Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR
- Thread starter MerSee
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I am not impressed by your long walls of argumentation, Rufus, because you don't have the basic understanding to answer questions posed to you. You just run off into some another tangential rabbit-trail rant. That means you are either too simple to understand the question and too uninformed to give a relevant succinct answer. Or you are afraid to give a direct answer lest you expose the weakness of your position.
You behave essentially like an NPC, a non-playing character, programmed with an algorithm that does no real thinking, but only able to produce canned memorised "doctrines of grace"/ "reformed"/"calvinist" responses.
Unless you are willing to answer questions people pose to you, it is a waste f time engaging with you. If you have any answers to any of my unanswered questions to you, I will respond. Otherwise, I have lost interest in your company.
You behave essentially like an NPC, a non-playing character, programmed with an algorithm that does no real thinking, but only able to produce canned memorised "doctrines of grace"/ "reformed"/"calvinist" responses.
Unless you are willing to answer questions people pose to you, it is a waste f time engaging with you. If you have any answers to any of my unanswered questions to you, I will respond. Otherwise, I have lost interest in your company.
I didn't say they were crying out to God to save their souls. I said they were crying out to God and He heard them and sent Moses. You said this is a type of spiritual salvation. And yet you say that we cannot do for spiritual salvation what they did for physical salvation. Doesn't that undermine the point of you using Exodus as a type of Jesus' rescuing us?
I asked:
Is there evidence that the bondage was decreed by God as His will, rather than prophesied to happen as a consequence of decisions her anticipated the Hebrews would make, choosing ease in Egypt after the end of the famine, rather than embrace the risks of a return to Canaan. Maybe they had preferred to bask in the approval and largesse Pharaoh and Joseph instead of leaving, until suddenly the new pharaoh decided to draft them into compulsory work details. I don't think you can argue from silence, that the bondage was "decreed". Was the destruction of Nineveh after 40 days "decreed", merely because God foretold it? He relented because of Nineveh's response. Was the destruction of Israel and making Moses a great nation in their place "decreed" merely because God foretold it? He relented because of Moses' response. Maybe God's foretelling of 400 years bondage was also not decreed, but subject to change depending on Israel's response.
You responded
It is irrelevant what either of us believes. What matters is what the scripture says. It does not describe the concept of omniscience that you are reading into it. I believe God is truly omniscient. The omniscience I ascribe to God is like the omniscience the scriptures ascribe to God. Your idea of omniscience clashes with what scripture actually says. You did not address how God could have decreed from eternity things that did not happen after he had prophesied them.
Is there evidence that the bondage was decreed by God as His will, rather than prophesied to happen as a consequence of decisions her anticipated the Hebrews would make, choosing ease in Egypt after the end of the famine, rather than embrace the risks of a return to Canaan. Maybe they had preferred to bask in the approval and largesse Pharaoh and Joseph instead of leaving, until suddenly the new pharaoh decided to draft them into compulsory work details. I don't think you can argue from silence, that the bondage was "decreed". Was the destruction of Nineveh after 40 days "decreed", merely because God foretold it? He relented because of Nineveh's response. Was the destruction of Israel and making Moses a great nation in their place "decreed" merely because God foretold it? He relented because of Moses' response. Maybe God's foretelling of 400 years bondage was also not decreed, but subject to change depending on Israel's response.
You responded
It is irrelevant what either of us believes. What matters is what the scripture says. It does not describe the concept of omniscience that you are reading into it. I believe God is truly omniscient. The omniscience I ascribe to God is like the omniscience the scriptures ascribe to God. Your idea of omniscience clashes with what scripture actually says. You did not address how God could have decreed from eternity things that did not happen after he had prophesied them.
Last time for this, but I never put this strict focus on man's conscience. You've done this. You're creating areas of controversy and lengthy narratives to distract from dealing with Scripture in context to prove the established theories you've chosen and or modified slightly.
As for conscience, please read Paul as he spoke of it to establish that the Jews with the law and circumcision were shown to be not better than Gentiles without written law and circumcision. Their functional consciences are part of what Paul says are involved in their "by nature doing the things of the law" and "showing the work of the law written in their hearts." Just before this Paul speaks of doing good vs. obeying unrighteousness. And please note the singular "work" of the law, meaning God's Law does some degree of work in men.
What we've been discussing is Total Depravity which you've been using to say all men are God-haters and want nothing to do with Him. And you're desiring to prove this by focusing on inherent Good vs. inherent evil. But, is there anyone here that has denied that only God is Good? No one that I've noticed.
The issue is whether fallen men have the faculties that are able to respond to God and the things of God. IF (please note this IF) Paul is speaking of fallen Gentiles responding to Natural Law (from God) in their God given consciences and their doing good (please note the small "g"), then Paul is using this to establish that Jews who are obeying unrighteousness (aka bad & evil) are not better than Gentiles, then we should see that doing good (small "g") is not only something [fallen] men can do, but it's a factor in how they are viewed. It does not make them Good (cap "G"), but it shows [fallen] man is capable of doing some good even though he is not Good.
