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

So, the airport analogy for us simpletons is not valid for referring to how faith works?:

I 'see' the plane and [ intellectually ] know in my mind that it is real and it should be able to get me to my destination. However, until I actually have faith to "get on board" and trust [ in my heart? ] my life into the hands of the pilot, I will not "get to my destination", eh?

Amen.

Before they fell they could not know good and evil.

But, after they fell? They had no teachings yet as to what constitutes something be good or evil
They had to learn like little children have to learn from adults not to run out in the street with traffic.

When fallen they became vulnerable and very sensitive to Satan's EVIL directed towards them.
THEN! Only after they fell? Satan projected evil onto them!

Before they fell? If Satan screamed at them that being naked was shameful?
They would have not understood, and wondered what this odd spirit in the Garden was talking about.

Before they fell? Satan could say any evil he wanted about them, and they would have shrugged it off like water off a duck's back.

Careful... It says "knowledge" of good and evil....
We need to be taught what is good, and what is evil.
Knowing what good and evil is happens after being shown what is good. And, what is evil.

That is why Moses gave the Law.
So men could learn what is good to be doing.
And learn what is evil to be avoided.

grace and peace ..............

I dont take kindly to that type of disrespect, pervert the Gospel? You just basically said if I dont agree with your fairly new interpretation of the Scriptures that I am accursed. Do you behave this way when you arent hiding behind a screen? I have my doubts.

When did I claim original sin is not true? I do believe in original sin. You said none desire to choose GOd, thats just plainly not true. Look at how many sincere yet incorrect believers there are, you think the mormons don't want to choose God? They do, they are just sincerely WRONG

You misunderstood my point about knowledge that is experiential. I'm not referring to how God rejecters live out their experiences. I'm referring to an actual and intimate experience of God Himself

God went personally to find Adam and speak with him. God went on walks with Enoch. God went specifically to Noah and Abraham. God came personally to Paul. Jesus lived in the midst of His disciples. And God continues to come to His people today. Do you think having poured out the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost that God now neglects to come? He is coming to more now than He ever has. This is the experience I am referring to. And whether I use the term intellectual assent or any other, all the terms that would describe what men may know from Romans 1 fall short of this coming of God to an individual. And it is this coming of God to an individual that is the substance of knowing God that is mentioned in John 17:3 as well as the substance of salvation.
This is what I am referring to.

One example of this is the attendance of repentance in the process of salvation. Man is capable of sorrow apart from God, but his sorrow will still be self-centered. He is truly sorrowful over sin, but not because he has offended a holy God. He sorrows over his fate. It is a Godly sorrow, a sorrow that is produced by God Himself, that works repentance. This is a real and experiential part of true salvation. And this is absent when someone simply makes a choice or a decision to believe.

I dont take kindly to that type of disrespect, pervert the Gospel? You just basically said if I dont agree with your fairly new interpretation of the Scriptures that I am accursed. Do you behave this way when you arent hiding behind a screen? I have my doubts.

When did I claim original sin is not true? I do believe in original sin. You said none desire to choose GOd, thats just plainly not true. Look at how many sincere yet incorrect believers there are, you think the mormons don't want to choose God? They do, they are just sincerely WRONG

Scripture please.

Most of not all instruction in the NC re: sorrow seems to pertain to Christians. But repentance does not have to be attached to sorrow.

You misunderstood my point about knowledge that is experiential.

I'm using experiential knowledge from the Text. What you speak of is more of the intimate personal knowledge of God - the Father (Abba) to sons relationship and the Bride of Christ relationship. But this knowledge is for Christians.

The point of the context of the rejecters and their experience is the flip side. God has provided the knowledge of Himself to provide for an experiential knowledge of having Him in that knowledge and understanding. And this is all in the context of righteousness vs. unrighteousness and ungodliness and judgment. This righteous Gis what the rejecters determined was of no value to them.

IOW, God has provided for an experiential knowledge of Himself to at least put mankind into the realm of a semi-functional righteousness and conscience and the rejecters see no value in this. So we see their progressive degeneracy (hardening), and God turning them over to their minds of no value.



This is where I'll ask you to provide Scripture to substantiate where God says he will personally come to every individual He saves.

John's Gospel was written in part for this purpose: 29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." 30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (Jn. 20:29-31 NKJ)

John 17:3 is relationship knowledge for Christians.

Do you attend a Pentecostal congregation?

Now that I've attempted to get us on the same page re: experiential knowledge vs. more intimate knowledge, I wanted to show you just one example of how important this experiential knowledge is:

NAS 1 Tim 2:3-4 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

• "knowledge" is this same word - "experiential/practical/useable knowledge" - knowledge to be lived outwardly
• So at minimum this is God's will for all mankind - and it's the same word Paul says the God rejecters in Rom1 did not value having.
  • If they rejected such knowledge s described in Rom1 - how interested can they ever be in this same concept of knowledge discussed in the context of salvation?
  • In fact, isn't Paul speaking in Rom1 in the prior context of salvation and the Gospel?
• The reason I underlined "and" above is because there is a meaning in Greek called "ascensive" that means it can legitimately be translated as "namely/even/meaning" which in essence equates the two clauses.
  • IMO this is possible if not probable here and thus Paul can be telling us that God desires all men to be saved meaning God desires all men to come to experiential knowledge of truth (so salvation in this sense can be experientially living according to truth)

ESV Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,

• Same word experiential knowledge again and once again Paul writing.
• Same potential if not probable use of "and"
• So: The Faith of God's elect meaning their experiential knowledge of the truth re: godliness
  • IOW The Faith (objective sense = what is believed/obeyed) is knowledge of truth re: godliness that they live.
  • Put this together with 1Tim2 and ultimately salvation is about living a godly life based upon truth which is the Faith that we believe.
  • Now take this back to Rom1 and see how important it is for mankind to accept and not reject the knowledge God has given all mankind to have an experiential life based upon knowledge of Him and how this would prepare men for salvation in Jesus Christ and not live ungodly lives that ends in judgment.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how and why those who disagree with Calvin do so in "PRIDE."

