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

[Magenta]

Acts 17:26-27 ~ From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands. God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.

 

[Cameron143]

I saw your last statement. I thought you might provide some enlightenment.

Unless I've misunderstood you, the issue is more the sense of how we enter into Christ.

Would you tell us what "in" Christ means?

In Christ has many aspects to it. Some are positional, which allows for what is true of Christ to be ascribed to us. Some is relational. We are adopted, have sonship, we are placed into body. Some is experiential as we are able relate to God...hear His voice, see what He is doing, enter into His presence, know His felt presence.
This is only a part of what it is to be in Christ, but I just wanted to answer your question to some degree. And all of this assumes salvation. There is no...in Christ...apart from salvation.

 

[Rufus]

Atonement is not a guarantee of salvation. I know the reformed believe it is, hence they always accuse us of being universalists if we were consistent. Allow me to show you why I and most of Christendom throughout history have said that while Jesus atoned for the sins of the world, salvation of every single human being does not necessarily follow.

Leviticus 23:28-30 On this day you are not to do any work, for it is the Day of Atonement, when atonement is made for you before the LORD your God. If anyone does not humble himself on this day, he must be cut off from his people.
I will destroy from among their people anyone who does any work on that day.

I highlighted the atonement in red, as you can see atonement is made for the entire nation of Israel.
I highlighted the responsibility of man in blue, as you can see if one did not humble themselves on that day of atonement, they would be cut from the people. That would mean the atonement made for them is of no effect.

I will show you another example from the New Testament and there are many!:

2 Corinthians 5:19-20
that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.

Again I highlighted the atonement in red, Christ has died for the sins of the WORLD, including the false prophets (2 Peter 2:1). However in the very next verse Paul implores these people to be reconciled to God, which I highlighted in blue. But wait? I thought the whole world was already reconciled in the previous verse? What need is there for anyone to be reconciled anymore? Why does Paul implore them to BE reconciled? I will tell you why, its because its just like the atonement I quoted from Leviticus, which was a shadow of the sacrifice of Christ. The atonement was MADE for the whole world, BUT if there is no faith and repentance, that atonement will not be applied to you.

To put it in an illustration for the sake of the readers who are new Christians who might find the talk of atonement confusing:
Think of a sign that says: "Free water for everyone on 3rd street" The water has been provided for everyone, but if you don't go to 3rd street and pick up the water, it will be of no use to you!

With all due respect, sir, you still didn't answer my question re John 17. Also, Jesus clearly said he would atone (i.e. lay down his life for HIS sheep, cf. Jn 10:15-16). And in John 17, Jesus prayed for both his flocks, but omitted the world -- that clearly is not one of his flocks. Or consider that Jesus [actually] purchased his elect with his own blood (Rev 5:9), and that he actually purchased the Church of God with his own blood, i.e. he really, truly, actually atoned for the sins of his Church (Act 20:28).

One more thing: You're failing to take into consideration the many stark differences between the Old and New Covenants. What you quoted in Leviticus makes sense since the OC was bilateral and conditional in nature , whereas the NC is unilateral and unconditional nature. Hence, the stark differences in the language between the the Old and New Testaments. What you're doing in 2Cor 5:19-20 is taking an OC precept and reading it back into this NC passage! And that is backwards; for the NT is concealed in the Old, and the Old is revealed in the New! Our interpretative lens for understanding scripture should be the New Covenant -- not the Old! 2Cor 5 is not teaching that God was in Christ to potentially reconcile the world unto himself. It's not teaching God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself on the condition that "whosoever in/of the world believes in Christ will actually be reconciled to God. Read the New Covenant promises very carefully in Jer 31 and Ezek 36. If you do, you will see there are no conditions attached and that God promises to unilaterally act.

P.S. And welcome aboard. Always good to see new faces.

PPS: Also your analogy is weak because 2Cor 5:19-20 and a large number of similar scriptures don't teach that God or Christ provided reconciliation for all who want to drink of it. It's one thing to provide and something else to actually accomplish. Jesus didn't say that He would "provide" a way to be saved. He said "I AM the way". Big difference.

 

[Rufus]

You can't grasp what he said....

So you, ahhh...

Have to say something offensive as a defensive on your part to try to make your inferior way of thinking feeling protected.


Here you go:

If you were more self-aware of your proclivity for long-winded fluff posts, you'd be apologizing instead for causing the possible death of some poor, unsuspecting reader due to acute boredom.

I understood what he said. You did not.

