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

[Magenta]

Again, you made the same claim without proof. What did I say that was wrong in my posts?
Is man fallen? Is he unregenerate? Does the natural man have faith in God? Is it possible to
please God apart from faith? Has unregenerate man been given revelation from God?
Can fallen man worship God in spirit and in truth?

Had you really gone back and tried to understand what I said and reported it fully,
you would know I have been saying that the natural man still possesses all his faculties.
Why no post about that? My guess is that you would have to admit that you characterized
what I have said inaccurately and according to your own bias. You heard what you wanted to hear.

To be sure I believe man's faculties were corrupted by sin, and that mankind is different
than he was created. But clearly man can think and emote as he did prior to sin.

1. deceitful and desperately wicked
2. dead in transgression and sin
3. there is none who are good
4. their speech is corrupted by sin
5. their actions are corrupted by sin
6. ruin and misery lie in their wake
7. the way of peace they have not known
8. they have no fear of God
9. held captive by a love for sin
10. will not seek God because they love the darkness
11. does not understand the things of God
12. suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness
13. continues to willfully live in sin
14. rejects the gospel of Christ as foolishness
15. alienated from God and enemies in their minds because of evil deeds
16. estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies
17. their mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so."

I wonder how the natural man is supposed to be moved to faith in ^ that ^ condition. Oh! I know! God
may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. God’s grace is man’s only hope.

Jesus’ words in John 6:65

 

[studier]

1. deceitful and desperately wicked
2. dead in transgression and sin
3. there is none who are good
4. their speech is corrupted by sin
5. their actions are corrupted by sin
6. ruin and misery lie in their wake
7. the way of peace they have not known
8. they have no fear of God
9. held captive by a love for sin
10. will not seek God because they love the darkness
11. does not understand the things of God
12. suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness
13. continues to willfully live in sin
14. rejects the gospel of Christ as foolishness
15. alienated from God and enemies in their minds because of evil deeds
16. estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies
17. their mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so."

I wonder how the natural man is supposed to be moved to faith in ^ that ^ condition. Oh! I know! God
may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. God’s grace is man’s only hope.

Jesus’ words in John 6:65

This looks like the NIV translation of John 6:65, correct?

If we were to agree with "unless the Father has enabled them" - how does the Father enable them to come to Jesus?

I can see why the NIV translates this verse this way, but I can also see the reason for these translations of this phrase:

NET John 6:65 So Jesus added, "Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come."

• NET notes: 111 tn Grk "unless it has been permitted to him by the Father."

NLT John 6:65 Then he said, "That is why I said that people can't come to me unless the Father gives them to me."

• A bit off in translation IMO but we can see another way this phrase is interpreted. I think the NLT is importing the idea from other verses in John.

NKJ John 6:65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."

• This is more literal translation.
• I would change "by My Father" to "from the Father" to be more literal.
• So, to come to Jesus is granted from the Father
  • No grant to come to Jesus = not able to come to come to Jesus

The question is:

• Is the Father enabling men to come to Jesus
  • And what is this enablement?
• Or is the Father giving men permission to come to Jesus?
  • On what basis?
• Or is the Father giving men to Jesus?
  • On what basis?
• Or, is the Father granting to men to come to Jesus?
  • What does this mean?
• Or ????

Is it God's grant of repentance as you note?

The main reason I ask all this is due to what this discussion has been about. What exactly is God doing in or among men so they can come to Jesus / believe in Jesus? It seems to me that the way this verse is translated can open the door to almost any idea someone desires to have. But what is Jesus actually saying according to John?

 

[PaulThomson]

Not what I asked. You said because God is love that every action on His part is agape love. So, it's a natural question: how does casting someone into the Lake of Fire manifest agape love to the individual being cast in?

Are you are asking a human to explain the nature of the infinite God in a way that any reprobate stumbling into this forum could understand it?

