In the millennium, there will be an abundance of teaching. Above all, we have a just and all-powerful Father in heaven who is still seated on His throne.
We can count on Him.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.
In the millennium, there will be an abundance of teaching. Above all, we have a just and all-powerful Father in heaven who is still seated on His throne.
We can count on Him.
If a slave master makes his slaves do horrible and shameful things? Disgusting things.
Do you not have compassion of the one born into slavery who can not know anything different?
God sees the slave and knows what that slave would be if given freedom and instruction and power on how to live.
God is therefore able to love that slave before he is made free!
Calvinism as it is taught is cruelty professed in the name of righteousness and deep humility. Its bad news. Not good news.
TULIP is weird news.
Arminianism was a dream world approach in attempt to counter TULIP. Both are wrong.
........
Do you not have compassion of the one born into slavery who can not know anything different?
God sees the slave and knows what that slave would be if given freedom and instruction and power on how to live.
God is therefore able to love that slave before he is made free!
Calvinism as it is taught is cruelty professed in the name of righteousness and deep humility. Its bad news. Not good news.
TULIP is weird news.
Arminianism was a dream world approach in attempt to counter TULIP. Both are wrong.
........
Jesus died on the cross for the just/elect/saved whose names are written in The book of life.
The Millennium will be the time of obliterating every excuse a man may give for rejecting God as they now give when finding themselves in torments awaiting the Lake of Fire.
Right now majority of the teachings we see are so bad, and "broad and wide" leading the destruction of believers lives.
Good teaching will be found within a narrow realm of choosing. Those who are on the narrow road it will be placed
under cosmic pressures to quit that must be resisted until God's grace enables and enters them into FINDING LIFE MORE
ABUNDANTLY as Jesus promised for us who are faithful to grow in grace and knowledge of God's Word.
Its the way it is. Few find it. Many will not be granted to serve with Him, but will be saved.
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw,
their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be
revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has
been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder
will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
1 Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honour; lest the name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed. 2 But they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but serve them the rather, because they are faithful and beloved, who are partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. 3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness. 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, 5 Conflicts of men corrupted in mind, and who are destitute of the truth, supposing gain to be godliness.
And?
How did you miss the following?
My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin.
But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ
the righteous one. He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not
only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.
1 John 2:1-2
Jesus died for the whole world! Even died for the sins of those who will refuse to believe!
He did not die only for the elect!
Stick with the Word.
He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (the elect),
and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.
Be confused. Maybe you'll learn the truth while enduring it.Stick with the Word!
grace and peace .............
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.
John 17:1-9 Jesus is praying for Himself.
vv. 89-19 Jesus is praying for those disciples He has gathered to Himself during His ministry thus far.
vv. 20-23 Jesus is praying for those who would be added to the church after Pentecost.
vv.. 24-26 Jesus is again praying for His present band of disciples.
He is praying, in the part you are citing, that those who are already His disciples, that they be kept in Jesus name. He is acknowledging that those who have not yet believed in His name are not yet in His name, so cannot be kept in the name they have not yet been brought into. The world that has not received Jesus so as to be in His name, cannot be kept in His name.
As an aside, I think vv 20-23 are one sentence, and the train of thought should not be broken at v. 22
The context here ties all to all to [all] those you have given me. The context here limits the all to all that referenced group. You ought not take the fact that context limits all to all of an immediately referenced group, and take that local limitation and apply it willy-nilly to any other context anywhere else in the Bible..
I have not said that God is relatively good. I do get it, as I have explained three or four times to you. A uniquely perfect apple among a display of slightly or much marred apples is the only good (absolutely good) apple. But declaring that there is inly one absolutely good apple is not a declaration that there is no good in any other apple., or that nothing good can come from any other apple.You still don't get it. God is NOT relatively good. He is ABSOLUTELY good -- and that is HIS standard for his image-bearers -- and nothing less! This is precisely the point Jesus was getting at when he asked his question to the man. The man asking the question was thinking just like you! He thought Jesus was relatively good compared to other men. But that is not how Jesus measures Good! He measures Good on the vertical level, as his Father does. This is why he could make such an astounding statement: NO ONE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET IS GOOD, SAVE FOR GOD! Not one person CAN compare to God!
I don't know why you so vehemently oppose this easy-to-understand teaching. After all, doesn't it take only one sin to condemn a man to hell forever? How many sins did it take for Adam before he ruined the entire universe!?
And by the way, if a person isn't dead, then he is alive. And vice versa. Just sayin'... Oy Vey!
