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

In your example, the man is willing to pay if the gift is received. No payment has actually been made. This is not the case with Christ. The claim isn't that He is willing to pay for sins, but that He has already done so. In other words, He isn't offering payment conditioned on the action of the recipient, but has actually paid the debt and is merely making known what has already been done.
I don't think the example you employ actually matches the questions, but I do appreciate you sharing.

So then Jesus' death on the cross actually paid the sin debt of a particular group, i.e. all who accepted his offer because they wanted their debt to be cancelled.

To say that Jesus paid the debt for "all" (in the distributive sense) and then immediately add "BUT..." that limits its efficacy is disingenuous; for there are many scriptures that tell us explicitly for whom Christ died without any qualifiers.

And the very sad thing is that a text like the one above is just the tiny tip of the iceberg. Scripture most certainly does not paint a pretty, attractive or flattering picture of fallen mankind. Man is so broken that only God alone can fix him! Here's another passage this is just as distressing and sobering:

Job 15:14-16
14 "What is man, that he could be pure,
or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?
15 If God places no trust in his holy ones,
if even the heavens are not pure in his eyes,
16 how much less man, who is vile and corrupt,
who drinks up evil like water !
NIV

Since you agree that man is evil, then this is a fact that we should not gloss over. When Jesus told his very mixed audience in his Sermon on the Mount that they were evil, he was making a very profound statement about man's essence. Evil is what man IS. When we talk about person's essence (God or Man), we're speaking to the ultimate nature of that person. Not only that, but that nature is permanent (cp. Jer 13:23). And...this passage gives affirmation to the First Law of Logic known as the Law of Identity, which basically says: A is A; A can never be B. Of course, this doesn't mean that the Creator of all things, who infintiely transcends his creation, is powerless to change his creation. But it does mean that God cannot change himself because if He could, this would imply he's not Pure and Perfect. And it also means that his creatures cannot change themselves. The Ethiopian has no power to become a white man. Nor does the leopard have power to change its spots into stripes. Yet, God will one day transform all carnivores back to herbivores again, just as he will one day consummate the change of nature of his elect (that began at our Regeneration) at the General Resurrection, so that we will no longer do battle with two natures -- our own human nature and the divine nature of which we've been made partakers. The Day will arrive when we will be sinless experientially and forever...because the only desires we'll have is to do God's perfect will, just as our Saviour always had that desire in him. So again, Special Revelation accords beautifully with Natural Revelation.

I'm extremely delighted that we are having this converation because it proves the wisdom of Pr 27:17 wherein it is said that "iron sharpens iron...". Due to this exchange, and also something that Mr. Maxamir said the other day that struck a chord with me, has caused me to rethink my "quantitative-qualitative" rhetoric re the extent of man's evil nature. Mr. M basically said the other day that it took only one sin to not only ruin Man -- but also to ruin this entire creation! And this is what I was tryng to get at in my post with the poison analaogy in it. I grain of poison is enough to kill! This has to be high quality poison to be that effective! And in my subconscious, I knew this from scripture by citing the texts in Galatians and James. Just a "little" leaven the entire lump. And this is precisely what Mr. Maxamir was getting at! And you! But as hard as I try to not fall into the horizontal comparison trap (for God does not judge by mere appearances, but sees the heart!), I did fall into it by saying that men aren't as evil as they could be. But such an observation, while true in and of itself, misses the real point to Total Depravity which is: Quantitatively, all the faculties of men have been affected by sin; and Qualitatively, one sin is LETHAL! One sin is sufficient to condemn a man for all eternity -- to send him to his Second Death. Therefore, Total Depravity means just what it says! It's total both ways -- in both senses! Not only that but when we make the RIGHT comparison: First Adam with Last Adam, we should be able to see the foolhardiness and inadequacy of all horizontal comparisons.

Re "relativety" of evil, even scripture recognizes this fact; for all men will be judged according to their works -- this being a qualified phrase. And God even said that Judah was more evil than her sister Israel (Ezekiel 23). But now we come to THE big question: Can Evil men make Good choices? And that's what you're getting at! Can evil hearts desire to seek God? Can evil hearts desire to understand his truth? Can evil hearts desire to even acknowledge God? Or can evil hearts desire to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (1Cor 12:3)?