It's quite ironic really, that people who claim that every second of every life is scripted by God and every rape and murder was scripted in eternity past from before creation by their "loving God", and yet assert that nevertheless God is love, pretend to be offended by the scandalously "evil God" of those who believe God did not script all the evil, and sends people to an after-life that suits the character they chose to foster in themselves instead of being grateful to God and loving Him in return for the love He demonstrated to them..

Agape love is a love that is a response to recognising the intrinsic value of the thing or person being loved and leaves the loved one free to accept or reject the love of the lover. God loves both those who chose to reject Him and those who choose to love Him. Because God values both, and He knows that where both those who hate Him and love to trash what is good, and His family who love Him and love to nurture what is good, are intermingling, peace and righteousness cannot attain. So, he separates them and puts each in an environment that limits the harm they can do to themselves (whom He values) and others (whom He values).. To those separated from God and burning with the insatiable lusts they fostered in themselves, this apparently feels like being thrown into a lake of fire.. No appeal to mystery needed.

How do you explain that your "God is love", but has predetermines the details of all suffering and has created many to suffer now and spend endless time in whatever hell you imagine awaits them after their death and judgment? Do you have to appeal to mystery to whitewash over any cognitive dissonance.

 

[PaulThomson]

1. deceitful and desperately wicked
2. dead in transgression and sin
3. there is none who are good
4. their speech is corrupted by sin
5. their actions are corrupted by sin
6. ruin and misery lie in their wake
7. the way of peace they have not known
8. they have no fear of God
9. held captive by a love for sin
10. will not seek God because they love the darkness
11. does not understand the things of God
12. suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness
13. continues to willfully live in sin
14. rejects the gospel of Christ as foolishness
15. alienated from God and enemies in their minds because of evil deeds
16. estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies
17. their mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so."

I wonder how the natural man is supposed to be moved to faith in ^ that ^ condition. Oh! I know! God
may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. God’s grace is man’s only hope.

Jesus’ words in John 6:65

If those assertions were biblically sound, and textually accurate, it could be impossible. Fortunately, the original Greek text does not demand the absolutist form of your claims about the state and abilities of man. Since the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures do not actually mean what you have written, the strict limitations on man that you are reading into scripture do not need to be accepted as axiomatic theological premises.

 

[PaulThomson]

If those assertions were biblically sound, and textually accurate, it could be impossible. Fortunately, the original Greek text does not demand the absolutist form of your claims about the state and abilities of man. Since the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures do not actually mean what you have written, the strict limitations on man that you are reading into scripture do not need to be accepted as axiomatic theological premises.

In other words, no one has to formulate an explanation that assumes your assertions to be true. In fact, explanations of the texts exhaustive pre-determinists are basing their "totally depravity/total inability" assertions on have been explained in ways that do not make "any good" impossible for natural men. The problem the exhaustive pre-determinists have is a stubborn unwillingness to admit that their interpretation of each of their proof-texts is only one of several possible interpretations of those same texts. They are like the Pharisees who claimed confidently to see the true meaning of scripture, but refused to see that their meaning was not water-tight, to whom Jesus said, "Because you say you see, your guilt/condemnation remains".

 

[notmyown]

Is it not the thinking that man is devoid of the ability to understand/reason truth as presented in scripture and by the message of the Gospel due to his fallen nature?

wow, lotta pages since then, huh?

it's the thinking that man loves darkness rather than Light because his deeds are evil. man hates the Light, and he's not willing to come to the Light for fear his evil deeds will be exposed.

not "utterly bereft of reason", though. he can probably figure out how to build a chair or something.

 

[HeIsHere]

Basically within the first few posts debating roger, brightflame, rufus, maxir, the guy with the picture of Jesus from the Passion movie no longer here, and others I was immediately told how stupid I was. I can go back in history and post them and when you them you clearly see them telling me my level of understanding is less than stupidity itself. That's their entire platform. The moment they present the verses they use to describe TULIP and you actually take each verse and show them where participation is happening they immediately come at you with how dumb you are.