It seems you are predisposed to desire to see all men as God-haters having absolutely no desire to know God or to do anything good as God has established as good. Once again, there is little to no way you can go down through Biblical history and make this case. Men are under sin and Jew is no better than Greek, but the fact remains that men in Adam I had some degree of faith from the first generation post Garden and down through history until Christ. And the fact remains that our Text applies words like righteous and perfect (not PERFECT) to Noah. The Text also seems to apply some value to fallen men doing righteousness even though it didn't make them RIGHTEOUS.
I've often found this verse interesting in the account of Cornelius:
NKJ Acts 10:34-35 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
Would you say Cornelius was given faith and saved so God sent Peter to give him the Gospel? Would you deny that Cornelius was unregenerate and in Adam I when he began to fear God and "work righteousness"? What do you do with this statement that God finds such men acceptable (meaning they meet God's approval)? Please note that neither the Text nor I say Cornelius did not need Christ. The plain fact is that this Gentile who feared God and worked righteousness was sent by God an Apostle to give Him the content of necessary faith = Christ, for him to put his faith in.
I think the theology you've adopted denies that certain words are not always to be capitalized and that it skips over both a lot of tensions and very clear statements in the Text that show that not all men are absolute God-haters and have absolutely no interest in God as they understand Him.
All men under sin need God to do in Christ in Spirit what they cannot do. All men under sin are not in the absolute sense God-haters who have absolutely no interest in God who has instilled in all men His existence, and have absolutely no conscious interest in what God has established as good and bad in His creation.
IMO using John4 as I 've previously mentioned where Jesus very emphatically teaches that God is seeking men who will bow in obeisance to Him in Spirit and Truth, coupled with verses like Acts10:35, we begin to see that there are men predisposed to obeying God and obedience to God is part of Biblical Faith. God knows who they are and is seeking them.
19 The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 "Our fathers worshiped/bowed in obeisance on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship/bow in obeisance." 21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship/bow in obeisance to the Father. 22 "You worship/bow in obeisance to what you do not know; we know what we worship/bow in obeisance to, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers/ones who bow in obeisance will worship/bow in obeisance to the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship/bow in obeisance to Him. 24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship/bow in obeisance to Him must worship/bow in obeisance in spirit and truth." 25 The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming " (who is called Christ). "When He comes, He will tell us all things." 26 Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He." (Jn. 4:19-26 NKJ)
NKJ Acts 10:34-35 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
As for conscience, please read Paul as he spoke of it to establish that the Jews with the law and circumcision were shown to be not better than Gentiles without written law and circumcision. Their functional consciences are part of what Paul says are involved in their "by nature doing the things of the law" and "showing the work of the law written in their hearts." Just before this Paul speaks of doing good vs. obeying unrighteousness. And please note the singular "work" of the law, meaning God's Law does some degree of work in men.
What we've been discussing is Total Depravity which you've been using to say all men are God-haters and want nothing to do with Him. And you're desiring to prove this by focusing on inherent Good vs. inherent evil. But, is there anyone here that has denied that only God is Good? No one that I've noticed.
The issue is whether fallen men have the faculties that are able to respond to God and the things of God. IF (please note this IF) Paul is speaking of fallen Gentiles responding to Natural Law (from God) in their God given consciences and their doing good (please note the small "g"), then Paul is using this to establish that Jews who are obeying unrighteousness (aka bad & evil) are not better than Gentiles, then we should see that doing good (small "g") is not only something [fallen] men can do, but it's a factor in how they are viewed. It does not make them Good (cap "G"), but it shows [fallen] man is capable of doing some good even though he is not Good.
It seems you are predisposed to desire to see all men as God-haters having absolutely no desire to know God or to do anything good as God has established as good. Once again, there is little to no way you can go down through Biblical history and make this case. Men are under sin and Jew is no better than Greek, but the fact remains that men in Adam I had some degree of faith from the first generation post Garden and down through history until Christ. And the fact remains that our Text applies words like righteous and perfect (not PERFECT) to Noah. The Text also seems to apply some value to fallen men doing righteousness even though it didn't make them RIGHTEOUS.
I've often found this verse interesting in the account of Cornelius:
NKJ Acts 10:34-35 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
Would you say Cornelius was given faith and saved so God sent Peter to give him the Gospel? Would you deny that Cornelius was unregenerate and in Adam I when he began to fear God and "work righteousness"? What do you do with this statement that God finds such men acceptable (meaning they meet God's approval)? Please note that neither the Text nor I say Cornelius did not need Christ. The plain fact is that this Gentile who feared God and worked righteousness was sent by God an Apostle to give Him the content of necessary faith = Christ, for him to put his faith in.
