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

[Rufus]

That's all you were trying to say?

That's a bit different from what you said in post 9598..

Adam and Eve, in the garden, knew intellectually of the existence of both good and evil. How do we know? First, because there was a tree that they knew about called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Second, God commanded them not to eat of the tree or they would die.

They did not know what 'death' is. Nor, did they know the meaning of 'evil.'

Satan knew!
(and he was listening in!)

Merely knowing ABOUT and actually knowing are two very different things. A&E had not knowledge of Good and Evil prior to their fall.

 

[HeIsHere]

First of all?
Please... Get rid of that sinister looking avatar.
It sets a very bad tone for whatever you want to say.

Its like going to Catholic confession booth and you see the priest peeking at you through a hole in the wall.

No matter what you say.... which may be good in itself,
Gets poisoned when that avatar is in one's face.


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

Agree, I was thinking about using the ignore button mostly to avoid the avatar.

 

[Rufus]

Now you are outright slandering me by saying I support atheists when I don't even believe that atheism exists.

It is becoming more evident that you do not yet have a handle on what the whole scope of Scripture says and instead take verses out of context to suit your man-centred false theology such as the one below.

Who is the "us" in the verse?

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Try reading the first verse of the epistle to get the answer.

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Because you have succumbed to the lie that God loves absolutely everyone, even those He justly casts into Hell and eternally torments, you have perverted God's holy name and His perfectly holy and eternal attributes which never change and in turn you pervert the Gospel of the glory of His grace which is given before time began to those He has chosen to save.

2Ti 1:9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

View attachment 265450

The enemies of Free Grace are also the enemies of context. They obviously do not want to understand; therefore, they cannot.

 

[Genez]

Agree, I was thinking about using the ignore button mostly to avoid the avatar.

He's learned how to hit you over the head with the teaching of total depravity, and gets eye to eye with you as he tells you.
What's worse, he keeps repeating that same teaching as if its the only thing he's learned.

He needs to find a good teaching Church where the depravity of man is not denied, yet can teach the rest of the Bible as well.

 

[Rufus]

Many know this, but it astounds me how few will acknowledge our mandated work in the process. Of course, we can't do it apart from Him. This is vividly clear and unquestionable. But the minute one of us says something about the work He has us doing under His grace, along comes the crazy works salvation charges. As you mentioned before, then comes the antinomianism. Along with it, comes a bunch of erroneous interpretation of Scriptures.

IMO, anything that distracts from the Biblically proper role of man's obedience to God in any way, is always the battle. It began in the Garden, it's what our Lord reversed, it's what is being reversed in those whom He is saving. It is Faith and it is Love. Proper relationship with our Creator.

But the battle WE fight is the Lord's (1Sam 14:47), for he has already won the war. And we'll win those battles for he makes us willing in the day of his power (Ps 110:3; Phil 2:13). Did the elect begin the work of their own salvation or did God? Will the elect complete the work of salvation or will God? Then we should never think that the elect will carry themselves to the finish line either.

 

[HeIsHere]

The enemies of Free Grace are also the enemies of context. They obviously do not want to understand; therefore, they cannot.

Free grace, lol ... you mean irresistible grace (which I do agree with except that faith precedes it in scripture) in order to support limited atonement because of total depravity, however it is defined however depending on the writer and web site, but ultimately means God grants grace to some and not others when He could have granted to all.

Let's see what John Calvin wrote since he did systematize this dogma...

...our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot remain inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence have used an expression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being conceded by most persons, that everything in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence. (Institutes, Vol. I, Bk. II, Chap. 1, Para. 8; Allen translation.)

 

[Rufus]

First of all?
Please... Get rid of that sinister looking avatar.
It sets a very bad tone for whatever you want to say.

Its like going to Catholic confession booth and you see the priest peeking at you through a hole in the wall.

No matter what you say.... which may be good in itself,
Gets poisoned when that avatar is in one's face.


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

Complained by one who is a huge advocate of man's "free" will...which he apparently has no ability to use. Oy Vey!

 

[HeIsHere]

He's learned how to hit you over the head with the teaching of total depravity, and gets eye to eye with you as he tells you.
What's worse, he keeps repeating that same teaching as if its the only thing he's learned.

He needs to find a good teaching Church where the depravity of man is not denied, yet can teach the rest of the Bible as well.

That is the nature of indoctrination, unfortunately.
Calvinism fills the open loop, the mind is drawn to closed systems.

They always go on about how God absolutely has to act first internally, not externally >>>>>> irresistible grace/ new heart/regeneration before faith, what I find is it takes an act of God to break through this mind set.

More irony!