I did a research with a licensed therapist about children brought up in an environment of verbal and mental abuse and learned most of them act the same way. And worse than that, growing up they had all types of issues. Being called stupid caused their bodies to react uncontrollably which then resulted into more insults. We're talking about high school age human beings still wetting their beds, being socially inept, bad grades, loners who became adults that attack anyone that differs with their own thoughts.

I feel like I am in a Case Study each time I log onto here every day.

I think you have captured it well in your last paragraph. If you go back and read old threads it was the same.

There is definitely something to be said for the socially inept part, I definitely saw it in the one who was banned, adherence to an bad/wrong ideology has consequences which are manifold.

 

[HeIsHere]

If those assertions were biblically sound, and textually accurate, it could be impossible. Fortunately, the original Greek text does not demand the absolutist form of your claims about the state and abilities of man. Since the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures do not actually mean what you have written, the strict limitations on man that you are reading into scripture do not need to be accepted as axiomatic theological premises.

This is exactly correct.
Well stated.
This absolutist interpretation and the wrenching texts out of their surrounding text is painfully and obviously wrong.
However this is a sloppy/wooden view of God's inspiring word, here is the verse for my side of the argument without any thought to the actual meaning and audience relevance.
Bookmarked!

 

[HeIsHere]

wow, lotta pages since then, huh?

it's the thinking that man loves darkness rather than Light because his deeds are evil. man hates the Light, and he's not willing to come to the Light for fear his evil deeds will be exposed.

not "utterly bereft of reason", though. he can probably figure out how to build a chair or something.

I'll go with this .....belief that a man is born in a prison cell is distinct from the belief that the man is incapable of acknowledging that he is in a prison cell and accepting help to escape when it is clearly offered.
(Eric Kemp)

Laughing at the comment about building a chair.

 

[studier]

Because God values both, and He knows that where both those who hate Him and love to trash what is good, and His family who love Him and love to nurture what is good, are intermingling, peace and righteousness cannot attain. So, he separates them and puts each in an environment that limits the harm they can do to themselves (whom He values) and others (whom He values).

A few questions about this. Since I see your ability to get into the Text, I'll ask like this:

1. Romans 1:18 concerning God's wrath is written in the context of His Gospel and its power being here for all who believe.
2. Do you see most of Romans 1:18 onward being Paul's theology? The reason I ask is because I'm reading an interesting piece that's positing that quite a bit of what Paul is saying is actually in the voice of an interlocuter.
3. Here're my main points and questions in regard to what you've said about God values above:
   1. In Rom1:28 the word used twice is dokimazō.
      1. This word in its most basic sense has to do with determining worth, value.
      2. I read this verse paraphrased as saying some men determined it of no value to have God in practical knowledge. IOW, God and His sovereign rule and power and divinity was of no practical value to them.
      3. God therefore gave them over to their minds of no value - their worthless minds.
         1. They saw God as worthless - so God saw their minds as worthless.
   2. How does this correlate to God loving everyone?
      1. Do we really need to push His love or His being love to the extent we do?
      2. Does God love evil?
         1. Jesus Christ loved righteousness and hated lawlessness, therefore God anointed Him...
      3. Does God truly value beyond a point, those who do not value Him?
         1. Of what ultimate value is a man who sees God as worthless?
            1. Isn't Gehenna a continuously burning garbage dump?

 

[Niki7]

Let's look at how the discussion ran to this point.

Cameron143 said:
What actually occurred in Adam and Eve when they sinned? Why did they only hide from God and cover themselves after sin and not before? God certainly hadn't changed. What changed in man?

Cameron143 said:
I asked you a question. You don't answer my question which was designed to answer your return questions. So if you will, please answer my question and we can begin to answer your questions.
What actually occurred in Adam and Eve when they sinned? Why did they only hide from God and cover themselves after sin and not before? God certainly hadn't changed. What changed in man?