Other issues should also be addressed: How should we understand metaphors in scripture? How should we understand that all sinners come into this world in a state of spiritual death? Should we understand spiritual death in the same manner as we do physical death? When a person dies physically and his soul leaves his body, what ability does his body have other than to decay over time? Likewise, after Adam sinned and he died spiritually the Spirit of the Living God must have departed from is body which is how he became separated or "cut off" from God? What ability did Adam or any of his progeny have to reconnect that spiritual lifeline to the Author of Life? Or what post-fall ability did Eve display in the Garden to induce God to reconcile her to himself?

Or how should we understand spiritual resurrection language in scripture? When are God's elect "raised" from their spiritual tombs: Before, After or Simultaneously at point of conversion? And what does this spiritual resurrection entail, precisely? Or since the physically resurrected in scripture were never given a choice in the matter, does God give the spiritually resurrected a choice?

We also need to come to terms with all the "cannot(s)" in scripture or its equivalents, e.g. impossible, "can do nothing" or rhetorical questions that demand a negative response.

So, Mr. Studier, what I'd like to do is resume my little exposition on Luke 18 and the Rich Man's encounter with Jesus in an effort to begin answering these kinds of questions. I think it's a very likely that this moral, religious person sought Jesus out, which would make him a "seeker" of God, right? So, how would that square with Rom 3:11? Contradict it?

Firstly, I don't want to leave this re: Romans 1:

• In Rom1:19-32 it's clear that God made His existence and a few things about Himself known to all and that men are active in rejecting God and seeing no value in knowing God experientially - knowing more about God and what He wants of men, so they can live properly in His creation.
  • Is this indicative that God is able to get His point across to men in Adam I and that men are able to respond positively and negatively to God? This seems important to answer in light of what TD says and where it proceeds from TD being the base of more.
  • Do these verses say that all men respond the same way to this General Revelation from God?
    • I don't see it clearly and specifically telling us either way.
    • But I can look at Scripture and see men like Able, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc. down through history and I have to conclude that Paul is speaking in general about Adam I mankind, but there are exceptions - men and women who do not reject General Revelation, but remain in sin (I'm going to leave Enoch aside at this point).
    • I can also see from the OT Scriptures Paul is quoting in Rom3, as I've said, that there are the fools and there are God's people. Even God's people are inherently evil in Adam I, but they have not rejected Him as the fools do, they know God is, and God is working with them.
    • I can also see in Rom3 that there are men with Natural Law who keep it sufficiently to witness against the Jews who have God's written Law.
    • My above question remains. What do you think?

I would like to continue unpacking some more truth from Lk 18:18-27 which records the Rich Man's encounter with Jesus.

The logical inference from the passage is that this rich ruler very likely sought Jesus out. He approached Jesus respectfully, certainly acknowledging his teaching skills; but even more than this he evidently sensed that Jesus was a "good" man. Perhaps this ruler had heard Jesus teach on one more other occasions, or received very favorable reports from third parties, and this is why he was interested in speaking with him.

If we contemplate this encounter, we can soon sense that something isn't quite right. First, Jesus mildly rebukes this rich man with a question that challenges the man's unjustified assumption that Jesus is a good man. "Why do you call ME good?" I say "unjustified" because there's nothing in the text to suggest that this man knew who Jesus really was. He just saw the Lord as a "good Rabbi" -- one of many in his mind, most likely. We must not forget that Jesus knew what was in every man's heart. So, Jesus sized this ruler up immediately.

The second thing that sticks out even more is how Jesus answered the ruler's question -- a question which is very similar to what the Philippian jailer asked Paul, as you might recall. But Jesus' answer differs greatly from Paul's! Instead of just telling the rich man to believe on Him and be saved, Jesus circumvents Grace and Faith and answers instead with the Law of Moses. Why would Jesus do this?

I think the answer is right in the passage itself. This man also had a very high and unjustified opinion of himself when he unabashedly claimed that he obeyed the commandments Jesus quoted from boyhood! This man was self-righteous in his own eyes.

And this explanation further explains what Jesus told the man to do in v.22. In this verse, Jesus hits him square between the eyes with the naked truth that this ruler evidently could not see about himself: He was an idolater. He loved and trusted something more than God: His "great wealth"! So, Jesus basically told him that if you TRULY want to inherit eternal life, have a big garage sale and get rid of everything you own, then come follow me.

