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

[Mem]

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.

Because Jesus died, everyone is appointed to die once (in the day that ye eat of it, dying you will die), and Jesus burial was witness to His death that took away the sins of the world because He died our death (I vaguely recall an essay explaining the correct terminology used is "deaths" but I do not have on hand the exact reference). His resurrection, however, is witness that God accepted His atonement for the sins of the world and so also is God's acceptance of our salvation (our resurrection to life rather than the 2nd death) contingent upon our personal offering of belief. That is, God saw fit that because Jesus gave all and was obedient to the point of death as His offering then a small offering from us in kind would not be unfair in asking, our faith.
And you and the rest of the world can characterize me as you see fit, but the Lord knows His sheep.

 

[maxamir]

Because Jesus died, everyone is appointed to die once (in the day that ye eat of it, dying you will die), and Jesus burial was witness to His death that took away the sins of the world because He died our death (I vaguely recall an essay explaining the correct terminology used is "deaths" but I do not have on hand the exact reference). His resurrection, however, is witness that God accepted His atonement for the sins of the world and so also is God's acceptance of our salvation (our resurrection to life rather than the 2nd death) contingent upon our personal offering of belief. That is, God saw fit that because Jesus gave all and was obedient to the point of death as His offering then a small offering from us in kind would not be unfair in asking, our faith.
And you and the rest of the world can characterize me as you see fit, but the Lord knows His sheep.

The Lord indeed knows His sheep because it is for them that He said that he laid down His life and not for the goats.

It is now obvious that you believe people are saved by grace plus works for you have admitted that salvation is contingent upon what a person does and not solely upon who Christ is and what He has done.

 

[MichaelClown]

anyone home

 

[PaulThomson]

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

From where in the Bible do you get your assertion that ALL the unregenerate (TU) do not EVER want to understand, and do not EVER want to retain knowledge of God in their hearts and minds?

 

[studier]

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."

Translation is both a science and an art. Once we know what the author means, I think we have some freedom to translate in ways that get the meaning across.

What @PaulThomson and I have been discussing is the ultimately the meaning of this verse. What is Paul - and ultimately what is God - telling us?

My view is that eternal life is being in a sense defined for us, or explained in a pointed and meaningful way. Jesus gives it. What is it?

I see you used the word "possible." In a way this picks up what the mood of the Greek verb is. Over time I've found my self trending away from being too literal with this verb mood. I have found myself repeatedly thinking the grammatical structure is telling us the main point, so the potentiality in the mood may just be secondary, if even necessary at some point.

If I take this back to the way it may have been written in Classical Greek, I think this verse is telling us this: Eternal Life is this: to know (infinitive sense) the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent.

If I exercise a little freedom: Eternal Life is this: knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent.

"this" just makes it more pointed and specific. At some point we might even consider dropping it. When translating I usually try to remain very literal but mainly so I can see the Greek in the English more easily.

So, I don't think the potentiality needs to be expressed at some point. We have a growth process in coming to know God better and better, so, yes, there is this concept of potentiality, but this verb mood has a lot of range to it. For instance, it can trend into being volitional (which would included the potentiality). Eternal life is... (so what are you going to do with it?) It can also take on a future sense. Per the rest of the parsing of this verb it can be telling us the reality of what's stated.

Also, in the word translated as "know" can be the concept of being relational. Knowing God thus has the sense relationship with God. And the really interesting part of all this to me is that by tracking is concept of knowing God, the Text will define it for us so we can know what knowing God really means. It's tracking this that brings us back to what I view as a nucleus that most of the major terminology of the NC Writings attach to.

There's much to think about. It's not easy to express all that is contained in Greek using just a few words in English.

 

[studier]

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.

Read it. Good article. Do you know when it was written? I couldn't spot the date at quick glance. I'll watch for your conclusion. I have mine.

 

[studier]

It appears there is a "modicum" (?) of truth in the old adage, "Like father, like son"?

I only have a bit of time at the moment so I'll try to read your post in more detail later. For now, maybe this will help:

NKJ Exod. 20:6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
NKJ Deut. 5:10 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
NKJ Jn. 14:15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
NKJ Jn. 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
NKJ Jn. 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

This is all Hebrew parallelism. In the ancient world, to love a king was to obey the king. We love Him = We obey Him. So, using love vs. hate: We disobey Him = We hate Him.

We all hate Him, Rufus (to some degree and at times), but do we hate Him?

