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

[Genez]

The issue in major part is different theological interpretations and how men flock to men and form clubs. Reformed also has some fine teachers.

These forums are an odd current day phenom and written argument is not the best IMO, especially when done on the fly.

BTW, I knew your Pastor and his son who carries on.

There were pastors who would order his messages for their personal study.

I can listen to messages given years ago, and a good many contain information pertinent to what is happening right now.
Other than when he was covering current events that are now past, I find many lessons helpful for right now.

The Word of God is timeless when taught well.

grace and peace ..........

 

[Rufus]

Welcome for whatever it is. I'm not reading your long narratives anymore, so this is a far as I got.

That's the safest thing you can do: Run, Duck and Hide. This way no one could justly accuse you of being biblically illiterate for your failure to address any of my biblically supported "narratives". I guess you're not as dumb as your posts suggests.

 

[Rufus]

Got it. So, now I'm not a Christian.

Is this a true confession? Is this why you asked the question about yourself earlier?

 

[Genez]

That's the safest thing you can do: Run, Duck and Hide. This way no one could justly accuse you of being biblically illiterate for your failure to address any of my biblically supported "narratives". I guess you're not as dumb as your posts suggests.

A spirit filled bully?????
What an oxymoron you are.

 

[Rufus]

Rom1:20 as I've gone over more than once, says more than what you're presenting.

Yes, I did use some theological constructs earlier. It can be a shortcut when all parties agree on what they represent. For our purposes, it's clear that it's a waste of time.

So, why are you now switching horses in mid-stream: To go from "general revelation" which you originally posited to now emphasize that Rom 1:18 ff is basically talking about Special Revelation, especially when the vast majority of conservative evangelical expositors would agree with your original assessment? Not that that proves anything conclusively because some of my interpretations really do go against the grain of the "majority". But in such cases, I tend to double-down harder to make sure my view is biblically justified. A great example of this is with Calvin himself and his view of the Law and its Three Preparatory Uses to bring sinners to Christ, which many if not most Reformed folks agree with. However I do not

 

[Rufus]

A spirit filled bully?????
What an oxymoron you are.

No, just a Paradox. Besides, I did compliment him.

And..how many times did Jesus back his detractors into corners that they unwittingly painted themselves into so that they could not answer his arguments? What a "spirit-filled bully" He was!

 

[Rufus]

There were pastors who would order his messages for their personal study.

I can listen to messages given years ago, and a good many contain information pertinent to what is happening right now.
Other than when he was covering current events that are now past, I find many lessons helpful for right now.

The Word of God is timeless when taught well.

grace and peace ..........

It's always timeless for me since I rely heavily on the Holy Spirit to teach me. I know in my heart of hearts -- in the very depths of my soul that what I know is not of my own doing -- but I have received from Him.

 

[Genez]

It's always timeless for me since I rely heavily on the Holy Spirit to teach me. I know in my heart of hearts -- in the very depths of my soul that what I know is not of my own doing -- but I have received from Him.

And, for nobody else but you.....

Wonderful.

 

[studier]

So, why are you now switching horses in mid-stream: To go from "general revelation" which you originally posited to now emphasize that Rom 1:18 ff is basically talking about Special Revelation, especially when the vast majority of conservative evangelical expositors would agree with your original assessment? Not that that proves anything conclusively because some of my interpretations really do go against the grain of the "majority". But in such cases, I tend to double-down harder to make sure my view is biblically justified. A great example of this is with Calvin himself and his view of the Law and its Three Preparatory Uses to bring sinners to Christ, which many if not most Reformed folks agree with. However I do not

The basic issue here is that your doubling down as you call it is mostly error upon error that results in simple base insults when your work is not accepted. Then you ignore any actual detailed discussions in Scripture in context. It's not unusual. And the process and tactic ends in ad hominem which is simply a weakness you took to an extreme today. It was an interesting reveal.

I've attempted to accommodate some of the discussions here with some phrases some to many usually recognize, but I don't normally use them anymore and I won't with you. Your weakness is actually working through Scripture in context. The cover is lengthy concocted analogies and no holds barred ad hominem. It's not impressive even though most who fall into such fallacy are self-impressed, but it's really just common gutter brawling.

So, yes, there is divine revelation discussed in Rom1 that all unregenerate men know because God has made it clear in them. And yes, if we read closely what Paul is drawing from, we can see that there are many things to know about what God has revealed about Himself in what Paul knows from the rich history of writing he was deeply trained in and was drawing from. And, yes, he is speaking about more than men simply knowing a few things about God. Those things all men know about God are tied directly into what God is revealing through His Good News.

