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

[HeIsHere]

So, you're disputing what physical death is? What do you think it is? In the Lukian passage, God did not say that the fool's body would be required of him -- but his soul. Do you dispute that in the parable Jesus was speaking of the man's imminent death?

Of course there is physical death, lol, but not every reference to death is physical, like when we say,

“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once.”

Does a person really die a thousand times. Hermeneutics.

Anyway you are very steeped in TULIP, so nothing anyone writes will challenge your acceptance of it, carry on.

 

[selahsays]

Shirely U. Jest. I have all the appreciation in the world! Besides, the bible tells us how God works with fallen human nature: It's called Resurrection or the New Birth. You should read the bible of which you boast you understand so well and learn about these two concepts and then explain to me how men can restore spiritual life to their own souls. Perhaps you can find for us a passage somewhere that teaches that mortal men have the power to raise the physically dead. Now...if you found something like that that would bring much credibility to your false gospel. I would be able to reason, then, that if mere mortals can do that, then maybe we can raise ourselves spiritually and reconnect with the Life of God. But anything short of this then I'm supposed to believe that there is such an animal on this planet as a free slave, and just conveniently ignore the fact that such an absurd notion violates the Law of Noncontradiction. And if that weren't bad enough, then I'd also have believe that an all-wise God was really sloppy in his metaphors. Why use "death" if natural man suffered a mere flesh wound from which he could heal himself?

Would you mind explaining where you say, “Resurrection or the New Birth” because I‘m confused about this. Do you have a scripture handy that says this? Thx.

 

[selahsays]

Would you mind explaining where you say, “Resurrection or the New Birth” because I‘m confused about this. Do you have a scripture handy that says this? Thx.

Is this resurrection likened to being “made alive”?

 

[Magenta]

Of course there is physical death, lol, but not every reference to death is physical, like when we say,

“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once.”

Does a person really die a thousand times. Hermeneutics.

Anyway you are very steeped in TULIP, so nothing anyone writes will challenge your acceptance of it, carry on.

Rufus specifically referenced a death that was non-physical and yet you question whether he affirms that there is death beyond the physical???

 

[selahsays]

Is this resurrection likened to being “made alive”?

… because surely the First Resurrection, which happens at the second advent of our Lord Jesus, is a different and very special Resurrection.
Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

- Revelation 20:6

 

[Magenta]

Is this resurrection likened to being “made alive”?

John 5:24 ... see also Ephesians 2.

 

[selahsays]

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

- John 5:24

This is speaking about the First Resurrection to eternal life (immortality).

 

[Rufus]

You seriously have a problem with Rom1 and God Consciousness. You need to conflate it with the final solution to distract from it. You're doing the same thing with the concept of freedom in conflating freedom to choose to accept or reject God Consciousness with ultimate freedom from sin. What a mess.

There are thousands of years of history and process between Gen3 and the advent of the Son of God into human history. No matter how hard you try to dissuade and conflate, some of us do let the Word teach us what He says. Some of us thus do function by not conflating and in turn by rightly dividing.

God consciousness, I don't dispute. But true spiritual understanding is something else. Therefore, that is NOT what I'm conflating. (Quit misrepresenting what I have been saying, please). I have often said that Natural Man is pretty religious for the most part. Both divine revelation and natural revelation bear this truth out. And this is due largely to the fact that ALL MEN bear God's image -- but that image within man's soul has been badly disfigured so that men can't truly understand their Image-Maker. And why can't men understand this image rightly? Because the Natural Man himself is Darkness (i.e. DEATH) -- his understanding has been darkened AND SEPARATED FROM THE LIFE OF GOD (Eph 4:8)

Also, mankind is generally religious because God has set eternity into everyone's heart (Eccl 3:11) -- but even so, as the Teacher goes on to say, "yet they CANNOT fathom what God has done from beginning to end".