Yes, hate can be strong, despising, absolute. But our Text does not always use words in their absolute sense.

 

[Mem]

The Lord indeed knows His sheep because it is for them that He said that he laid down His life and not for the goats.

It is now obvious that you believe people are saved by grace plus works for you have admitted that salvation is contingent upon what a person does and not solely upon who Christ is and what He has done.

View attachment 264236

Perhaps you might use both eyes in your attempt to see? It helps to improve perception.

 

[Mem]

Translation is both a science and an art. Once we know what the author means, I think we have some freedom to translate in ways that get the meaning across.

What @PaulThomson and I have been discussing is the ultimately the meaning of this verse. What is Paul - and ultimately what is God - telling us?

My view is that eternal life is being in a sense defined for us, or explained in a pointed and meaningful way. Jesus gives it. What is it?

I see you used the word "possible." In a way this picks up what the mood of the Greek verb is. Over time I've found my self trending away from being too literal with this verb mood. I have found myself repeatedly thinking the grammatical structure is telling us the main point, so the potentiality in the mood may just be secondary, if even necessary at some point.

If I take this back to the way it may have been written in Classical Greek, I think this verse is telling us this: Eternal Life is this: to know (infinitive sense) the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent.

If I exercise a little freedom: Eternal Life is this: knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent.

"this" just makes it more pointed and specific. At some point we might even consider dropping it. When translating I usually try to remain very literal but mainly so I can see the Greek in the English more easily.

So, I don't think the potentiality needs to be expressed at some point. We have a growth process in coming to know God better and better, so, yes, there is this concept of potentiality, but this verb mood has a lot of range to it. For instance, it can trend into being volitional (which would included the potentiality). Eternal life is... (so what are you going to do with it?) It can also take on a future sense. Per the rest of the parsing of this verb it can be telling us the reality of what's stated.

Also, in the word translated as "know" can be the concept of being relational. Knowing God thus has the sense relationship with God. And the really interesting part of all this to me is that by tracking is concept of knowing God, the Text will define it for us so we can know what knowing God really means. It's tracking this that brings us back to what I view as a nucleus that most of the major terminology of the NC Writings attach to.

There's much to think about. It's not easy to express all that is contained in Greek using just a few words in English.

Thank you, much, for so much, and I agree wholeheartedly. From the first moment of knowing the One true God and His Son, to the last, knowing God encompasses such inimitable potential.

 

[tourist]

anyone home

Plenty of peeps are home in the Singles Forum.

 

[PaulThomson]

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.

I have studied J.Harold Greenlee's essay, and find it wholly unconvincing that any verses in his list of supposedly substantive hina + subjunctive clauses do not express intention, purpose or result.

I will cite three of the first four on his list as examples.

Matt. 4:3
And the tempter came to him and said, ""If you are the son of God, speak so that (hina: with the intended result that) these stones may become loaves."
Matt. 5:29
"But if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it from you, for it (i.e. to do so) is profitable for you, so that (hina: with the intended result that) one of your members might be lost and not your whole body be thrown into gehenna.
Matt. 7:1 Do not judge so that (hina: with the intended result that) you may not be judged.

I think the Greek construction (hina+ subjunctive) is intended to convey that there is an intended result in the author's or speaker's mind, and that result is as yet unactualised, but is merely potential. One can translate the greek into a substantive clause format, and the translation will make grammatical sense in English, but the aspect that was in the greek mind writing it in Greek, is often lost by doing so. And in some cases, the substantivised format misleads the reader as to what the author credited as being the precursor to the intended or to be expected result.

As in John 17:3, which I have for some time take to be saying what the translations that substantivise the hina clause say., because I had not noticed that the "that" was hina and not hoti.

I used to think it is saying that aeonous life is knowing the true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent. Now I see that the aeonous life is
sharing in everything Jesus has inherited from the Father, and the purpose of sharing in all these things is that we may keep on knowing God and Jesus.

"Glorify your Son, that Your Son may also glorify You. - even as you have given Him authority over all flesh, so that (hina: with the intended result that) everything (pan) that you have given Him, he should give to them: aeonous life. This is the aeonous life [given] so that (hina: with the intended result that) they may keep on knowing You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent. I glorified You on the earth; I have finished the work that You gave Me to do. And now glorify me, Father, with Yourself, with the glory I had with you before the world was."