I also understand you lack the capacity for learning anything that demands you stretch your limited capacities to grow.
He makes you feel inferior. It threatens your ego.
Yet, grace would you lift you up if the Spirit were truly enabling you...

What spirit you follow? I do not know. But I know its not the Holy Spirit.
For, the Holy Spirit is not arrogant...

And, be careful. For its why the Lord will be telling some hot shots in the future "I never knew you" after they boast about what great believers they thought they were.

Matthew 7:21-23​

​

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, ​

but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ​

On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, ​

and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ ​

And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers ​

of lawlessness.’​

They thought they were real hot shots for the Lord.....

So, you better be careful when you feel free to be arrogant towards other believers.

In Christ....

And what he said was all fluff. The ratio of noise to signal in his posts is almost always much higher.

 

[studier]

In like manner, the sinner, every sinner, is responsible to call upon the Lord. Of himself he can neither repent nor believe. He can neither come to Christ, nor turn from his sins. God tells him so; and his first duty is to "set to his seal that God is true". His second duty is to cry unto God for His enabling power—to ask God in mercy to overcome his enmity, and "draw" him to Christ; to bestow upon him the gifts of repentance and faith. If he will do so, sincerely from the heart, then most surely God will respond to his appeal, for it is written, "For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13).

A. W. Pink taught Calvinism.

Per Arthur Pink:

• Every sinner:
  • Must call upon the Lord
  • Of himself can neither repent nor believe - God tells him so
  • Cannot come to Christ - God tells him so
  • Cannot turn from his sins - God tells him so
  • Must first determine that God is true
  • Must cry unto God for His enabling power
  • Must ask God in mercy to overcome his enmity (hatred)
  • Must ask God to draw him to Christ
  • Must ask God to bestow upon him the gift of repentance & the gift of faith
  • Must do this sincerely from the heart
  • God will most surely respond as it says in Rom 10:13

A few questions:

• How does a corpse:
  • Call upon the name of the Lord?
  • Hear God whom he not only rejects, but also suppresses truth about, tell him he:
    • Cannot repent nor believe?
    • Cannot come to Christ?
    • Cannot turn from his sins?
  • Determine God is true?
  • Cry unto God for God's enabling power?
  • Ask God in mercy to overcome his enmity which is his nature to love?
  • Ask God to draw him to Christ?
  • Ask God to bestow upon him the gift of repentance & the gift of faith?
  • Must do all of this sincerely from the heart?

A few observations from Scripture:

• Romans 10 procedure:
  • God sends a proclaimer of God's Good News for men to believe/obey
  • Proclaimer proclaims
  • Men hear
  • Men believe/obey
  • Men call upon the name of the Lord
• John 6 drawing by God
  • God teaches/draws > men hear & learn > men come to/believe in Christ
• Pink:
  • Seems to have some carts before the horses
  • Seems to be adding to Scripture - e.g. I don't recall Jesus saying man asks to be drawn to God - this makes dead man the initiator - Romans says God is the initiator & John 6 agrees.
  • Is Pink's dead corpse God hater the same as the one we hear about from other Calvinistss?

Enough for a start.

 

[studier]

In Christ has many aspects to it.

Thanks. From the standpoint of just the language, I see it as primarily relational and within that relationship, what you explained including the more.

Am I correct that where you differ from some here is how we enter or are entered into Christ? Didn't you say something about being given a new heart [first]?

 

[Hakawaka]

With all due respect, sir, you still didn't answer my question re John 17. Also, Jesus clearly said he would atone (i.e. lay down his life for HIS sheep, cf. Jn 10:15-16). And in John 17, Jesus prayed for both his flocks, but omitted the world -- that clearly is not one of his flocks. Or consider that Jesus [actually] purchased his elect with his own blood (Rev 5:9), and that he actually purchased the Church of God with his own blood, i.e. he really, truly, actually atoned for the sins of his Church (Act 20:28).

One more thing: You're failing to take into consideration the many stark differences between the Old and New Covenants. What you quoted in Leviticus makes sense since the OC was bilateral and conditional in nature , whereas the NC is unilateral and unconditional nature. Hence, the stark differences in the language between the the Old and New Testaments. What you're doing in 2Cor 5:19-20 is taking an OC precept and reading it back into this NC passage! And that is backwards; for the NT is concealed in the Old, and the Old is revealed in the New! Our interpretative lens for understanding scripture should be the New Covenant -- not the Old! 2Cor 5 is not teaching that God was in Christ to potentially reconcile the world unto himself. It's not teaching God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself on the condition that "whosoever in/of the world believes in Christ will actually be reconciled to God. Read the New Covenant promises very carefully in Jer 31 and Ezek 36. If you do, you will see there are no conditions attached and that God promises to unilaterally act.

