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

[tourist]

What exactly is the Total Depravity theory? I believe Jesus destroyed it.

Something to do with Democrats I suppose.

 

[Rufus]

You misunderstand me. I said it proves what Paul is proving = Both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and Jews are not better than Gentiles.

The proposition being made is that Jews are not better than Gentiles. The last sentence in Romans 3:9 begins with "for" and is used to explain the proposition. The OT quotes are used to prove both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and thus substantiate the proposition the Jews are not better than the Gentiles.

One of the problems here is that being under sin does not equate to what traditional Total Depravity says.

Another problem here is being discussed between you and @PaulThomson. This is the problem of interpreting the present tense verbs. You are interpreting them to be gnomic, which means you're basically saying all these statements are timeless facts. Yet Ps14 speaks of a time when God looked down from heaven and distinguished between fools who say there is no God vs. God's people who obviously did not say there is no God.

In addition, as I've been saying, I see there being no way to make this all gnomic - timeless fact - when there are men from Abel through the birth and identification of Messiah on earth who were obviously not saying there is no God.

Assuming it is Paul making the case in Rom3:9-18, all he has to do is show that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and Jews are not better than Gentiles. He doesn't need a gnomic timeless fact to do this. All he has to do is show what he's even previously stated in rhetorical argument, that some Jews did not believe and that the history of the Jews is a mess of disobedience and idolatry. But it is not a timeless fact that they all were always doing what Paul quotes from times in history.

What TD needs to do with these verses is prove that no men could seek God ever because dead men can't do anything.

What you need to do is prove that that no men could seek God ever, even though being spiritually dead does not include a total
inability to understand and not reject some spiritual truth.



As I understand traditional TD, it uses 1Cor2:14 to say unregenerate men cannot understand anything spiritual. You'll find this verse on the list I posted above which I took from one of the @maxamir graphics. I've never said all Reformed believe the same thing. In fact I've said they do not. I've also pointed out that you are not being traditional if you believe the spiritually dead can understand some spiritual truth.



I'd be satisfied to see you conclusively prove TD from some of the verses I listed. Even if you'd like to prove why some of them are wrong in your view (like 1Cor2:14). As far as I know, I've got months, so let's get started and see how we do.



I pointed to men from Abel through the birth of Christ at minimum to say that no men were ever seeking God is a fallacy. This is where you and I began. But this is just one of a few things I pointed out concerning my disagreement with your interpretation of Rom1-3. But I'm happy to see you prove the gnomic - timeless fact - that no men in history ever sought God.

Throwing 90+ my way doesn't mean anything to me. I don't think TD can be proven by the traditional list of TD passages. Also, since you do not believe traditional TD, why are we calling what you believe "TD"? Would you like to relabel it to "RTD" or something, since you're not really arguing for traditional TD, are you?



You misstate what I stated re: conscience. It was put forth in the way that Paul uses it against the Jews who had the written Law, so nothing more than a factor in the argument that your gnomic - timeless fact - concerning all men of all time never sought God is again left wanting. How does this have anything to do with God having no ability to sin?



I'm not going back to a side-track and in turn won't go back to point out how much of my work you ignore.

Honestly, what surprises me a bit, is how you too turn away from offers to get into a passage of Scripture in detail to prove your case for TD or TI or RTD or RTI or whatever you'd like to label it. I'll call it RTD for now. I don't think we exhausted Rom1-3. Maybe we can't. The more I look at it the more complex it may be. So, how about another verse or single section of verses on the traditional list? No side-tracks to ULIP or any modified version for now. Prove RTD.

Maybe you could also define RTD once again and clarify precisely how RTD differs from TD.

I'll even begin by pointing out that we may be in agreement on a few propositions. Please correct me if we are not in agreement and explain why:

1. All unregenerate men in Adam 1 - both Jews and Gentiles are spiritually dead and under the dominion of sin.
2. Spiritual death does not mean that men cannot understand [some] spiritual truth.

