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

[Rufus]

Thanks. I'll pass on going back to assumed lengthy analogies and opt instead to ask you to provide a brief explanation and the Scripture you base it on. In lieu of your willingness to do this, I'm OK to pass for now.

Nothing is assumed. My argument was based on pure exegesis of primarily the Genesis narrative. But...you want to cut to the chase? Okay...I have one way of doing that. Ready?

The Genesis post-Fall narrative speaks of two (2) seeds that God decreed: The seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent -- and the spiritual offspring (seed) of each. Now...in the Garden, apart from God, there are only three other moral entities: Satan within the serpent, Eve and Adam. Tell me, sir: To which seed does Adam belong? Easy peasy question even though 2 / 3 doesn't work too evenly. But I'm sure you'll find a convoluted workaround for that pesky, little problem -- and another irksome problem to make things even more interesting: Adam did not descend from Eve -- but the text talks of her and her spiritual offspring, e.g. the Messiah to come who would crush the serpent's head. So, we're looking at Eve and her biological-spiritual downline.

And please...try to refrain from being simplistic by appealing to Gen 3:21 to make your case for Adam because that is not only easily explained but it should be understood in the context of vv. 22-24, as well. Furthermore, when the preponderance of evidence (such as my argument in 3044) says something very different from how many misinterpret one text, I think common sense would dictate which is the most logical and likely conclusion.

 

[studier]

I don't negate the correlation. But the fact remains that the spiritually deaf, blind and dead cannot understand spiritual truth until their ears are supernaturally unstopped, the scales are removed from their eyes and they are raised from their spiritual tombs. And the fact also remains that one must be born of the Spirit and the Word! See John 3. The Word is not the third person of the Trinity, is it?

You are a emotional and flowery writer at times, but it doesn't negate your error.

Still on the TULIP merry-go-round not dealing accurately with biblical history, the power of God inherent in His Word and Spirit, and what Paul instructs in Rom1 as to what God has supernaturally instilled in all men. Your neck is stiffening more.

 

[studier]

You should have. You might have learned why I said that. To postulate that slaves are nonetheless free is to descend in a very dark pit. This is why I believe God who is Light and challenge those who obviously don't.

I freely chose instead to go have a nice lunch. Now I've freely chosen to return and read some more nonsense.

If you'd have noted that I said "...did not yet go beyond" maybe you'd have freely chosen to exercise some patience.

You shouldn't claim to know light when you negate large sections of it to retain darkness. But I do recognize your God given free choice to do so.

 

[studier]

And, wanting it that way. That's the sad part.

and they are willing to learn

"wanting" and "willing" - important words for some to consider.

"willing to learn" - teachability - aka humility...

 

[Cameron143]

It's more than a shame that you choose to think yourself qualified to say what my experiences with God have been and what my relationship with God is. At quick glance I see no responses to posted Scriptures, so I'm not proceeding to address more of your error at this time.

I'm just going by your own admissions. I'm not speculating.

 

[Rufus]

Man in his fallen state when devoid of God's power of grace can not have his will free to seek God.

That is settled.

But, what the "dead man" themed theologians keep missing is that God's Spirit is everywhere, and his grace can be applied as God sovereignly chooses as he pleases at any time, anywhere.

Grace puts dead men on spiritual life support. Making them able to see as much as God wants them to see to make them accountable for what will take place in the Final Judgment.

Yes. Man in his fallen state is spiritually dead.

But, God isn't dead.

Is God too weak to make a blind man to see? A deaf man to hear?

Can we get on with life and go beyond this same incessantly obstruction to growth dogma of the Calvinists?

Wasted time.... and dead who think they are alive.

NO...SAVING GRACE does far more than put the dead on life support. It actually raises the Dead!

Moreover, all men are accountable to God for several reasons: the main one being is that all men have the knowledge of Good and Evil and, therefore, know the difference between the two.

 

[Rufus]

[QUOTE="studier, post: 5327342, member: 330481"]The reality is, as I've said many times and have even posted Scripture to address you, there were Hebrews in physical slavery who were free in their minds to think about God, do things that they understood to be right vs. wrong according to God, and cry out for physical freedom such that God heard them.[/quote]

But Studier sir, that is NOT the point to Exodus Story. You read into the narrative what is not there. Stick with the narrative! The whole point to the narrative is that God REDEEMED them from their physical bondage which clearly is meant to signify God's spiritual redemption from man's spiritual bondage to sin, his flesh and the devil!

