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

[studier]

And I say they are correct. When I interpret any given passage, I also have in mind the general tenor of all scripture. If you think I'm incorrect, then correct me!

I'd expect nothing else. You have in mind the general tenor as you see it. You inserted your general tenor into the Prologue as if it's all truth. That's very simply and succinctly called presupposition and eisegesis and by it you flavor to your liking everything that proceeds from there.

My observations of your observations were not only instructive of your error in methodology but highly rhetorical. I've also given you a couple observations re: words used in Scriptures that you could chase down if you so desired. You in turn use them to add to your arsenal for ridicule. I point out to you that the word translated as "fool" is used 20+ times and you lay out a list of 60+ telling us what "fool" means and thus ignore any nuances in the Text which uses different words you're lumping into one list. And you don't even explain your methodology so someone doesn't think twice about using your presuppositional work to make into her concept of art poetry.

I suppose you're still trying to prove what you think Rom1 is all about from Rom1:21-22 and how this all ties to the natural man. One of the problems with your methodology is your use of English translations. I gave you a lead on something you for the most part ignored. It looks to me with brief glance that the words (2) Paul uses in Rom1:21-22 translated "foolish" and "fool" are not the words used in Prov1. They may connect somewhere so some overlap may be concluded, but this takes some work to prove.

I've offered several times to go through brief sections of Scripture with you verse by verse and word by word. You've never taken me up on it. IMO you show little to no willingness to be corrected by anyone including by Scripture. I'm not going to do your work for you. To do so would be a full-time job. I and others it seems will simply be pointing out the errors we see in what you write.

I've not read past you first paragraph in your quoted post.

 

[PaulThomson]

Can we effectively tune out the Spirit?

God's word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path.
The five wise virgins trimmed their lamps when they heard the cry, "The bride-goom is coming!"
The five foolish virgins had run out of oil.
A smouldering wick God will not extinguish.
A lamp's flame needs air to burn and give light.

What could the parts of the parable of Word of God as a lamp we carrybe?

We are the person carrying the lamp. The lamp may be the Bible, the full counsel of God. The wick could be an intertwining of different doctrinal threads in the Bible/interpretations of scripture passages. The light shed could be understanding issuing from the doctrine that guides our steps. The oil within the lamp could be the Holy Spirit who works through the doctrinal threads to empower a quest for purity/purification/holiness (heat) and a quest for understanding/truth (light). The flame cannot survive without the wick being exposed to air. Our biblical doctrines need to be exposed to the world in word and deed, so that incorrect aspects of doctrine can be tested and burned off and trimmed off to give a clearer brighter light.

By this parable, quenching the spirit could represent
1. doing things that prevent the Holy Spirit from getting into the doctrinal threads to empower the flame;
And 2. doing things that cause the flame (understanding) to die out.

1. would be not allowing the Holy Spirit into our doctrines to adjust and perfect them, but stubbornly insisting on holding to our traditions or our present opinions on what the Bible teaches.
2. would be making our development of doctrine a largely theoretical but unpractised exercise that the world cannot see or critique: hiding our light under a bushel".

There may be more aspects that could be teased out by others.

 

[studier]

God's word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path.
The five wise virgins trimmed their lamps when they heard the cry, "The bride-goom is coming!"
The five foolish virgins had run out of oil.
A smouldering wick God will not extinguish.
A lamp's flame needs air to burn and give light.

What could the parts of the parable of Word of God as a lamp we carrybe?

We are the person carrying the lamp. The lamp may be the Bible, the full counsel of God. The wick could be an intertwining of different doctrinal threads in the Bible/interpretations of scripture passages. The light shed could be understanding issuing from the doctrine that guides our steps. The oil within the lamp could be the Holy Spirit who works through the doctrinal threads to empower a quest for purity/purification/holiness (heat) and a quest for understanding/truth (light). The flame cannot survive without the wick being exposed to air. Our biblical doctrines need to be exposed to the world in word and deed, so that incorrect aspects of doctrine can be tested and burned off and trimmed off to give a clearer brighter light.

By this parable, quenching the spirit could represent
1. doing things that prevent the Holy Spirit from getting into the doctrinal threads to empower the flame;
And 2. doing things that cause the flame (understanding) to die out.