I think the theology you've adopted denies that certain words are not always to be capitalized and that it skips over both a lot of tensions and very clear statements in the Text that show that not all men are absolute God-haters and have absolutely no interest in God as they understand Him.
All men under sin need God to do in Christ in Spirit what they cannot do. All men under sin are not in the absolute sense God-haters who have absolutely no interest in God who has instilled in all men His existence, and have absolutely no conscious interest in what God has established as good and bad in His creation.
IMO using John4 as I 've previously mentioned where Jesus very emphatically teaches that God is seeking men who will bow in obeisance to Him in Spirit and Truth, coupled with verses like Acts10:35, we begin to see that there are men predisposed to obeying God and obedience to God is part of Biblical Faith. God knows who they are and is seeking them.
19 The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 "Our fathers worshiped/bowed in obeisance on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship/bow in obeisance." 21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship/bow in obeisance to the Father. 22 "You worship/bow in obeisance to what you do not know; we know what we worship/bow in obeisance to, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers/ones who bow in obeisance will worship/bow in obeisance to the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship/bow in obeisance to Him. 24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship/bow in obeisance to Him must worship/bow in obeisance in spirit and truth." 25 The woman said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming " (who is called Christ). "When He comes, He will tell us all things." 26 Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am He." (Jn. 4:19-26 NKJ)
NKJ Acts 10:34-35 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.
This is where you and I differ greatly. Words and phrases are used in specific ways in Scripture for a purpose. Yes, we can transpose here and there, but it's to be done cautiously not with simply personal understandings of English concepts and logic you've espoused.
If you want to build a doctrine about seeking God, then here's a good place to begin your work beginning with the word in Rom3:11 where you began asserting your own doctrine:
Whether we lazy students like it or not, God has had men on the earth doing this type of work for millennia even without computers. What do they and He think of we lazy ones who come along and say such work is unnecessary because we have logic and we can arbitrarily transpose words and concepts at will?
If you want to build a doctrine about seeking God, then here's a good place to begin your work beginning with the word in Rom3:11 where you began asserting your own doctrine:
- Seek God (with God stated within 4 words after seek*) in the NKJ translation (other English translations may differ in which case we'd have to go to Greek and Hebrew searches).
- NKJ Deut. 4:29 "But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.
NKJ 1 Chr. 22:19 "Now set your heart and your soul to seek the LORD your God. Therefore arise and build the sanctuary of the LORD God, to bring the ark of the covenant of the LORD and the holy articles of God into the house that is to be built for the name of the LORD."
NKJ 2 Chr. 11:16 And after the Levites left, those from all the tribes of Israel, such as set their heart to seek the LORD God of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the LORD God of their fathers.
NKJ 2 Chr. 14:4 He commanded Judah to seek the LORD God of their fathers, and to observe the law and the commandment.
NKJ 2 Chr. 15:12 Then they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;
NKJ 2 Chr. 15:13 and whoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
NKJ 2 Chr. 19:3 "Nevertheless good things are found in you, in that you have removed the wooden images from the land, and have prepared your heart to seek God."
NKJ 2 Chr. 30:19 who prepares his heart to seek God, the LORD God of his fathers, though he is not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary."
NKJ 2 Chr. 31:21 And in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, in the law and in the commandment, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart. So he prospered.
NKJ 2 Chr. 34:3 For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was still young, he began to seek the God of his father David; and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem of the high places, the wooden images, the carved images, and the molded images.
NKJ Ezr. 4:2 they came to Zerubbabel and the heads of the fathers' houses, and said to them, "Let us build with you, for we seek your God as you do; and we have sacrificed to Him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here."
NKJ Ezr. 6:21 Then the children of Israel who had returned from the captivity ate together with all who had separated themselves from the filth of the nations of the land in order to seek the LORD God of Israel.
NKJ Job 5:8 "But as for me, I would seek God, And to God I would commit my cause--
NKJ Job 8:5 If you would earnestly seek God And make your supplication to the Almighty,
NKJ Ps. 10:4 The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts.
NKJ Ps. 14:2 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
NKJ Ps. 53:2 God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
NKJ Ps. 69:32 The humble shall see this and be glad; And you who seek God, your hearts shall live.
NKJ Ps. 104:21 The young lions roar after their prey, And seek their food from God.
NKJ Isa. 8:19 And when they say to you, "Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter," should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?
NKJ Jer. 50:4 "In those days and in that time," says the LORD, "The children of Israel shall come, They and the children of Judah together; With continual weeping they shall come, And seek the LORD their God.
NKJ Dan. 2:18 that they might seek mercies from the God of heaven concerning this secret, so that Daniel and his companions might not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.
NKJ Hos. 3:5 Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days.
NKJ Lk. 12:31 "But seek the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you.
NKJ Rom. 3:11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God.
- NKJ Deut. 4:29 "But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.