P.S. And welcome aboard. Always good to see new faces.

PPS: Also your analogy is weak because 2Cor 5:19-20 and a large number of similar scriptures don't teach that God or Christ provided reconciliation for all who want to drink of it. It's one thing to provide and something else to actually accomplish. Jesus didn't say that He would "provide" a way to be saved. He said "I AM the way". Big difference.

I would respond to John 17 about Jesus not praying for the world in a simple way that: Of course Jesus only prays for the sheep, not the goats. Thats not to say people FROM the world cant repent and be shown to be sheep! Born again

But what does 2 Cor 5:20 mean then? Why does Paul say be ye reconciled if they already ARE? Would you take the "world" in 2 Cor 5:19 to be world as the elect instead of every person?

 

[Magenta]

Colossians 1:21-22

 

[Rufus]

Thanks for the list. There are several of them on the internet these days. The one you drew from seems to agree with what I showed from running through John 14:17 and close surrounding verses. I'd change the list you drew from to "Christ's twelve Apostles" to stay tighter to the Text.

You could have found this list and drew from what you copied when I asked you who John 14:17 was speaking of. You also could have followed the schooling in hermeneutics you were giving someone else earlier in this thread re: original audience.

A suggestion for you; no one has to read what anyone else writes here. Some are raised in very detailed exegetical teaching and thrive on it. I'm not remotely posting that level of detail here.

You're correct that many do not like any detail in learning Scripture. That's one of the reasons we have so many today who have been taught various demoninational (misspelled that one!) systems. There were men foreseeing this problem at minimum over a century ago (let alone in our Text). And in our day we can also see the real fallout of this in assemblies that don't teach much of anything but do like music and plays and social events.

One of the things men I know have been trying for the last generation+ to save is the continuing of educating pastors and teachers in the languages of Scripture so we have men still able to continue their own research in and teaching from the actual Text by the Spirit. Some of the major seminaries have been dropping language instruction for some time now. FWIW, there are churches today that when seeking a pastor put in their resume requests qualifications for guitar playing.

Now that you've listed some basic Pneumatology, do you still think all of mankind throughout all of history were "God haters" who rejected what they knew of God? Don't you see that there was always some concept of a remnant?

I actually had started a list many moons ago...but, yes, I did borrow from the resources of the web and my own software to expand on it because I knew I had only a small sampling. (The building of my own personal Topical Files is still a work in progress after all these decades.) So...do you agree that the Holy Spirit was "with" God's covenant people in the OT? And do you believe that John the Baptist was the last of the OT prophets? And do you believe that both Christ and his disciples lived in a very unique, non-repeatable time wherein they both (save for Judas) transitioned from the Old to the New Covenant era? And do you believe the Cross terminates the one age and begins the other?

And are you suggesting that Christ's disciples (original audience in Jn 14:17) didn't understand that the Holy Spirit ministered to their ancestors? That the Spirit of the Lord was intimately involved with their ancestors?

As far as your last question goes, I'm surprised you're asking me this! After all, I have known for some time that Remnant Theology has its genesis in the post-Fall narrative in Genesis -- of all books. It is I who should be asking you this question! Why can't you see this? Could it be you can't because you don't want to, since it would not be helpful to your "peculiar" brand of soteriology, upon which I'm sure you'd be loathe to pin any labels?

 

[Cameron143]

Thanks. From the standpoint of just the language, I see it as primarily relational and within that relationship, what you explained including the more.

Am I correct that where you differ from some here is how we enter or are entered into Christ? Didn't you say something about being given a new heart [first]?

New heart or changed heart. Either works for me. I believe this is the circumcision made without hands and is what used to be called conversion.

 

[Magenta]

New heart or changed heart. Either works for me. I believe this is the circumcision
made without hands and is what used to be called conversion.

This gets left out of a lot of conversations... unfortunately.

Although you and I do speak of it often, we may differ in how we see the effects of it.

 

[studier]

And are you suggesting that Christ's disciples (original audience in Jn 14:17) didn't understand that the Holy Spirit ministered to their ancestors? That the Spirit of the Lord was intimately involved with their ancestors?

I simply showed from Scripture that John14:17 was Jesus speaking to the twelve apostles just as the other verses I posted clearly show. It's good to see you found a list that got you at least to His disciples. Close enough for now.

So, with the remnant concept and some pneumatology on the table, did you answer how that reconciles to the absolute corpse concepts you push so aggressively?

