haters! One thing we should always keep in mind about unbelieves who we consider to be "good" on the horizontal level: They are still living in sin 24/7 because they neither trust the Lord nor do they love Him. The saddest thing about the human condition and Hell is that hell will be loaded with nice, moral people who strived to live "good"lives -- who were hard workers, good family people, lived sacrifically for their family, supported "good" causes, were law-abiding, paid their taxes, etc, etc. But at these same time, they had no regard for God -- at least for the God of the Bible. They never acknowledged him. Or if they did, it was mere lip service.

Their relationship with God is spiritual death. But some of their image-bearing remains as does a functional conscience, which can mean some did not reject God at GR. So, to call them all fools who say there is no God is a stretch. Some don't want to think or talk about God so knowing if they say there is no God is not easy or possible. Some say they are agnostic. Some say the are atheist. The way I read Rom1 they all know God exists and have no excuse for rejecting or not paying attention to Him. As you say about the unsaved, there is a gamut in horizontal relative good and evil. They're not submitted to Him = They do not believe in Him even though they know He exists. In this last sense there is no TD as I understand TD, which seems a conflicted construct.

 

[studier]

How can God-hating, rebellious unregenerates be in conflict with God on one hand, and with themselves for offending the God they hate and are rebelling against!?

My sense is that TD has you dealing to a degree - maybe too much at times - in absolutes.

Although the Romans 1 God rejecters are said to be God haters, the terminology of hatred for God can be applied to those who disobey Him. Conversely, to obey God is to love God.

The 2 masters lesson speaks in contrast of love and hate or of devotion vs. disregard. These can even be parallels. I've heard some teachings from Jewish thought that says love can mean to choose and hate can mean to reject. Did God hate (despise) Esau or did God reject Esau?

My read is that we don't have to automatically run this to hating Him in the strict sense. In some, yes. but not all the time. Even if we His Children are in disobedience to Him, we are not loving Him, not believing in Him, thus in a sense hating Him and in need of repenting and being forgiveness.

This ties into the absolutism of TD. I don't see all men rejecting God at GR, nor rejecting God in the strict sense in life living by conscience according to the light and law they have. And this light and conscience ensures an internal struggle, whether or not they ever consider offending God. IOW spiritual death is not absolute death until the second death.

 

[studier]

The primary, and and almost always obvious, meaning of hina is "in order that, so that". It seems to be used to introduce an intentional or result clause. If a grammatically and semantically coherent translation of a text is possible while giving hina this meaning, there is no reason to introduce a different meaning into that text.

I am not insisting that there are no scriptures where hina cannot possibly mean "in order that". But those who want to introduce an unusual reading of hina into a text bear the burden to prove that such anomalies exist, and that their unusual reading is necessary to make the text semantically and grammatically coherent. So, where are they?

Your response and work is much appreciated. Getting into the language is not typical in these forums.

Again, today, I'm pressed for time this morning after going through my alerts first to last. I've looked at your work in some depth, which I'll explain after I get the time to look at your work in this latest post.

I will note that your second paragraph quoted above troubles me. You are suggesting other than purpose is unusual. It would seem to me you bear the burden of proving this. Here's why: I can see that purpose is said to be the most frequent use (see below). I can also see from some sources (see below) and many translations that the translation you've made or favor, is not put forth my many if any (I've yet to see one as far as I've looked or considered them). So far, I started with my own translation and I favored apposition. Then i looked at some reference material and it all agreed with Apposition. You seem to be the lone exception at this juncture.

I searched in GJohn and told you the result was hina+subj is used in 131 verses. Because there are more than one use in many verses, the construction is used nearly twice that many times. I don't know how many you have analyzed, but apart from that information your claim that other than purpose is unusual (not statistically but according to references and translators) seems arbitrary.

I don't know what reference material you like to use, if any at this point, but I keep grammatical instruction at hand. I also have two different sources of diagrams I refer to because my first volley into more depth is lessened by not having to do my own. I'm not even sure how well I could do them anymore, but I can come to an opinion that something I use may be in error.

This is just a small bit excerpted from Greek Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace. The underlining is mine:

► b. ῞Ινα + the Subjunctive

The single most common category of the subjunctive in the NT is after ἵνα, comprising about one third of all subjunctive instances. There are seven basic uses included in this construction: purpose, result, purpose-result, substantival, epexegetical, complementary, and command. Its usage in the Koine period has increased from the classical as this construction came to be used as a periphrasis for the simple infinitive.