And, yes, there are thousands of years of history that has preceded the advent of Christ! So what is your point, precisely: That God has always saved a small remnant of mankind (from the very beginning as he did with Eve in the Garden!), while the vast majority of the world wallows in the muck and mire of its vain, carnal, idolatrous imagination because it lacks true understanding? Is that your point?

Sin, Mr. Studier, isn't a mere blotch on the psyche or soul of the human race; it utterly ruined mankind and made all men slaves to it.

P.S. I take it that you're not up to the task of tackling the Two Seeds problem in Gen 3:15? Has someone stolen your tongue: A cat...or perhaps some other kind of creature that doesn't walk on all fours?

 

[Rufus]

Of course there is physical death, lol, but not every reference to death is physical, like when we say,

“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once.”

Does a person really die a thousand times. Hermeneutics.

Anyway you are very steeped in TULIP, so nothing anyone writes will challenge your acceptance of it, carry on.

You didn't answer my question: Is physical death the separation of the soul from the body or not? If not, provide biblical proof.

 

[Rufus]

Rufus specifically referenced a death that was non-physical and yet you question whether he affirms that there is death beyond the physical???

Some people don't want to get it...which is precisely why they cannot.

 

[Rufus]

Not everyone all throughout history who believes Jesus Christ is the redeemer is of the elect.

But the Gospel has always been preached throughout history, as it was first revealed in Gen 3:15. Of course, it was preached in its kernel, budding "mystery" form until the first advent in which Jesus and the apostles brought it to full bloom and fully revealed the mystery.

 

[selahsays]

You didn't answer my question: Is physical death the separation of the soul from the body or not? If not, provide biblical proof.

It is.
Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed, Or the golden bowl is broken, Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, Or the wheel broken at the well. Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.

- Ecclesiastes 12:6-7

 

[Magenta]

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

- John 5:24

This is speaking about the First Resurrection to eternal life (immortality).

There is a similar quote from John I can't think of the chapter/verse now but I've posted the panel for it multiple times where Jesus says that a time is coming and has now come when those who hear the voice of God etc etcetera basically He's saying those who hear will live and that is not talking about the rapture if that's what you meant. John 4:23 and His sheep hear His voice. Those who hear, live.

 

[selahsays]

Not everyone all throughout history who believes Jesus Christ is the redeemer is of the elect.

Well, this would depend on whether or not you believe that all who come to Christ are of the Elect... In other words, do those who were not chosen from before the foundation of the world have free will to choose Jesus Christ upon hearing the Gospel?

 

[selahsays]

There is a similar quote from John I can't think of the chapter/verse now but I've posted the panel for it multiple times where Jesus says that a time is coming and has now come when those who hear the voice of God etc etcetera basically He's saying those who hear will live and that is not talking about the rapture if that's what you meant. John 4:23 and His sheep hear His voice. Those who hear, live.

Is this the one? I agree with your last sentence.

"Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.

- John 5:25

 

[Rufus]

B
Jesus says the word of God is seed, and Peter calls it incorruptible seed. Now whose ignoring the whole counsel of God? Jesus also says satan sows tares. Why do you feel obliged to deny the obvious four seeds in Genesis 2- 4?

But who is ignoring the context of Gen 3? Why are you ignoring God's specific words in their post-fall context? By bringing NON-RELEVANT passages into Gen 3 -- passages that would be historically irrelevant to the original audience, you are in fact reading into specific passage because you don't like the implications of what the passage itself is teaching. This is a HUGE hermeneutical faux pas! For it our duty to be FAITHFUL to the Word and in order to do that we must make every attempt to understand any given passage in its historical context the way the original audience would have understood it! For example, do you think A&E would have understood God's words to the Serpent the way you try to disingenuously spin them -- by adding to them what isn't in the actual passage itself!? Or do you think the ancient Jews who had Genesis handed down to them over the centuries would have understood them the way you try to spin the passage?