Explain or retract or move on to someone else.

2 Corinthians 7:9-10.

As I recall, there was some discussion re: knowing God already. To proceed to the end here, a few things:

• Rom1 that has been so heavily discussed uses several words for what God has made clear about Himself in men. Just in the knowledge side of things Paul says they know, they perceive, they understand (which is rooted in a word that means to put things together in the mind). They know, they reason, they perceive/discern, God has made it clear. While you may understandably refer to this as intellectual assent, I hope you wouldn't do so to limit what is vitally clear in all men.
• Re: actual experience: The word Paul uses in Rom1:28 where he says these rejecters did not value having God in knowledge is a compound word that intensifies the concept of knowledge. FWIW, after studying this word in every instance in the Bible and reading how others have come to understand it, my conclusion is that it means experiential/practical knowledge - knowledge about God to be used in life.
  • In the close context of 1:28 we can see how Paul is speaking of how the God rejecters live experientially.
  • In the LXX 1Kings7:14 it's used to translate a Hebrew word that in context means technical knowledge, ability.

So, I see knowledge and experiential knowledge made clear to men.

I don't use phrases like intellectual assent apart from defining them. And I don't blindly accept discussions about heart vs. head knowledge which I've mostly heard in very simplistic teachings.

I do see knowledge of truth gained through hearing and learning as essential for Biblical Faith/Obedience.

Your other point in a bit.

You are still conflating knowledge about God with knowledge of God.

Knowledge about salvation doesn't produce salvation. Grace isn't knowledge about God. It is the manifestation of the power of God.

I thought you'd likely go there and 7:10 is especially interesting. A few comments:

• It would be helpful to know what translation(s) you normally use.
• The context as I'm sure you know is about the repentance of the Corinthian congregation who Paul had made sorrowful/grieved with his previous letter concerning their sin.
• In this context repentance for salvation/deliverance is likely the congregation getting back on track and into God's will.
• I do see how you are taking it to be a general principle and have seen it that way myself in the past.
• I wouldn't build an entire doctrine of sorrow or repentance on this one verse and without a lot of work wouldn't agree that the unbeliever cannot come to sorrow/grief that causes him to look to God whom he did not reject the knowledge of/from.
• There are about 100 verses to go through that speak of sorrow and of repentance.

Define the phrases and reference or better paste Scripture to substantiate your definitions.

I'm not conflating from the Text though I may be conflating terms as you define them.



Explain or highlight what you're taking issue with and provide or explain with Scriptures please.

No need to add grace as yet.

I think this is an important analogy and very useful for preaching.

People put their faith IN many people and things in life, sometimes people put their faith in the wrong person or the wrong object.

Faith is not a word only found in scripture, a good classicist, someone who studies ancient writings would do a word study and see how the word is used across various writings.

Faith is trusting in and being persuaded something/someone is true, saving faith is not a gift, that would make God the selector of who will be saved and who will not.

When are you going to get over this hump and move on to greater things to understand that God wants understood?

It seems that those people who get caught up in that one truth about the depravity of man, never seem to grow an inch, and keep harping, day after day, on the depravity of man without end. Never growing into knowing the many thousands of other doctrines God wants us to learn before we get taken out of time and space on this earth.

Man in his natural state is depraved? OK. Now move on!

Calvinists in forums have become like someone stumbling upon a hermit who has dug a hole in a hill next to the road, and stays in the same place all the time, warning those passing by about how man is depraved.

Ok! Man is depraved!

What comes next after God's New Creation in Christ is established? The same depravity?

It a trap to keep some held back from maturing in Christ!

It should be self-explanatory. Everyone in their heart of hearts wants to be like their spiritual father who desired to be just like God. Satan certainly had an excessive opinion of himself, didn't he? He wanted to ascend right up to God's throne. And this was the essence of his temptation in the Garden -- he enticed Eve to eat so that she could be 'like God". And look at the religious world around us. World religions encourage their followers to be prideful with their works-based doctrines. All their sheeple believe they're good enough to earn God's acceptance and favor, which is totally backwards to what the bible teaches. This is why I personally believe that the chief of all sins is pride.

There was a reason why Jesus told his disciples, "Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Mat 18:4). In other words, whoever doesn't HUMBLE himself...won't enter the kingdom.

Your accusations are not always self-explanatory. But now this just seems to be your doubling down on your previous accusation that I or anyone else who doesn't agree with Calvin are satanic. So, simply consider this my last request to retract it or move on to someone else.

If you'd prefer to continue coming after me or what I post, I obviously can't stop you. So, I'll simply and impersonally continue to show when and how your use of Scripture is in error IMO and watch you ignore or jump into your extreme ad-hominem when you cannot argue with what I post, especially when it's looking at Scripture in some context and defining it's words. The most recent example of your ignoring was how convoluted was your post of A.W. Pink's lesson. What a mess of contradiction you don't even attempt to explain other than the blanket assertion that God elects and resurrects walking corpses so they can believe.