Re #1: Yes. I agree. But you certainly don't understand the metaphor "death" as I do. Since I've never come across a dead body that could do anything except lay motionless and without conscious on it slab or in its coffin, then I must think that spiritual death also means inability to perform spiritually. If the body separated from its soul has ceased to function as it was originally intended, then what would compel me to think differently about man's soul that is seprated from God? Or if only God alone is the remedy for physical death via resurrection, then, again, what would compel me to think differently about Him being not the sole rememdy for spiritual death?

Re #2: Again, yes. However, the root issue here is not what [little] spiritual truth TU understand; rather, it is that their evil hearts don't want to understand spiritual truth because their mind, hearts and souls, rooted in their sin nature, are not favorably disposed towards their Creator. Instead, everyone comes into this world with a heart disposition of pride, autonomy, self-love, self-conceit and self-reliance -- all of which are in TOTAL opposition to faith and man's whole duty towards God which is to live a life that glorifies Him all the time in all we do. But even so...you say, that this infinite spiritual gulf that exists between a thrice Holy God and the wicked can be spanned by the wicked's conscience? A conscience that is just as corrupt as the rest of their faculties are? Really? And this somehow makes good sense to you? A bad conscience can yield good fruit?

If man's conscience, apparently, was good enough in the OT era to save him, then why do men in this NC age have to be born again? Are the sons of men in this age more wicked than men were in the previous one? And how did Adam & Eve's consciences work out for them in the Garden after they sinned?

And since you don't like my "gnomic" interpretation of Rom 3:18, then you must think that some or many evil men are nevertheless inherently righteous (3:10) and instinctively do good (3:12)?

And lastly, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question that I have repeatedly asked: Do you attribute God's inability to sin to his conscience, as you do to man's inability to not sin?

 

[selahsays]

Something to do with Democrats I suppose.

Ha-ha! must be!

 

[Rufus]

In the above post I asked you the bolded question. I'm going to ask you to clarify your answer which I will quote in sections, so I can attempt to make my questions clear:



Here you seem to answer my question in the affirmative that man is unable to understand anything spiritual "because he's not spiritually capable of arriving at substantial and essential understanding of spiritual truth;"

• So, you have seemingly qualified your answer with a causal statement, which as I recall you have recently repeated in another post.
• So, it's not that man cannot understand anything spiritual, but that man cannot arrive at a substantial and essential understanding of spiritual truth.
  • And the cause of this inability is that he's not spiritually capable.
    • So, I guess you are saying man has the ability to understand a little bit of spiritual information, but nothing substantial and essential.
      • What would you say is substantial and essential understanding of spiritual truth?
        • The existence of God?
        • The sinfulness of man?
        • The Gospel of Jesus Christ?
        • Where do you draw the line between minimal and substantial and essential?

NKJ John 12:23-43 But Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. 24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. 25 "He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 "If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor. 27 "Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28 "Father, glorify Your name." Then a voice came from heaven, saying, "I have both glorified it and will glorify it again." 29 Therefore the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to Him." 30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31 "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die. 34 The people answered Him, "We have heard from the law that the Christ remains forever; and how can You say, `The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this Son of Man?" 35 Then Jesus said to them, "A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going. 36 "While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." These things Jesus spoke, and departed, and was hidden from them. 37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?" 39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them." 41 These things Isaiah said when1 he saw His glory and spoke of Him. 42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; 43 for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

• As is usual, these simple references to verses like John12:40 have much more going on in context.
  • Yes, God did blind the eyes and harden the hearts of some Jews at a certain time of history as Isaiah said He would do.
  • But it also seems clear that some unregenerate men were able to substantially and essentially understand the message of Jesus Christ and even believe in Him.
  • It also seems that Jesus qualified some of the problems with men being things they chose:
    • Loving life vs. hating life in this world.
    • Serving Him and following Him vs. not serving Him.
    • Having not learned from Torah correctly.
    • Loving the praise of men more than the praise of God and fearing being put out of the synagogue.
  • And what do we do with Jesus saying He will draw all men to Himself?
  • How does all of this compare with RTD?

