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

[PaulThomson]

There is no maybe about. Read Revelations someday.

P.S. If there is sin in the eternal kingdom, then God's intentions would have been thwarted. For his will is that all be perfectly conformed to the image of Christ.

Revelation is prophecy. Prophecy is a warning that if things continue on their present course, this will happen (a la Nineveh) . It is a call to change one's direction to avert the prophesied outcome (a la Nineveh) .

 

[PaulThomson]

No.

When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

 

[Cameron143]

When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

And you believe I am the Apostle Peter?

I understood your question. I answered honestly.

 

[PaulThomson]

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?

You do not know everything God can and has and will do. You, a mere human, are the one making absolutist claims about what God can and cannot do, purely on the basis that He hasn't told us, as if He is obliged to tell us.

Which of us is being presumptuous? The one who says "Perhaps God could...," or the one who, says, "It is impossible for God to..."?

 

[PaulThomson]

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?

The secret things belong to God..." What are those secret things regarding those who had/have not yet heard?

 

[Genez]

Why would a young child not merit his own mother's favor? Did the child tick his mother off when he was born? What would the child have to do to merit it?

Parents are very forgiving when a child poops in its diaper.....
The baby does not know any better. Unmerited favor.

Yet.... the same parents?
They would not feel that way if the child were ten years old.

In that sense. God shows the baby Christian unmerited favor, while its yet carnal and lacking understanding.

In contrast to the baby believer..
The grace Paul received was what God gives the spiritually matured adult believer.
It was not unmerited favor.
Ironically. God's grace was given to Paul, so that God could make Paul into someone who would merit God's favor.

Big difference....

 

[Magenta]

It seems that I am!

Well, then, welcome to the club! Did you know that God enabling us is taken by some to mean we are forced?

People who yield to God do so out of Love, not out of force.

I think you finally may be getting it. Bravo!

 

[PaulThomson]

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.

It is not denying context to allow for the context to leave some things uncertain.

 

[PaulThomson]

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?

You seem to think including the word "clearly" in your argument should removesfrom everyone's mind all doubt about your conclusions.

 

[PaulThomson]

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?

No. He has reveal some realities concerning salvation that we can apply to ourselves who have read/heard the Bible. He has not necessarily revealed all realities that apply to others who have not read/heard the Bible.

 

[PaulThomson]

I do not believe God loves those who are in Hell.

I do.

 

[PaulThomson]

And you believe I am the Apostle Peter?

I understood your question. I answered honestly.

You are doing what Peter did. Expecting more info than perhaps is within your pay-grade.

 

[Genez]

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

God gives grace power to transform and enable a believer to become someone God approves of.

Its those who refuse the working of God's grace power, and who walk in their flesh, that God disapproves of.

You do not earn it in the sense you put it.
That would mean someone could become what God approves of in the energy of their flesh.

 

[Cameron143]

You do not know everything God can and has and will do. You, a mere human, are the one making absolutist claims about what God can and cannot do, purely on the basis that He hasn't told us, as if He is obliged to tell us.

Which of us is being presumptuous? The one who says "Perhaps God could...," or the one who, says, "It is impossible for God to..."?

If you presume God will not do what He has made clear He does do, or do something He says He does not, that's not presumptuous. It's simply wrong.
And I never said anything about presumptuous. I said evasive.
Thanks for the discussion. Blessings.

 

[Rufus]

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.



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.

Sir, the Law of Excluded Middle is a valid law of logic. Tell me: what are middle options between life and death; between pregnancy and non-pregnancy. Either a man IS intrinsically good or he is is NOT. There is no middle proposition. There are no exceptions to any of these. God is either good or he is not! God is either just or he is not, etc., etc.

And you quoting Mat 7:11 does not make your case at all because in this passage Jesus is speaking on the horizontal level of human relationships -- and even that of a limited or special kind; whereas in Mk 10:18 Jesus is speaking on the vertical level, contrasting the virtue of the goodness of God with the inherent evil of men (since "no one is good") To say that Jesus was speaking only in relative terms about the lack of man's goodness and God inherent possession of all goodness, then you'd have to say that God is only relatively good also. One apple has two small bruises on it; whereas God has only one small bruise.

To prove your case, you will have to prove from scripture that either man is as inherently good as God or that God is only as relatively good as man is. I have numerous scriptures that prove that man is inherently evil, which is precisely what Jesus was getting at in Mk 10:18. This is the very reason for his question to the man. He's asking him, basically, "why do you PRESUME that I (as s mere moral) am good compared to God"? Or..."There's only one person in the universe who is inherently good, so why are you presuming that I am absolutely good as God is? Or..."Why are you comparing me to other men when you claim I am good."? You totally miss the point behind Jesus' question in and in so doing make the same exact error as the man who approached Jesus!