1. would be not allowing the Holy Spirit into our doctrines to adjust and perfect them, but stubbornly insisting on holding to our traditions or our present opinions on what the Bible teaches.
2. would be making our development of doctrine a largely theoretical but unpractised exercise that the world cannot see or critique: hiding our light under a bushel".

There may be more aspects that could be teased out by others.

Interesting analogies and connections. Thanks for them.
Do you think 1Thess5:20 is connected to 5:19?

 

[PaulThomson]

Interesting analogies and connections. Thanks for them.
Do you think 1Thess5:20 is connected to 5:19?

It looks to me that 1 Thess 5:19-22 go together.

19Quench not the Spirit. (Don't obstruct the Holy Spirit, the oil; from purifying your doctrine, trimming the wick; and bringing new understanding, bringing light.)
20Despise not prophesyings. (Allow that the Holy spirit may be speaking to you through other people. Soberly consider what they say to you.)
21Prove all thing. Hold fast that which is good. (Test against scripture anything presented as "Thus saith the Lord". Make public, in word and deed, what at you believe the Holy Spirit is saying. Continue doing and saying those things that stand up to public scrutiny.)
22Abstain from all appearance of evil. (Trim your lamp's wick. Drop behaviours and speech that produce evil fruit. )

Under grace we are allowed to make mistakes and to learn from our mistakes.

 

[studier]

It looks to me that 1 Thess 5:19-22 go together.

19Quench not the Spirit. (Don't obstruct the Holy Spirit, the oil; from purifying your doctrine, trimming the wick; and bringing new understanding, bringing light.)
20Despise not prophesyings. (Allow that the Holy spirit may be speaking to you through other people. Soberly consider what they say to you.)
21Prove all thing. Hold fast that which is good. (Test against scripture anything presented as "Thus saith the Lord". Make public, in word and deed, what at you believe the Holy Spirit is saying. Continue doing and saying those things that stand up to public scrutiny.)
22Abstain from all appearance of evil. (Trim your lamp's wick. Drop behaviours and speech that produce evil fruit. )

Under grace we are allowed to make mistakes and to learn from our mistakes.

Thanks again for the analysis.

I agree with you re: the focus and I also see it attached to prior verses. IOW, they are not isolated commands. To quench/extinguish the Spirit and to despise/disdain/treat prophetic activity in the forming Church as being without merit during the transition between eras was commanded against.

I also find of interest what @Mem and I are discussing re: Spirit vs. spirit vs. Spirit/spirit and have had such things in the back of my mind for decades as I continue to study Scripture and continue to see how Scripture speaks on different levels that requires some dimensional reasoning on our part in Christ in Spirit.

 

[PaulThomson]

Can we effectively tune out the Spirit?

When a TV receiver dies, the signal to that TV from the transmitter is quenched. But the transmitter is still trnsmitting. The Holy Spirit keeps transmitting even when we choose to stop listening. We have quenched the Spirit's voice, but we have not extinguished Him.

 

[Rufus]

see here

see here

clean up your work.

Take your own advice. Thou dost complain too much. You did write in those links:

There are inserted points of view of the writer of observations - whether correct or incorrect - including positing of what a few proof-texted NC Scriptures mean.

"fools" = "natural man" is another assertion not stated in the Proverbs prologue and not proven in these observations.

(emphasis mine)

And I say they are correct. When I interpret any given passage, I also have in mind the general tenor of all scripture. If you think I'm incorrect, then correct me! You're the one griping! You gripe because you don't believe that the natural man hates God and his Christ, and this is why you object to the parallel I made in point 5 in post 9668 between fools despising Wisdom and the natural man hating God, which I actually supported with several scripture cites. It follows logically that haters of God would also hate his knowledge and wisdom!

And from what I posted here yesterday about how scripture depicts "fools", do you not think, generally, they are the ungodly? If not the ungodly, who are they, specifically? But if they are the ungodly, then how does this not also accurately depict the natural man? Just how many kinds of spiritual people do you think there are in this world? Are there more than two!? What's in between a saint and a sinner, or the godly and ungodly, or the righteous and unrighteous, or the upright and the wicked, or the wise and fools, or sheep and goats, or sons of light and sons of darkness, or friends of Christ and enemies of Christ, lovers of God and haters of God, prophets of God and false prophets, the redeemed and unredeemed, or elect and non-elect, or between those whom |God loves and those he hates, etc.?