By adding words to a passage, in order to support your own personal theological agenda, they serve to only hopelessly confuse the clear meaning of the passage. It's one thing to bring highly relevant, pertinent passages to bear upon another text that would help shed light upon it; but it's something altogether different to try to intentionally make obscure the true meaning by adding irrelevant passages. And how we can always distinguish between the two approaches is with the original audience test -- and for that matter with the original writer's intentions and his understanding would have been. We must always place ourselves into the historical context of any given passage. We must always stand in the shoes of the original audience -- and forget the year we're living in. This is the only honest way to interpret scripture.

So...with that said, maybe you would want to take up Mr. Studier's slack and and explain how the Two Seeds among the three moral entities (besides God) in the Garden works? Who is the godly seed and who is the seed of the Serpent? Or...are they both ungodly? (That would be Door Number Three).

P.S. I suppose one could "reason" (used in the loosest sense possible) that they're both godly seeds...even though that would be over the cliff.

 

[Rufus]

Is this resurrection likened to being “made alive”?

`
YES! The same truth is also expressed as "raised up" (Act 3:26) or as "raised us" (Eph 2:6). It's all Resurrection language. It all denotes LIFE -- as does New Birth language. Both of these are two different ways of expressing new life. Resurrection expresses the dramatic, immediate, miraculous call to life; whereas the the New Birth emphasizes the process of life -- that begins in the womb and culminates in actual birth.

 

[studier]

The mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind of the flesh
is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the flesh cannot
please God. You, however, are controlled not by the flesh, but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.
And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you,
your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.

Are we talking again? As I recall, during our last discussion I asked if we could define our terminology concerning free will and that was the last I heard from you.

So, I'm clear on what you're attempting to say here, you've posted from Romans 8 in response to my statement about an unbeliever having or not having the ability to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By underlining the mind of the flesh, I assume you're saying the unbeliever does not have the ability to believe the Gospel. Is this what you're saying?

If so, then are we back to the reformed interpretation of spiritual death? I'm not labeling you as a Calvinist. I am assuming by now that you understand that the Calvinist doctrine does assert that unbelievers, because they are spiritually dead (as they define spiritual death) have no ability to believe the Gospel, which Paul earlier calls the "power of God for salvation to all who believe..."

I'm going to be in and out, so I may not respond quickly.

 

[Rufus]

It is.
Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed, Or the golden bowl is broken, Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, Or the wheel broken at the well. Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.

- Ecclesiastes 12:6-7

Excellent proof text! Moral to the story: Death -- physical or spiritual = SEPARATION. And in both cases, death has the identical consequences! I could be wrong...but I think God fully intends to us to draw parallels from this SIMILE! After all, as a very wise man once said (to paraphrase him since I'm in a hurry), "If you can't understand earthly things, how will you ever understand the spiritual?" And this is, yet, another rhetorical question -- which only absolutists such as myself can fully appreciate.

 

[Rufus]

Are we talking again? As I recall, during our last discussion I asked if we could define our terminology concerning free will and that was the last I heard from you.

So, I'm clear on what you're attempting to say here, you've posted from Romans 8 in response to my statement about an unbeliever having or not having the ability to believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. By underlining the mind of the flesh, I assume you're saying the unbeliever does not have the ability to believe the Gospel. Is this what you're saying?

If so, then are we back to the reformed interpretation of spiritual death? I'm not labeling you as a Calvinist. I am assuming by now that you understand that the Calvinist doctrine does assert that unbelievers, because they are spiritually dead (as they define spiritual death) have no ability to believe the Gospel, which Paul earlier calls the "power of God for salvation to all who believe..."

I'm going to be in and out, so I may not respond quickly.

I'm impressed. You have something right for a change. Now this is the good news. But, alas, there's also the bad which is highlighted in living technicolor: The text doesn't say that the Gospel is the power of God to any who will believe or want to believe. It IS the power of salvation to all who ACTUALLY, right now, presently believe! So, there is that...

Happy Fourth!