I do know why you so vehemently oppose this easy-to-understand teaching. Isolation from God because one is not perfect does not equate to that person being absolutely evil with no good in them, as you seem to be attempting to claim..
PaulThomson said:
Salvation is reconciliation with God, which God has already shown His desire to provide, through the demonstration of His love and mercy and desire for fellowship toward sinners through the cross. In the cross, propitiation has been made for all people, whether they knowit or not. And since God reckons faith toward Him as righteousness, any person can achieve peace with God through acknowledging His invisible deity and power and trusting in His benevolence, even if they don't know the details of the mechanism for reconciliation as revealed in the gospel. They need the gospel to experience salvation from their personal lostness and anxiety, by receiving objective assurance of salvation through the revelation of the cross. They can be reconciled, without realising it, by trusting in God according to the light they have.
So, I disagree with you, God has always made it possible for people to get saved. I just think your opinions about what salvation is and how it is achieved are blinding you to that fact.
Faith in the gospel does come by hearing the good news. And hearing the good news comes from the word of God. What have I written that negates that? To receive assurance of salvation and not be anxious that one's record of infringements against conscience will be held against one in God's judgment, Jesus needs to be the object of one's faith. But in cases where someone has not heard the gospel, but believe in the light they have, God is able to attribute the death of Christ to them on the basis of their faith in the light they have, if He wills. Has He said in His word that it is not His will to reckon the faith in that limited light of an ungospeled person as righteousness?
However, if a person hears the true gospel but then rejects Jesus, their previous graced standing before God will be cancelled. If they are presented with a perverted gospel, and the vindictive kind of Jesus that is unlovely and unlovable, and reject that Jesus, God could show them more mercy than the false teacher who innoculated them against Christ.
Salvation is reconciliation with God, which God has already shown His desire to provide, through the demonstration of His love and mercy and desire for fellowship toward sinners through the cross. In the cross, propitiation has been made for all people, whether they knowit or not. And since God reckons faith toward Him as righteousness, any person can achieve peace with God through acknowledging His invisible deity and power and trusting in His benevolence, even if they don't know the details of the mechanism for reconciliation as revealed in the gospel. They need the gospel to experience salvation from their personal lostness and anxiety, by receiving objective assurance of salvation through the revelation of the cross. They can be reconciled, without realising it, by trusting in God according to the light they have.
So, I disagree with you, God has always made it possible for people to get saved. I just think your opinions about what salvation is and how it is achieved are blinding you to that fact.
Faith in the gospel does come by hearing the good news. And hearing the good news comes from the word of God. What have I written that negates that? To receive assurance of salvation and not be anxious that one's record of infringements against conscience will be held against one in God's judgment, Jesus needs to be the object of one's faith. But in cases where someone has not heard the gospel, but believe in the light they have, God is able to attribute the death of Christ to them on the basis of their faith in the light they have, if He wills. Has He said in His word that it is not His will to reckon the faith in that limited light of an ungospeled person as righteousness?
However, if a person hears the true gospel but then rejects Jesus, their previous graced standing before God will be cancelled. If they are presented with a perverted gospel, and the vindictive kind of Jesus that is unlovely and unlovable, and reject that Jesus, God could show them more mercy than the false teacher who innoculated them against Christ.
You wrote: "God isn't working in all places at all times. Where He is working, it isn't hard to discern. When God is doing what only God can do, it must be God."
How does someone determine that something is something only God can do? And does God only do things that only God could do? Does He not do anything that other spirits could also do?
These are not rhetorical questions. They need answers.
So I'll get you started. Only God can save. Where you witness genuine salvation, God is at work. All wisdom has God as its source. Where you find wisdom, God is at work. The Holy Spirit produces the fruit of the Spirit. Where you find fruit being exercised, God is at work.
This seems duplicitous. On the one hand, the gospel is necessary to saving faith, and on the other hand one can have faith in God apart from it.
(cut to save space)
Well, you have said a mouthful and then some...