Even the newborn does not escape a label. Isn't everyone imputed Adam's sin? That makes the newborn guilty of Original Sin...and therefore, legally makes that child a sinner -- NOT a saint. Not even innocent, theologically.

So, quit your silly whining and complaining and if you think you're able to correct what you perceive are my ill-conceived, erroneous insertions, go for it! If you think you're up to the task of pretending to be wise, while at best having a casual acquaintance with wisdom, understanding and knowledge (if not worse), then by all means take your best shot!

Or...I have an even better idea: Tackle the three dilemmas I identified in my 9669. At least I'd give you credit for going on a Mission Impossible. It would beat hearing your complaints ad nauseam.

P.S. Did you know that God takes no pleasure in fools (Eccl 5:4)? Feel free to add this "factoid" to the list I beamed up yesterday.

 

[Rufus]

I thought I had already said that it is not our flesh that God appeals to?

But the soul/spirit of man is DEAD! How can the soul be alive after the Spirit departed from Adam on the day he died?

 

[studier]

When a TV receiver dies, the signal to that TV from the transmitter is quenched. But the transmitter is still trnsmitting. The Holy Spirit keeps transmitting even when we choose to stop listening. We have quenched the Spirit's voice, but we have not extinguished Him.

Agreed conceptually. But simple English re: quench = extinguish remains, so either can be used synonymously. He is still active but not where He has been quenched/extinguished. One extinguishes the fire in their own house, but it burns on all around it. The congregation extinguishes the prophetic speaking in it's own house, but it continues in another.

 

[HeIsHere]

Agreed conceptually. But simple English re: quench = extinguish remains, so either can be used synonymously. He is still active but not where He has been quenched/extinguished. One extinguishes the fire in their own house, but it burns on all around it. The congregation extinguishes the prophetic speaking in it's own house, but it continues in another.

I do agree this needs to be taken in context of the church to whom the letter is written.

I think Paul is speaking about Spirit, not as it pertains to each individual's inward dwelling of the Spirit.
But corporately around >> the body.

 

[studier]

Take your own advice.

I do when I have discussions with someone capable of making observations from Scripture. I don't fold easily, but I do consider quality arguments and go back to the drawing board as necessary.

For example, @PaulThomson and I have been having a grown-up conversation about some actual issues from Scripture on another thread that have required us to dig back into some very foundational interpretive considerations. Last I saw we remain in some disagreement but it's respectful and productive (IMO) and remains on point with some required methodology. For me it's been iron sharpening iron and I appreciate the discipline.

You're all over the place and run away from working from Scripture at any depth, in context, while making up your own methodologies and eisegeting wherever and whenever you please. Then you call such process, 'using the tenor of all Scripture.' You're trying to convince some who can see very clearly what you're doing.

Again, this is as far as I've read your post. You know by now that you're not writing for my benefit but for your fan base. Have a party...

If you want me to read one of your posts more completely, then open with Scripture and begin explaining what you see and make clear what point you're attempting to make. I've seriously lost interest in your ad hominem and non-credible methodologies.

 

[studier]

I do agree this needs to be taken in context of the church to whom the letter is written.

I think Paul is speaking about Spirit, not as it pertains to each individual's inward dwelling of the Spirit.
But corporately around >> the body.

In context I agree. It's why I mentioned context in parenthesis early on and why I asked @PaulThomson re: this context this morning.

What @Mem and I are discussing, for me at least, is something that may be underlying and thus instructive in some ways and fit into the bigger picture of our relationship and work with God and His indwelling and filling and very active Spirit while we - our spirit [and soul and body] are being sanctified and we as a whole - spirit and soul and body - are in turn living out that sanctification.

There is a way that Scripture speaks that IMO requires us to lose the oversimplified, single level concepts and categorizations we're used to, and find the wisdom of how the Word speaks. We're supposed to become conformed to His likeness and stop bringing Him down to ours. We have the mind of Christ available to us. We need to stop thinking like our typical selves. But the Word and the Spirit need to be the controlling factor and we can't just be throwing our thoughts into His and then call them His.