So, what John 17:3 is really saying is that eternal life is partaking with Jesus of everything that the Father has given Him, and the purpose of Jesus sharing everything He has with us is so that we may keep on getting to know God and Jesus more and more intimately.

 

[Niki7]

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.

behold the confusion in this post. from what I gather about your style of posting, everyone but you is always and consistently wrong. that is actually a common style often found in Christian forums and churches but let's proceed anyway. I do so because the error in this post is so outstanding I desire to point that out

1. God is indeed a consuming fire but that is not the reason people will find themselves in hell when the time comes. the lake of fire was actually created for the devil and his angels and not for the human creation that populates this planet

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:41

so while humans may end up there because of their UNBELIEF, that eternal fire was not what God had in mind when He created it

2. The Bible clearly indicates that Christ died for all. ALL. not all will accept Christ as we know, but to state that somehow proves that the sacrifice was insufficient is the product of either insufficient information or a corrupted understanding of scripture and sometimes both.

And I do not for one moment believe you will accept any of that unless God actually does take over your will (as some here are wont to think) and make the correction for you

not going to bother to get into it with you and only bothered because the error represented by this one post alone is disturbing and needs correction

on the other hand, you may come back with such an egregious post directed at me, that I may feel myself moved to respond

just another day in the forums

tootles

 

[studier]

I have studied J.Harold Greenlee's essay, and find it wholly unconvincing that any verses in his list of supposedly substantive hina + subjunctive clauses do not express intention, purpose or result.

I will cite three of the first four on his list as examples.

Matt. 4:3
And the tempter came to him and said, ""If you are the son of God, speak so that (hina: with the intended result that) these stones may become loaves."
Matt. 5:29
"But if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it from you, for it (i.e. to do so) is profitable for you, so that (hina: with the intended result that) one of your members might be lost and not your whole body be thrown into gehenna.
Matt. 7:1 Do not judge so that (hina: with the intended result that) you may not be judged.

I think the Greek construction (hina+ subjunctive) is intended to convey that there is an intended result in the author's or speaker's mind, and that result is as yet unactualised, but is merely potential. One can translate the greek into a substantive clause format, and the translation will make grammatical sense in English, but the aspect that was in the greek mind writing it in Greek, is often lost by doing so. And in some cases, the substantivised format misleads the reader as to what the author credited as being the precursor to the intended or to be expected result.

As in John 17:3, which I have for some time take to be saying what the translations that substantivise the hina clause say., because I had not noticed that the "that" was hina and not hoti.

I used to think it is saying that aeonous life is knowing the true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent. Now I see that the aeonous life is
sharing in everything Jesus has inherited from the Father, and the purpose of sharing in all these things is that we may keep on knowing God and Jesus.

"Glorify your Son, that Your Son may also glorify You. - even as you have given Him authority over all flesh, so that (hina: with the intended result that) everything (pan) that you have given Him, he should give to them: aeonous life. This is the aeonous life [given] so that (hina: with the intended result that) they may keep on knowing You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent. I glorified You on the earth; I have finished the work that You gave Me to do. And now glorify me, Father, with Yourself, with the glory I had with you before the world was."

So, what John 17:3 is really saying is that eternal life is partaking with Jesus of everything that the Father has given Him, and the purpose of Jesus sharing everything He has with us is so that we may keep on getting to know God and Jesus more and more intimately.

Well then, you are in disagreement with the article you supplied, with the Greek Grammar I referenced, with 2 sets of grammatical diagrams, and with [potentially] many translators.

I cannot join you at this time. I will say that I do see ways to look at some of this wherein the difference could be construed as not being that meaningful in all cases.

Since this was actually a side track from our discussing John6:39-40, I'll consider you standing on purpose there also. And as with John17:3, I cannot join you. I see substantival there also, not purpose.

Interesting exercise. It got me to pull out several tools. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[PaulThomson]

Well then, you are in disagreement with the article you supplied, with the Greek Grammar I referenced, with 2 sets of grammatical diagrams, and with [potentially] many translators.

I cannot join you at this time. I will say that I do see ways to look at some of this wherein the difference could be construed as not being that meaningful in all cases.

Since this was actually a side track from our discussing John6:39-40, I'll consider you standing on purpose there also. And as with John17:3, I cannot join you. I see substantival there also, not purpose.

Interesting exercise. It got me to pull out several tools. Thanks for the discussion.

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

 

[Rufus]

Rufus said:
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!

studier said:
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.