1) Purpose ῝Ινα Clause (a.k.a. Final or Telic ῝Ινα)

The most frequent use of ἵνα clauses is to express purpose. In classical Greek, this idea would have been expressed more often by the infinitive. The focus is on the intention of the action of the main verb, whether accomplished or not. In keeping with the genius of the subjunctive, this subordinate clause answers the question Why? rather than What? An appropriate translation would be in order that, or, where fitting, as a simple infinitive (to . . .).

4) Substantival ῾Ινα Clause (a.k.a. Sub-Final Clause)

As with ὅτι plus the indicative, ἵνα plus the subjunctive can be used substantivally. There are four basic uses: subject, predicate nominative, direct object, and apposition.

d) Apposition Clause

The force of the appositional ἵνα is namely, that. Although not frequent, it is almost idiomatic of Johannine literature.

John 17:3
αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ [ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν]77

This is eternal life, [namely, that they might know you, the only true God].
476
1 John 3:11
αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, [ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους]

This is the message that you have heard from the beginning, [namely, that we should love one another].

-End of reference quote


It seems to me that you will not be in agreement with some of this. Do you have a source that counters it?

I mentioned 2 sources of diagrams I use.

• Leedy Diagrams which I have as part of a software system
• Ramey Diagrams which I purchased separately years ago

I'm not attempting to post shots of these, but will tell you that both diagram hina+subjunctive in John17:3 as Appositional. And it looks to me like many English translators agree.

I can see the point you're making, but will have to come back to this later. My apology.

 

[PaulThomson]

So, again, what exactly is TD? An inability to know anything spiritual - i.e. God's existence, eternal power, divinity, righteous judgment? Or an inability to free oneself from being under sin, and an inability to restore oneself to relationship with God = to undo spiritual death and give oneself life from spiritual death?

Calvinists really believe in Pan-aspectual Imperfection (so, PUPIL), or Omni-faceted Imperfection (so, LOUPI). But they seem to be too lazy to change their acronym to an accurate expression if their actual beliefs. Or, perhaps the inaccuracy of their T petal enables them to exaggerate the degree of spiritual hobbling unbelievers suffer under in order to convince themselves that they win more debates.

 

[Mem]

John 17:3
αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ [ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν]77

This is eternal life, [namely, that they might know you, the only true God].

I do suppose that it would take more time than we are currently given to get to know the only true God as intimately as He is knowable. (I don't know if this comment is relevant, and I don't mean to derail the discussion but) whether it is 'so that,' 'in order that', I'm now tending toward reading it as "this is eternal life, that which makes it possible to know God face to face."

 

[PaulThomson]

Your response and work is much appreciated. Getting into the language is not typical in these forums.

Again, today, I'm pressed for time this morning after going through my alerts first to last. I've looked at your work in some depth, which I'll explain after I get the time to look at your work in this latest post.

I will note that your second paragraph quoted above troubles me. You are suggesting other than purpose is unusual. It would seem to me you bear the burden of proving this. Here's why: I can see that purpose is said to be the most frequent use (see below). I can also see from some sources (see below) and many translations that the translation you've made or favor, is not put forth my many if any (I've yet to see one as far as I've looked or considered them). So far, I started with my own translation and I favored apposition. Then i looked at some reference material and it all agreed with Apposition. You seem to be the lone exception at this juncture.

I searched in GJohn and told you the result was hina+subj is used in 131 verses. Because there are more than one use in many verses, the construction is used nearly twice that many times. I don't know how many you have analyzed, but apart from that information your claim that other than purpose is unusual (not statistically but according to references and translators) seems arbitrary.

I don't know what reference material you like to use, if any at this point, but I keep grammatical instruction at hand. I also have two different sources of diagrams I refer to because my first volley into more depth is lessened by not having to do my own. I'm not even sure how well I could do them anymore, but I can come to an opinion that something I use may be in error.

This is just a small bit excerpted from Greek Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace. The underlining is mine:

► b. ῞Ινα + the Subjunctive

The single most common category of the subjunctive in the NT is after ἵνα, comprising about one third of all subjunctive instances. There are seven basic uses included in this construction: purpose, result, purpose-result, substantival, epexegetical, complementary, and command. Its usage in the Koine period has increased from the classical as this construction came to be used as a periphrasis for the simple infinitive.

