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

[PaulThomson]

And who are the "us" that USED to be sinners?

Where does it say "used to be sinners"? Which Bible version are you reading?

The us could be various groups Paul is identifies Himself with: The Jews, or the church, or mankind.

If God demonstrated His love to us, by dying for us; and He also died for them; then His death for them demonstrates His love for them.

 

[MerSee]

Where does it say "used to be sinners"? Which Bible version are you reading?

The us could be various groups Paul is identifies Himself with: The Jews, or the church, or mankind.

If God demonstrated His love to us, by dying for us; and He also died for them; then His death for them demonstrates His love for them.

Jesus died on the cross for the just/elect/saved whose names are written in The book of life.

 

[Rufus]

God does not give unmerited favor! Believers can die the sin onto death, and have.
Grace must become manifested in a believer by revealing righteousness before favor can be granted.

For example?
Blessing a man who keeps committing adultery is unmerited favor!

So sinners must earn God's favor? And do you have chapter and verse about believers and the sin onto death?

 

[PaulThomson]

Jesus died on the cross for the just/elect/saved whose names are written in The book of life.

You may choose to deny 1 John 2:2 I choose to believe it.

 

[Cameron143]

This is how we can know God lives them, that while they were sinners Christ died for them.

Romans 5:8-9 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Are you saying you don't believe God's proof?

I don't agree with you on who those verses include. But let's say you are right. What you are saying is that God loved people and never made it possible for them to get saved. He never manifested His love to them. And all they will ever know about God is His displeasure and judgment.

If you notice in the first verse you shared it says God demonstrates His love. This means the verse only applies to those who God has actually manifested His love to. The people I described to you have no demonstration of God's love. It doesn't apply to them.

The second verse takes a little longer to unravel. You need to go back into the previous chapter to establish the 2 groups referred to and which group is being referred to by this verse. In essence it is saying that the group that is forgiven have a propitiation, and wherever you find sins forgiven, Jesus is the propitiation.

I recognize in advance that you won't believe much of anything I just shared, but to believe as you do seems to mean God's love is broad enough to allow people to have no contact with Him in any way over the course of their lives. I don't believe that is so.

 

[PaulThomson]

I'm not referring to people who have heard the Gospel, heard of Jesus, or heard of God. I asked about the large number of people throughout history who never did. How about them?

Do you think God has no ways to deal with them justly, that He has kept to Himself, and he could be saying to you,
"What is that to you. You, follow Me."

 

[HeIsHere]

This means the verse only applies to those who God has actually manifested His love to. The people I described to you have no demonstration of God's love. It doesn't apply to them.

 

[Rufus]

Where does it say "used to be sinners"? Which Bible version are you reading?

The us could be various groups Paul is identifies Himself with: The Jews, or the church, or mankind.

If God demonstrated His love to us, by dying for us; and He also died for them; then His death for them demonstrates His love for them.

Read the tense of the verb in the last part of v.8: "While we WERE still sinners.

The "us COULD be...".? That's the best you can do? How about the "us" being Paul and the people to whom he wrote his epistle? Rather novel idea, to you no doubt? But let's give it a try for giggles, shall we?

Rom 1:7-9
To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
NIV

Doesn't sound like he addressed his letter to everyone in the world. Sounds to me he was writing to God's elect.

 

[PaulThomson]

If you notice in the first verse you shared it says God demonstrates His love. This means the verse only applies to those who God has actually manifested His love to. The people I described to you have no demonstration of God's love. It doesn't apply to them.

The second verse takes a little longer to unravel. You need to go back into the previous chapter to establish the 2 groups referred to and which group is being referred to by this verse. In essence it is saying that the group that is forgiven have a propitiation, and wherever you find sins forgiven, Jesus is the propitiation.

You don't think God is smart enough to come up with ways to apply the cross to people who preidated the cross and who have never heard of the cross in their lifetime, but who could have repented had they heard? Your God does not seem to be able to innovate and problem-solve in real time. It seems He can only manage things if He has 100% control 100% of the time. There are humans more adaptable than that.

 

[Cameron143]

Do you think God has no ways to deal with them justly, that He has kept to Himself, and he could be saying to you,
"What is that to you. You, follow Me."

No.

 

[PaulThomson]

So you deny that throughout history that large numbers of people have been born, lived, and died never hearing the Gospel, hearing about Jesus, and hearing about the One true God?