 

[MerSee]

The enemies of Free Grace are also the enemies of context. They obviously do not want to understand; therefore, they cannot.

Free grace of God gives us correct/sound doctrine.

 

[Genez]

Free grace, lol ... you mean irresistible grace (which I do agree with except that faith precedes it in scripture) in order to support limited atonement because of total depravity, however it is defined however depending on the writer and web site, but ultimately means God grants grace to some and not others when He could have granted to all.

Let's see what John Calvin wrote since he did systematize this dogma...

...our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot remain inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence have used an expression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being conceded by most persons, that everything in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence. (Institutes, Vol. I, Bk. II, Chap. 1, Para. 8; Allen translation.)

Calvin was not responsible for TULIP.
So, don't sue him for the mess TULIP causes the body of Christ.
That acronym 'TULIP' and it's teaching followed Calvin's death.

One of his disciples by the name of Theodore Beza.,.. and his disciples, formulated it as to what we see today.

My pastor who was an excellent exegetical teacher, respected Calvin. He blamed the mess of TULIP on Theodore Beza.
A quick Google search for Beza will verify what I just said.


grace and peace ......

 

[Genez]

Free grace of God gives us correct/sound doctrine.

Expensive grace of God gives us Baptist doctrine?

we get 10%!

 

[Rufus]

Free grace, lol ... you mean irresistible grace (which I do agree with except that faith precedes it in scripture) in order to support limited atonement because of total depravity, however it is defined however depending on the writer and web site, but ultimately means God grants grace to some and not others when He could have granted to all.

Was there supposed to be a point to this last clause?

Let's see what John Calvin wrote since he did systematize this dogma...

...our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot remain inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence have used an expression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being conceded by most persons, that everything in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence. (Institutes, Vol. I, Bk. II, Chap. 1, Para. 8; Allen translation.)

Looks biblically sound to me! The bible does teach that the thoughts and intentions of man's heart are evil continuously (Gen 6:5), that the intent of man's heart is only evil from his youth (Gen 8:21), that there is absolutely no spiritual soundness in man (Isa 1:5-6), that God doesn't even put his trust in his own holy angels let alone man who is detestable, corrupt and drinks iniquity like water (Job 15:14-16), and that sinful man in the eyes of a thrice Holy God is nothing more than a maggot, a worm (Job 25:4-6), that no man does good (Ps 14:3), that man is brought forth in iniquity and in sin his mother conceived him (Ps 51:5), that the wicked are estranged from the womb and those who speak lies go astray from birth (Ps 58:3-4), that indeed all men are liars (Ps 116:11), that man searches out many evil schemes (Eccl 7:29), that men deal very treacherously and are rebels from birth (Isa 48:8), that all men's righteousness are as a woman's menstrual cloth (Isa 64:6), that's it's impossible for man to do good when they are accustomed to doing evil (Jer 13:23), that man's heart is so desperately wicked and deceitful above all else that no one can even understand this truth (Jer 17:9), that there is no one good except God alone (Mk 10:18), that there's no good thing in man's sinful nature (Rom 7:18), that men love the darkness and hate the light (Jn 3:19), that man himself is darkness (Eph 5:8), that the [sons of] darkness (1Thes 5:5) do not understand the light (Jn 1:5), that men hate God and his Son (Ps 2:1-3), etc., etc..

So tell me, please, what's not to like in the quote?

 

[HeIsHere]

Calvin was not responsible for TULIP.
So, don't sue him for the mess TULIP causes the body of Christ.
That acronym 'TULIP' and it's teaching followed Calvin's death.

One of his disciples by the name of Theodore Beza.,.. and his disciples, formulated it as to what we see today.

My pastor who was an excellent exegetical teacher, respected Calvin. He blamed the mess of TULIP on Theodore Beza.
A quick Google search for Beza will verify what I just said.


grace and peace ......

Yes tis true, sometimes I speak about Augustine, Calvin, Reformed Theology, Canons of Dort, I tend to use "Calvinism" because it covers the doctrines and is recognizable.

I absolutely agree with John Calvin on one thing in particular, he taught the classical understanding of "faith" according to the Greek grammar in the text and not the Westernized disaster that we have presently.

In his commentary on Ephesians, John Calvin said, Paul’s “meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God.”
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1855), 228–229.

John Calvin understood it properly.

 

[HeIsHere]

Was there supposed to be a point to this last clause?