Correction of the verse reference:

NKJ 2 Corinthians 4:1-6 Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. 6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

• Again, yes, the god of that age had blinded some,
  • But why only some and how does this prove RTD when only some unregenerate can be blinded and obviously other unregenerate cannot?
• I'd also like to call your attention to the fact that Paul and others were dealing with men's consciences. You challenged me for bringing up men's consciences in relation to this RTD (or TD) theory. Yet here the conscience of man is a factor in belief in the Gospel.

I'll take up the rest of what you said and the Scriptures you referenced when I can return to this. I have an important (to me) question about your next statement because you reference 1Cor2:14 which TD also references in regard to unregenerate man's inability to understand spiritual information. I'd like to be clear as to how RTD compares to TD in this regard, so I will be posting that verse and surrounding context and observing what it is and is not saying in regard to TD use of it.

Yes, the the god of this world has blinded some (actually quite a few!!!); but who he cannot blind are the elect because Jesus came into this world to destroy the works of the devil (1Jn 3:8) and furthermore the Father protects the elect from the evil one (Jn 17:11: 2Thes 3:3). But meanwhile....the world for whom Jesus explicitly omitted from his High Priestly prayer in John 17 is fair game for the devil.

Re your John 12 passage, I have this question: After Jesus heard Peter's confession of faith and how the apostle understood Jesus to be the Messiah, to what or to whom did Jesus give credit for that confession? To Peter's conscience? To Peter's great knowledge of the OT scriptures? To someone's else's superior knowledge of scripture or better conscience?

 

[studier]

or worse of all is that the spiritual dead (men w/o the Spirit) do not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and they cannot understand them (1Cor 2:14).

NKJ 1 Corinthians 2:1-3:3 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him." 10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ. 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?

• This entire context for 2:14 concerns “wisdom for those who are mature” - “the things God has prepared for those who love Him,” - “the deep things of God” – “the things that have been freely given to [Christians] by God – things spoken by Paul and others in words the Holy Spirit teaches [to mature Christians] – “the mind of Christ.”
• Of course, such things are foolishness to the natural man who thus does not receive them.
  • They are the meat of Christian teaching for the mature Christian and cannot even be understood by the immature Christian.
  • This is not proof in any way of RTD or TD inability to understand basic spiritual truth.
    • As I understand you, you have been saying that unregenerate men can understand spiritual things such as the existence of God.
    • But in the above quote you seem to use 1Cor2:14 just as TD does, i.e. spiritually dead men cannot understand spiritual things.
    • So is RTD just TD or is RTD dissimilar to TD in some way?
  • As for basic Gospel truth – Jesus Christ and Him crucified – Paul says he was proclaiming this “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” so, men’s “faith would be in the power of God.”
    • Why is God demonstrating His power to dead men who have no ability to receive it?

 

[selahsays]

Consider in all these back and forth exchanges that it is God Himself that blinds some people. But the Elect will al stand firm and will never waver when the going gets tough. All you believers who dearly love the Lord here on this forum need to understand that you could be of the Elect and stop pushing this away.

I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, "LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"? But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Just as it is written: "God has given them a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear, To this very day." And David says: "Let their table become a snare and a trap, A stumbling block and a recompense to them. Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see, and bow down their back always." I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.

- Romans 11:1-5,7-11 (NKJV)

 

[rogerg]

Why is God demonstrating His power to dead men who have no ability to receive it?

For witness against them:

[2Co 2:14-17 KJV]
14 Now thanks [be] unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one [we are] the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who [is] sufficient for these things?
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

 

[studier]

And Rom 1 bears this truth out because men actively suppress spiritual truth in their wickedness, not wanting to retain God in their knowledge. It's impossible for these kinds of men to please God because they have no desire to want to know him, to want to understand him, to want to draw close to him. Their darkened mind that is enslaved to the sin nature makes it impossible for them to please God (Rom 8:8), for such a mind is naturally hostile toward God (Rom 8:7)

What men actively suppress spiritual truth? All unregenerate men - isn't this the case you're making - or are "these kinds of men" something other than all unregenerate men?

Romans 8 concerns Christians - being in Christ in Spirit - and having a spiritual vs. fleshly mindset - and walking in Spirit vs. in flesh. It is not about the ability or inability of the unregenerate to understand or believe spiritual truth. How does this prove RTD?