 

[Genez]

This video may help some who get confused and feel manipulated by some who post here having a form of non divine self confidence....

 

[PaulThomson]

A spirit filled bully?????
What an oxymoron you are.

Deuteronomy 32:33 KJV — Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

Romans 3:13 KJV — Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

 

[studier]

John 14:17

Who is Jesus speaking to?

• The setting is the end of last Passover meal that Jesus shared with His 12 Apostles
  • NKJ Mark 14:16-18 So His disciples went out, and came into the city, and found it just as He had said to them; and they prepared the Passover. 17 In the evening He came with the twelve. 18 Now as they sat and ate, Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you, one of you who eats with Me will betray Me."
  • NKJ Matthew 26:19-21 So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover. 20 When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve. 21 Now as they were eating, He said, "Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me."
  • NKJ Luke 22:13-15 So they went and found it just as He had said to them, and they prepared the Passover. 14 When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer;
  • NKJ John 13:1-2 Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. 2 And supper being ended, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray Him,
    • This is the setting from John 13:2 through the end of John 14.
    • Jesus is speaking to the 12 Apostles including Judas.

NKJ John 14:15-21 [are my additions]
15 "If you love Me, [then] keep My commandments.

• "you" is plural - Jesus is addressing the 12 Apostles
• "if" here is what's called a 3rd class condition - broadly speaking it expresses some contingency - some simply explain it as saying, 'maybe you do, and maybe you don't.' For now, this is how I'll explain it in brief.
• "keep":
  • in some manuscripts is a future indicative verb - i.e. you will keep My commandments
    • If you love Me - maybe you do & maybe you don't - then you will keep My commandments.
  • in some manuscripts is an aorist imperative verb - i.e. keep (command) My commandments
    • If you love Me - maybe you do & maybe you don't - then keep My commandments (do what I command - obey Me).
• The way I see this:
  • Jesus uses this grammar because there is contingency in men obeying Him, which means there is contingency in loving Him, but love for Him and obedience to Him are inextricably united.
  • Whether Jesus commands them or says what they will do if they love Him, doesn't seem all that much different in the end. Love for Jesus is obeying Jesus' commandments.
  • Some take this language to mean love precedes obedience. Maybe this works to some degree, but it's not the main thrust of what Jesus is saying. Love for Him is not really about how we feel, but what we do. John clarifies this later:
    • NKJ 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
    • NKJ 2 John 1:6 This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it.
  • Not only is there some essential contingency here, but Jesus is also speaking to Judas, who will not love Him - will not obey Him - but will betray Him instead

16 "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever--

• This is tied to v.15 - love Me, obey Me, and I will ask the Father, and He will give to you (pl)...
• The point being, who received the other Helper/Mediator/Advocate/Intercessor who would remain with then into the age? Did this apply to Judas?
• Another point, is Jesus also describing in a sense what He is?
• Another point, the Apostles do not yet have this other Helper

17 "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

• This Helper is the Spirit of Truth
• The world is not able to receive the Helper/Spirit of Truth because
  • It does not see it/Him - or is not seeing it/Him (the Helper is a masculine noun - the Spirt is a neuter noun)
  • It does not know it/Him - or is not knowing it/HIM
  • The world is being used mainly to contrast with the Apostles - the world is not able, and does not - but you Apostles do.
• You Apostles know this other Helper, the Spirit of Truth
  • You know it/Him because:
    • it/He remains/stays (present) - or is remaining/staying with you (pl)
      • But Jesus has not yet asked the Father to give the other Helper/the Spirit of Truth - so how is it/He staying (literally and most basically) alongside the Apostles?
    • it/He will be (future) in you (pl).

18 "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

• I'm going to breeze through a bit from here.
• When will Jesus come to them?

19 "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also.

• The world sees Jesus at that time yet a short time does not any longer see Him.
  • The world sees Jesus but does not see the Helper/the Spirit of Truth who remains/stays or is remaining/staying alongside the Apostles, but has not yet been given by the Father

The Apostles do see Jesus because Jesus lives and they will live

• Albeit there are some temporal markers here, the way these tenses are structured in some sense it's as if time is irrelevant.
  • Where is the sense of His death?