. But I absolutely agree that the Spirit of God was very active in the OT...beginning with Adam! God breathed his Spirit into Adam, and thus he became a "living" soul or being. But after Adam sinned, God must have removed his Spirit from him (as he did with Saul), for else could Adam have died spiritually? Now...whether or not the Holy Spirit actually indwelt God's OT saints as a matter of course is questionable. Again, I appeal to the John 14 passage wherein Jesus told his disciples that they know the Spirit because he is with you -- but will soon be in you. So, there must be a difference. Whatever the differences are is not clear to me from scripture. God's Spirit could have been with or upon God's OT people. For example, in 1Sam 10, it is written of Saul that the "Spirit of the Lord will come upon you in power...".. (A very interesting study is to contrast the purposes of the working of the Holy Spirit between two very different OT characters: Saul and David; but that would be a study for another time.)The Abrahamic Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision (which I consider to be two separate covenants) is rich in theology. For one thing, the debate continues to this day whether or not the Abrahamic Covenant was conditional or unconditional in nature. Those who hold to the latter view insist it must be because all those who participate in the covenant must obey the covenant of circumcision. But for those who hold to the former position (as I do)) we believe it was unconditional since the covenant was unilaterally ratified by YHWH when he alone passed through the fire between the pieces of the sacrifice which he did before He instituted the covenant of circumcision. So, then the big question becomes: Why this second covenant AFTER the fact of the first? What purpose did the second covenant serve beyond it being a sign of the first? And honestly, I haven't studied this out sufficiently to feel comfortable offering something beyond opinion. But off the top of my head, I'm thinking the answers are contained in the typology of the sign itself and in the Abrahamic Covenant; for both of these covenants are types of the New Covenant. We should remember that God cut his covenant with Abraham who was a man of Faith. And not only a man of faith, but he was faithful man of faith. His life was a life of faithful obedience to God. And because God was pleased with Abraham, he entered into a covenant with him.
The second covenant could have been instituted to teach an important lesson to the Israelites: God could have been telling Abraham's descendants that just because I entered into the first covenant with your patriarch, don't rely on your lineage to Abraham or rely on his faith and faithfulness as your ticket to my grace, mercy, compassion and the fulfillment of my promises; rather, each male has do demonstrate faithfulness (obedience) by becoming circumcised; for to be in a covenant with me you must honor and fear me with your own personal faith and faithfulness. And this is why it took two different covenants to express the intimate connection between faith and faithfulness and personal resonsibility. But the inverse is true in the New Covenant. In the New, the circumcision is spiritual and hidden. In the new, circumcision comes either at the point of regeneration or at the new birth -- and not eight days later or after faith. Circumcision must precede faith because circumcision is of the heart -- it's a way of expressing how God gives the new heart (new set of faculties) to his elect. And of course, in the new, God supernaturally performs the inner circumcision. In short, I think circumcision in the OT could have been God's way of telling the Israelites what his expectations of them are since they're in a covenant relationship with him by virtue of their natural relationship with Abraham.
Gotta run...
(cut to save space)
Well, you have said a mouthful and then some...
The Abrahamic Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision (which I consider to be two separate covenants) is rich in theology. For one thing, the debate continues to this day whether or not the Abrahamic Covenant was conditional or unconditional in nature. Those who hold to the latter view insist it must be because all those who participate in the covenant must obey the covenant of circumcision. But for those who hold to the former position (as I do)) we believe it was unconditional since the covenant was unilaterally ratified by YHWH when he alone passed through the fire between the pieces of the sacrifice which he did before He instituted the covenant of circumcision. So, then the big question becomes: Why this second covenant AFTER the fact of the first? What purpose did the second covenant serve beyond it being a sign of the first? And honestly, I haven't studied this out sufficiently to feel comfortable offering something beyond opinion. But off the top of my head, I'm thinking the answers are contained in the typology of the sign itself and in the Abrahamic Covenant; for both of these covenants are types of the New Covenant. We should remember that God cut his covenant with Abraham who was a man of Faith. And not only a man of faith, but he was faithful man of faith. His life was a life of faithful obedience to God. And because God was pleased with Abraham, he entered into a covenant with him.
The second covenant could have been instituted to teach an important lesson to the Israelites: God could have been telling Abraham's descendants that just because I entered into the first covenant with your patriarch, don't rely on your lineage to Abraham or rely on his faith and faithfulness as your ticket to my grace, mercy, compassion and the fulfillment of my promises; rather, each male has do demonstrate faithfulness (obedience) by becoming circumcised; for to be in a covenant with me you must honor and fear me with your own personal faith and faithfulness. And this is why it took two different covenants to express the intimate connection between faith and faithfulness and personal resonsibility. But the inverse is true in the New Covenant. In the New, the circumcision is spiritual and hidden. In the new, circumcision comes either at the point of regeneration or at the new birth -- and not eight days later or after faith. Circumcision must precede faith because circumcision is of the heart -- it's a way of expressing how God gives the new heart (new set of faculties) to his elect. And of course, in the new, God supernaturally performs the inner circumcision. In short, I think circumcision in the OT could have been God's way of telling the Israelites what his expectations of them are since they're in a covenant relationship with him by virtue of their natural relationship with Abraham.
Gotta run...
