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

Where is this in the text?

Proverbs 4:23.

Which means He is doing so against a person's will.

Not what I asked. You said because God is love that every action on His part is agape love. So, it's a natural question: how does casting someone into the Lake of Fire manifest agape love to the individual being cast in?

Just to be clear, only yes or no please. Casting people into the Lake of Fire against their will is an act of love by God to those cast into it?

Did Jesus not bear our guilt and our shame on the cross? Why would he do that if we do not experience guilt and shame from our sin?

Prov. 11:2 When pride comes, then comes shame; but with the lowly is wisdom.

Prov. 13:18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuses instruction, but he that regards reproof shall be honoured.

Rom. 5:16 for the judgment was by one (Adam) to condemnation...

Where does scripture say man's sins affect God?

So no text saying Adam and Eve felt guilt. Thanks.

Where did I say they did? More diversions from you...

You really don't understand God's love. You are trying to conform God to your own image now.

No I'm not. There's a reason the post wasn't answered by the person it was directed toward. But this response and your last several let me know there is no benefit in continuing our conversation. I appreciate you sharing. Grace and peace.

Not only is it in the book, it IS the book.

[Heb 10:7 KJV]
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
[Jhn 6:39 KJV]
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

There is a common misconception regarding total depravity. Total depravity does not mean that man is as
wicked or sinful as he could be, nor does it mean that man is without a conscience or any sense of right or
wrong. Neither does it mean that man does not or cannot do things that seem to be good when viewed from
a human perspective or measured against a human standard. It does not even mean that man cannot do things
that seem to conform outwardly to the law of God. What the Bible does teach and what total depravity does
recognize is that even the “good” things man does are tainted by sin because they are not done for the glory
of God and out of faith in Him (Romans 14:23; Hebrews 11:6). While man looks upon the outward acts and
judges them to be good, God looks upon not only the outward acts but also the inward motives that lie
behind them, and because they proceed from a heart that is in rebellion against Him and they are not done
for His glory, even these good deeds are like “filthy rags” in His sight. In other words, fallen man’s good deeds
are motivated not by a desire to please God but by our own self-interest and are thus corrupted to the point
where God declares that there is “no one who does good, no not one!” source


Romans 3:10-12

if you keep running when your presuppositions get pinned to the wall, and then just unpeal them ready for another thread, you will continue to hold on to your failed presuppositions. Why not face the discussion and run it to it's logical and biblical conclusion and adopt a position that fits the logical final conclusion?

I was watching for this part of this verse to be mentioned.

NAS Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

• To come to God:
  • It is necessary to believe that [He] is
    • He is what? God?
    • It could be translated as [He] exists.
  • And it is necessary to believe that He becomes a rewarder to the ones who seek Him
    • "rewarder" is more literally a "wage payer"

I find it interesting that:

• That the "believe that He is" in this verse seems to be what is stated in Rom1:19-20 where it says God has put certain knowledge of Himself in men.
• This last clause about believing God is a rewarder/payer is in here and in Rom1:28 the language is speaking of men who saw no value in having God in their experiential knowledge.

You misunderstand me. I said it proves what Paul is proving = Both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and Jews are not better than Gentiles.

The proposition being made is that Jews are not better than Gentiles. The last sentence in Romans 3:9 begins with "for" and is used to explain the proposition. The OT quotes are used to prove both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and thus substantiate the proposition the Jews are not better than the Gentiles.

One of the problems here is that being under sin does not equate to what traditional Total Depravity says.

Another problem here is being discussed between you and @PaulThomson. This is the problem of interpreting the present tense verbs. You are interpreting them to be gnomic, which means you're basically saying all these statements are timeless facts. Yet Ps14 speaks of a time when God looked down from heaven and distinguished between fools who say there is no God vs. God's people who obviously did not say there is no God.

In addition, as I've been saying, I see there being no way to make this all gnomic - timeless fact - when there are men from Abel through the birth and identification of Messiah on earth who were obviously not saying there is no God.

Assuming it is Paul making the case in Rom3:9-18, all he has to do is show that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin and Jews are not better than Gentiles. He doesn't need a gnomic timeless fact to do this. All he has to do is show what he's even previously stated in rhetorical argument, that some Jews did not believe and that the history of the Jews is a mess of disobedience and idolatry. But it is not a timeless fact that they all were always doing what Paul quotes from times in history.

What TD needs to do with these verses is prove that no men could seek God ever because dead men can't do anything.

What you need to do is prove that that no men could seek God ever, even though being spiritually dead does not include a total
inability to understand and not reject some spiritual truth.



As I understand traditional TD, it uses 1Cor2:14 to say unregenerate men cannot understand anything spiritual. You'll find this verse on the list I posted above which I took from one of the @maxamir graphics. I've never said all Reformed believe the same thing. In fact I've said they do not. I've also pointed out that you are not being traditional if you believe the spiritually dead can understand some spiritual truth.



I'd be satisfied to see you conclusively prove TD from some of the verses I listed. Even if you'd like to prove why some of them are wrong in your view (like 1Cor2:14). As far as I know, I've got months, so let's get started and see how we do.



I pointed to men from Abel through the birth of Christ at minimum to say that no men were ever seeking God is a fallacy. This is where you and I began. But this is just one of a few things I pointed out concerning my disagreement with your interpretation of Rom1-3. But I'm happy to see you prove the gnomic - timeless fact - that no men in history ever sought God.

Throwing 90+ my way doesn't mean anything to me. I don't think TD can be proven by the traditional list of TD passages. Also, since you do not believe traditional TD, why are we calling what you believe "TD"? Would you like to relabel it to "RTD" or something, since you're not really arguing for traditional TD, are you?



You misstate what I stated re: conscience. It was put forth in the way that Paul uses it against the Jews who had the written Law, so nothing more than a factor in the argument that your gnomic - timeless fact - concerning all men of all time never sought God is again left wanting. How does this have anything to do with God having no ability to sin?



I'm not going back to a side-track and in turn won't go back to point out how much of my work you ignore.

Honestly, what surprises me a bit, is how you too turn away from offers to get into a passage of Scripture in detail to prove your case for TD or TI or RTD or RTI or whatever you'd like to label it. I'll call it RTD for now. I don't think we exhausted Rom1-3. Maybe we can't. The more I look at it the more complex it may be. So, how about another verse or single section of verses on the traditional list? No side-tracks to ULIP or any modified version for now. Prove RTD.

Maybe you could also define RTD once again and clarify precisely how RTD differs from TD.

I'll even begin by pointing out that we may be in agreement on a few propositions. Please correct me if we are not in agreement and explain why:

1. All unregenerate men in Adam 1 - both Jews and Gentiles are spiritually dead and under the dominion of sin.
2. Spiritual death does not mean that men cannot understand [some] spiritual truth.

It's not that I don't understand the supposition, it's simply that this is not what I am arguing against, that all men's good deeds are as filthy rags. My argument has been that men can be counted for righteous, by measure which has nothing to do with his works, good or bad, that is apart from his works. For example, in Jesus' parable of the publican, the righteous man beat his chest, displaying the grief in his heart over the filth of his sin, and Jesus offered him as the example of a righteous man. And the man with the sick son, he acknowledged that even the belief he offered was actually corrupt with unbelief when he prayed, "help Thou, my unbelief."

well, as a Calvinist I would not expect you to bored. burned out maybe...but not bored

still boring