20 "At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

• When the Apostles will have the other Helper/the Spirit of Truth in them, and they will see Jesus when the world no longer sees Him, and they will live because Jesus lives - they will know the union of the Son and His Father and the union of the Son and themselves - and thus the interrelation with the Father.

21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."

• Bookended lesson concerning love and obedience
• To love Jesus Christ men must be in obedience to Jesus Christ - the man who both HAS Jesus Christ's Commandments and KEEPS Jesus Christ's commandments it is this man who loves Jesus Christ.
  • This is not about how we feel.
  • This is about having and keeping the commandments of Jesus Christ - this is love for Jesus Christ.
• The man who obeys Jesus Christ - is the man who loves Jesus Christ - is the man who God the Father and Jesus Christ will love - is the man who Jesus Christ will reveal/explain Himself to.
  • Please note that this is relational in context. It is not the beginning of the relationship. It is within the context of a union and relationship already in process.

What the purpose of all this?

• I've been told in an open forum and thus others have been told that John 14:17 tells us the the Jews, OT saints - had or were influenced by the Holy Spirit.
• John 14:17 does not tell us this.
• John 14:17 is not speaking about OT saints - Jews - Israel. John 14:17 is speaking about the Apostles of Jesus Christ who were in the room with Jesus Christ at the last Passover meal before He was crucified.
• Jesus said the Helper/the Spirit of Truth stays/is staying with the Apostles and will be in them
• Jesus referred to those outside that room as "the world" that is not able to receive this Helper/Spirit of Truth because it does not see or know it/Him.
  • To apply this to anyone outside the room requires different or more Scripture.
  • At best I'd consider the application to other believers at the time.
  • There are a few ways to classify these present tense verbs re: the world not seeing or knowing this Helper/Spirit of Truth who Jesus has not yet asked for but who may well in a sense be already staying alongside the Apostles and will be in them in the future.
  • For me, FWIW, I'm continually wrestling with how time is at times seemingly irrelevant to Jesus and how there really is no ultimate distinction between the members of the Godhead. Jesus may very well be saying the other Helper/Spirit of Truth is was staying alongside the Apostles at that time because He - Jesus - the Helper/the Spirit of Truth - or He with the Spirit was staying alongside the Apostles at that time.
  • John's writings are well known to leave us with these types of considerations

Apologies for any typos as I'm not proofreading for them.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I only see what God has granted me to see in His Scriptures which proclaim that salvation is of the Lord and all of its glory belongs to Him alone and not the choice of men as your idolatry of will worship deceives you into thinking.

Christ said that it was impossible for men to save themselves but you think Christ was mistaken and are perverting His Gospel and robbing Him of His glory and giving it to the clay rather than the Potter.

View attachment 264723

Perfect!! You just proved every atheist's argument to be true. The Bible is full of flaws, contradictions and makes no sense. On top of that, God is cruel. Great job. You just proved them right.

 

[Genez]

Deuteronomy 32:33 KJV — Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

Romans 3:13 KJV — Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

Thank you, Constable Shakespeare.

Perfect!! You just proved every atheist's argument to be true. The Bible is full of flaws, contradictions and makes no sense. On top of that, God is cruel. Great job. You just proved them right.

The Bible has what appears to be flaws.
They are there to test the believer's resolve when they are knowing the Lord is real.

I had to wait a year once until what appeared to be a contradiction was clarified.
Since I knew the Lord is real, I prayed and asked for an answer..... and then rested in the Lord, and FORGOT about it.

A year later? There was the answer. It came when I was not even looking for it at that time.

The flaws are designed to weed out those who are not serious ... and to cause greater growth and greater faith in trusting the God we know is real in our lives.

We must learn to rest and let go and allow/trust God to answer in His own timing. Too often we want the answer now.

When Moses and the people had their backs to the Red Sea, and Pharaoh's army was in hot pursuit...
There appeared to be no answer to their problem. Some may have even wanted to commit suicide rather than be captured by Pharaoh's cruel warriors.

But what happened?

The Bible has what appears to be flaws and seeming contradictions.
They are there to test the believer's resolve even when they are knowing the Lord is real.

grace and peace ..............

 

[Hakawaka]

for the Unjust/Nonelect/Unsaved whose names are not written in The Book of Life?

Revelation 21:27
There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb

The answer is He died for BOTH groups of people, Jesus tasted death for: "every man" (Heb 2:9) and died even for the false prophets (2 peter 2:1)

 

[Hakawaka]

View attachment 264723

I find it necessary to comment on this attachment lest someone who is new to the faith or just plain too busy or lazy to test this teaching presented in the attachment.