1) Purpose ῝Ινα Clause (a.k.a. Final or Telic ῝Ινα)

The most frequent use of ἵνα clauses is to express purpose. In classical Greek, this idea would have been expressed more often by the infinitive. The focus is on the intention of the action of the main verb, whether accomplished or not. In keeping with the genius of the subjunctive, this subordinate clause answers the question Why? rather than What? An appropriate translation would be in order that, or, where fitting, as a simple infinitive (to . . .).

4) Substantival ῾Ινα Clause (a.k.a. Sub-Final Clause)

As with ὅτι plus the indicative, ἵνα plus the subjunctive can be used substantivally. There are four basic uses: subject, predicate nominative, direct object, and apposition.

d) Apposition Clause

The force of the appositional ἵνα is namely, that. Although not frequent, it is almost idiomatic of Johannine literature.

John 17:3
αὕτη ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ [ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν]77

This is eternal life, [namely, that they might know you, the only true God].
476
1 John 3:11
αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, [ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους]

This is the message that you have heard from the beginning, [namely, that we should love one another].

-End of reference quote


It seems to me that you will not be in agreement with some of this. Do you have a source that counters it?

I mentioned 2 sources of diagrams I use.

• Leedy Diagrams which I have as part of a software system
• Ramey Diagrams which I purchased separately years ago

I'm not attempting to post shots of these, but will tell you that both diagram hina+subjunctive in John17:3 as Appositional. And it looks to me like many English translators agree.

I can see the point you're making, but will have to come back to this later. My apology.

I am reading through https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2323&context=asburyjournal "Hina Substantive Clauses in the New Testament". I will give my thoughts on his thesis when I am finished.

 

[Rufus]

Although the Romans 1 God rejecters are said to be God haters, the terminology of hatred for God can be applied to those who disobey Him. Conversely, to obey God is to love God.

The 2 masters lesson speaks in contrast of love and hate or of devotion vs. disregard. These can even be parallels. I've heard some teachings from Jewish thought that says love can mean to choose and hate can mean to reject. Did God hate (despise) Esau or did God reject Esau?

My read is that we don't have to automatically run this to hating Him in the strict sense. In some, yes. but not all the time. Even if we His Children are in disobedience to Him, we are not loving Him, not believing in Him, thus in a sense hating Him and in need of repenting and being forgiveness.

This ties into the absolutism of TD. I don't see all men rejecting God at GR, nor rejecting God in the strict sense in life living by conscience according to the light and law they have. And this light and conscience ensures an internal struggle, whether or not they ever consider offending God. IOW spiritual death is not absolute death until the second death.

So...not loving God when TU disobey him is not the same as hating him? But the Greatest Commandment of them all doesn't read in the negative, does it? It doesn't read, "Thou shall not hate the Lord your God". No! Instead it reads:

Matt 22:36-38
36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
NIV

It seems to me that God requires us to love him with every fiber of our being. We are to love him with all our strength -- with every thing we have in us. All our faculties are to be fully engaged, since we're to love him with ALL our heart! So, since TU most certainly don't have this kind of love for God, shouldn't we logiocally classify this as hatred for Him -- even if it is in a "relative" sense?

Luke 14:25-26
25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple.
NIV

But if you insist on rejecting "absolutism" by finding middle ground between the required supreme love for God and "something less", then I guess we could categorize this latter category as "lukewarm" (v. ice cold)? But what does Jesus think about lukewarm people (Rev 3:16)? On the other hand, people whose hearts are ice cold towards God are still in disobedience to the greatest commandment, are they not? So, if "hatred" is a term to your disliking, I suppose we could change the vernacular to a more "nuanced" Non-Lovers of God -- but I don't see how God would be any less displeased with Non-Lovers of Him than with Haters of Him. And how will either group escape His just condemnation?

So Jesus wasn't speaking in "absolute" terms when he said:

John 7:7
7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that what it does is evil?
NIV

Or when he said:

John 15:23
23 He who hates me hates my Father as well?
NIV

Jesus only spoke like this in a loose sense -- in a relative sense? Do you think Satan hates God only relatively? If not, then why would his seed hate God any less?

And since all theology -- all doctrines are rooted in the OT, let us see what it says there.

Prov 8:36
36 But whoever fails to find me harms himself;
all who hate me love death."
NIV

Wisdom is being personified here in this entire chapter. Since all wisdom, understanding and knowledge reside in God, and also in Christ himself, for in Him are also hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3), then ultimately we should understand this chapter teaching that men hate the fountainhead and embodiment of all Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding.

And wasn't the Messiah abhorred by the nation of Israel?