Hello @Rufus,
You have obviously been navigating the Bible for some time and thus I appreciate our positive exchanges!
You had mention that God breathed the Spirit into Adam. I’ve looked at the many translations I use and don’t find that it was the Spirt that was breathed into Adam, but the breath of life. Do you use a translation I might not be aware of? I highly value all respectable translations (less the Message – I don’t know what that “book” is!) haha
I hear you when you say that the Holy Spirit Indwelt the OT Saints. As a mere human, I’d hate to take a hard stance on that one. However, if I had to make a choice, I’d say yes based upon the following (and there is much more). I can’t imagine that Abraham would be our Father of Faith, but without the Holy Spirit:
Hebrews 7:6 NLT - 6 But Melchizedek, who was not a descendant of Levi, collected a tenth from Abraham. And Melchizedek placed a blessing upon Abraham, the one who had already received the promises of God.
Hebrews 11:17-19 NLT - 17 It was by faith that Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice when God was testing him. Abraham, who had received God's promises, was ready to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, 18 even though God had told him, "Isaac is the son through whom your descendants will be counted." 19 Abraham reasoned that if Isaac died, God was able to bring him back to life again. And in a sense, Abraham did receive his son back from the dead.
Galatians 3:14 KJV - 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
You offered:
“So, then the big question becomes: Why this second covenant AFTER the fact of the first?”
I can’t see how it is “after” the Covenant of the Law, for the Covenant of Circumcision has always existed, unlike the Covenant of the Law. I believe that the Bible demonstrates the Covenant of Circumcision as the ever-present and underlying Covenant, for this is the Promise of God that actually Saves. The Law of Moses, however, were worldly Laws that applied to the Jews. Part of that Law was physical Circumcision, which acted like the Passover Blood. Whichever house had [that] blood over their doors, the entire family was saved. It was as if the Lord said, apply this blood and you will be saved. Hence, apply this physical circumcision, as it represents my Promise to you that you will be Saved. Well, that is one idea, anyway.
The thing is this: Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem . . . all of these Righteous, Holy, and Purified people, they had already received the future Promises, the same promises made to Abraham. But those who had already received these promises, they would not need the Law of Moses to protect them because they had already been “set apart” (from the Laws already given and all Laws that would be given). God used the Jewish Nation to put on display, to the entire world, the Laws of Moses. So, the Jews were chosen to be this example, not only of the Law, but would use them to display His Raw, Almighty Power in a multitude of ways (pharaoh being one of the best examples).
When Christ was Resurrected from the Grave, the Law of Moses had fulfilled its Purpose, which was to protect the Blessed Jews. It was then that God would begin to implement, on a global basis, the Promised Covenant of Circumcision. This Covenant was made to Abraham and to all his descendants, both Jews and Gentiles alike. The Day of Pentecost was when that Promise to his offspring really began to take off. But until then, the Promises were given only to select people . . . the rest had to wait.
Lastly, I have scripture for every point made above. If you would like Scriptural evidence, I’d love to share it with you. And again, thank you for the chance to learn and grow. You clearly have much to offer. All respect!
“But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
matthew 15:24
“And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it.
8And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce;”
Jeremiah 3:7,8
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
27 And the Lord shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the Lord shall lead you. And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.”Dueteronomy 4:26-28
“ In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abelbethmaachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria.
2 Kings 15:29
“n the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.”
2 Kings 17:6
“For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.”
Amos 9:9
“Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the Lord.
Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the Lord our God.
Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the Lord our God is the salvation of Israel.
Jeremiah 3:20,22-33
“And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.
And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Luke1:33,35
“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
Luke 1:68,6972-73
“I say then, Hath God cast away his people?God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.”
–Romans 11:1-2
“You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”
Amos 3:2
“Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.”
Romans 11:5
This remnant does not refer to some generic group of people — or generic “gentiles” — rather the term “remnant” is always reserved for the Israelite people, as we see in Micah:
“I will surely assemble all of you, Jacob, I will surely gather the remnant of Israel. I will put them together like sheep in the fold; Like a flock in the midst of its pasture. They will be noisy with men.”
Micah 2:12
In the Gospel of John, Jesus echoes these words from Micah — when He refers to that “remnant” of lost Israelite “sheep” who are not found among the believing remnant in Judea:
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”
John 10:16
“I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Nations, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Nations; how much more their fulness?“
Romans 11:11-12
The “nations” being all of the scattered israelites, “the dispersion” who are the “wild olive tree” that is grafted back into the nstural branches (israelite christians in judea)
Hello?
Do not love the world or anything in the world.
If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is
not in them. 1 John 2:15
You want to run that by me again?