- Greek ekzēteō:
- Gen. 9:5
42:22
Exod. 18:15
Lev. 10:16
Deut. 4:29
12:5
30
17:4
9
23:22
Jos. 2:22
22:23
1 Sam. 20:16
2 Sam. 4:11
1 Ki. 2:40
2 Ki. 22:13
2 Chr. 1:5
12:14
14:3
6
15:2
13
17:3
4
19:3
20:3
4
25:20
26:5
28:23
30:19
31:21
Ezr. 4:2
6:21
9:12
10:16
Est. 8:12
Ps. 9:11
13
25
34
13:2
21:27
24:10
26:4
30:24
33:5
11
43:22
52:3
60:8
68:33
76:3
77:7
34
104:45
110:2
118:2
10
22
33
45
56
94
100
145
155
121:9
141:5
Prov. 11:27
27:21
29:10
Eccl. 1:13
Hos. 5:6
7:10
10:12
Amos 5:4
5
6
14
9:12
Mic. 6:8
Zech. 8:21
22
Mal. 2:7
Isa. 1:12
17
8:19
9:12
16:5
31:1
Jer. 10:21
36:13
44:7
Ezek. 3:18
20
33:6
8
34:6
8
10
11
12
39:14
Dan. 9:13
Lk. 11:50
51
Acts 15:17
Rom. 3:11
Heb. 11:6
12:17
1 Pet. 1:10
- Gen. 9:5
- Hebrew dārash:
- Gen. 9:5
25:22
42:22
Exod. 18:15
Lev. 10:16
Deut. 4:29
11:12
12:5
30
13:15
17:4
9
18:11
19
19:18
22:2
23:7
22
Jdg. 6:29
1 Sam. 9:9
28:7
2 Sam. 11:3
1 Ki. 14:5
22:5
7
8
2 Ki. 1:2
3
6
16
3:11
8:8
22:13
18
1 Chr. 10:13
14
13:3
15:13
16:11
21:30
22:19
26:31
28:8
9
2 Chr. 1:5
12:14
14:3
6
15:2
12
13
16:12
17:3
4
18:4
6
7
19:3
20:3
22:9
24:6
22
25:15
20
26:5
30:19
31:9
21
32:31
34:3
21
26
Ezr. 4:2
6:21
7:10
9:12
10:16
Est. 10:3
Job 3:4
5:8
10:6
39:8
Ps. 9:11
13
10:4
13
15
14:2
22:27
24:6
34:5
11
38:13
53:3
69:33
77:3
78:34
105:4
109:10
111:2
119:2
10
45
94
155
142:5
Prov. 11:27
31:13
Eccl. 1:13
Isa. 1:17
8:19
9:12
11:10
16:5
19:3
31:1
34:16
55:6
58:2
62:12
65:1
10
Jer. 8:2
10:21
21:2
29:7
13
30:14
17
37:7
38:4
Lam. 3:25
Ezek. 14:3
7
10
20:1
3
31
40
33:6
34:6
8
10
11
36:37
Hos. 10:12
Amos 5:4
5
6
14
Mic. 6:8
Zeph. 1:6
Whether we lazy students like it or not, God has had men on the earth doing this type of work for millennia even without computers. What do they and He think of we lazy ones who come along and say such work is unnecessary because we have logic and we can arbitrarily transpose words and concepts at will?
Okay...so you want me "point to scripture"? Your every wish is my command. I will point to a passage that teaches that fallen man has no excuses to not know better! And since this is the case with unregenerates, then how much more so with sinless, innocent, spiritually alive Adam who was gifted the Holy Spirit when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, was created "upright" and characterized along with the rest of creation as being "very good"? You know the passage well!
Rom 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
NIV
Adam SHOULD have known how to respond to God after he sinned! For if this passage above doesn't apply to Adam many times over, then what would apply to him, most especially since Adam was not encumbered by a sin nature!? He saw things infinitely more clearly than any of his progeny ever have! He came into this world alive unto God! Otherwise, how could he have died after he sinned? Not only didn't he have a corrupt nature but as I argued in my 3557, God endowed him with with tremendous and unprecedented intelligence. I wrote in 3357 that Adam was a type of Satan in at least four ways, one of them being:
There are other ways, too, that Adam is like Satan. You might recall from my argument that Adam, like Satan, had empirical proof of God's existence; whereas Eve did not. But here's another way Adam is like his spiritual father the Serpent: You might recall that Satan was a being of unusual and striking beauty. Apparently, no created being compared to him in beauty. Adam, too, had the distinction as being endowed with unusually high intelligence, evidently born with a great deal of working knowledge of this world, [in which God placed him as co-ruler and Chief Steward.] For one thing, he was this world's first scientist, for God initially tasked him with the job of classifying and naming all the animals. In today's world that discipline of science is called Taxonomy. Adam was also tasked with the awesome, mind-blowing responsibility of cultivating the Garden so that it would extend throughout the entire earth. That science discipline, of course, is known today as Horticulture.