It's no wonder that you're so dismissive of the great and profound truths that are typologically taught in the narrative. It's not possible for you to take the story at face value and understand that God came to literally rescue a helpless people from a dire predicament from which they were powerless to help themselves. Instead, you insist on reading into the story your own spiritual presuppositions, which is not what Typology is all about! Typology is about exactly the opposite. It's about taking historical people and/or events in temporal reality and drawing from those people and events deep and significant eternal, spiritual lessons.

Freedom from sin is far from the issue at this juncture

Not hardly! Fallen man is as spiritually enslaved to sin and to the god of this world as the ancient Hebrews were spiritually enslaved to their own worship of idols and physically in bondage to Pharaoh. But here you are...all set to tell us how much freedom the Israelites had in Egypt! Good grief, Studier! To say that you surely have a very strange and novel idea of "freedom" would still be the understatement of the year!

 

[Rufus]

You are a emotional and flowery writer at times, but it doesn't negate your error.

Still on the TULIP merry-go-round not dealing accurately with biblical history, the power of God inherent in His Word and Spirit, and what Paul instructs in Rom1 as to what God has supernaturally instilled in all men. Your neck is stiffening more.

Natural Revelation instills nothing supernaturally within men. The whole point behind Natural Revelation is that God reveals truths to men by his EXTERNAL creation. This stands in contrast to Romans 2 which is Intuitive Revelation which consist of the works of the law written on men's hearts, which very likely more the result of men bearing God's image than something that was later supernaturally instilled in men.

 

[Cameron143]

[QUOTE="studier, post: 5327342, member: 330481"]The reality is, as I've said many times and have even posted Scripture to address you, there were Hebrews in physical slavery who were free in their minds to think about God, do things that they understood to be right vs. wrong according to God, and cry out for physical freedom such that God heard them.

But Studier sir, that is NOT the point to Exodus Story. You read into the narrative what is not there. Stick with the narrative! The whole point to the narrative is that God REDEEMED them from their physical bondage which clearly is meant to signify God's spiritual redemption from man's spiritual bondage to sin, his flesh and the devil!

It's no wonder that you're so dismissive of the great and profound truths that are typologically taught in the narrative. It's not possible for you to take the story at face value and understand that God came to literally rescue a helpless people from a dire predicament from which they were powerless to help themselves. Instead, you insist on reading into the story your own spiritual presuppositions, which is not what Typology is all about! Typology is about exactly the opposite. It's about taking historical people and/or events in temporal reality and drawing from those people and events deep and significant eternal, spiritual lessons.



Not hardly! Fallen man is as spiritually enslaved to sin and to the god of this world as the ancient Hebrews were spiritually enslaved to their own worship of idols and physically in bondage to Pharaoh. But here you are...all set to tell us how much freedom the Israelites had in Egypt! Good grief, Studier! To say that you surely have a very strange and novel idea of "freedom" would still be the understatement of the year![/QUOTE]
Not only did He save them, they had no hope of saving themselves.
This is always the point that God brings people to so they will recognize their utter inability to help themselves. Where one finds people seeking after God, one also finds God at work drawing them to Himself. Those who consider such occurrences as happenstance or take no notice of them will invariably conclude that people simply make a choice.
God is far more active in the world and the affairs of men than many know. Jesus, to this day, is and has been building His church.

 

[Rufus]

Rufus said:
But whose faith is it? From whence come Paul's faith? Could it possibly be the gift of faith that is freely gifted to God's elect and that comes through Christ?

Surely to the simplistic reformed mind it could be and in fact is. But even your question preloads the word faith with a lot of systematized doctrine, so it's really to asking about faith. It's asking much more.

Thou dost complain too much -- all without warrant. My question is not biblical enough for you? Too simple-minded and systematic for you? How about Eph 2:8-9, that faith is God's gift? And how about the confidence (faith) we have that comes through Christ (2Cor 3:4)? Even God's great and gracious gift of Reconciliation comes through Christ (2Cor 5:18). (Of course, this explains how God reconciled Eve through the promised Seed that would come from her--not Adam!)

Or don't you like the fact that Salvation is a gift that God freely gives to whom he chooses? Is the giver of great gifts duty-bound to give his gifts to everyone in the world? If so, how could he freely give them? Does he not have a right to do with his gifts as he chooses? Is not the Holy Spirit a great and awesome and indescribable gift of God (Act 2:38; 8:20; 11:17, etc.)? |But note carefully to whom the gift of the Spirit is limited in the first passage! The gift is not given to each and every person in the world, is it? Not exactly a universal gift! But it gets even worse for you NR: Act 2:38 also doesn't say that God gives his precious gift of the Holy Spirit to anyone who chooses to call upon his name either, does it!? And this makes sense to me, since who of us called upon the name of the Lord to initiate our physical birth?

