Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR
- Thread starter MerSee
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
This is a food fight within Reformed Theology. Some say conditional. Some say unconditional. It's been this way for some time. The fact that you take a position on unconditional and don't acknowledge the debate is not surprising.
The conditional sector of the debate for one things acknowledges the requirement of faith.
At the end of the analysis this all boils down to the extreme pendulum swing of an over-correction against works salvation. One error combating another error. And, as usual, we'll find various explanations of what is meant by and included in the terminology of conditional vs. unconditional. It's all just debated interpretive theory no matter what you choose to write and highlight.
It's clear you don't like Scripture like 1Tim4:10 or anything that clearly shreds your chosen interpretive system. It's also clear you don't like the context of Gal4. It was of course written by the same Paul who wrote the living God is the Savior of all men.
I'm well aware of the debates (plural) that surround both the Abrahamic and New Covenants, even within Reformed Theology. So, what? Maybe that's a reason I don't subscribe to Covenant Theology! 
Since you take the conditional side (probably to both), then identify the conditions in the NC with chapter and verse, please. But of course, you won't be able to do so; for we both know there are no conditions stipulated in Jer 31, 32 or Ezek 36. The NC is strictly unilateral -- filled with I WILL, I WILL, I WILL (God speaking) -- with no YOU WILL anywhere to be found. And this is be expected since the NC is so very much UNLIKE the Old (Jer 31:32), which indeed was a conditional, bilateral covenant.
How does it feel to be weak and impotent -- not being able to reconcile the demands of the NT Gospel with the unconditional promises of the New Covenant that preceded the first advent by several centuries? What happened to all this spiritual understanding that you have boasted about -- either from within man naturally or that is God-given to all, without exception? Do you need a little help? Feel free to ask.... I know how to reconcile both extremes that would simultaneously preserve the integrity of the "opposing" passages. There's truly no contradiction between the demands-free NC and NT Gospel demands.
And 1Tim 4:10 is no problem at all per my 9230. Too lazy to look it up? Easy text to understand.
Since you take the conditional side (probably to both), then identify the conditions in the NC with chapter and verse, please. But of course, you won't be able to do so; for we both know there are no conditions stipulated in Jer 31, 32 or Ezek 36. The NC is strictly unilateral -- filled with I WILL, I WILL, I WILL (God speaking) -- with no YOU WILL anywhere to be found. And this is be expected since the NC is so very much UNLIKE the Old (Jer 31:32), which indeed was a conditional, bilateral covenant.How does it feel to be weak and impotent -- not being able to reconcile the demands of the NT Gospel with the unconditional promises of the New Covenant that preceded the first advent by several centuries? What happened to all this spiritual understanding that you have boasted about -- either from within man naturally or that is God-given to all, without exception? Do you need a little help? Feel free to ask.... I know how to reconcile both extremes that would simultaneously preserve the integrity of the "opposing" passages. There's truly no contradiction between the demands-free NC and NT Gospel demands.
And 1Tim 4:10 is no problem at all per my 9230. Too lazy to look it up? Easy text to understand.
Oh...so we're supposed to put our minds on hold and not make any inferences from a passage, unless it's a positive one? How long have you been estranged from logic?
How long have you been estranged from logic?
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Honestly, at this point I don't think any Scripture is easy for you to understand. In fact, I can't easily recall anyone I've ever dealt with that tries so hard to distort Scripture to fit it into their own mold.
I've learned not to read your lengthy nonsense and suspected your #9230 to just be more of the same. My suspicions were correct. You manufactured a theory about Jews and Gentiles and about the Greek present tense verb to explain away the clear reading from the Text.
You may not care for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and for the glory that is ascribed to Him and to our Father, but the following is how His Word speaks of Him. You should see - but I doubt you will - how 1Tim4:10 fits right in just as it reads.
Savior of the World
NKJ John 4:42 Then they said to the woman, "Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world."
I know you won't take any advice other than from those whose doctrines you have chosen to accept, but I'll say it anyway, you should just let the Word of God speak for Himself and present Himself to men as He has chosen to present Himself.
I've learned not to read your lengthy nonsense and suspected your #9230 to just be more of the same. My suspicions were correct. You manufactured a theory about Jews and Gentiles and about the Greek present tense verb to explain away the clear reading from the Text.
You may not care for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and for the glory that is ascribed to Him and to our Father, but the following is how His Word speaks of Him. You should see - but I doubt you will - how 1Tim4:10 fits right in just as it reads.
Savior of the World
NKJ John 4:42 Then they said to the woman, "Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world."