 

[selahsays]

This entire context for 2:14 concerns “wisdom for those who are mature” - “the things God has prepared for those who love Him,” - “the deep things of God” – “the things that have been freely given to [Christians] by God – things spoken by Paul and others in words the Holy Spirit teaches [to mature Christians] – “the mind of Christ.”

Ah! Here we see the saints/Elect/true Christians.

 

[selahsays]

Ah! Here we see the saints/Elect/true Christians. View attachment 264516

I’m curious … Do you disagree with the obvious teachings on election found in God's Word? How come? Do you fear you will be called something? Hey, I only really want to be called a Christian.

 

[studier]

Re #1: Yes. I agree. But you certainly don't understand the metaphor "death" as I do. Since I've never come across a dead body that could do anything except lay motionless and without conscious on it slab or in its coffin, then I must think that spiritual death also means inability to perform spiritually.

Why are we switching vocabulary from understanding and believing spiritual truth to performing spiritually?

What does "perform spiritually" mean?

Are the spiritually dead void of consciousness?

If the body separated from its soul has ceased to function as it was originally intended, then what would compel me to think differently about man's soul that is seprated from God? Or if only God alone is the remedy for physical death via resurrection, then, again, what would compel me to think differently about Him being not the sole rememdy for spiritual death?

Using your wording because there is another discussion to be had about the human soul - How is a body separated from its soul the same as a body with a soul separated from God? The later maintains certain functionalities and abilities (which is the discussion) where the first does not.

Who is arguing against the necessity of God resurrecting or the necessity of God making a man alive from dead spiritually?

Re #2: Again, yes. However, the root issue here is not what [little] spiritual truth TU understand; rather, it is that their evil hearts don't want to understand spiritual truth because their mind, hearts and souls, rooted in their sin nature, are not favorably disposed towards their Creator. Instead, everyone comes into this world with a heart disposition of pride, autonomy, self-love, self-conceit and self-reliance -- all of which are in TOTAL opposition to faith and man's whole duty towards God which is to live a life that glorifies Him all the time in all we do. But even so...you say, that this infinite spiritual gulf that exists between a thrice Holy God and the wicked can be spanned by the wicked's conscience? A conscience that is just as corrupt as the rest of their faculties are? Really? And this somehow makes good sense to you? A bad conscience can yield good fruit?

It is purely TD and it seems similarly RTD that concludes that all the spiritually dead have no desire to know God. IMO this is from an erroneous interpretation of Rom1-3. In addition, I've recently shown how Paul appealed to the conscience of the unregenerate in proclaiming the Gospel. I've also referenced how the conscience of unregenerate men can see value in living pursuant to natural law. I have not said one thing about an unregenerate conscience "yield[ing] good fruit" whatever this means to you.

If man's conscience, apparently, was good enough in the OT era to save him, then why do men in this NC age have to be born again? Are the sons of men in this age more wicked than men were in the previous one? And how did Adam & Eve's consciences work out for them in the Garden after they sinned?

Again, I've said nothing about the conscience of any unregenerate in history man saving him and I'm assuming you're speaking of justifying him and giving him life from spiritual death.

And since you don't like my "gnomic" interpretation of Rom 3:18, then you must think that some or many evil men are nevertheless inherently righteous (3:10) and instinctively do good (3:12)?

It's not a matter of what I like, but a matter of what seems to be the intent of the writer of the Scripture, in this case Paul. I think we've dealt with Romans 1-3 enough for now and I've said this previously. I've dealt with some of the issues of those Romans 3 verses, e.g. the time indicator from Ps14 which can provide some of the inference for the classification of present tense verbs, the history of Israel turning away from God, and other factors, some of which you do not respond to.

You have attempted to make this about man's inherent essence vs. God's inherent essence extending to an odd premise about God having a conscience like men. But dikaios is not normally spoken of in this strict sense of in regard to men. Noah was a dikaios man in his generation according to Gen6:9 and 7:1. Abel was said to be righteous in Heb11:4. Dikaios is used almost 400 times in the Text. It's not just about God's absolute righteousness vs. man's unrighteousness, but about how even unregenerate men function in relationship to God.