Okay...let's do a quick rewind so that the problem I presented is right in front of our noses. I recently drew a contrasting parallel between the Creator and his moral image-bearers. Scripture teaches that God cannot sin, cannot lie, cannot deny himself; and that only God alone is Good in his Essence. Conversely, scripture teaches that man cannot not sin; and man is inherently evil in his Essence. So, the big question here that is begging for an answer is: What accounts for God's inability to sin and Man's inability to do Good? Since scripture teaches that "no man does good; no, not even one" (Rom 3:12), I see this text as harmonizing with those passages that teach that man is inherently evil -- that mankind by nature is an object of God's wrath (Eph 2:3). Now, you may still object to how I worded my question on the grounds that "good" needs to be defined. Fair enough! We'll get to this important question in due time.

While you say you don't see the issue, I most certainly do; and I believe the above question is a fair and honest one -- and that the answer is found in Holy Writ. Since men bear God's image, then it stands to reason that the answer to the big question above lies ultimately with God, not Man! But let's start with your answer to see how it squares with scripture. Your appeal to man's conscience implies that what differentiates, let's say, TU Group A from TU Group B is that the former group has a better conscience because they "strive to do good", but clearly we learn from scripture and Natural Revelation that all men do not strive to do good (thus the need for Group B) -- certainly not to the same degree as Group A, for example. Why is that? If Group A has a better or superior conscience than Group B, what explains this? Doesn't everyone in Corporate Adam put on their pants the same way? Your answer, therefore, begs the question.

So by appealing to something within man himself, you contradict yourself. For you also said:

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.

But it must be "a matter of superiority" of some men over others since your theology clearly implies that man is in charge of his spiritual destiny. Man has the final say. And man has a conscience that he can, presumably, rely upon to get him where he wants to be, right? Yet, as explained above, not all men strive to do good to the same degree; therefore, since the buck stops with man then the ones who strive harder and more diligently "to do good" must have some superior ability over their spiritually slacking counterparts. What else could account for the degrees of difference Group A and B?

Also, the issue is exceedingly broader than merely accepting or rejecting spiritual information. It's about God's inability to do wrong, and man's inability to do right.

Your answer also begs the question in another way because the Conscience is a faculty that resides in the core (heart) of man (1Sam 24:4-6; Act 2:37; 1Jn 3:19-20). Yet, we are told there is nothing good in man's nature (Rom 7:8) nor in his heart (Gen 6:5; 8:21; Job 4:17; Eccl 7:20; Ps 51:5; 58:3-4; Prov 20:19, Isa 1:5-6; 48:8; Jer 13:23; 17:9; Mat 6:22-23; 7:17-18; 12:34-35, etc., etc.). Therefore, by appealing to man's conscience as his best moral guide -- as his best hope for making good moral/spiritual choices -- you unwittingly put the fox in charge of the chicken coop! If the conscience is as corrupt as the other faculties are (and I have no reason to believe differently), then how can the Unclean make it Clean (Job 14:4)?

To keep these posts at a reasonable length, I will continue this later and address that other very important question that I mentioned earlier: What is ultimately good? Since scripture in a few places say that no one does good -- not even one person -- then what precisely does this mean? How can this be since the world is filled with people who "do good deeds" every day? We have heroes who save lives everyday of the week, generous people who contribute to charities, kind people caring for other people's physical, emotional, financial needs, etc. So, how can scripture teach this? If man's attempts at doing good are not good enough as you have said, then can they be good at all!? Can anything less than perfect be acceptable to God? it appears you're thinking on the horizontal level.

 

[studier]

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

Where's the smiley face to go along with this statement?

But you supplied a reference when I asked you to, so, were you expecting to use an "authority" yourself, until it disagreed with you?

Seems all you're left with at the moment is to claim logical fallacy. But rejecting all authority is not necessarily a good thing.

If we were to set aside all "authority" - which I'm not inclined to do here - it's down to you and me.

Stalemate.

Next discussion?

 

[studier]

But it must be "a matter of superiority" of some men over others since your theology clearly implies that man is in charge of his spiritual destiny. Man has the final say.

I have only agreed with Paul, that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and that Jew is not better than the Gentile. This is the case Paul was making. This alone says no man is superior to another in this context we've been discussing. This is why I said it's not a matter of superiority.