- The Christ The Savior of the world
- God sent His Son into the world to save the world through His Son
- Might you notice God the Father's intention - His purpose for sending His Son? It should come in handy when we get to 1Tim, let alone all other Scriptures here, at minimum.
- Jesus Christ came to save the world
- Jesus Christ came to save sinners. Surely you more than anyone must think this includes all men!
- God the Father sent the Son as Savior of the world
- God our Savior who desires all men to be saved
- The Man Jesus Christ who gave Himself a ransom for all men
- Might you notice how these two statements of fact go together?
- Might you also notice how this is the prelude to 1Tim4:10 that you attempted to explain away?
- The Living God who is the Savior of all men
- Contextually:
- God our Savior who desires all men to be saved
- The Man Jesus Christ who gave Himself a ransom for all men
- Contextually:
- Jesus Christ abolished death - death that afflicts all men
I know you won't take any advice other than from those whose doctrines you have chosen to accept, but I'll say it anyway, you should just let the Word of God speak for Himself and present Himself to men as He has chosen to present Himself.
I didn't read your tome since so much of it had nothing to do with 1Tim 4:10. As I stated earlier, this passage is easy to understand because "all men" is qualified by "especially of those who believe'". This qualifying limits "all" quantitatively.
Also, you need to explain precisely how God IS the Savior of unbelievers and believers. He must be a "Savior of unbelievers in a different sense, since he doesn't actually save unbelievers from their sins or punishment for their sins. So, explain to me exactly how God is the Savior of unbelievers.
Also, you need to explain precisely how God IS the Savior of unbelievers and believers. He must be a "Savior of unbelievers in a different sense, since he doesn't actually save unbelievers from their sins or punishment for their sins. So, explain to me exactly how God is the Savior of unbelievers.
You mean you didn't read 9 sections of actual posted Scripture. I wouldn't expect you to at this point. Scripture is very hard on your extensive error.
This statement is quite indicative of your very foundational problem. You are unable to see Scripture as it is and understand what it is telling us. Since He's clearly called the Savior of the world and clearly desires that all men be saved, and since He clearly does not save those who reject Him, then this is likely telling us something that some of us can understand, but you clearly cannot. Maybe it's because you foundationally limit Him in ways He is not limited and has not limited Himself.
Maybe it's always the same problem. Men limit themselves in desiring to see and thus in seeing truth and at some point He simply assists them to do so. You exhibit this self-limited mentality and protect your eisegetical house of cards with great vigor. Your eisegesis and playing games with the language is actually a bit astounding at times - astounding in the sense that you actually think it makes sense.
This statement is quite indicative of your very foundational problem. You are unable to see Scripture as it is and understand what it is telling us. Since He's clearly called the Savior of the world and clearly desires that all men be saved, and since He clearly does not save those who reject Him, then this is likely telling us something that some of us can understand, but you clearly cannot. Maybe it's because you foundationally limit Him in ways He is not limited and has not limited Himself.
Maybe it's always the same problem. Men limit themselves in desiring to see and thus in seeing truth and at some point He simply assists them to do so. You exhibit this self-limited mentality and protect your eisegetical house of cards with great vigor. Your eisegesis and playing games with the language is actually a bit astounding at times - astounding in the sense that you actually think it makes sense.
-
1
- Show all
Well...maybe I do fail to see scripture and understand what it's telling us. That is why I asked you a QUESTION which you confuse for a statement. Since you imply that you understand what Paul was saying, then I'm asking you to explain it to me, according to your understanding of that specific text. Here's the question again:
Since God is the actual Savior of all believers (i.e. "especially of those who believe") in that He saves them from the power and penalty of sin, then explain in what sense is He also the [actual?] Savior of the rest of mankind that consists of unbelievers?
Shirley, this question isn't above your pay grade, too, is it? I hope not, for I truly do want to understand what that special "something" is that the rest of you NR claim to understand.
Since you imply that you understand what Paul was saying, then I'm asking you to explain it to me, according to your understanding of that specific text. Here's the question again:Since God is the actual Savior of all believers (i.e. "especially of those who believe") in that He saves them from the power and penalty of sin, then explain in what sense is He also the [actual?] Savior of the rest of mankind that consists of unbelievers?
Shirley, this question isn't above your pay grade, too, is it? I hope not, for I truly do want to understand what that special "something" is that the rest of you NR claim to understand.
That is why I asked you a QUESTION which you confuse for a statement.
In turn, here's my statement:
Go back and read the Scriptures I posted in what you called "your tome." Pay special attention to all I posted from 1Tim. Pay extra special attention to what I highlighted from 1Tim2:5.
Drop your indoctrination and ask yourself what God's will is for all men and what our Father had our Lord do for all men. Then ask yourself who is the problem - God or men?