And lastly, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question that I have repeatedly asked: Do you attribute God's inability to sin to his conscience, as you do to man's inability to not sin?

I guess I just answered this. I think it's an odd question that has no basis in reality or reason.

 

[selahsays]

Ah! Here we see the saints/Elect/true Christians. View attachment 264516

@PaulThomson — oooooh, a very angry red ❌ . Who you angry with? Me?

 

[PaulThomson]

studier said:
Why is God demonstrating His power to dead men who have no ability to receive it?

For witness against them:

ROTFL. A blind man is walking towards a display of expensive china. The owner holds up a warning sign in front of the blind man not to procede or he will be charged for all breakages. The blind man keeps walking and destroys $20,000 worth of stock and is sued for compensation by the owner. Why did the owner hold up the sign? For a witness against the blind man?

"I warned you. You didn't heed my warning. Therefore, you are culpable."

This is the calvinist view of justice.

 

[rogerg]

Of course, such things are foolishness to the natural man who thus does not receive them

They cannot "receive" - that is the whole point behind those verses. The "us" of v10 and the "we" of v12, are the "brethren" of v1 - but they are spiritual brethren - the elect/saved - not familial brethren. Only those, who, through Christ, have been indwelt with the Spirit, can understand/comprehend/ truly trust, the things of the Spirit. Therefore, to be able to do so, they must be of the elect and saved/born again. Others cannot.

[1Co 2:1, 10, 12 KJV]
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. ...
10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

[Luk 1:77 KJV]
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

 

[Magenta]

ROTFL. A blind man is walking towards a display of expensive china. The owner holds up a warning sign in front of the blind man not to procede or he will be charged for all breakages. The blind man keeps walking and destroys $20,000 worth of stock and is sued for compensation by the owner. Why did the owner hold up the sign? For a witness against the blind man?

"I warned you. You didn't heed my warning. Therefore, you are culpable."

This is the calvinist view of justice.

Do you think man has an excuse then, even though Scripture attests otherwise?

 

[Cameron143]

studier said:
Why is God demonstrating His power to dead men who have no ability to receive it?


ROTFL. A blind man is walking towards a display of expensive china. The owner holds up a warning sign in front of the blind man not to procede or he will be charged for all breakages. The blind man keeps walking and destroys $20,000 worth of stock and is sued for compensation by the owner. Why did the owner hold up the sign? For a witness against the blind man?

"I warned you. You didn't heed my warning. Therefore, you are culpable."

This is the calvinist view of justice.

Can a man escape a traffic violation because he is ignorant of the law?

 

[selahsays]

studier said:
Why is God demonstrating His power to dead men who have no ability to receive it?


ROTFL. A blind man is walking towards a display of expensive china. The owner holds up a warning sign in front of the blind man not to procede or he will be charged for all breakages. The blind man keeps walking and destroys $20,000 worth of stock and is sued for compensation by the owner. Why did the owner hold up the sign? For a witness against the blind man?

"I warned you. You didn't heed my warning. Therefore, you are culpable."

This is the calvinist view of justice.

Who wrote the Bible, huh? Do you not know; have you not heard?

 

[HeIsHere]

Can a man escape a traffic violation because he is ignorant of the law?

An innocent person has taken on the consequences and paid the ticket.

 

[Cameron143]

An innocent person has taken on the consequences and paid the ticket.

That's a different issue. We're talking about consequences under the law regardless of understanding.

 

[studier]

For witness against them:

[2Co 2:14-17 KJV]
14 Now thanks [be] unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one [we are] the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who [is] sufficient for these things?
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Well, firstly, your use of 2Cor2:14-17 is questionable, but maybe you can explain it.

Next, in 1Cor2:14 there is no talk of something like there is in John12:40 where God had hardened men's hearts and did signs which could be a witness against them, especially when we review how the hardening process of God works in coordination with the continual rejection of the light God has given to those He hardens.

Next, and it looks like @PaulThomson has addressed this already, this sense of justice is just odd and it is one of the main arguments constantly made against the Calvinist interpretive model.