Do you think God cannot come up with a solution to your imagined "problem" that you could never come up with, and keep it secret from you and us? The God of the whole earth will do justly.

 

[MerSee]

You may choose to deny 1 John 2:2 I choose to believe it.

The whole world is the elect who keep God's commandments.

1 My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 3 And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected; and by this we know that we are in him.

 

[PaulThomson]

Read the tense of the verb in the last part of v.8: "While we WERE still sinners.

The "us COULD be...".? That's the best you can do? How about the "us" being Paul and the people to whom he wrote his epistle? Rather novel idea, to you no doubt? But let's give it a try for giggles, shall we?

Rom 1:7-9
To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
NIV

Doesn't sound like he addressed his letter to everyone in the world. Sounds to me he was writing to God's elect.

That Paul is writing to the Roman Christians, and makes comments that are clearly about only them, does not mean that every reference he makes to "us" must clearly be about the Church in Rome and Paul. To assume that "us" always refers to the Roman Christians and Paul only, is very poor discourse analysis.

 

[Rufus]

I have explained this several times in this thread. But you are too calcified in your opinions to grasp it.

If someone tries to sell you an apple, telling you it is good, but you see some bruises on it, you will say, "No, it's not good. It is damaged." If there is only one perfectly good apple in the shop, You could say "There is only one apple that is good: that one." But you would not say that all the other apples, though not good, are totally worthless and rotten; and nothing good can be achieved with them.

Exactly the same logic applies to Jesus' words. But you refuse to acknowledge it, because your doctrine is more important to you than the truth. There is none Good but God only: perfectly good. But the "bad" are not totally evil. There is some good in them.

Hence, Jesus' words, "If you who are evil know how to give good things to your children, how much more will God give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him."

If you cannot grasp that and honestly acknowledge it, you are truly self-deceived.

No, it does not apply because there is no MIDDLE OPTION between Good and Evil! Jesus clearly taught that men are EVIL. He didn't say partly evil and partly good. Nor did he come up with a middle option. He was talking in the absolute moral/spiritual sense. And as I have explained to your hardened heart many times, the definition of evil is the absence of good! Evil is not a thing in and of itself. Evil is the deprivation of some thing, i.e. Good. Good is Something because Good is as eternal as God himself;' and he is intrinsically Good. Therefore, Good is an absolute, pure virtue totally FREE of any corruption or evil. In fact, Good is something that conforms to the moral order of the universe. For example, in the beginning God's creation was "very good", i.e. sinless, free of evil, free of corruption. It conforms all the time in all ways to God's highest standard. I repeat: To God's highest standard and not what we mortals think of as "good". And this is precisely why no mere mortal is inherently good!

So, please, already...take your lame rotten apples analogy or partially bruised ones or whatever and stick 'em in your ear. They might be good enough to improve you hearing...which would actually be a good thing!

 

[Cameron143]

You don't think God is smart enough to come up with ways to apply the cross to people who preidated the cross and who have never heard of the cross in their lifetime, but who could have repented had they heard? Your God does not seem to be able to innovate and problem-solve in real time. It seems He can only manage things if He has 100% control 100% of the time. There are humans more adaptable than that.

I believe God can do anything. And He could have gone to everyone of them personally. But He didn't. And that's my point. You bring up things that are possible but that never occurred. You ask about things that haven't been revealed.
Be honest with me. If I responded this way to you, would you think I was being evasive?

 

[PaulThomson]

PaulThomson said:
Where does it say "used to be sinners"? Which Bible version are you reading?

The us could be various groups Paul is identifies Himself with: The Jews, or the church, or mankind.

If God demonstrated His love to us, by dying for us; and He also died for them; then His death for them demonstrates His love for them.

Read the tense of the verb in the last part of v.8: "While we WERE still sinners.

The "us COULD be...".? That's the best you can do? How about the "us" being Paul and the people to whom he wrote his epistle? Rather novel idea, to you no doubt? But let's give it a try for giggles, shall we?

Rom 1:7-9
To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
NIV

Doesn't sound like he addressed his letter to everyone in the world. Sounds to me he was writing to God's elect.

So, no translation says, "used to be sinners"? Then why did you write those words as if they were scripture that supported your theology. I agree it says "While we were yet sinners..." That does not mean the same thing as "those who used to be sinners".