Mr. Studier, sir: Truly it is written of people like yourself that "the emperor has no clothes".

 

[studier]

Nothing is assumed. My argument was based on pure exegesis of primarily the Genesis narrative. But...you want to cut to the chase? Okay...I have one way of doing that. Ready?

My assumption based upon recent history was that your argument would be another [erroneous] lengthy analogy. So, yes, properly understood, there was an assumption made.

Did someone else do the "pure exegesis" for you? You'll have to pardon me but you exhibit little to no exegesis ability let alone doing pure exegesis. Exegetes don't skip over important Scriptures to try to make their erroneous arguments work. That's more akin to eisegesis and beyond it.

The Genesis post-Fall narrative speaks of two (2) seeds that God decreed: The seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent -- and the spiritual offspring (seed) of each. Now...in the Garden, apart from God, there are only three other moral entities: Satan within the serpent, Eve and Adam. Tell me, sir: To which seed does Adam belong? Easy peasy question even though 2 / 3 doesn't work too evenly. But I'm sure you'll find a convoluted workaround for that pesky, little problem -- and another irksome problem to make things even more interesting: Adam did not descend from Eve -- but the text talks of her and her spiritual offspring, e.g. the Messiah to come who would crush the serpent's head. So, we're looking at Eve and her biological-spiritual downline.

And please...try to refrain from being simplistic by appealing to Gen 3:21 to make your case for Adam because that is not only easily explained but it should be understood in the context of vv. 22-24, as well. Furthermore, when the preponderance of evidence (such as my argument in 3044) says something very different from how many misinterpret one text, I think common sense would dictate which is the most logical and likely conclusion.

What are you even talking about here and what's the point? I probably shouldn't have even asked... The moment you say you've done some pure exegesis should be a cue to go do something else.

I'm going to go back to the duel language and see what that was all about. Pistols at 20 paces would make more sense than reading some of this pure exegesis.

 

[Rufus]

But Studier sir, that is NOT the point to Exodus Story. You read into the narrative what is not there. Stick with the narrative! The whole point to the narrative is that God REDEEMED them from their physical bondage which clearly is meant to signify God's spiritual redemption from man's spiritual bondage to sin, his flesh and the devil!

It's no wonder that you're so dismissive of the great and profound truths that are typologically taught in the narrative. It's not possible for you to take the story at face value and understand that God came to literally rescue a helpless people from a dire predicament from which they were powerless to help themselves. Instead, you insist on reading into the story your own spiritual presuppositions, which is not what Typology is all about! Typology is about exactly the opposite. It's about taking historical people and/or events in temporal reality and drawing from those people and events deep and significant eternal, spiritual lessons.



Not hardly! Fallen man is as spiritually enslaved to sin and to the god of this world as the ancient Hebrews were spiritually enslaved to their own worship of idols and physically in bondage to Pharaoh. But here you are...all set to tell us how much freedom the Israelites had in Egypt! Good grief, Studier! To say that you surely have a very strange and novel idea of "freedom" would still be the understatement of the year!

Not only did He save them, they had no hope of saving themselves.
This is always the point that God brings people to so they will recognize their utter inability to help themselves. Where one finds people seeking after God, one also finds God at work drawing them to Himself. Those who consider such occurrences as happenstance or take no notice of them will invariably conclude that people simply make a choice.
God is far more active in the world and the affairs of men than many know. Jesus, to this day, is and has been building His church.

And we should miss the point that they didn't want to be saved -- until the very end -- until they were "baptized" by passing through the Sea -- just as Noah and his family were "baptized" when the ark they were in navigated the flood waters!

Pink made a point of men not wanting to be saved as being the cause for why they cannot be saved apart from the supernatural work of God. Salvation is 100% all of God! Not 50-50, 60-70, 70-30, 80-20 or even 99-1.

 

[Rufus]

My assumption based upon recent history was that your argument would be another [erroneous] lengthy analogy. So, yes, properly understood, there was an assumption made.

Did someone else do the "pure exegesis" for you? You'll have to pardon me but you exhibit little to no exegesis ability let alone doing pure exegesis. Exegetes don't skip over important Scriptures to try to make their erroneous arguments work. That's more akin to eisegesis and beyond it.