PaulThomson said:
Adam and Eve experienced guilt and shame and so came a sense of distance between them and the holy One.

Magenta said:
Where does it say Adam and Eve felt guilt?

PaulThomson said:
Before they sinned they were naked and not ashamed. After sinning they covered their nakedness
and blamed others. What do you think that means. They developed a fashion sense?

Magenta said:
So no text saying Adam and Eve felt guilt. Thanks.

And I know how very much you hate to admit that you do that...

PaulThomson said:
Did Jesus not bear our guilt and our shame on the cross? Why would he do that if we do not experience guilt and shame from our sin?

Prov. 11:2 When pride comes, then comes shame; but with the lowly is wisdom.

Prov. 13:18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuses instruction, but he that regards reproof shall be honoured.

Rom. 5:16 for the judgment was by one (Adam) to condemnation...

Magenta said:
Does not answer my question. Where does the text say Adam and Eve felt guilt?

Or, instead of deflecting, you could just admit the text does not say that they did.

Of course that would also show another instance where you go beyond what the text says.

Magenta said:
I don't understand why people cannot admit when the text does not explicitly say something.

Especially after that same person has wished others would stick to what Scripture explicitly states.

But that is an issue also, isn't it? People don't want to see their hypocrisy. Jesus addressed that also.

PaulThomson said:
I gave three verses. I have yet to see you explain how Adam and Eve are excluded from being subject to what those verses say. You seem to think Genesis 3 must say the specific words "Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame after eating the fruit" for the Bible to be saying "Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame after eating the fruit."

Prov. 11:2 When pride comes, then comes shame; but with the lowly is wisdom.

Prov. 13:18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuses instruction, but he that regards reproof shall be honoured.

Rom. 5:16 for the judgment was by one (Adam) to condemnation.

You seem to be hiding behind ad hominem to avoid responding to the biblical texts.



Yes. The text of Gen. 3 does not specifically say that Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame. My assertion of guilt and shame was in response to Cameron's question, "What actually occurred in Adam and Eve when they sinned? Why did they only hide from God and cover themselves after sin and not before? God certainly hadn't changed. What changed in man?"

If a direct answer to that specific question is in the text of Gen. 3, no one has pointed to it yet. When we exegete a text, we START with what the text actually says. I have never said that we should only infer from a verse what the verse itself actually says.

We THEN ask questions related to the text, such as Cameron's question. If the answer is not directly stated in the text itself, we look at the immediate context of the chapter, book, and Bible to see if there is something elsewhere that sheds light on the question re the text being studied. Do you have an answer to Cameron's question that you can lift directly from Genesis chapter 3? If not, is there some scripture that seem to mesh with Gen. 3 that would suggest an answer Cameron's question?

I cited three verses elsewhere that seem to apply to the evidence of Adam's and Eve's behaviour described in Gen. 3. Rather than agree or disagree with my application of those texts to Gen. 3 in order to better understand what the Bible is saying, you chose to ignore them and focus on trying to discredit the person citing them, in the hope that other posters would dismiss my verses because I'm a hypocrite and so whatever I say in this forum need not be taken seriously. That is ad hominem argument, and is a logical fallacy. It is a rhetorical device people use to persuade poor critical thinkers towards accepting one's own view. It is not a tactic people who want to arrive at the truth of a matter use. A seeker of truth might address the verses as they relate to Gen. 3 as well as attempt to prove their interlocutors hypocrisy with evidence, but they would not ONLY seek to prove their opponent's hypocrisy while avoiding addressing the evidence put forward.

Does their being naked and NOT ASHAMED, but then noticing their nakedness and covering it over, indicate to you any specific change in Adam's and Eve's opinion of themselves? If so, what changed?

Does Adam and Eve blaming others others indicate to you that they felt guilt? If not, to what do you attribute that behaviour by them after they had sinned?