But we're told that the man upon hearing this became "very sad". He had a very, very tough decision to make. Perhaps...he made the right decision at a later time by God's Grace...but not during this encounter.

So then...in light of a passage like this, how should we understand Rom 3:11 that says "no one seeks after God"? I think we have to understand how in the bible's 3 in 1 context: Immediate, Intermediate and Macro contexts. This is why it's imperative to have a strong, working knowledge of all scripture. Such knowledge would tell us that fallen man's spiritual condition is worse than deplorable! And that man is extremely susceptible and vulnerable to believing falsehoods about himself, about God and the world around him because his own heart is utterly self-deceived. Therefore, how I understand a text like Rom 3:11 is that no one (unregenerate) sincerely seeks after God, apart from His grace. And they can't because "every man is a liar" (Ps 116:10-11). But if you doubt this, then believe what Paul said about himself -- that there was no good thing in him (Rom 7:18), that is "in his flesh" (sin nature). NO GOOD thing!

In addition, having a good grasp on biblical theology makes for another excellent way to check an interpretation of any given passage; for an interpretation must not contradict other portions of scripture, since God cannot lie.

And didn't Jesus teach that "No one can come to me unless the Father...draws him" (Jn 6:44, 65)? And this was spoken in the context of a large crowd of "disciples" who sought Jesus out for all the wrong reasons, right after he had just performed a stupendous miracle! The rich ruler, too, sought out Jesus with an ulterior motive. That motive likely being he wanted Jesus to affirm his self-righteousness.

So...can unregenerate Evil people make Good choices? The biblical evidence isn't looking good, thus far, for a positive answer.

Isa 1:5-6
5 Why should you be beaten anymore?
Why do you persist in rebellion?
Your whole head is injured,
your whole heart afflicted.
6 From the sole of your foot to the top of your head
there is no soundness —
only wounds and welts
and open sores,
not cleansed or bandaged
or soothed with oil.
NIV

And since the "whole heart is afflicted", perhaps this accounts for why God promised a heart transplant in the New Covenant (Ezek 36:26).

my point was that God uses His people to teach each other through the Scriptures and those who refuse any teaching from others by saying that they only read the Bible are ignorant of God's decrees.

You can call them systems or whatever but ultimately it is your responsibility to test everything you hear with Scripture.

The greatest people that God has used in history were not those who were highly educated but common people who love the truth and were willing to suffer and die for it. I have found from experience that many who go to seminaries are puffed up with knowledge but not edified in love and the seminary they went to ended up being a breeding ground for pride which hindered them from coming to the truth.

No. He sought out a good rabbi. Maybe in this sense he was seeking God - or more information about God and what it took to reach eternal life. It seems that's quite a thing for a TD man to be seeking.

The way it relates to Rom3:11 and Rom1 is that this young man was a Jew who did have some understanding of the God of the Jews and likely would not fit into the Rom1 rejecters of General Revelation. In fact he sees value in keeping God's Law and knows of seeking eternal life.

But ultimately he is in Adam I and remained there as far as this encounter with the Son of God went. And in rejecting God's Son, he rejected God. This seems to be to be the struggle of those who do not reject God in General Revelation and of the ones that underlie what Paul is saying in Rom1-3. In general, those in Adam I do not have an intelligent grasp of the things of God and are not seeking Him. But this cannot be absolute because there are and always have been men in Adam I who did not reject in entirety what they knew of God. And there are verses of Scripture in the Old and in the New that speak the seeking God by men.

This young man is an example of how one can reject the grace of God that at that time had put His Son on the earth to proclaim the Kingdom and Salvation to men. Yet, others did accept the Son of God. and this young man is simply one of many stories about men that teach us Biblical truths.

and if man is that evil, can he do anything to save himself?

I had a similar journey. Thank you for confirming that the Doctrines of Grace is not a system made up by men but the plain truth of the whole of Scripture when seen though the lens of fulfilment in Christ and that God leads His people into all truth (John 14:26, 16:13).

Joel 2:28-32

Ephesians 2:8-9

God indeed poured out His Spirit on people from all nations, tribes, tongues and people groups!

Rev 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
Rev 7:10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"

Indeed. And it's quite a continuing process among men to being working towards this.