Adam's great intelligence very likely contributed to his pride, which ultimately led to his downfall. For we should not forget: it was only Eve who was deceived; Adam was not! In the same above post, I observed in this regard in response to a poster:
Adam was not deceived by the devil! In fact, when Adam told God that the woman "you gave me" gave me the fruit and I ate of it, he didn't even claim that Eve deceived him! This is precisely what makes Adam's sin most egregious, as you have rightly suggested: Adam sinned with his eyes wide open! It's no wonder his sin is classified as TRANSGRESSION! The best Adam could do with his answer to God is to belligerently insinuate to God's face that He had given him a defective woman, thereby refusing to own his transgression! Adam's sin, ultimately, was the sin of PRIDE -- and not a result of deception -- unless you include self-deception. Doesn't scripture teach that pride goes before destruction and haughty spirit before a fall (Prov 16:18)? Adam has much in common with his spiritual daddy; for pride was the evil one's downfall, too, wasn't it? Adam's sin is that he wanted to be just like God (to have His knowledge of Good and Evil). The devil, too, wanted to be just like God....
Wow! Really? A deeply perplexing theological question, is it? Let's go with a translation that says what you say.
Job 31:33
33 if I have concealed my sin as men do,
by hiding my guilt in my heart
NIV
I think we can reasonably deduce from this translation that men who conceal their sins are not God-fearers like Job was (Job 1:1). Therefore, these godless men are Adam in the corporate sense. So, how could the passage be only speaking to Corporate Adam, while simultaneously excluding their Federal Head!? And most especially since Adam very clearly did not own his sin, did not confess it, showed zero remorse, manifested absolutely no humility and worst of all doubled down on his original transgression with the audacious, accusatory tone he took against his Creator regarding Eve, thereby justifying himself!
Are you really going to argue that Adam 1 did not hide his guilt?
Rom 1:18-20
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
NIV
Adam SHOULD have known how to respond to God after he sinned! For if this passage above doesn't apply to Adam many times over, then what would apply to him, most especially since Adam was not encumbered by a sin nature!? He saw things infinitely more clearly than any of his progeny ever have! He came into this world alive unto God! Otherwise, how could he have died after he sinned? Not only didn't he have a corrupt nature but as I argued in my 3557, God endowed him with with tremendous and unprecedented intelligence. I wrote in 3357 that Adam was a type of Satan in at least four ways, one of them being:
There are other ways, too, that Adam is like Satan. You might recall from my argument that Adam, like Satan, had empirical proof of God's existence; whereas Eve did not. But here's another way Adam is like his spiritual father the Serpent: You might recall that Satan was a being of unusual and striking beauty. Apparently, no created being compared to him in beauty. Adam, too, had the distinction as being endowed with unusually high intelligence, evidently born with a great deal of working knowledge of this world, [in which God placed him as co-ruler and Chief Steward.] For one thing, he was this world's first scientist, for God initially tasked him with the job of classifying and naming all the animals. In today's world that discipline of science is called Taxonomy. Adam was also tasked with the awesome, mind-blowing responsibility of cultivating the Garden so that it would extend throughout the entire earth. That science discipline, of course, is known today as Horticulture.
Adam's great intelligence very likely contributed to his pride, which ultimately led to his downfall. For we should not forget: it was only Eve who was deceived; Adam was not! In the same above post, I observed in this regard in response to a poster:
Adam was not deceived by the devil! In fact, when Adam told God that the woman "you gave me" gave me the fruit and I ate of it, he didn't even claim that Eve deceived him! This is precisely what makes Adam's sin most egregious, as you have rightly suggested: Adam sinned with his eyes wide open! It's no wonder his sin is classified as TRANSGRESSION! The best Adam could do with his answer to God is to belligerently insinuate to God's face that He had given him a defective woman, thereby refusing to own his transgression! Adam's sin, ultimately, was the sin of PRIDE -- and not a result of deception -- unless you include self-deception. Doesn't scripture teach that pride goes before destruction and haughty spirit before a fall (Prov 16:18)? Adam has much in common with his spiritual daddy; for pride was the evil one's downfall, too, wasn't it? Adam's sin is that he wanted to be just like God (to have His knowledge of Good and Evil). The devil, too, wanted to be just like God....
Wow! Really? A deeply perplexing theological question, is it? Let's go with a translation that says what you say.
Job 31:33
33 if I have concealed my sin as men do,
by hiding my guilt in my heart
NIV
I think we can reasonably deduce from this translation that men who conceal their sins are not God-fearers like Job was (Job 1:1). Therefore, these godless men are Adam in the corporate sense. So, how could the passage be only speaking to Corporate Adam, while simultaneously excluding their Federal Head!? And most especially since Adam very clearly did not own his sin, did not confess it, showed zero remorse, manifested absolutely no humility and worst of all doubled down on his original transgression with the audacious, accusatory tone he took against his Creator regarding Eve, thereby justifying himself!