Isa 49:7
7 This is what the LORD says —
the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel —
to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation,
to the servant of rulers:
"Kings will see you and rise up,
princes will see and bow down,
because of the LORD, who is faithful,
the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you."
NIV

And didn't Israel detest God?

Zech 11:8-9
8 In one month I got rid of the three shepherds.

The flock detested me, and I grew weary of them 9 and said, "I will not be your shepherd. Let the dying die, and the perishing perish. Let those who are left eat one another's flesh."
NIV

And what about the nations who rage against God? Are they just a little angry with Him sometimes?

Ps 2:1-3
1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
AGAINST the LORD
and AGAINST his Anointed One.
3 "Let us break their chains," they say,
"and throw off their fetters."
NIV

We shouldn't take this passage too literally? Understand it too rigidly? Are there nuances in it I'm missing? Are we supposed to understand that the pagan nations are "for" God and his Anointed One more often than they are against them? Or at least "for" God sometimes? On the other hand, it's also written about unregenerate minds:

Rom 8:7-8
7 the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
NIV

Now...what you say about the Lord's children also "hating" God is sadly very true. Whenever we sin against the Lord, most especially willful sin, at that moment we stop loving Him. Our love for our Lord and Savior, while in our mortal bodies, is imperfect. Perfection comes in the next age. But...there's a difference between a child of God "hating" God when he sins and the world hating God when it sins. And the difference is that the child of God cannot and, therefore, will not continue in sin. He cannot and will not live a lifestyle of sin. But this is precisely what the unregenerates of this world do! They LOVE their evil lifestyles! The live 24/7 in SIN! How can TU not live in sin when they are in bondage to their sin nature?

John 3:19
19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
NIV

And,

2 Tim 3:1-5
2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
NIV

So, since unregenerates love the darkness because their deeds are evil, and they love all forms of evil itself, and love themselves to death should we understand these truths in only a loose sense? They still only hate God sometimes because they're not as evil, perhaps, as their spiritual father the devil is?

Sinners have no HEART for God! Their heart is with the world, the flesh and the devil. And they want to do the desires of their spiritual father.

John 8:42-44
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father , you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father , the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
NIV

It appears there is a "modicum" (?) of truth in the old adage, "Like father, like son"? Did you catch the part that these Pharisees want to carry out the devil's desires? So...yeah, men can understand snippets of spiritual truth here and there -- and still be without essential, substantial understanding because what little they do know...what they do understand -- they don't even want to retain that! Even the Christ-hating Pharisees understood some spiritual truth sometimes, even though that truth was expressed in parabolic form (Mk 12:12). But did their "understanding" restrain their evil hearts from murdering him?

Lord willing, I will address other parts of your post later.

 

[Niki7]

The op asks:

Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR
for the Unjust/Nonelect/Unsaved whose names are not written in The Book of Life?

No one is born into the world forgiven, just and elected. Every single human being is unjust and unsaved until they believe in the One that God sent to die for the sins of the world so that anyone who calls on Him will be saved.

That's what the Bible says anyway. This is a ridiculous and misleading question raised over and over again by people who are unsure of their salvation, unsure what salvation is or how you become saved, swayed by different doctrines and never coming to believe in scripture, but following which ever way the wind seems to be blowing at the time.

there are 'teaching spirits' at large in this world today and they are very active in their lies. see to it you are not influenced by them

But the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall apostatise from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons I Timothy 4:1

much of the New Testament was written to counter error....wrong teaching, straight out lying, and confusing salvation by teaching you also had to obey the law.

if you have accepted Christ as your Savior, as the One sent by God to die for our sins (the sins of the world not meaning universal salvation), then your name is written down in the book of life. it is not what you have done to be saved, stay saved or accomplished.

it is all and entirely conceived and carried out by the will of our Father and the obedience of His Son and no one can take you out of that salvation including all the false prophets, false teachers and preachers or anyone trying to convince you otherwise

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. John 10:28

35Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? 36As it is written:

“For Your sake we face death all day long;

we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor principalities, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8

 

[maxamir]

Yes.
Think over what it actually means where scripture says, "For our God is a consuming fire."

It is because God is indeed a consuming fire that He casts people into Hell but to say that Christ died for them is to imply that His sacrifice was insufficient to save them and that He failed in His mission when Scripture declares that Christ came to save His people from their sin, not simply make them saveable and that He laid down His life for His sheep but also said that many were not His sheep. These are the things that you need to understand and get right this side of eternity lest you be found trusting in yourself and confirmed as being a goat and not a sheep.