Yet throughout Scripture we see men oriented to God with the light they had. Some are even said to be righteous in their generation and a friend of God. Some upon the arrival of Christ were awaiting Him and living blamelessly with the light they had. Our Text just does not speak only in the language of TD.

Again, as I just pointed out, not all men, but generally speaking, yes.

But, "sincerely" is not stated in the Text. It's stated as an absolute to make a point, But underlying the point is the Text spoke in many places about seeking God and that there were fools who said there is no God and there were others who were God's people who obviously had not rejected the existence of God. At times it looks like these people fell away and were commanded to seek, but this would be to return to Him.

There are simply more layers to this in Scripture.

Yes, grace is a necessary discussion, one that deserves its own detailing from Scripture, so it too is properly understood.

10 I believed, therefore I spoke, "I am greatly afflicted."
11 I said in my haste, "All men are liars."
(Ps. 116:10-11 NKJ)

Context.

17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.
20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
(Rom. 7:17-24 NKJ)

This is not a TD man, but a man stuck in a conflict. And this is probably why TD is being turned into Total Inability = TI.

This is a man who did not reject the existence of God at General Revelation, nor at any other time did he reject God's existence and it is beyond unlikely that he never sought God even though stuck in Adam I. Paul is his own example of why Romans 3:11 cannot be absolute but his making a point in general and possibly at a certain point in time in history (via David per Ps14) that bothe Jews and Gentiles were under sin.

There is work going on today that considers Paul's language in Rom7 to be Hellenistic rhetoric where he is not necessarily speaking about himself but in general terms about the struggle of men who did not reject God but knew they had this internal battle. When Paul says "I," one way is to look at it as "the I" and it is this "I" that men who do not reject God's existence see struggling with their flesh when they try to deal with pleasing God by His Law. IOW, Paul is not alone in this struggle. It is the fate of all men in Adam I who accept the existence of God and struggle with the flesh until:

Agreed, but again, as I've said elsewhere, we all can say we have a Biblical Theology, and all systematics say they do, and all self-studied can say they do. I'm really hesitant to make such a claim. It's like the old west, there's always a faster gun. And some days we just eat crow.

.

Jesus did teach this among a large crowd which included some Disciples and some false disciples who walked away after being offended by His teaching.

44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 "It is written in the prophets,`And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
(Jn. 6:44-45 NKJ)

Verse 45 is from Isa54:13 and explains verse 44.
The phrase "taught by God" is actually an adjective, so "they shall all be taught ones - learned ones of God."
Jesus uses this phrase from Isa to base His conclusion:

• God draws men [by teaching them]
  • The men who hear and learn from the Father - and become God's learned ones - come to Me (in context come to Jesus = believe in Jesus).

The only thing here is God teaches > men hear and learn > men come to/believe in Jesus.

• Our belief is God's work John6:29.
  • In context we simply have God doing the work to teach men about His Son whom He sent = God drawing men to His Son > men hearing and learning what God teaches about His Son whom He sent = men becoming God's learned ones > men believing in God's Son whom he Sent.
• Then the real twist most really don't like to deal with:
  • Jesus commands unbelievers to work for the food (God's teaching about His Son) that remains for eternal life, which Jesus gives because the Father sealed Him to do so John 6:27.

I wish He were here to straighten us all out on Biblical Theology. Some day...

Why do you conclude that "come to" also means "believe in"? Especially when many in the context of these two verse, and in this very chapter, we are told came to Jesus and went away not believing.

It seems that no one has been able to sufficiently provide an answer to your question to date, so I see that the trophy is yet unclaimed. The Berean Study Bible's introduction to Hevbrews 2 provides the subheading Salvation Confirmed and v.3 asks, "how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation (announced by the Lord, confirmed to us by those who heard Him, and affirmed by God...-vv.3-4)? This payment in question was publicly announced, confirmed by witnesses, and affirmed by the Creditor. But it seems, at least to me, that your position is that it is accounted toward the Creditor's neglect to apply it to all?

Yes, it's the responsibility of all of us to test everything with Scripture and this is why I have disagreements with your views and likely why you have disagreements with mine. I know I look at many Scriptures posted here, sometimes for days with every tool in my arsenal.