Are you really going to argue that Adam 1 did not hide his guilt?
On the other hand, there is no command in scripture for God's people to earn their Piled High and Dried degrees in the biblical languages. There are more ways than one to skin a cat. This doesn't imply that doing language deep-dives type of research isn't at times necessary, but it certainly isn't all the time. To suggest that it is to imply that God screwed up big time by not putting his revelation in strange tongues that the vast majority of the world would not understand.
And when I said that the term "seek" was "immaterial" , I was referring specifically to Adam in the post-fall account. Adam did not seek God out; whereas God did seek him out! How do you get Adam running and hiding from God as meaning anything other than he did not seek God after he sinned?
And when I said that the term "seek" was "immaterial" , I was referring specifically to Adam in the post-fall account. Adam did not seek God out; whereas God did seek him out! How do you get Adam running and hiding from God as meaning anything other than he did not seek God after he sinned?
N
I might be sticking my nose in here since I cannot vouch for reading every post in the last couple of days and will certainly never read the ones that appear as chapters in a book not yet published, but you most likely do not believe God can sin so just how do you
mean what you have written above
I would really like to know
mean what you have written above
I would really like to know
N
who told you to write this dribble?
not only does it not represent anything I have stated, but takes what I have stated and twists it to mean other than what I have stated
I guess you have no mirrors in your house. it would be hard to look yourself in the eye and try to believe you have done all you could to honor truth and hold others above yourself as the Bible requires
not only does it not represent anything I have stated, but takes what I have stated and twists it to mean other than what I have stated
I guess you have no mirrors in your house. it would be hard to look yourself in the eye and try to believe you have done all you could to honor truth and hold others above yourself as the Bible requires
N
no duck here; only a redeemed saint of God
however you do exhibit that spirit of Calvin that desires most of humanity to go to hell quite well
I am just not going to bother to other of your diatribes; I see most others have already left off where you are concerned (which may be why all your vitriol seems to be directed at me)
you cannot discuss other than with insults and you have refused to address any scripture from anyone that disagrees with both your attitude and presentations other than to ignore it while stating it does not exist
at this point, I am wondering if you were not one of the Calvinists who had been banned a fews years back because of the way other forum members were addressed by them. would not surprise me at all. others here lean towards the reformed position without giving the impression they would like to murder the person who does not believe as do they.
some things needs to be chilled so they do not spoil, but in this case, even freezing would not improve the texture of your retorts
however you do exhibit that spirit of Calvin that desires most of humanity to go to hell quite well
I am just not going to bother to other of your diatribes; I see most others have already left off where you are concerned (which may be why all your vitriol seems to be directed at me)
you cannot discuss other than with insults and you have refused to address any scripture from anyone that disagrees with both your attitude and presentations other than to ignore it while stating it does not exist
at this point, I am wondering if you were not one of the Calvinists who had been banned a fews years back because of the way other forum members were addressed by them. would not surprise me at all. others here lean towards the reformed position without giving the impression they would like to murder the person who does not believe as do they.
some things needs to be chilled so they do not spoil, but in this case, even freezing would not improve the texture of your retorts
I have answered most questions, as foolish, as many of them are. I mean look at your last inane analogy about frozen people. 
According to you, we can't take Jesus' statement about the state of man's spiritual condition at face value. Your man-centered theology must find ways to see lots of intrinsic good in people in spite of Jesus' crystal clear teaching.
According to you, we can't take Jesus' statement about the state of man's spiritual condition at face value. Your man-centered theology must find ways to see lots of intrinsic good in people in spite of Jesus' crystal clear teaching.
I wish you'd change your theology to conform to the Bible.
The discussion was about A&E knowing what God required in response to sin. It looks to me like the instruction to fallen man took place after A&E fell and were sentenced. We can see God dealing with Cain and Abel about sin and sacrifice, but not A&E.
You're taking some liberties here once again. God breathing breath into Adam's face is not Him gifting the Holy Spirit. Can you show me where Scripture actually says Adam was given the Holy Spirit and was created upright and what that means? The way I've understood it A&E were created in innocence but had to be proven upright in response to God's commandment which they did not obey. IOW experiential righteousness was something that needed to be accomplished - by human choice - and it was not. If you want another [possible] implied typology, God is looking for the involvement of human choice to reverse the fall for those who choose the offer of the Christ.
Rom1 applying to Adam is kind of novel, but even if we used it Adam had no excuse for hi choice and he wasn't allowed any excuse, so here we have been as his progeny until Adam II.
Yes, by choice. And God cursed him for listening to the woman (hate to say it but there's a lesson there too)
Your reasoning aside, you've noted what I said about the translation. I'm trying to get away from these side-track arguments and stick with TD or RTD, which you IMO have proven repeatedly that you want to get away from.