I know you hate with every fiber in your body what Jesus taught in this passage and elsewhere about man's inherently evil natures -- but that's the great paradox of the Gospel isn't it? Pink was right when he made that observation in his article. Men literally hate this truth and it is the biggest stumbling block to people genuinely accepting the gospel. The paradox of the gospel is that while it is Good News in terms of what God has done for mankind, it's implicitly very Bad News for sinners since they MUST...yes, MUST see themselves as God sees them. The only way a sinner can genuinely repent and believe the Gospel is if they side with God and agree with Him about how he views sinners, thereby desperately sensing their most urgent need for His forgiveness! And the truth of the matter is that God does not see his moral creatures as merely bruised apples -- some worse than others, other better than others. God measure each of us against HIS absolute HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, GOOD standard (i.e. character). You're making horizontal apple comparisons which God doesn't do . And God ain't no stinkin' apple either.

You had better awake from your sleep, O Sleeeper...before it's too late. You think too lightly of sin, too highly of man and too irrevantly of God.

 

[PaulThomson]

Sir, the Law of Excluded Middle is a valid law of logic. Tell me: what are middle options between life and death; between pregnancy and non-pregnancy. Either a man IS intrinsically good or he is is NOT. There is no middle proposition. There are no exceptions to any of these. God is either good or he is not! God is either just or he is not, etc., etc.

The middle position between life and death is dying/diseased. Not fully alive and not fully dead.

When we say that someone is a bad person, we do not mean "in every respect". We mean in respects that matter to us. We are not denying that there is any good in the person.

 

[PaulThomson]

And you quoting Mat 7:11 does not make your case at all because in this passage Jesus is speaking on the horizontal level of human relationships -- and even that of a limited or special kind; whereas in Mk 10:18 Jesus is speaking on the vertical level, contrasting the virtue of the goodness of God with the inherent evil of men (since "no one is good") To say that Jesus was speaking only in relative terms about the lack of man's goodness and God inherent possession of all goodness, then you'd have to say that God is only relatively good also. One apple has two small bruises on it; whereas God has only one small bruise.

That is all your assessment of what Jesus is doing. You have not proved that is what Jesus is doing. To say that if you compare the absolute goodness of God to the degree of goodness of a man makes His absolute goodness only relative, is nonesense. His Goodness remains absolute.

 

[PaulThomson]

To prove your case, you will have to prove from scripture that either man is as inherently good as God or that God is only as relatively good as man is. I have numerous scriptures that prove that man is inherently evil, which is precisely what Jesus was getting at in Mk 10:18. This is the very reason for his question to the man. He's asking him, basically, "why do you PRESUME that I (as s mere moral) am good compared to God"? Or..."There's only one person in the universe who is inherently good, so why are you presuming that I am absolutely good as God is? Or..."Why are you comparing me to other men when you claim I am good."? You totally miss the point behind Jesus' question in and in so doing make the same exact error as the man who approached Jesus!

All nonsense. An apple is bad if it is marred. That does not make it inherently evil, by which I think you must mean inherently only evil. Otherwise you would be agreeing with me, that it is partly evil and partly good, but classified bad because of its imperfections. You are presuming that you are able to read Jesus' mind better than anyone else. Why should anyone accept that to be so?

 

[PaulThomson]

I know you hate with every fiber in your body what Jesus taught in this passage and elsewhere about man's inherently evil natures -- but that's the great paradox of the Gospel isn't it? Pink was right when he made that observation in his article. Men literally hate this truth and it is the biggest stumbling block to people genuinely accepting the gospel. The paradox of the gospel is that while it is Good News in terms of what God has done for mankind, it's implicitly very Bad News for sinners since they MUST...yes, MUST see themselves as God sees them. The only way a sinner can genuinely repent and believe the Gospel is if they side with God and agree with Him about how he views sinners, thereby desperately sensing their most urgent need for His forgiveness! And the truth of the matter is that God does not see his moral creatures as merely bruised apples -- some worse than others, other better than others. God measure each of us against HIS absolute HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, GOOD standard (i.e. character). You're making horizontal apple comparisons which God doesn't do . And God ain't no stinkin' apple either.

No. I don't hate it. I think it'a a silly and unbiblical and ungrammatical claim, and cannot agree with it because I would need to become silly and unbiblical and ungrammatical in order to agree with it.

 

[PaulThomson]

You had better awake from your sleep, O Sleeeper...before it's too late. You think too lightly of sin, too highly of man and too irrevantly of God.

I could say the same to you.