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

But you do dispute that man has the ability to choose to accept or to reject God Consciousness (Rom1:18-25 at min.), correct?

Just to cut to the chase to where this goes next, I'm going to assert that if you do dispute man's ability to choose to accept or to reject God pursuant to Rom1, then you do dispute Biblical God Consciousness and we are in continuing unresolved disagreement because we disagree what Rom1 says and means, which we've been belaboring for many days now.

What is "true spiritual understanding"? Is this your latest way of referring to 1Cor2:14?

Again, to cut to the chase, I've gone through 1Cor2 in similar fashion to what I've laid our for Rom1. If you're asserting that God Consciousness is not "true spiritual understanding" of God's eternal power and divinity, and of His judgment against all unrighteousness, (as I recall you have disputed that it is even spiritual information) then we remain in disagreement and I see you as inserting your own erroneous terminology and concepts into our Text once again and even further (not spiritual > not true spiritual) to try to make your case.

Paul in 1Cor2-3 is talking about the deep things God has prepared for those who love God, that not even infants in Christ can yet understand. Paul in Romans 1 is talking about all of humanity's knowledge and understanding of certain [spiritual] things about God.

Context.

Conflating.

I'm not interested in your seeds theories. Label my lack of interest as you are free to choose to do.

That's a breath of fresh air I didn't know yo had in you

Not all those who claim to believe in Jesus believe the correct sound doctrine of Jesus Christ and, therefore, they are not of the elect.

… “claim to believe?” Perhaps they’re not Christians then.

Point taken.

Nor does it says an unregenerate person cannot believe it.

Some may interpret this with a continuous present which would include how you see it, but require the belief to be continuous or possibly even iterative to leave room for some growth into continuous, which would accord with God's commands such as to abide and endure.

Some may take it as I do at the moment to be gnomic, and thus a general maxim. And since it is truth, it contains in itself a timelessness that would carry some similarity to the continuous present. IOW, it requires continuous belief because it is timeless in Christ.

It could also point in a sense to being future for some since it is gnomic. IOW, those who will believe will enter into its benefits (as long as God has the door open) because it's always true.

What you should ask yourself is whether or not its power is subject to man's belief. Or, is it just a gnomic maxim that it is God's power for salvation that man gains access to through believing it? IOW, how simplistically do we want to look at this?

Then, since you're really trying to make the point that the unbeliever has no ability to believe, as you gloried in my ability to understand the error of the Calvinist, then we can proceed through Romans beginning with Paul's teaching in the next verse re: faith/belief and then proceeding into teaching about God Consciousness, then...

But we already know you won't submit to what Scripture says about God Consciousness in the next several verses, so why pretend like you will?

I do appreciate your ACTUALLY looking at the Text and bringing this to my attention. I'm hoping you can see that I am in part in agreement with you, but I see more to this, and I don't see it as proof that your concept of spiritual death is correct.

Happy 4th to you too. Joining the festivities or staying safely away?

@Rufus Apologies. A bit distracted today. I should have mentioned that the main point is not man's belief but the simple verb "is" - the Gospel IS God's power - so yes, it is God's power no matter what - and, yes, it is accessed through man's faith. It brings to mind the drinking of flowing water freely when one thirsts.

Let's keep it simple: "of everyone who [currently] believes qualifies for whom the "power of God" applies (Rom 1:16). And this makes sense since Salvation is an ongoing process. (You know: The three tenses of salvation?) So, it makes perfectly good sense for Paul to speak this way because the Word of of God is powerful and it, along with the Holy Spirit, is what keeps (1Pet 1:5, cf. Phil 1:6; Jude 24 AND 1Thess 2:13 ESPECIALLY, etc.) the saints on the straight and narrow path as we make our pilgrimage to the City of God. If Paul meant to convey the idea that the Gospel is the power of God for all who will come to believe, he could have said that easily enough.

Secondly, my interpretation better fits the immediate context of the passage. Check out the next verse:

Rom 1:17
17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
NIV

In other words, a righteousness by faith -- a faith that began at the new birth -- when we were converted -- and that same faith will carry us to either the end of our sanctified lives or to the end of the age when our salvation will be consummated at the general resurrection. And the last part of the verse Paul stresses the fact the righteous WILL live by faith from the beginning to end. After all, Faith will no longer be required after the resurrection, since all saints will live by sight in the visible, eternal -- no longer by faith.

Soo...given what you first asked, I ask in return: If natural man has the inherent power to believe the gospel, then why would he need to gain access to God's power? If he had the power to run to first base, why would he need more power to make it home? Are you suggesting that man who began the work of his own salvation doesn't have enough will power to complete it?

@Rufus copying and pasting these because I can't quote them with a click:

Consciousness does not = understanding. Look up the definitions of both. One can indeed be "conscious" (i.e. aware) of an external object, state or fact and at the same time not understand or totally understand of what it is we're sensing or feeling or thinking. Nice try in moving the goal posts, though. It's a typical equivocating strategy employed by Man in the Natural.

• Rom1:20 says understanding. It's your responsibility to read Scripture and define words. I actually did some work for you.
• We can use God Knowing & Understanding or something similar if it'll assist you and help you stop making excuses for not reading and defining words in Scripture. "God Consciousness" is definitely a somewhat common theological construct I thought you had a handle on.

And what in the world are you talking about with my "seeds theories"? As God is my witness, two seeds are talked about in Gen 3:15. I label your lack of answer as Total Inability (1st kissin' cousin to TD) to honestly and coherently address the passage without your bias against the Doctrines of Grace. But I'm not surprised, so don't feel like you've disappointed me. How often did the enemies of Christ fail to answer his questions? Don't you know that what you fail to do or do to me, you likewise fail or do to Him?