I think we can both read the Text as to what went on with Adam. I'm comfortable resting on what we're told. I neither stick up for him, nor condemn him which God did quite effectively without my input, nor think any man could have done any better, nor think much beyond the narrative to read into it in publicly hostile environments!
The discussion was about A&E knowing what God required in response to sin. It looks to me like the instruction to fallen man took place after A&E fell and were sentenced. We can see God dealing with Cain and Abel about sin and sacrifice, but not A&E.
You're taking some liberties here once again. God breathing breath into Adam's face is not Him gifting the Holy Spirit. Can you show me where Scripture actually says Adam was given the Holy Spirit and was created upright and what that means? The way I've understood it A&E were created in innocence but had to be proven upright in response to God's commandment which they did not obey. IOW experiential righteousness was something that needed to be accomplished - by human choice - and it was not. If you want another [possible] implied typology, God is looking for the involvement of human choice to reverse the fall for those who choose the offer of the Christ.
Rom1 applying to Adam is kind of novel, but even if we used it Adam had no excuse for hi choice and he wasn't allowed any excuse, so here we have been as his progeny until Adam II.
Yes, by choice. And God cursed him for listening to the woman (hate to say it but there's a lesson there too
)Your reasoning aside, you've noted what I said about the translation. I'm trying to get away from these side-track arguments and stick with TD or RTD, which you IMO have proven repeatedly that you want to get away from.
I think we can both read the Text as to what went on with Adam. I'm comfortable resting on what we're told. I neither stick up for him, nor condemn him which God did quite effectively without my input, nor think any man could have done any better, nor think much beyond the narrative to read into it in publicly hostile environments!
NKJ 2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The fact that we have had learned men throughout history working on the Hebrew Text and then later applying this verse to the New Covenant Writings tells me all I need to know about the task at hand and how men of God have responded to it. I don't begrudge anyone who can properly understand God's Word and I most certainly do not judge men for pursuing greater education in response to God leading them to do so.
BTW, if it helps, I have no degree. I simply wanted to get as close to the Text as I could, not be reliant on others or have their deeper level exegetical lessons go over my head, and I have zero doubt I was led to learn what I did. Also, I have been exposed to and thrive on reading very scholarly material that in some cases brings things out from (exegetes) the Text in ways that greatly clarifies things not normally taught from many to most pulpits. And I can spot in some cases those who are not doing the work but sounding like they do.
ὀρθοτομοῦντα verb participle present active accusative masculine singular from ὀρθοτομέω
__________________________________
Bauer-Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (BDAG)
[BDAG] ὀρθοτομέω (my transliteration and note: orthotomeō - you might recognize the first part of this word)
• ὀρθοτομέω (ὀρθός, τέμνω) found elsewh. independently of the NT only Pr 3:6; 11:5, where it is used w. ὁδούς and plainly means ‘cut a path in a straight direction’ or ‘cut a road across country (that is forested or otherwise difficult to pass through) in a straight direction’, so that the traveler may go directly to his destination (cp. Thu. 2, 100, 2 ὁδοὺς εὐθείας ἔτεμε; Hdt. 4, 136 τετμημένη ὁδός; Pla., Leg. 7, 810e; Plut., Galba 24, 7; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 309). Then ὀρθοτομεῖν τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας would prob. mean guide the word of truth along a straight path (like a road that goes straight to its goal), without being turned aside by wordy debates or impious talk 2 Ti 2:15. For such other mngs. as teach the word aright, expound (it) soundly, shape rightly, and preach fearlessly, s. M-M.—DELG s.v. τέμνω. TW. Spicq.
The fact that we have had learned men throughout history working on the Hebrew Text and then later applying this verse to the New Covenant Writings tells me all I need to know about the task at hand and how men of God have responded to it. I don't begrudge anyone who can properly understand God's Word and I most certainly do not judge men for pursuing greater education in response to God leading them to do so.
BTW, if it helps, I have no degree. I simply wanted to get as close to the Text as I could, not be reliant on others or have their deeper level exegetical lessons go over my head, and I have zero doubt I was led to learn what I did. Also, I have been exposed to and thrive on reading very scholarly material that in some cases brings things out from (exegetes) the Text in ways that greatly clarifies things not normally taught from many to most pulpits. And I can spot in some cases those who are not doing the work but sounding like they do.
I have answered most questions, as foolish, as many of them are. I mean look at your last inane analogy about frozen people.
According to you, we can't take Jesus' statement about the state of man's spiritual condition at face value. Your man-centered theology must find ways to see lots of intrinsic good in people in spite of Jesus' crystal clear teaching.
According to you, we can't take Jesus' statement about the state of man's spiritual condition at face value. Your man-centered theology must find ways to see lots of intrinsic good in people in spite of Jesus' crystal clear teaching.
