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

[Mem]

It seems clear that since the fall, man lost the ability to love and obey the very God who created all things, including himself. It also seems clear to me that man cannot regain this ability in his own strength.

Man lost the ability to love and obey God when he chose to not love, or at the least when he chose to love something other than God more, and when he chose to not obey God, in choosing to obey something other than God. Is this why his choice was taken away? He'd never be allowed to love nor obey God ever again unless God wills him to? That begs the question, why did God not will man to love and obey Him in the first place? Why are we not born loving and obeying God if that is how Adam was created?

Rather, it seems to me that, in order to 'regain' this ability, God didn't (re)give him the ability to choose but the grace of not counting his wrong choice against him for Christ's sake, that is He honors Christ's gift as worthy to atone for your wrong choices in order to raise you up as a newborn, but not without Christ this time.

 

[Mem]

Whereas before the fall the choice was, eat of any tree you like but don't eat from the tokogae lest you die or go on your own counsel and eat of the tokogae, the choice that we've 'regained' by Christ, or rather are left with as the only option, is whether to live with Christ or die without Him. We know now that, then, the preferred choice should've been do not eat of the tokogae but now, it's not left up to Adam what happens in relation to us. It's up to us to choose to eat of Christ's body and to drink His blood...because unless we do, we will die.

 

[Mem]

Partake of eternal life or pass it up for the bowl of beans in this life. That is choice. Believe this or believe that. That is choice.

 

[Magenta]

Why are we not born loving and obeying God if that is how Adam was created?

Is that how Adam was created? He chose something other than obeying God. He put his choice
above God's desire and direct command. And that is man's problem. We are born after Adam and
need to be born again through faith Christ. Thinking on this propensity of man to idolatry: after
a certain ruler asked Him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He went
away sad because he had great wealth, the assumption being he did not wish to do as Jesus
said and give it away to follow Him. Jesus followed up by saying how it was easier for a camel
to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. When
the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
Hard not to notice they did not ask, can only poor people be saved? That was when Jesus
said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Matthew 19:26b

 

[studier]

The answer you seek is found in the portion you quoted of me.

As the Gospel is being spoken and heard, the Holy Spirit is working.

NKJ Proverbs 1:23 Turn at my rebuke; Surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.

This is Hebrew parallelism: I will pour out my Spirit on you = I will make my words know to you.

 

[studier]

The Bible should only be
compared to the Bible for understanding, not to the historical, temporal, or cultural

My goodness! A letter written to a certain people of a certain culture at a certain time of history is not meant to be understood by those people? And later people in different cultures don't have to take into account when the letter is written and to whom?

You've just destroyed hermeneutics.

 

[studier]

I see you are still unable to give a biblical response and continue to play games.

View attachment 264629

Perfect example of the doctrine of the pot and the kettle, perfect...

 

[Magenta]

NKJ Proverbs 1:23 Turn at my rebuke; Surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.

This is Hebrew parallelism: I will pour out my Spirit on you = I will make my words know to you.

That is a good proof text .

Acts 2:17 (Joel 2:28)

 

[PaulThomson]

A propitiation satisfies wrath. Why do unbelievers remain under the wrath of God if Jesus is their propitiation?

Maybe I can help you and BillyBob solve your riddle.

propitiate
/prəˈpɪʃɪeɪt/
verb
win or regain the favour of (a god, spirit, or person) by doing something that pleases them.
"the pagans thought it was important to propitiate the gods with sacrifices".

Since Jesus came into the world, because of the incarnation of the Son and His perfect life and sinless death, God's wrath has been deferred to the end of the age: till the day of God's wrath / the wrath to come (Luke 2:13-14; Matt. 3:7; Luke 3:7, 21:23, Rom. 2:5, 5:9, 9:22;EPH. 5:6; Col. 3:6;1 Thess. 1:10, 2:6; Rev. 6:16, 17, 11:18, 12:12, 14:10, 15:1, 16:1, 16:19, 19:15. ) In that sense He is the propitiation for the sins of the world, upon which basis God is dealing with all men everywhere, not dealing with us according to the wrath we deserve. However, though not exacted upon men in the interim, God's wrath hangs over the unbelieving ready to fall upon them qt the end of the age, if they remain unbelieving.