Looks biblically sound to me! The bible does teach that the thoughts and intentions of man's heart are evil continuously (Gen 6:5), that the intent of man's heart is only evil from his youth (Gen 8:21), that there is absolutely no spiritual soundness in man (Isa 1:5-6), that God doesn't even put his trust in his own holy angels let alone man who is detestable, corrupt and drinks iniquity like water (Job 15:14-16), and that sinful man in the eyes of a thrice Holy God is nothing more than a maggot, a worm (Job 25:4-6), that no man does good (Ps 14:3), that man is brought forth in iniquity and in sin his mother conceived him (Ps 51:5), that the wicked are estranged from the womb and those who speak lies go astray from birth (Ps 58:3-4), that indeed all men are liars (Ps 116:11), that man searches out many evil schemes (Eccl 7:29), that men deal very treacherously and are rebels from birth (Isa 48:8), that all men's righteousness are as a woman's menstrual cloth (Isa 64:6), that's it's impossible for man to do good when they are accustomed to doing evil (Jer 13:23), that man's heart is so desperately wicked and deceitful above all else that no one can even understand this truth (Jer 17:9), that there is no one good except God alone (Mk 10:18), that there's no good thing in man's sinful nature (Rom 7:18), that men love the darkness and hate the light (Jn 3:19), that man himself is darkness (Eph 5:8), that the [sons of] darkness (1Thes 5:5) do not understand the light (Jn 1:5), that men hate God and his Son (Ps 2:1-3), etc., etc..

So tell me, please, what's not to like in the quote?

Genesis 6:8 indicates that “Noah found grace” in the eyes of God, not that God irresistibly gave grace to Noah.

 

[Genez]

Genesis 6:8 indicates that “Noah found grace” in the eyes of God, not that God irresistibly gave grace to Noah.

As Satan got his foot in the door and corrupted the once sound Roman church....

He gets his foot in anywhere he can... To trip up those going in, and trip up those trying to get out.

Any good teacher gathering attention and teaches well, will have attempts made to corrupt his ideas.


Calvin was no exception..


........ grace and peace 1

 

[Rufus]

Genesis 6:8 indicates that “Noah found grace” in the eyes of God, not that God irresistibly gave grace to Noah.

So...what do you think that means: That Noah was out digging for gold and instead found some grace?

 

[PaulThomson]

Clearly stated. You've obviously considered the salvation "stages" before. Nice to see.

So, as I read you, God's choosing here is not for stage one, but for stage 3 through growth in stage 2.

Thanks! Will ponder a bit and compare it to how I viewed it some tears ago and view it now.

Appreciated!

https://hebrew.billmounce.com/BBH.1st.17.pdf

This chapter from Mounce should help you. If you look at an interlinear Hebrew-English text of Gen. 4, you should note which verbs have a waw prefix and which verbs do not. Where there is a perfect verb without a waw prefix, it is beginning a sequential chain of actions or states that includes the subsequent imperfect verbs with waw prefix. If a new perfect verb not having waw prefix is introduced into the narrative, the sequence is broken and the perfect verb without waw prefix is NOT temporally sequential to the previous chain, but begins a new temporal chain. followed by as many imperfect verbs with waw prefix as follow it.

You will see that Gen 4 verses 1, 2 and 3 give a single chain of waw + imperf3ct verb forms following the perfect verb from at the beginning, the verb "knew", in "And-Adam knew Eve..."Therefore all the verbs in vv 1-3 are temporally sequential.

But verse 4 has a perfect verb form without waw, so iit is NOT sequential to verses 1, 2 and 3. It happened not after, but some time before the last verb on the previous chain. So, Abel had brought his offering before Cain had.

Verse 5 introduces another perfect verb without waw, so is introducing a chain that is temporally disconnected from the previous chain in the narrative. "[God] did not respect...." This indicated that the narrative is jumping to a another event that was not narratively sequential to Abel's offering. The narrative is jumping back to the events of verse 3, making verse 4 parenthical to verses 1-3 and 5.

That is why I undertand Abel made his offering first and Cain took his lead lqter. It is cnjecture how Cain recognised that Abel's offering was accepted and his was not. My theory is by the productivity of their labours in the year following each of their offerings.

 

[studier]

This chapter from Mounce should help you.

For someone else?

 

[PaulThomson]

For someone else?

Ooops!Yes. I think it was for EverlastingGrace. I'll have ti find the appropriate post.

 

[PaulThomson]

For someone else?

Actually it was fro renewed day in the Total Depravity discussion. How it leapt threads... ?

BTW. Did my diagramming of John 17:1-3 in an attached Word doc in the John 17:1-3 thread transfer across the ether intact? I had some problems lining up the forward and backward slashes. They looked right on my end, but when I opened the attachment they appeared out of line. I had to fiddle back and forth to make the slashes in my original doc out of line in such a way that they appeared in line in the attachment.