However, in my view I have asked you more than once if you'd like to go through some of the Scriptures you've put forth to me that purport to substantiate the theological and systematic viewpoint you've joined yourself to, or that attempt to take shots at me. As yet, I don't recall your doing so. Nor do I recall you answering me as to whether or not we ended up closer together re: the concept of gifted faith.

Now, please, your statements about seminaries are old and tired and at best another diversion and fallacious argument. There is good and bad in and from every institution of men.

FWIW, I learned some invaluable things in seminary, got to assist in some interesting projects, and was exposed to some great tools and many scholarly works I still value being able to use and read and some even to evaluate. The nuances still being mined from God's Word astound me at times and it fascinates me how He has His people all over the earth doing all kinds and levels of works. And none of us know but a fraction of it all.

Also FWIW, I did see some things in seminary that were disturbing. But no one there worked for me and all of us have had and still have a ways to go as determined by Him.

Now, the theological system you're supporting was hardly originated by an uneducated man or carried forth by such. God uses all kinds of His people. He even used a donkey to speak once per the record He's left us. I don't think any of us is qualified to say who the greatest people were who did His work. Someday maybe we'll see how He ended up evaluating us all.

Finally, each of us is accountable to God for where He's led us and for what He's called us to do. I know why I went to seminary and I know why I got ordained and I know why I took the route I did. I have later thoughts about all of it now. I'm sure you can say the same thing about your process which led to your being where you are today.

Let's leave it here, please. And I mean from both of us:

2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself.
4 For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one's praise will come from God.
(1 Cor. 4:2-5 NKJ)

My conclusion is based upon close context parallel or closely related statements like these:

35 And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. (Jn. 6:35 NKJ)

45 "It is written in the prophets,`And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me....
47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
(Jn. 6:45-47 NKJ)

64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
(Jn. 6:64-65 NKJ)

I don't see any set of sound logical arguments (If premise A + premise B therefore/then Conclusion C) tying these texts together to arrive at your conclusion that "coming to Jesus" means "believing in Jesus".

In fact, the biblical data shows one can come to Jesus without believing in Him and later stop coming to Jesus, and end up hungry and thirsty.

A. Judas came to Jesus, drawn by the Father through the words and deeds the Father gave our Lord to do. Luke 6:13a
B Although Judas came to Jesus, he did not believe in Jesus, and yet the Father granted Judas to come to Jesus. John 6:64
C. Judas came even closer to Jesus when he was called to be one of the twelve and became one of His inner circle. Luke 6:13 b
D. While Judas remained with Jesus he lacked nothing. Luke 22:35
E. But Judas eventually deserted Jesus and committed suicide. John 13:26-30; Mt. 27:5

A. Where in Luke 6 does it say Judas came to Jesus and is the context of Luke the same as John 6?
B. I don't see Judas mentioned in John6:64. Are you inserting him?

• IMO this is a profoundly important part of Scripture pertaining to all this debate about the process of a man coming to Faith in Jesus. I see our Father as the Teacher, so the One drawing men by teaching about His Son, and the Gatekeeper of who does and does not have abiding faith in His Son. Only if a man believes as our Father determines Biblical Faith, does our Father grant men to His Son for His Son to give them eternal life. IMO we may well tie all the real eternal security, and things like the Soils Parable, and the Sovereignty of God debates right back here. And there's no gifting faith here, but drawing/teaching and determining who to grant and who not to grant.
• There are "disciples" following Jesus
• These "disciples" find what Jesus is saying about eating His flesh and drinking His blood to be harsh and they are grumbling about it and are offended by it.
• Jesus issues a challenge to them that in essence says, will you believe who I am if you see Me ascending back to Heaven where I came from?
• Jesus knows they do not believe - as you note, I suppose we could say they in a sense had come to Him - they are following Him as disciples - they ultimately turn back and walk away
  • Jesus says they do not believe and He ties their unbelief to His Father not having granted them to come to Jesus
    • So, in this context, not only belief, but abiding belief is evidence that the Father has granted someone to come.
    • No abiding belief <> Had not been granted to come
      • Jesus has discussed abiding in context in 6:56
• It looks to me like Judas was given to Jesus by our Father but for a specific purpose which we could hardly call abiding faith (John17:12). I don't think we can say our Father gave him to come to Jesus in the abiding faith context of John6.