 

[studier]

New heart or changed heart. Either works for me. I believe this is the circumcision made without hands and is what used to be called conversion.

New/changed/circumcised heart then belief?

 

[studier]

This gets left out of a lot of conversations... unfortunately.

Although you and I do speak of it often, we may differ in how we see the effects of it.

Maybe it gets left out because it's assumed in what some are discussing. IOW, where and in what part in the process it takes place.

 

[Cameron143]

New/changed/circumcised heart then belief?

Yes, in conjunction with the word of God.

 

[studier]

Yes, in conjunction with the word of God.

Scripture you base this on?

 

[Cameron143]

Scripture you base this on?

Acts 2:37 for one.

 

[Rufus]

A. W. Pink taught Calvinism.

Per Arthur Pink:

• Every sinner:
  • Must call upon the Lord
  • Of himself can neither repent nor believe - God tells him so
  • Cannot come to Christ - God tells him so
  • Cannot turn from his sins - God tells him so
  • Must first determine that God is true
  • Must cry unto God for His enabling power
  • Must ask God in mercy to overcome his enmity (hatred)
  • Must ask God to draw him to Christ
  • Must ask God to bestow upon him the gift of repentance & the gift of faith
  • Must do this sincerely from the heart
  • God will most surely respond as it says in Rom 10:13

A few questions:

• How does a corpse:
  • Call upon the name of the Lord?
  • Hear God whom he not only rejects, but also suppresses truth about, tell him he:
    • Cannot repent nor believe?
    • Cannot come to Christ?
    • Cannot turn from his sins?
  • Determine God is true?
  • Cry unto God for God's enabling power?
  • Ask God in mercy to overcome his enmity which is his nature to love?
  • Ask God to draw him to Christ?
  • Ask God to bestow upon him the gift of repentance & the gift of faith?
  • Must do all of this sincerely from the heart?

A few observations from Scripture:

• Romans 10 procedure:
  • God sends a proclaimer of God's Good News for men to believe/obey
  • Proclaimer proclaims
  • Men hear
  • Men believe/obey
  • Men call upon the name of the Lord
• John 6 drawing by God
  • God teaches/draws > men hear & learn > men come to/believe in Christ
• Pink:
  • Seems to have some carts before the horses
  • Seems to be adding to Scripture - e.g. I don't recall Jesus saying man asks to be drawn to God - this makes dead man the initiator - Romans says God is the initiator & John 6 agrees.
  • Is Pink's dead corpse God hater the same as the one we hear about from other Calvinistss?

Enough for a start.

What Pink was getting at is that man SHOULD cry out to God --SHOULD seek after him, etc. He's stressing man's responsibility. Not ability!

For example under the OC, the Israelites were responsible for keeping the entire Law of Moses -- always. An impossible task, right!? But God wasn't about to lower his moral standards to accommodate our moral-spiritual impotency. You're making the common mistake that so many NR do: You think that Responsibility presupposes Ability. It does not! We should not forget: Adam in his innocent state had that ability; and, therefore, was our perfect representative until he sinned. Now, only the Last Adam had the ability to do what Adam SHOULD have done -- and that also includes always implicitly trusting his Father and actually fulfilling the Chief End of Man. Man is responsible because he KNOWS what he should and should not do -- this is the grounds for his condemnation. Man does actually have the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The fact that his evil, God-hating heart will not permit him to do as he ought is not his chief problem. His chief problem consists in the thoughts and intentions of that heart! His chief problem is his INNER life! For it is the "treasures" within the heart that determines behavior.

 

[Rufus]

I simply showed from Scripture that John14:17 was Jesus speaking to the twelve apostles just as the other verses I posted clearly show. It's good to see you found a list that got you at least to His disciples. Close enough for now.

So, with the remnant concept and some pneumatology on the table, did you answer how that reconciles to the absolute corpse concepts you push so aggressively?

Answer my questions in the last paragraph of my 9369 first. Don't you see Remnant Theology taught in the post-Fall Genesis narrative?

And you also ignored all my questions about the historical context of the original audience in Jn 14:17 and how it was a unique, non-repeatable transitional period in redemptive history.

 

[Genez]

You still didn't answer my question re John 17 and why in Jesus's High Priestly prayer he explicitly excluded the world for whom he allegedly died.

Rufus... I will never be able to answer your questions to your satisfaction.
Because I will not give an answer you want to hear to reinforce your erroneous thinking.

I do not see that as a deficiency on my part.


Wishing you a nice Day.