One problem many have in reading the Bible is that they read it like a textbook of a philosophical treatise, interpreting its Greek present tense statements as if they are gnomic confessions of timeless truths addressed to all people of all times in all places; instead of reading the Bible as historical narrative and as letters communicating events and truths regarding particular people at particular times in particular places. For this reason they mistakenly take statements that were true for the people, place and time in the narrative, and assume they remained true for every time, place and person. In the Old testament God vented His wrath; in the new he defers His wrathdue to the propitiation made by the Son; in the last days he will again vent his wrath.

 

[studier]

That is a good proof text .

Acts 2:17 (Joel 2:28)

Yet Proverbs 1 is not Joel 2.

 

[rogerg]

My goodness! A letter written to a certain people of a certain culture at a certain time of history is not meant to be understood by those people? And later people in different cultures don't have to take into account when the letter is written and to whom?

You've just destroyed hermeneutics.

If its basis isn't solely on the Bible alone, maybe it should be.

In the originals, each and every word was crafted and placed there by God, not man, and its truth/doctrines therefore timeless for all who read it irrespective of external factors. If not perceived, understood and trusted on that basis - that it is self-contained - its own dictionary, glossary, cross-reference, and instruction manual, etc., its rules of interpretation become meaningless, and it then becomes just another historical book - and I'm surprised that you don't already see it that way given you're as knowledgeable in the Bible as you are.
Not to get into a never-ending debate with you over this (as I don't have the energy and patience for that anymore), but what do you think God meant by the following verses? Has He ever referenced any book, or anything else, outside of scripture telling us that it too is able to make the man of God perfect and thoroughly furnished unto all good works? Do you that think God didn't realize what He was saying by that, or is it that you think He isn't to be trusted?

16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[HeIsHere]

Jesus said people can hear to accept or reject because ultimately they are either hearing Jesus or rejecting Jesus.

Peter’s words pierced their hearts, and they said to him and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?”
NIV Acts 2:37

Makes sense to me, man made doctrines make everything complicated, reality is simple, simple enough for a child to understand.

The inability to believe is not because God hasn't "pricked their ears" "transformed their heart" maybe the person did not have the openness of a child, maybe the person was not hearing the actual Gospel, maybe they did not want to humble themselves, maybe they did not want to be set free from sin.... we cannot know each persons mind and why they reject or accept.

How it must grieve Jesus who gave His all and simply state BELIEVE IN/TRUST IN to have "supposed" theologians pile on top of it, if a person is unable to believe of their own ability then each time the Gospel is preached for some it is a false hope and a false expectation.

God does not give false hope, it is ridiculous to think this.

Plain and simple.

 

[studier]

If its basis isn't solely on the Bible alone, maybe it should be.

In the originals, each and every word was crafted and placed there by God, not man, and its truth/doctrines therefore timeless for all who read it irrespective of external factors. If not perceived, understood and trusted on that basis - that it is self-contained - its own dictionary, glossary, cross-reference, and instruction manual, etc., its rules of interpretation become meaningless, and it then becomes just another historical book - and I'm surprised that you don't already see it that way given you're as knowledgeable in the Bible as you are.
Not to get into a never-ending debate with you over this (as I don't have the energy and patience for that anymore), but what do you think God meant by the following verses? Has He ever referenced any book, or anything else, outside of scripture telling us that it too is able to make the man of God perfect and thoroughly furnished unto all good works? Do you that think God didn't realize what He was saying by that, or is it that you think He isn't to be trusted?

16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

"Maybe it should be"? It certainly would be easier to read the Text like some story book, but the fact remains that it was written at certain times in history, to people in certain cultures, for specific purposes by men in Spirit. It's meant to be read as it was written, to whom it was written, at the time it was written, and interpreted correctly by them and at this time by us. And, yes, we do also use it itself to help us work on it.

You've executed a nice copy and paste from somewhere, but when I offered to discuss the Scriptures from the original languages, you cut and ran because I would not use the KJV only. So, why are you now pasting something that speaks of "the originals"?

This not a question of inspiration, but a discussion about properly understanding what was and is inspired, when and to whom, and about how it is interpreted and applied thousands of years later, with many things fulfilled, being fulfilled and to be fulfilled.

Seriously, read up on hermeneutics. If you need a link, I'm happy to assist in finding a few for you. There is tremendous effort that has been put forth over thousands of years to understand our Text properly. God has had many, many people over the ages applying their life's work to it. Then you come along and make a statement that basically obliterates so much of it as if you've got it all figured out.

