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

[Rufus]

More on the Sheep metaphor. Something else occurred to me re this metaphor: It's a two-sided coin! The first side I described earlier about how weak, vulnerable and helpless sheep are and how they require shepherding, etc. But the other side of the coin is more positive; for sheep are generally docile, gentle, harmless animals. And this is how God's saints are supposed to be in this dark, forlorn world. We're supposed to be "wise as serpents, yet innocent as doves". We're supposed to be kind and gentle and harmless people. So, the metaphor fits God's people perfectly.

An all-wise God really does choose his words very carefully. And we should remember this when we interpret his Word.

 

[Rufus]

He set things in motion and lets them work as He set them up to work, so in that sense yes He upholds everything.

No, that's deistic thinking. Jesus literally upholds all things by his power continuously -- right this very moment, as I'm typing this. He didn't just "wind up" the cosmic clock sometime in the distant past and is now letting it run out.

 

[PaulThomson]

The same word can be used in different ways, of course. But when selecting a use, it still has to conform to the rest of scripture.
You proffered that man aids in his salvation. That doesn't fit with all of scripture. Then you posited that creation itself shows this to be the case. This didn't hold with scripture either.
You don't address this but simply agree with a statement that was shown false using the same scripture.
So I'll ask you...does Jesus uphold all things by the word of His power?

You have still failed to provide a definition of "saviour" expressing its full semantic range. It seems impossible for the four of you, and yet you presume to interpret biblical soteriology. Funny.

 

[PaulThomson]

Man! You just don't want to get it, do you? Are either of the people in your examples DEAD!? Since not, then your analogy fails utterly and totally! God raises the spiritually dead, thereby saving their souls. Can't you see how you keep equating dead people with the living in your analogies? Conversely, my analogy of the cardiac arrest victim fits in much better with the dead, since such person is totally helpless, making him totally dependent on forces outside of himself. Such a person is not even able to cry out for help.

Is my sentence syntactically and/or grammatically nonsense? If not, then it surely has a meaning. If you can't understand its meaning, the problem seems to be yours.

Both our examples fit saviour. Now can you write a definition of "saviour" that fits both our examples at one time? If you can't, you should not be teaching anyone biblical soteriology.

 

[Cameron143]

You have still failed to provide a definition of "saviour" expressing its full semantic range. It seems impossible for the four of you, and yet you presume to interpret biblical soteriology. Funny.

The example you gave can describe "savior". I just don't believe it describes "Savior".
So if you are frustrated with us, why don't you supply us with your definitions and the scriptures that correspond to the definitions. In this way, we can broaden the discussion.

 

[rogerg]

Man! You just don't want to get it, do you? Are either of the people in your examples DEAD!? Since not, then your analogy fails utterly and totally! God raises the spiritually dead, thereby saving their souls. Can't you see how you keep equating dead people with the living in your analogies? Conversely, my analogy of the cardiac arrest victim fits in much better with the dead, since such person is totally helpless, making him totally dependent on forces outside of himself. Such a person is not even able to cry out for help.

Amen and thanks be to you brother Rufus. I spent the better part of yesterday trying to explain that exact same doctrine to him without success - he just didn't/couldn't get it. He probably won't get your explanation either and will say you're trying to change his example into what you want rather than what he wants. Good luck with that - think I'll make me some popcorn - this could get interesting.
By the way, he frequently mis-states my position regarding the criteria for Saviour and to become saved. I won't go into
the details now except to say, should he sound like he's obliquely referring to me, don't believe him.
I won't directly correct him now, because I do not feel inclined to get into another day-long debate with him.

 

[Rufus]

You have still failed to provide a definition of "saviour" expressing its full semantic range. It seems impossible for the four of you, and yet you presume to interpret biblical soteriology. Funny.

What would be funny it it weren't so sad, is that you cannot distinguish between Jesus saving the dead, and someone in this life saving the living. And I can understand you not wanting to understand, since you're having a problem coming up with true parallel situation in temporal reality. Just like you do not want to understand what spiritual death means! Just as a physically dead man cannot reunite his soul with his body, likewise a spiritually dead man cannot reunite his soul with the Life of God. And that Life of God, for your info would be the Spirit of Life, as in the Holy Spirit. You know...the Holy Spirit who departed from Adam after he sinned!

 

[PaulThomson]

Read John 10, the Good Shepherd Discourse.

John 10:25-30
25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."
NIV

By the way, the how or why sheep stray isn't the central point to the parable. Was not Peter a sheep who "strayed" when he denied his Lord and Savior three times!? 3 TIMES! Yet, even after Jesus predicting Peter's denial, Jesus went on to assure Peter essentially, "but I have prayed for you so that when your return..." WHEN Peter repents! Not if! But when! Satan won the battle but lost the war for Peter's soul!

It's a logical fallacy to generalise a rule from one instance.

If Jesus' sheep listen to his voice, is someone who is not listening to Jesus' voice one of His sheep?

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization, which involves reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a rushed conclusion without considering all of the variables or enough evidence.

 

[HeIsHere]

No, that's deistic thinking. Jesus literally upholds all things by his power continuously -- right this very moment, as I'm typing this. He didn't just "wind up" the cosmic clock sometime in the distant past and is now letting it run out.

If you want to think that a hormones do not start the birthing process that is your prerogative.

 

[Rufus]

Amen and thanks be to you brother Rufus. I spent the better part of yesterday trying to explain that exact same doctrine to him without success - he just didn't/couldn't get it. He probably won't get your explanation either and will say you're trying to change his example into what you want rather than what he wants. Good luck with that - think I'll make me some popcorn - this could get interesting.
By the way, he frequently mis-states my position regarding the criteria for Saviour and to become saved. I won't go into
the details now except to say, should he sound like he's obliquely referring to me, don't believe him.
I won't directly correct him now, because I do not feel inclined to get into another day-long debate with him.