What are you even talking about here and what's the point? I probably shouldn't have even asked... The moment you say you've done some pure exegesis should be a cue to go do something else.

I'm going to go back to the duel language and see what that was all about. Pistols at 20 paces would make more sense than reading some of this pure exegesis.

You, the wanna-be great and extraordinary expositor of all scriptur, are ignorant of what happened in the Garden after the Fall? And besides, I didn't ask you in my 8881 to read any of my expository comments. I asked you for your interpretation of the Two Seeds among Three moral entities. Shirley, you can handle this, can't you?

 

[Cameron143]

And we should miss the point that they didn't want to be saved -- until the very end -- until they were "baptized" by passing through the Sea -- just as Noah and his family were "baptized" when the ark they were in navigated the flood waters!

Pink made a point of men not wanting to be saved as being the cause for why they cannot be saved apart from the supernatural work of God. Salvation is 100% all of God! Not 50-50, 60-70, 70-30, 80-20 or even 99-1.

I think they wanted out long before they were out, but salvation is certainly all of God.

 

[studier]

No, it's not me who places limitations on freedom; it's YOU, sir! You refuse to understand that freedom is a two-edged sword! To be truly free, one must be free from so that he can be free to do. Here are two of several definitions from Dictionary.com:

• exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
• the power to determine action without restraint. (emphases added)

Not as interesting I thought. I'll limit my response to what I view as meaningful to the discussion.

Thank you for providing the definition you'd like to work from. I approve of beginning with what you've supplied and will attempt to draw from it.

As I said earlier, I tried this course of discussion with at least one other and my proposing we define terminology and providing definitions to begin discussion created a quick exit from the discussion in response.

So:

Since God has placed knowledge of His existence into unregenerate man, then as I and at least one other have explained to you, it is God who determines what a man can and cannot do, and what a man is free and not free to do with that information.

If God says or clearly infers that a man under slavery to sin is free to make a decision concerning information divinely provided to him, then I accept this. If you'd like to refer to this a a free slave, then I can work with this as long as "free" is limited to what God says it is in the matter under discussion.

I would thus have little problem using either of the points of definition of "free" you have provided. If God determines man to be free in the sense of free to choose to accept or reject divine revelation of Himself that He has made certain that man has, then I'm fine with man being exempt from any external control that can go against what God has determined. I'm also fine with the fact that God in all His essence knows precisely what man's power to determine action of choice without restraint is especially coupled with the power inherent in God's divine revelation - His Word - and/even His Spirit.

IOW, if (and I think it true) God has determined man is in this sense free to choose, and thus is responsible to God for his freedom of choice that God says he has, then who can stand against God?

 

[studier]

But Studier sir, that is NOT the point to Exodus Story.

Those are some of the facts of the Exodus story that you freely choose to ignore in order to make the Exodus fit your freely chosen narrative. I've posted the Scriptures for you before. You've never responded to them. Just silence and continue your story.

I'm freely choosing to stop here with this post of yours.

 

[studier]

I'm just going by your own admissions. I'm not speculating.

Quotations and interpretations of purported admissions? Better yet, I dealt with some of the Scriptures you refer to in your speeches. Care to explain per those Scriptures how they say God will always charge your dead battery and if you don't ask Him to then you're not having a relationship with Him?

 

[selahsays]

Wow, man…. Maybe I just ain’t very intelligent because I ain’t understanding half of what’s being written here.

 

[Cameron143]

Quotations and interpretations of purported admissions? Better yet, I dealt with some of the Scriptures you refer to in your speeches. Care to explain per those Scriptures how they say God will always charge your dead battery and if you don't ask Him to then you're not having a relationship with Him?

Who said God charged the battery? The battery was dead. The question was whether I was going to do as you and get a new one without any consideration of God or be led of God to get the problem remedied.
Those who recognize that the events of our lives are both for personal edification and kingdom purposes will not desire to live independently of God. Sometimes the trouble is for us personally to see if we have developed in our character or are operating under the aegis of God. Other times, the trouble is meant to send us places to form new relationships, meet a need, or share the gospel. But to know God's purpose, you have to learn to wait upon the Lord. You need to wait on His direction and be able to hear what He says and see what He is doing.
A dead battery isn't just a dead battery. It's an opportunity to experience God and take part in the advancement of His kingdom.

 

[Genez]

"wanting" and "willing" - important words for some to consider.

"willing to learn" - teachability - aka humility...

Yes... teachability begins with humility.

God only gives grace to the humble believer.

What grace provides makes one to feel all alone, but without loneliness.