Does Proverbs link rejecting instruction with shame? Does proverbs link rejecting insr=truction with pride? Does Proverbs link pride with shame? If so, do you yhink this has any bearing on events in Gen. 3

If Adam's transgression led to his condemnation according to Rom. 5, and God condemns and sentences the guilty, and Adam and Eve hid from God and then blamed others for their sin, do you see any possibility that Adam and Eve did not at all feel guilty?

Now we will see if you are you interested in discovering God's truth, or merely in defending your present thologicl opinions come hell or high water.

I think it's a mute point

we all can read

it is evident they felt shame AND guilt

like I said, I don't understand the war of words. really I don't. is there some prize awarded for the winner? maybe a new Bible?

 

[HeIsHere]

Let's look at how the discussion ran to this point.

Cameron143 said:
What actually occurred in Adam and Eve when they sinned? Why did they only hide from God and cover themselves after sin and not before? God certainly hadn't changed. What changed in man?

Cameron143 said:
I asked you a question. You don't answer my question which was designed to answer your return questions. So if you will, please answer my question and we can begin to answer your questions.
What actually occurred in Adam and Eve when they sinned? Why did they only hide from God and cover themselves after sin and not before? God certainly hadn't changed. What changed in man?

PaulThomson said:
Adam and Eve experienced guilt and shame and so came a sense of distance between them and the holy One.

Magenta said:
Where does it say Adam and Eve felt guilt?

PaulThomson said:
Before they sinned they were naked and not ashamed. After sinning they covered their nakedness
and blamed others. What do you think that means. They developed a fashion sense?

Magenta said:
So no text saying Adam and Eve felt guilt. Thanks.

And I know how very much you hate to admit that you do that...

PaulThomson said:
Did Jesus not bear our guilt and our shame on the cross? Why would he do that if we do not experience guilt and shame from our sin?

Prov. 11:2 When pride comes, then comes shame; but with the lowly is wisdom.

Prov. 13:18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuses instruction, but he that regards reproof shall be honoured.

Rom. 5:16 for the judgment was by one (Adam) to condemnation...

Magenta said:
Does not answer my question. Where does the text say Adam and Eve felt guilt?

Or, instead of deflecting, you could just admit the text does not say that they did.

Of course that would also show another instance where you go beyond what the text says.

Magenta said:
I don't understand why people cannot admit when the text does not explicitly say something.

Especially after that same person has wished others would stick to what Scripture explicitly states.

But that is an issue also, isn't it? People don't want to see their hypocrisy. Jesus addressed that also.

PaulThomson said:
I gave three verses. I have yet to see you explain how Adam and Eve are excluded from being subject to what those verses say. You seem to think Genesis 3 must say the specific words "Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame after eating the fruit" for the Bible to be saying "Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame after eating the fruit."

Prov. 11:2 When pride comes, then comes shame; but with the lowly is wisdom.

Prov. 13:18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuses instruction, but he that regards reproof shall be honoured.

Rom. 5:16 for the judgment was by one (Adam) to condemnation.

You seem to be hiding behind ad hominem to avoid responding to the biblical texts.



Yes. The text of Gen. 3 does not specifically say that Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame. My assertion of guilt and shame was in response to Cameron's question, "What actually occurred in Adam and Eve when they sinned? Why did they only hide from God and cover themselves after sin and not before? God certainly hadn't changed. What changed in man?"

If a direct answer to that specific question is in the text of Gen. 3, no one has pointed to it yet. When we exegete a text, we START with what the text actually says. I have never said that we should only infer from a verse what the verse itself actually says.

We THEN ask questions related to the text, such as Cameron's question. If the answer is not directly stated in the text itself, we look at the immediate context of the chapter, book, and Bible to see if there is something elsewhere that sheds light on the question re the text being studied. Do you have an answer to Cameron's question that you can lift directly from Genesis chapter 3? If not, is there some scripture that seem to mesh with Gen. 3 that would suggest an answer Cameron's question?