Your questions reveal your mental block that is based upon your indoctrination. Let Scripture say what He says and just accept it.
Gal.2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
John 20:31 But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life in His name.
John 3:18 He that believes on Him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
One condition: "believe on Jesus Christ.
John 20:31 But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life in His name.
John 3:18 He that believes on Him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
One condition: "believe on Jesus Christ.
-
2
- Show all
Answer my question about 1Tim 4:10. I don't care about the other passages you posted. Why can't you answer it? Just stick to the text that you chose as your "iron-clad proof" that God saves all men universally. What if I ask two more questions from another angle, will you answer, maybe before the Parousia, or just whine and complain some more?
1. Since God IS [actually] the Savior of all men, believers and unbelievers alike, then what is the difference between the two groups and the difference between their eternal destinies?
2. If Paul meant for Timothy to understand that God is [actually] the Savior of "all" men in the distributive sense, why didn't he just say that instead of adding the qualifying phrase "especially of those who believe"?
3. And again: Here's my original question for the third time: Since God is the actual Savior of all believers (i.e. "especially of those who believe") in that He saves them from the power and penalty of sin, then explain in what sense is He also the [actual?] Savior of the rest of mankind that consists of unbelievers?
In all your fancy seminary training or whatever, did you ever take any hermeneutics courses? In Hermeneutics 101, students are basically taught on day one to bring to bear upon every passage six critically important questions, so that the answers to those would shed light on the passage thereby helping the interpreter to understand the text. The questions are: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. Shirley, as a great learned student of scripture that you pride yourself to be, you would want and expect any honest reader of your posts, and any scriptures therein you quote or cite, to practice good, solid, sound hermeneutical principles, wouldn't you?
I'm looking so forward with bated breath for your insightful answers to all my "what" questions.
1. Since God IS [actually] the Savior of all men, believers and unbelievers alike, then what is the difference between the two groups and the difference between their eternal destinies?
2. If Paul meant for Timothy to understand that God is [actually] the Savior of "all" men in the distributive sense, why didn't he just say that instead of adding the qualifying phrase "especially of those who believe"?
3. And again: Here's my original question for the third time: Since God is the actual Savior of all believers (i.e. "especially of those who believe") in that He saves them from the power and penalty of sin, then explain in what sense is He also the [actual?] Savior of the rest of mankind that consists of unbelievers?
In all your fancy seminary training or whatever, did you ever take any hermeneutics courses? In Hermeneutics 101, students are basically taught on day one to bring to bear upon every passage six critically important questions, so that the answers to those would shed light on the passage thereby helping the interpreter to understand the text. The questions are: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. Shirley, as a great learned student of scripture that you pride yourself to be, you would want and expect any honest reader of your posts, and any scriptures therein you quote or cite, to practice good, solid, sound hermeneutical principles, wouldn't you?
I'm looking so forward with bated breath for your insightful answers to all my "what" questions.
But none of those passages speak to the actual New Covenant promises of God. The NC is nowhere in sight in those passages. (Nice job at eisegesis, though.) Those promises are only found in Jer 31, 32 and Ezek 36. What you're doing is conveniently conflating the unconditonal promises of the NC with the NT Gospel demands. In my 9891 I pretty much deliniated those promises.
Those promises are only found in Jer 31, 32 and Ezek 36. What you're doing is conveniently conflating the unconditonal promises of the NC with the NT Gospel demands. In my 9891 I pretty much deliniated those promises.
But none of those passages speak to the actual New Covenant promises of God. The NC is nowhere in sight in those passages. (Nice job at eisegesis, though.) Those promises are only found in Jer 31, 32 and Ezek 36. What you're doing is conveniently conflating the unconditonal promises of the NC with the NT Gospel demands. In my 9891 I pretty much deliniated those promises.
Those promises are only found in Jer 31, 32 and Ezek 36. What you're doing is conveniently conflating the unconditonal promises of the NC with the NT Gospel demands. In my 9891 I pretty much deliniated those promises.
-
1
- Show all
Why don't you care about all the other Scriptures I posted that essentially say the same thing as 1Tim4:10?
Where did I indicate in any way that I think "God saves all men universally" and why did you pretend to quote me above?
Are you familiar with the debates about this verse within the Reformed camps?
Where did I indicate in any way that I think "God saves all men universally" and why did you pretend to quote me above?
Are you familiar with the debates about this verse within the Reformed camps?
-
1
- Show all
So, why do you present your four texts earlier as proof-texts for Jesus dying for a limited number of people only, when they use the same grammtical structure as this verse? You can't realistically use ambiguous verses that comport with your interlocutor's position as evidence against his/her position.
-
1
- Show all