 

[Rufus]

I'd expect nothing else. You have in mind the general tenor as you see it. You inserted your general tenor into the Prologue as if it's all truth. That's very simply and succinctly called presupposition and eisegesis and by it you flavor to your liking everything that proceeds from there.

My observations of your observations were not only instructive of your error in methodology but highly rhetorical. I've also given you a couple observations re: words used in Scriptures that you could chase down if you so desired. You in turn use them to add to your arsenal for ridicule. I point out to you that the word translated as "fool" is used 20+ times and you lay out a list of 60+ telling us what "fool" means and thus ignore any nuances in the Text which uses different words you're lumping into one list. And you don't even explain your methodology so someone doesn't think twice about using your presuppositional work to make into her concept of art poetry.

I suppose you're still trying to prove what you think Rom1 is all about from Rom1:21-22 and how this all ties to the natural man. One of the problems with your methodology is your use of English translations. I gave you a lead on something you for the most part ignored. It looks to me with brief glance that the words (2) Paul uses in Rom1:21-22 translated "foolish" and "fool" are not the words used in Prov1. They may connect somewhere so some overlap may be concluded, but this takes some work to prove.

I've offered several times to go through brief sections of Scripture with you verse by verse and word by word. You've never taken me up on it. IMO you show little to no willingness to be corrected by anyone including by Scripture. I'm not going to do your work for you. To do so would be a full-time job. I and others it seems will simply be pointing out the errors we see in what you write.

I've not read past you first paragraph in your quoted post.[/QUOTE]

Well...whatever Hebrew or Greek word in the LXX were used in those 64 texts, all 64 had ONE thing in common: None of those passages spoke well of "fools"! Fools are the ungodly and the ungodly are fools! And guess what: The natural man is neither wise or godly.

And my hermeneutical method is sound and honest. I interpret scripture in its 3-in-1 context, and make no apologies for it. There's the Immediate, Intermediate and Macro context to all scripture. And when people ignore these three contexts, their interpretation of the Immediate or Intermediate will invariably contradict one or both of the other contexts. Our primary job as honest interpreters of scripture is to rightly understand scripture as the homogeneous, unified, indvisible coherent single body of truth that it is! When we ignore this hermeneutical principle, we unwitting subtract from the WHOLE. thereby perverting and corrputing the Truth, which effectively destroys the whole truth so that we're left with falsehood. So no, I don't read into texts. Rather I'm always cross-checking and cross-referencing with other relevant passages to make certain that any given text under my consderation is in harmony with all scripture; for God cannot lie, but men do all the time!

When you were in seminary, did you sleep through your hermeneutics class?

And of course, you didn't read past my first paragraph. In your world ignorance is bliss and can serve as a convenient excuse. You read my posts like you read scripture.

 

[Rufus]

I do when I have discussions with someone capable of making observations from Scripture. I don't fold easily, but I do consider quality arguments and go back to the drawing board as necessary.

For example, @PaulThomson and I have been having a grown-up conversation about some actual issues from Scripture on another thread that have required us to dig back into some very foundational interpretive considerations. Last I saw we remain in some disagreement but it's respectful and productive (IMO) and remains on point with some required methodology. For me it's been iron sharpening iron and I appreciate the discipline.

You're all over the place and run away from working from Scripture at any depth, in context, while making up your own methodologies and eisegeting wherever and whenever you please. Then you call such process, 'using the tenor of all Scripture.' You're trying to convince some who can see very clearly what you're doing.

Again, this is as far as I've read your post. You know by now that you're not writing for my benefit but for your fan base. Have a party...

If you want me to read one of your posts more completely, then open with Scripture and begin explaining what you see and make clear what point you're attempting to make. I've seriously lost interest in your ad hominem and non-credible methodologies.

Why would I expect anyone who doesn't want to believe the truth to read my posts? Or who hates knowledge and wisdom? What makes the truth-haters in Rom 1, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because they don't want to retain God in their knowledge, any different than the knowledge and wisdom haters in Prov 1? Explain that, Einstein! I'm sure you can fill 50 pages easily with your exposition of numerous Gr. terms.

 

[Rufus]

Yes... the natural man is taken captive by the devil to his will but free to choose to believe, which is God's will? Such nonsense.