"Because you say that you see, your sin remains."
Since I'm under some pretty severe time constraints, I will limit this reply to the issue you raise with Cornelius, as I appealed to his salvation experience in Acts as strong, supporting evidence for my New Birth Analogy argument. In other words, Studier, I do not see God-fearing Cornelius as unregenerate -- but neither do I see him as a born again Christian until his point of his acceptance of the Gospel. Again, this is because I take the metaphors used in scripture very seriously. God is not the author of confusion. In fact, I'm a strong believer in the Perspicuity of Scripture. But God uses metaphors for a reason and I have to think the Holy Spirit chooses his words very carefully.
And there's also a reason, we are often enjoined in scripture not only to read or study his word -- but to meditate on it. And the central idea behind meditation is to actively engage in reflection, contemplation. This is when serious rumination occurs. So...when scripture speaks of the "new birth" or calls us to "be born again" or to "be born from above", it's not only my duty to rightly handle the Word of Truth for the glory of God, it's also a blessed privilege because I want to understand God's Word rightly and to share it rightly with others.
So having said all that, when I contemplate the "new birth" -- going from spiritual death to spiritual life -- then one should be pondering the question: When does life begin? Does life begin at the moment of faith and repentance or is spiritual birth analogous to physical birth? That is to say, does life begin when one is born again, or does spiritual life begin as it does in a woman's womb -- at conception? Is God's intention behind such metaphors to get us to think in terms of physical, temporal realities in order to better understand spiritual, eternal realities? I think so! And the biblically-sanctioned use of Typology would certainly seems to answer this important question in the affirmative. Therefore, I view Regeneration, specifically, the same way I do physical life: since the latter begins at the point of conception in a woman's womb, likewise Regeneration occurs unseen, unconsciously, mysteriously in the souls of God's elect to where eventually each of God's elect will be brought to "full term", i.e. conscious birth simultaneously with the soul's acceptance of the gospel truth and repentance. Hence, scripture can say, "He who believes [actually] has eternal life. When a person makes his profession of faith is when the world knows that he's a believer in Christ, and just as importantly when the believer himself becomes self-aware of his new-found faith.
One poster made the astute observation to my New Birth Analogy argument that Regeneration is to the New Birth what pregnancy is to physical birth: In both cases the concealed, hidden life is being prepared for birth into the outside world. And I believe this was the case with Cornelius, as well.
I can do three things here: I can refer you to my New Birth Analogy arguments (which were 5 or 6 parallels I drew) and their post numbers (which I think are about three posts in length) or I can find those arguments in my files and repost them here in full again, or do nothing if you're not interested.
Meanwhile...if you ever find a passage of scripture that says that men come into this dark, forlorn world possessing godly dispositions, and as lovers of God please post those passages here.
And there's also a reason, we are often enjoined in scripture not only to read or study his word -- but to meditate on it. And the central idea behind meditation is to actively engage in reflection, contemplation. This is when serious rumination occurs. So...when scripture speaks of the "new birth" or calls us to "be born again" or to "be born from above", it's not only my duty to rightly handle the Word of Truth for the glory of God, it's also a blessed privilege because I want to understand God's Word rightly and to share it rightly with others.
So having said all that, when I contemplate the "new birth" -- going from spiritual death to spiritual life -- then one should be pondering the question: When does life begin? Does life begin at the moment of faith and repentance or is spiritual birth analogous to physical birth? That is to say, does life begin when one is born again, or does spiritual life begin as it does in a woman's womb -- at conception? Is God's intention behind such metaphors to get us to think in terms of physical, temporal realities in order to better understand spiritual, eternal realities? I think so! And the biblically-sanctioned use of Typology would certainly seems to answer this important question in the affirmative. Therefore, I view Regeneration, specifically, the same way I do physical life: since the latter begins at the point of conception in a woman's womb, likewise Regeneration occurs unseen, unconsciously, mysteriously in the souls of God's elect to where eventually each of God's elect will be brought to "full term", i.e. conscious birth simultaneously with the soul's acceptance of the gospel truth and repentance. Hence, scripture can say, "He who believes [actually] has eternal life. When a person makes his profession of faith is when the world knows that he's a believer in Christ, and just as importantly when the believer himself becomes self-aware of his new-found faith.
One poster made the astute observation to my New Birth Analogy argument that Regeneration is to the New Birth what pregnancy is to physical birth: In both cases the concealed, hidden life is being prepared for birth into the outside world. And I believe this was the case with Cornelius, as well.
I can do three things here: I can refer you to my New Birth Analogy arguments (which were 5 or 6 parallels I drew) and their post numbers (which I think are about three posts in length) or I can find those arguments in my files and repost them here in full again, or do nothing if you're not interested.
Meanwhile...if you ever find a passage of scripture that says that men come into this dark, forlorn world possessing godly dispositions, and as lovers of God please post those passages here.