 

[HeIsHere]

One problem many have in reading the Bible is that they read it like a textbook of a philosophical treatise, interpreting its Greek present tense statements as if they are gnomic confessions of timeless truths addressed to all people of all times in all places; instead of reading the Bible as historical narrative and as letters communicating events and truths regarding particular people at particular times in particular places. For this reason they mistakenly take statements that were true for the people, place and time in the narrative, and assume they remained true for every time, place and person.

Thank you.

 

[rogerg]

You've executed a nice copy and paste from somewhere, but when I offered to discuss the Scriptures from the original languages, you cut and ran because I would not use the KJV only. So, why are you now pasting something that speaks of "the originals"?

First, no pasting occurred; second, I did not cut and run, but, as you've just demonstrated, you want to introduce
and obfuscate the Bible's message with things superfluous and external to it - things I do not accept as valid.
I do not have the energy or patience to chase you down, around and through, the rabbit holes that you would lead us into.

 

[rogerg]

Seriously, read up on hermeneutics. If you need a link, I'm happy to assist in finding a few for you. There is tremendous effort that has been put forth over thousands of years to understand our Text properly. God has had many, many people over the ages applying their life's work to it. Then you come along and make a statement that basically obliterates so much of it as if you've got it all figured out.

BTW, I noticed that you were unable to explain the verses I included in my post which invalidate everything you've said but
instead ducked them with your reply. You didn't answer them because you have no answer for them.

 

[studier]

First, no pasting occurred; second, I did not cut and run, but, as you've just demonstrated, you want to introduce
and obfuscate the Bible's message with things superfluous and external to it - things I do not accept as valid.
I do not have the energy or patience to chase you down, around and through, the rabbit holes that you would lead us into.

BTW, I noticed that you were unable to explain the verses I included in my post which invalidate everything you've said but
instead ducked them with your reply. You didn't answer them because you have no answer for them.

Still nothing about hermeneutics? Have you looked up the word yet? FWIW, the theology you enjoy is based in hermeneutically based studies and debates done over millennia by learned people who've understood the importance of interpreting Scripture in precisely the opposite way you've espoused.

These moving target posts of yours are thwarted by the original target you placed in a prior post. You simply do not have the ability to back up the statement you made.

Similar statements are made routinely by those not trained in analyzing the Text. I suppose this is some sort of attempt to claim some interpretive ability and authority, but what it really does is denigrate those whom God has had dedicate their lives to doing the in depth work that most in the pews are being taught from.

Seriously, if you'd like to discuss the meaning of any certain Scripture, let's do so. Other than that, whether you can see it or not, your original statement is a mist.

 

[BillyBob]

This is a plausible explanation. And I'm not sure who the audience is either, other than this particular portion is addressed to my little children which suggests Christians.

Bring Rogerg into the question. He is very has good understanding without being an in-your-face type of person...
I won't be around much until later in the day, but look forward to the discussion.

 

[rogerg]

Still nothing about hermeneutics? Have you looked up the word yet? FWIW, the theology you enjoy is based in hermeneutically based studies and debates done over millennia by learned people who've understood the importance of interpreting Scripture in precisely the opposite way you've espoused.

Yeah, you know its funny, I looked for hermeneutics in the Bible but didn't find it mentioned anywhere in there. Hmmm, wonder why?
Anyway, I believe in it, but only insofar as the Bible alone is used as its source but with nothing external to the Bible .
Not my espousal, God's. I just took the verses He wrote and posted them. It was you who was/is unable to answer them.
Do you think the "learned people" you mentioned know more, or are wiser than God? Learned people are
usually those who do not understand even the most fundamental of biblical doctrines.
I would be happy to discuss the meaning of any Scripture, but by only using the Bible alone and in its entirety. It wouldn't
too smart to discuss the Bible and yet not use it alone as its own authority.
So, if you cannot answer the verses that I posted in such a way as to demonstrate they mean something other
than what was written by God, or trust the Bible alone as sole authority, then we really have
no basis for further discussion. If you are so willing, then let me know and I would be happy to proceed.

 

[rogerg]

Bring Rogerg into the question. He is very has good understanding without being an in-your-face type of person...
I won't be around much until later in the day, but look forward to the discussion.

What's up?