Now, that's a deep question. But let me ask you this: Who ultimately is in charge in this world: God or Satan? Also, cannot an all-knowing, all-wise, all powerful God work through evil and bring good from it? Joseph in the OT? And Christ and his Cross in the New? Didn't Jesus himself declare that "the Son of Man will go as it has been decreed" (Lk 22:22)? Even the wrath of man shall praise God, i.e. glorify him (Ps 76:10)!

 

[Magenta]

Now, that's a deep question. But let me ask you this: Who ultimately is in charge in this world: God or Satan? Also, cannot an all-knowing, all-wise, all powerful God work through evil and bring good from it? Joseph in the OT? And Christ and his Cross in the New? Didn't Jesus himself declare that "the Son of Man will go as it has been decreed" (Lk 22:22)? Even the wrath of man shall praise God, i.e. glorify him (Ps 76:10)!

Romans 8:28

 

[Hakawaka]

Romans 8:28

Is there a simple way to explain Molinism? From what im getting is:

God created a world, knowing what people would choose freely, and elects based on that.

Isnt that just arminianism? How is molinism different? What part did I misunderstand?

 

[Rufus]

As most of you should know by now, I'm a staunch believer that Natural Revelation is the mirror image of Special Revelation. And also that I agree totally with A.W. Pink's assessment that everyone in Adam cannot believe, cannot do good, cannot understand, etc. because they don't want to. Now, I'm going to draw on yesterday's assassination attempt on Trump to prove this observation.

Many liberals on social media have gone over the edge by denying that yesterday's attempt on his life was truly an attempt to kill him. They tell us that it was all staged, fabricated, scripted, phony and a pre-planned hoax so that Trump could garner sympathy from voters. Here are a few social media excerpts taken from an article posted today:

"The failed shooting of President trump was clearly a hoax created by the right for sympathy and votes. Like the man is telling his security 'wait this is a perfect' and raise his fist lol," read one tweet.

"Watch, this whole thing will be found out to be a hoax. All orchestrated by Trump," said another user.

"This Trump shooting is a hoax. His bodyguards look absolutely clueless!" claimed another detractor.

"3 shots, nobody hit, don’t rush him off stage, and he makes his photo op. Nobody moves. Hoax," read another response.

"I mean, what a coincidence this Trump hoax happened in a state he needs," replied another user.

"THIS IS A HOAX just like January 6th @realDonaldTrump SET THIS UP and planned to be shot in here - close relation to trump campaign," said an account calling itself progressive.

But what are the facts?

1. At least 8 shots were heard in videos
2. Trump was bleeding and it was confirmed the top of ear was hit
3. One attendee confirmed dead from gunshot wound
4. Two other attendees critically wounded by gunshot wounds
5. Alleged perp shot dead
6. Perp's weapon found nearby
7. At least one eyewitness saw the perp climb on top of the roof.

But yet...many Trump HATERS, in spite of these facts, rushed to judgment and insist that there wasn't really an assassination attempt. On what do they base their bold assertions? I say they can only base them on their hatred for him. They don't want him to be the next president, and so this why they refuse to believe what happened. They cannot bring themselves to believe it because they won't! And the reason they won't is grounded in their hatred for the man.

Who here would call these deniers of facts wise people? Or would fools be a more apt description?

 

[Rufus]

Romans 8:28

Exactly right! God works ALL things.... He's active in this world 24/7 bringing his eternal plan to its final stages -- and He works through all manner of evil to accomplish this. Think about this for a moment: The most frustrated being on this planet must be Satan who only knows how to work evil; yet at the same time knows that God outsmarts him at every turn to turn his evil into good. If Satan was really sharp and on top of his game, he'd be the last person in the universe to want to send Christ to the Cross. Instead he would have done everything in his power to prevent it, thereby preventing the salvation of man. But he COULDN'T bring himself to do that. He could not choose to do good even though it would have worked in his favor. Satan had no choice but to play the fool he's always been. He had zero power to become something that he isn't! He's totally frustrated and angry because he knows that he's nothing but willing putty in the hands of Almighty God. No wonder Peter characterized this loser as a "roaring lion" looking for prey.

 

[Hakawaka]

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)

Is John Calvin describing God or the devil?