It si not bad interpretation to admit the range of possible options a text can mean. It could mean either of those things. It is dishonest to pretend it can only be one of those options... the one that best accommodates your own theories.

 

[Rufus]

That Paul is writing to the Roman Christians, and makes comments that are clearly about only them, does not mean that every reference he makes to "us" must clearly be about the Church in Rome and Paul. To assume that "us" always refers to the Roman Christians and Paul only, is very poor discourse analysis.

In other words, it's okay to ignore the context of divinely inspired epistles. Why am I not surprised? You NR will do whatever it takes to discredit, twist or distort any passage that runs counter to your heretical, worldly presuppositions.

 

[Cameron143]

Do you think God cannot come up with a solution to your imagined "problem" that you could never come up with, and keep it secret from you and us? The God of the whole earth will do justly.

Yes, but He has already revealed the reality of salvation, the necessity of the gospel, as well as told us that the opportunity for salvation takes place during our lifetimes. Should I ignore what God has revealed?

 

[PaulThomson]

PaulThomson said:
I have explained this several times in this thread. But you are too calcified in your opinions to grasp it.

If someone tries to sell you an apple, telling you it is good, but you see some bruises on it, you will say, "No, it's not good. It is damaged." If there is only one perfectly good apple in the shop, You could say "There is only one apple that is good: that one." But you would not say that all the other apples, though not good, are totally worthless and rotten; and nothing good can be achieved with them.

Exactly the same logic applies to Jesus' words. But you refuse to acknowledge it, because your doctrine is more important to you than the truth. There is none Good but God only: perfectly good. But the "bad" are not totally evil. There is some good in them.

Hence, Jesus' words, "If you who are evil know how to give good things to your children, how much more will God give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him."

If you cannot grasp that and honestly acknowledge it, you are truly self-deceived.

No, it does not apply because there is no MIDDLE OPTION between Good and Evil! Jesus clearly taught that men are EVIL. He didn't say partly evil and partly good. Nor did he come up with a middle option. He was talking in the absolute moral/spiritual sense. And as I have explained to your hardened heart many times, the definition of evil is the absence of good! Evil is not a thing in and of itself. Evil is the deprivation of some thing, i.e. Good. Good is Something because Good is as eternal as God himself;' and he is intrinsically Good. Therefore, Good is an absolute, pure virtue totally FREE of any corruption or evil. In fact, Good is something that conforms to the moral order of the universe. For example, in the beginning God's creation was "very good", i.e. sinless, free of evil, free of corruption. It conforms all the time in all ways to God's highest standard. I repeat: To God's highest standard and not what we mortals think of as "good". And this is precisely why no mere mortal is inherently good!

So, please, already...take your lame rotten apples analogy or partially bruised ones or whatever and stick 'em in your ear. They might be good enough to improve you hearing...which would actually be a good thing!

But you are arguing for "the excluded middle" That is a logical fallacy.

“False Dilemma”: “Excluded middle” or “Either /Or Fallacy—Assumes that there are only two possible choices (“Either this or that”) when there are other choices available. EXAMPLE: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”—spoken by Dick Cheney.

You are not providing a logical argument, and you are providing an argument that refuses to use language in its common sense, but your argument needs to rest on special pleading, another logical fallacy.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard.

You are like a blind man with dementia trying to lead the sighted, and as such you are only making yourself look pretentious and foolish.

 

[Rufus]

PaulThomson said:
Where does it say "used to be sinners"? Which Bible version are you reading?

The us could be various groups Paul is identifies Himself with: The Jews, or the church, or mankind.

If God demonstrated His love to us, by dying for us; and He also died for them; then His death for them demonstrates His love for them.



So, no translation says, "used to be sinners"? Then why did you write those words as if they were scripture that supported your theology. I agree it says "While we were yet sinners..." That does not mean the same thing as "those who used to be sinners".

It si not bad interpretation to admit the range of possible options a text can mean. It could mean either of those things. It is dishonest to pretend it can only be one of those options... the one that best accommodates your own theories.

I wrote it because Paul could have just as easily have said, "when we were formerly sinners"...and that would not change the sense of what he wrote. Paul is clearly referring to his PAST and the past of his addresses.

Got anymore bright ideas?