I cited three verses elsewhere that seem to apply to the evidence of Adam's and Eve's behaviour described in Gen. 3. Rather than agree or disagree with my application of those texts to Gen. 3 in order to better understand what the Bible is saying, you chose to ignore them and focus on trying to discredit the person citing them, in the hope that other posters would dismiss my verses because I'm a hypocrite and so whatever I say in this forum need not be taken seriously. That is ad hominem argument, and is a logical fallacy. It is a rhetorical device people use to persuade poor critical thinkers towards accepting one's own view. It is not a tactic people who want to arrive at the truth of a matter use. A seeker of truth might address the verses as they relate to Gen. 3 as well as attempt to prove their interlocutors hypocrisy with evidence, but they would not ONLY seek to prove their opponent's hypocrisy while avoiding addressing the evidence put forward.

Does their being naked and NOT ASHAMED, but then noticing their nakedness and covering it over, indicate to you any specific change in Adam's and Eve's opinion of themselves? If so, what changed?

Does Adam and Eve blaming others others indicate to you that they felt guilt? If not, to what do you attribute that behaviour by them after they had sinned?

Does Proverbs link rejecting instruction with shame? Does proverbs link rejecting insr=truction with pride? Does Proverbs link pride with shame? If so, do you yhink this has any bearing on events in Gen. 3

If Adam's transgression led to his condemnation according to Rom. 5, and God condemns and sentences the guilty, and Adam and Eve hid from God and then blamed others for their sin, do you see any possibility that Adam and Eve did not at all feel guilty?

Now we will see if you are you interested in discovering God's truth, or merely in defending your present horologic opinions come hell or high water.

Seems to me like it is a very reasonable inference, that there were feelings of guilt and shame given their actions, in fact sometimes the actions are showing what they were feeling, isn't that the point essentially.

 

[rogerg]

What exactly is God doing in or among men so they can come to Jesus / believe in Jesus? It seems to me that the way this verse is translated can open the door to almost any idea someone desires to have. But what is Jesus actually saying according to John?

They were saved first and from/by/through that, they recognize Jesus and come to Him.

 

[studier]

They were saved first and from/by/through that, they recognize Jesus and come to Him.

That's one theory.

 

[rogerg]

That's one theory.

If not, then it can't be by grace.

 

[studier]

If not, then it can't be by grace.

Continuation of the theory. But there are other interpretive models.

 

[rogerg]

Continuation of the theory. But there are other interpretive models.

If I say "and?", will we then launch into a multi-day debate which in the end will change no one's mind?

 

[studier]

If I say "and?", will we then launch into a multi-day debate which in the end will change no one's mind?

Not unless you want to get into the depths of Scripture in context. From what I've seen very few want to do this. I do agree with you that it doesn't normally change minds, but I've seen instances where it does help the resolve of some who remain more in the background. That's one reason actually discussing Scripture more in depth is good. As God said about His Word not returning to Him void. It does its job in both directions - maturing and hardening - no matter what side of the equation we think we're on.

 

[rogerg]

Not unless you want to get into the depths of Scripture in context. From what I've seen very few want to do this. I do agree with you that it doesn't normally change minds, but I've seen instances where it does help the resolve of some who remain more in the background. That's one reason actually discussing Scripture more in depth is good. As God said about His Word not returning to Him void. It does its job in both directions - maturing and hardening - no matter what side of the equation we think we're on.

How could I refuse an invitation like that one? Okay, and? With one caveat - that we use the KJV as translated

 

[Magenta]

Seems to me like it is a very reasonable inference, that there were feelings of guilt and shame given their actions, in fact sometimes the actions are showing what they were feeling, isn't that the point essentially.

No, actually, what is reasonable to assume or infer or read into the text is not the point. But apparently too many people lack the integrity to admit that the text doesn't actually say they felt guilt.