• As far as I'm concerned everything you say is your theory. I've come to this conclusion because I don't see you putting forth much of any accuracy FROM the Text. I have seen some novel theories combined with a lot of Calvinism which I also think is theoretical. You're work is unconvincing so far.
• I did take note of what you said about Rom1:16 and after things settled down this evening, I did start going through Rom1 once again. Always interesting.

PaulThomson said:
Yes. That is what Paul teaches in Romans 7.
"I was alive without the law once. But when the law came, sin came to life, and I died."

I nte your mere bald assetiona and the total absebxe of any scripyital support for your assertions.

The flesh runs on instinct: fight or flight. The spirit runs on revelation: stand still and see the salvation of the lord; stand still and love your others as you love yourself.

The flesh's motivation is opposite to the spirit's. The flesh says, "I must survive.i hve only this physical life." The spirit says, "There is a part of me that will survive beyond this life, and I must prepare myself to inherit a good afterlife bu living in a noble manner."

The spirit of both the natural man and the soiritual man CAN reason this counter-instinctual way by setting their mind on spiritul things rather than fleshly things. Because you are reading scripture through the lens of Augustine;'s Manichaen gnosticim, you do not understand the semantic range of ":flesh", and are failing to distinguish in scripture between the flesh created to be a physical instumrnt of the soul/spirit and is fearfully and wonderfully made good vs. the flesh as animal instinct, which opposes any good benevolent intentions of the soul/spirit..

Yes they were relying on God rto redeem them to Himself through the means they had heard about. They did not believe that Jesus had died and rose again. They did not believe Jesus would die and rise again. Whatever light they had and understood, they trusted. and were considered righteous for their faith.

So, clearly, not having heard the gospel is not a barrier to being reckoned righteousness and being reconcilied with God. People are judged by their response to the light they have, not by the light you have. And you and I will be judged by our response to the light we have, not the light some theologian thinks they have.

It's good to have you looking at actual Scripture in actual context. You are free to keep it as simple as you like. I'll take it word by word and define every word and grammatical construction in places and follow the context from phrase to phrase with all the grammatical markers. If we end up with the same meaning, that's a good thing.

For starters, I won't rely on the NIV. and I'll probably end up taking issue with it quite a bit. Secondly, since you're touching on it and seeing it in focus, the 3 phases of salvation concept is very often in view when "salvation is mentioned and contextual work may require us to determine what phases(s) are being discussed, So, what do you see as the main focus of salvation here, if there is one - #1, 2, or 3, or all or ?? or is it important (if it works for you, #1-3 is easier for me than the common Just., Sanct., Glor., which I don't care for because it's not really accurate)? You seem to be saying #1 is not in view. I'm not prepared to agree for a few reasons, but they're not that important at the moment, and I can flow with you for now. There are a few nuances I'm still looking at.

FWIW, looking at the options to translate the language elaborating a bit on the words, at this time I'd say: [God's} Gospel [concerning God's Son Jesus Christ...] is God's power for the purpose of salvation for the benefit of all [men] who believe [it/Him].

Since "salvation" can carry a nuance as a verbal noun (salvation <> saving) that language could be considered if useful for thinking and interpreting, to say "...God's power for the purpose of saving all [men] who believe it (and thus believe Him)."

From there, "from first to last" is interpretive. There are some other ways to interpret it that don't take us so directly into the 3 phases, and I have some thoughts I've carried for some time re: what Hosea is saying and how it may well be coloring Paul's use a bit differently than translated and then interpreted.

All of this really boils down to what point Paul is making before he gets into the part about Knowing & Understanding God. He's dealing with the revealing of God's wrath vs. God's righteousness. And there is a likelihood that righteousness and salvation are parallels.

FWIW, we may not be too far apart on 1:16 and I'll leave that for you to decide. Here's my take for now: The context is mainly dealing with phase 2, that will have an effect on phase 2 and 3, but does not exclude phase 1 mainly because what God is doing in this includes bringing men into phase 1 so more are involved in phase 2, affecting 2-3, and the circle or increasing upward spiral continues.

For you, I think you're going to have to consider what the power of the Gospel is in drawing more men to Jesus Christ as more and more men are revealing God's righteousness which in reality is what God's Gospel does. And if God's righteousness and God's salvation are indeed parallel here (as they are in places in OC Scripture as I recall) then what is the power of more and more men revealing God's righteousness / God's salvation comprehensively by faith?

Simple works at times. What Paul is saying is not simple until he's more fully understood, Peter.

I agree. There is no relationship with God apart from a relationship Christ provides.
I agree there is one mediator between God and man...the man Christ Jesus.
I agree that no one knows the Father except the Son and those He reveals Him to

Nut none of those texts say that affirming a particular set of theoliogical propositions about Christ is what makes Jesus take up our case before the Father and advocate for us.

Faith in Christ is foundational to salvation. One cannot know God apart from knowing Christ.

No one who claims to love the Bible is going to disagree with a cited Bible text. And merely citing a text without giving your interpretation gives no clue as to what you think your text means. What is thr point you are trying to make from this text?

While it is true that Christ is the perfect revelation of the Father, and every aspect of God that we receive must come through Christ, it is not stated that propositions about Christ and personal experiences with the person of Christ, are the only ways by which Christ makes God known. Knowing enough about God to be saved, and knowing God deeply and intimately, are not necessarily the same thing.

Knowing about God never saved anyone. Believing on the Lord Jesus Christ might get you somewhere.

I didn't say that knowing about God is enough to save someone.

I can clarify: Knowing enough about God so that one can trust enough of what one knows to be saved......