I've never said man is in charge of his spiritual destiny. Again, I agree with Paul in context that all men are under sin. As I've further said, "under" means under subjection - under dominion - imprisoned (with no way out). I'm willing to narrow this down and make certain we understand one another in regard to man making a choice.

This is my theology and it seems to match Paul's as far as we've discussed so far.

And man has a conscience that he can, presumably, rely upon to get him where he wants to be, right?

I never said this either. I simply said that men functioning by their conscience in accordance with natural law shows there are differences among men. Paul used this difference among men to make a case against the circumcised Jews. I also used this to say that there are layers to which Paul writes. He and the rest of Scripture militate against the TD view there is universal dead among men where no man can accept GR or that there has never been an unregenerate man that seeks God.

Yet, as explained above, not all men strive to do good to the same degree;

If (???) we both agree with this, then what is the issue?

therefore, since the buck stops with man then the ones who strive harder and more diligently "to do good" must have some superior ability over their spiritually slacking counterparts. What else could account for the degrees of difference Group A and B?

Again, superior ability is not my theology, nor Paul's, nor as I understand it, is it yours.

I've offered a suggestion for what it is in some men that I see Jesus saying God is seeking. It doesn't make them better, nor more able, nor Jew better than Gentile, nor vice versa.

Also, the issue is exceedingly broader than merely accepting or rejecting spiritual information. It's about God's inability to do wrong, and man's inability to do right.

So, are you saying men can accept or reject spiritual information? As I understand TD, this is not the case.

I thought we established that GR information about God's existence, His eternal power, His divinity is spiritual information. Do you think that all men in Adam I have universally since Adam I (until Adam II) rejected this spiritual information about God's existence?

If not all men universally and for all such time rejected God at GR, then it seems there must be something about those who did not reject this spiritual knowledge, so, #1 how does TD compare, and #2 what do you think it is about these non-rejecters that made them not reject? What is it about the Abels vs. the Cains, the Noahs (righteous in his generation), etc., down through history? Were they not in Adam I? Did they reject knowledge of God? Isn't that where TD needs to go back and speculate about ancient regeneration and such things?

Your answer also begs the question in another way because the Conscience is a faculty that resides in the core (heart) of man (1Sam 24:4-6; Act 2:37; 1Jn 3:19-20). Yet, we are told there is nothing good in man's nature (Rom 7:8) nor in his heart (Gen 6:5; 8:21; Job 4:17; Eccl 7:20; Ps 51:5; 58:3-4; Prov 20:19, Isa 1:5-6; 48:8; Jer 13:23; 17:9; Mat 6:22-23; 7:17-18; 12:34-35, etc., etc.). Therefore, by appealing to man's conscience as his best moral guide -- as his best hope for making good moral/spiritual choices -- you unwittingly put the fox in charge of the chicken coop! If the conscience is as corrupt as the other faculties are (and I have no reason to believe differently), then how can the Unclean make it Clean (Job 14:4)?

Just so I make myself clear, and no offense intended as I'm not selecting you only for this, but I'm not going to be going through long lists of proof-texts to determine where I may or may not agree with you about them and unless you go through each one of them and explain them in context, I won't be accepting them as proof of anything.

Once again, in general, you are downplaying man's conscience as if the Text is negative in totality about it. Yet Paul in Romans 3 says [some] Gentiles are living by it sufficiently to be a witness against Jews who had God's written Law. And we have not discussed anything about Clean or Unclean yet. As far as I'm concerned we've yet to conclude TD.

To keep these posts at a reasonable length, I will continue this later and address that other very important question that I mentioned earlier: What is ultimately good? Since scripture in a few places say that no one does good -- not even one person -- then what precisely does this mean? How can this be since the world is filled with people who "do good deeds" every day? We have heroes who save lives everyday of the week, generous people who contribute to charities, kind people caring for other people's physical, emotional, financial needs, etc. So, how can scripture teach this? If man's attempts at doing good are not good enough as you have said, then can they be good at all!? Can anything less than perfect be acceptable to God? it appears you're thinking on the horizontal level.

Don't lay this out for me. I have no issue that spiritually dead men - men separated from God - cannot do the Good (please note the capital "G") that God requires or be as Righteous (please note the capital "R") as God requires to be spiritually alive apart from God's work.