No, he won't, unless God is merciful. Neither will he (PT) and others understand that he is the poster boy for Rom 3:11a.

 

[PaulThomson]

By the way, the how or why sheep stray isn't the central point to the parable. Was not Peter a sheep who "strayed" when he denied his Lord and Savior three times!? 3 TIMES! Yet, even after Jesus predicting Peter's denial, Jesus went on to assure Peter essentially, "but I have prayed for you so that when your return..." WHEN Peter repents! Not if! But when! Satan won the battle but lost the war for Peter's soul!

No, the central point is that the Shepherd earnestly looks for the straying sheep, and the spiritual sheep are only "found" when "they repent".

 

[PaulThomson]

What would be funny it it weren't so sad, is that you cannot distinguish between Jesus saving the dead, and someone in this life saving the living. And I can understand you not wanting to understand, since you're having a problem coming up with true parallel situation in temporal reality. Just like you do not want to understand what spiritual death means! Just as a physically dead man cannot reunite his soul with his body, likewise a spiritually dead man cannot reunite his soul with the Life of God. And that Life of God, for your info would be the Spirit of Life, as in the Holy Spirit. You know...the Holy Spirit who departed from Adam after he sinned!

You have still not provided a definition of "saviour" conveying its full semantic range. But you are still presuming to teach soteriology. Yikes!

 

[PaulThomson]

The example you gave can describe "savior". I just don't believe it describes "Savior".
So if you are frustrated with us, why don't you supply us with your definitions and the scriptures that correspond to the definitions. In this way, we can broaden the discussion.

I already did. You ignored it.

 

[Rufus]

It's a logical fallacy to generalise a rule from one instance.

If Jesus' sheep listen to his voice, is someone who is not listening to Jesus' voice one of His sheep?

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization, which involves reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a rushed conclusion without considering all of the variables or enough evidence.

So, you're saying Peter wasn't really one of Jesus' sheep?

And what part of John 10:25-30 didn't you get?

And, yes, Jesus' sheep (not not be confused with goats) do listen to his voice, albeit not perfectly in this life but substantially and essentially.

And just what is this "insufficient evidence" of which you speak?

 

[Cameron143]

Is my sentence syntactically and/or grammatically nonsense? If not, then it surely has a meaning. If you can't understand its meaning, the problem seems to be yours.

Both our examples fit saviour. Now can you write a definition of "saviour" that fits both our examples at one time? If you can't, you should not be teaching anyone biblical soteriology.

Some biblical truths can't be fully explained simply by making a statement. When Jesus taught about the kingdom of God, He used a number of examples of what the kingdom was like. When Paul was describing what it is to be a child of God, he described many aspects of what it entails. So it is with Christ as Savior.
What someone believes about salvation seems to be predicated upon what one believes concerning the estate of fallen man and their understanding of God and the ways of God. Either way, there is no requirement to understand the outworking of salvation to be saved.

 

[Cameron143]

I already did. You ignored it.

Then I missed it. It's a busy thread. If you are so inclined, I'd be most appreciative if you would direct me to the post.

 

[Cameron143]

No, the central point is that the Shepherd earnestly looks for the straying sheep, and the spiritual sheep are only "found" when "they repent".

Where do you find this in scripture? The Shepherd doesn't know His sheep?

 

[PaulThomson]

So, you're saying Peter wasn't really one of Jesus' sheep?

And what part of John 10:25-30 didn't you get?

And, yes, Jesus' sheep (not not be confused with goats) do listen to his voice, albeit not perfectly in this life but substantially and essentially.

And just what is this "insufficient evidence" of which you speak?

I thought one of you would argue that point. So, in this verse you will argue that the English present simple tense, translating the Greek present tense, does not have to mean "all the time"; but for some reason, all those present simples in Romans 2 must mean "all the time". The reason being, your theological bias determines for you what the present simple must mean in any particular context, and every spiritually competent person must agree with your theological presuppositions, because those propositions are always right in your eyes.
So, are you now ready to admit that your interpretation of those Romans 3 passages you use to prove Total Depravity is only one of several possible interpretations of those verses?

Between his denying Jesus and his repenting, Peter was a lost sheep that belonged to Jesus. We know he was found, because he repented.
Judas Iscariot became a lost sheep and remained lost, if he did not repent.

 

[Mem]

Oh come on Paul! What's wrong with you!?

A dead person can't drown!
God's not a woman!
A dead person can't grab a rope!
God must first resurrect a dead person!
A fetus can't grab a rope before it's born!
Don't worry, just wait for 9 months...
While we're waiting, what's the rope? Maybe the rope is the savior, no?

Now Paul, please change this so you can be more biblical:

Billions of corpses are floating in the water eating bananas > a strong Man who elected one of them gaffs it with a big hook > drags it > impregnates it with his neuter spirit > 9 months later the fetus prays and the strong Man sends another strong man to tell it to come forth into life > it comes forth as a mature man with a diverse diet who the strong Man sends to speak to the next praying fetus whom was one of the banana eating floating corpses the strong Man elected and gaffed and impregnated and turned into the fetus who has gestated for 9 months...
BTW, the banana is the savior as it kept the elect corpse floating.
Now, where did the banana come from, Paul? Don't you get it?

I only peaked in earlier and missed you having gone absolutely bonkers.

 

[PaulThomson]

Where do you find this in scripture? The Shepherd doesn't know His sheep?

I don't know. Why ask me? I never made the claim that the Shepherd does not know His sheep..

The shepherd leaves the 99 in the hands of others to go and find the lost one. You may not consider that earnestly seeking the sheep And Jesus equates rejoicing over "a found sheep", and rejoicing over "a repentant sinner."