Is it indeed the case that God is commanding people to obey Him, is angry that they don't, punishes people for their disobedience, while all this time God could have given them the gift of faith and repentance? God is angry at himself.

I challenge anyone to look up the references mentioned in this attachment, read the chapters involved and see if you come to the same conclusion as the Reformed Sage

 

[Rufus]

The basic issue here is that your doubling down as you call it is mostly error upon error that results in simple base insults when your work is not accepted. Then you ignore any actual detailed discussions in Scripture in context. It's not unusual. And the process and tactic ends in ad hominem which is simply a weakness you took to an extreme today. It was an interesting reveal.

I've attempted to accommodate some of the discussions here with some phrases some to many usually recognize, but I don't normally use them anymore and I won't with you. Your weakness is actually working through Scripture in context. The cover is lengthy concocted analogies and no holds barred ad hominem. It's not impressive even though most who fall into such fallacy are self-impressed, but it's really just common gutter brawling.

So, yes, there is divine revelation discussed in Rom1 that all unregenerate men know because God has made it clear in them. And yes, if we read closely what Paul is drawing from, we can see that there are many things to know about what God has revealed about Himself in what Paul knows from the rich history of writing he was deeply trained in and was drawing from. And, yes, he is speaking about more than men simply knowing a few things about God. Those things all men know about God are tied directly into what God is revealing through His Good News.

But not when Paul switched from his introductory remarks about the Gospel (genuine "divine revelation") from 1:1-17). After that he switched to Natural Revelation ("things made" in v.20 which is not referring to the Gospel). Then he switches back again to "divine revelation" when he began talking about the Law in chapter 2. And then he switches to another kind of revelation (here's where many if not most theologians would disagree me) when he started talking about the Gentiles who (unlike the Jews) did not have the written code of the Law but nonetheless "do by nature things required by the Law" since the "works of the Law" are written on their hearts, thus bringing Intuitive Revelation into the mix. I make a distinction between Natural Revelation which is God's external, visible creation that impacts our senses and his Intuitive Revelation which is internal and hidden to all others and touches our inner man.

Moreover, you keep ignoring the fact that Natural Man who is naturally wicked suppresses what he learns ("knows") from Natural Revelation because he does not want to retain God in his knowledge. There is no room for God in a God-hating heart that is filled to the brim with evil (1:29-30). After all, men are lovers of Darkness, not lovers of Light. Therefore, how could they desire to retain the Creator in their psyche when He is totally antithetical to everything the are? What fellowship can Darkness have with Light? Even God's creation reveals this spiritual truth to us, doesn't it? Didn't God separate the light from the darkness in the beginning? And won't all the children of the Light in the Land of Light also be separated forever from the Prince of Darkness and all his seed in a place called Outer Darkness?

I find it a wee bit odd that you so dislike biblical analogies as well as the biblically-sanctioned literary device known as Typology.

 

[Rufus]

I find it necessary to comment on this attachment lest someone who is new to the faith or just plain too busy or lazy to test this teaching presented in the attachment.

Is it indeed the case that God is commanding people to obey Him, is angry that they don't, punishes people for their disobedience, while all this time God could have given them the gift of faith and repentance? God is angry at himself.

I challenge anyone to look up the references mentioned in this attachment, read the chapters involved and see if you come to the same conclusion as the Reformed Sage

Huh? Well, God has given many the gifts of faith and repentance, so how does that make him "angry at himself"?

Heb 2:10-11
10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.
NIV

 

[Rufus]

The answer is He died for BOTH groups of people, Jesus tasted death for: "every man" (Heb 2:9) and died even for the false prophets (2 peter 2:1)

The how come this Universal High Priest for "BOTH groups" didn't pray for both in John 17? He died for all, but isn't the High Priest for all?

And the "everyone" in in Heb 2:9 is qualified by the "many sons" he is bringing to glory in the next verse.

 

[Magenta]

I never said that man cannot respond to the Gospel. Neither have I said man cannot
understand the Gospel. Why do you ask me to do something I haven't claimed?

That they lack discernment and understanding is shown again and again in the things they say.
They being more than one person... who cannot understand plain and simple things, and even
contradict the things they say. Please don't insult me but I will continue to insult you, please
don't use the NIV, as I will never accept it, but here I am going to cite exclusively from the NIV,
oh why bother making those long posts of yours I am not going to read them, but here is
another long post from me. On and on it goes.