But, once again, I'm still discussing TD and have yet to understand how TD deals with some men throughout history who did understand God's existence and [imperfectly] retained this spiritual knowledge of God. It seems TD is not TD for all men so T must mean something other than universal in Adam I, or that TD is not TD but TI but that "I" has to be more narrowly defined as in part the Inability to free themselves from being under sin, both Jew and Gentile and Jew not being better than Gentile as both Jew and Gentile are under sin and need the Savior to free them from being under sin and be restored to relationship with God.

IOW, again, what does T mean?

• The Totality of men reject God at GR?
  • Not that I can see in Biblical history from Abel through those looking for Messiah when He came.
    • Thus T cannot mean the Totality of men cannot understand any spiritual information.
      • Actually the Totality of men do understand spiritual information - God's existence - per Paul in Romans 1.
        • That's why the Totality of men have no excuse for rejecting God, for not glorifying Him as God, for not being thankful to God.
        • So, how does the TD concept of totally dead work precisely?
• The Totality of men in Adam I being under sin.
  • OK. That' what Paul established in Rom1-3.
    • Don't even TD opponents accept this?
• The Totality of men need Jesus Christ?
  • OK. The entire Bible establishes this.
    • Don't even TD opponents accept this?

It seems to me that TD adherents have a problem with some or all of the points under the first bullet above. Why don't we focus there again? I think you're only reading a top layer in Rom1-3 where we started this discussion. Again, Paul is simply establishing that all men in Adam I are under sin and Jews are no better than Gentiles.

 

[PaulThomson]

Where's the smiley face to go along with this statement?

But you supplied a reference when I asked you to, so, were you expecting to use an "authority" yourself, until it disagreed with you?

Seems all you're left with at the moment is to claim logical fallacy. But rejecting all authority is not necessarily a good thing.

If we were to set aside all "authority" - which I'm not inclined to do here - it's down to you and me.

Stalemate.

Next discussion?

No, it's not like that at all. You set forth the proposition without providing evidence that hina + subjunctive is used substantively many times. I took your claim seriously and looked on line for some argument that would support your claim, to see how robust the argument for it is. I found an article that seemed to be giving a clear list of hina + subjunctive clauses that the author claimed were devoid of any sense of intentioned or expected result. I looked through the verses he cited and saw that, as far as I could see, not one of them was devoid of a sense intentioned or expected result. I impartially took the first four of his examples, and presented my argument to you as to why his claims regarding the first four of his examples we unproven assertions, since I could show how the hina + subjunctive clauses did include a sense of intended or expected results. If the first four of his examples do not support his claim, it is reasonable for me to assert that the author's thesis is false and that I found none of his examples proved his point. Rather than me going through every verse in his list and critiquing them all one by one to show they re all false, I can justly now place the burden on those agreeing with him to cite one or more of the verses in his list that do prove his point. If no one can, then his claim that there are apporx. 10% of hina + subjunctive clauses that are purely substantive should not be taken seriously.

I explained why his first four proof texts failed to make his case. Instead of engaging with my reasoning, you simply argued that this expert and that expert and this resource says that such clauses can be devoid of any sense of intended or expected result, and on that basis alone, without even engaging with my arguments to the contrary, you believe you have established your claim. That is the very essence of the logical fallacy of an "appeal to authority".

I would be interested to see some actual reasoned argument against my conclusions that I draw from my own study of the biblical texts. What I see in scripture is not going to change simply because authority A, B an or C disagrees with what I see, At the start of his easy, Greenlee admits that the view he is defending is a relatively recently posited opinion, is not one that what was historically the case, and other experts did not hold to his view. So, clearly, cherry picking experts that agree with his and your view, and accepting the thesis purely on the basis of their being experts and holding the view, without proving their view, is "an appeal to authority."

Maybe, at some point, you will find time to cite even one, two or three verses in which those hina + subjunctive clauses are completely devoid of any sense of intended or expected result.

Grace and peace.

 

[maxamir]

Perhaps you might use both eyes in your attempt to see? It helps to improve perception.

you continue to prove that you think blind men are capable of seeing without the help of God but do not yet realise that they can never do so no matter how many eyes they think they may have unless God grants them eyes to see. You continue to confirm your judicial blindness for robbing God of His glory and giving it to man.

 

[Mem]

you continue to prove that you think blind men are capable of seeing without the help of God but do not yet realise that they can never do so no matter how many eyes they think they may have unless God grants them eyes to see. You continue to confirm your judicial blindness for robbing God of His glory and giving it to man.

View attachment 264287

Why do you continue to pretend that you possess omniscience?