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

[studier]

I'm well aware of the debates (plural) that surround both the Abrahamic and New Covenants, even within Reformed Theology. So, what? Maybe that's a reason I don't subscribe to Covenant Theology! Since you take the conditional side (probably to both), then identify the conditions in the NC with chapter and verse, please. But of course, you won't be able to do so; for we both know there are no conditions stipulated in Jer 31, 32 or Ezek 36. The NC is strictly unilateral -- filled with I WILL, I WILL, I WILL (God speaking) -- with no YOU WILL anywhere to be found. And this is be expected since the NC is so very much UNLIKE the Old (Jer 31:32), which indeed was a conditional, bilateral covenant.

not being able to reconcile the demands of the NT Gospel with the unconditional promises of the New Covenant that preceded the first advent by several centuries?

Even though this is all still about TULIP (the 1Tim discussion being about the L in TULIP standing for Limited Atonement) I've separated the 1Tim4:10 discussion from this above quoted one.

I'm also familiar with this debate within the Reformed camps over conditional vs. unconditional covenants. I don't expect to resolve anything with you, but it's an interesting discussion that also remains unresolved within the Reformed systems.

It seems at heart a pretty simple problem. Under the U in TULIP, standing for Unconditional Election, if there are any conditions in the Covenant, then TULIP loses the U.

It's been some time, but I too have been taught the covenants and how they've been classified as unilateral vs. bilateral, unconditional vs. conditional. Honestly, to begin with, this too is something I've for the most part set aside in my personal studies. In my experience men simply make too many mistakes with the Text. I can go back and draw upon these interpretations if I need to.

You mention the Abrahamic Covenant. It's classified as unconditional. Then we read a verse like this one and it at least makes me wonder if we know what we think we know:

NKJ Gen 26:2-5 Then the LORD appeared to him and said: "Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land of which I shall tell you. 3 "Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. 4 "And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 "because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."​

So, simply put, I now just read and analyze Scripture as best I can in Christ in Spirit. Among all the "I will" statements you made emphatic for your purposes, some of which we can also see in these verses, exists a causal clause. The faith, obedience, and faithfulness of Abraham is well covered in Scripture. It's things like this in Scripture that made me begin to question all the authoritative pulpit pounding of men and their systems.

In order for you to protect TULIP, we're now going to be presented with a distinction and separation between the Gospel of Jesus Christ which contains conditions for men, and the New Covenant "I WILL" statements of God positing that there are no conditions in the NC.

So, you said you can present this case. Please do. Start where you will. Maybe the big picture of why and how the Gospel and the NC are separate in this view. My one request is that you take it slowly so both of us can try to keep these posts more brief.

 

[studier]

You appear to be confusing atonement for sins, a precursor to salvation, with the entire process of salvation from atonement to resurrection

Will you please elaborate?

 

[PaulThomson]

I'm also familiar with this debate within the Reformed camps over conditional vs. unconditional covenants. I don't expect to resolve anything with you, but it's an interesting discussion that also remains unresolved within the Reformed systems.

What? Those who have been regenerated to have been given a new heart and the ability to read scripture and discern what it truly teaches disagree in house among themselves over what it teaches. And yet they are sure they are correct in their understanding when it conflicts with the understanding of those outside of the house? How can that be?

 

[studier]

What? Those who have been regenerated to have been given a new heart and the ability to read scripture and discern what it truly teaches disagree in house among themselves over what it teaches. And yet they are sure they are correct in their understanding when it conflicts with the understanding of those outside of the house? How can that be?

Quite the thing, huh?

 

[Mem]

Quite the thing, huh?

I think the acronym would be more fittingly expressed as LITUP.

 

[studier]

I think the acronym would be more fittingly expressed as LITUP.

With a space between the T & the U?

 

[Mem]

With a space between the T & the U?

Yes! That would do well to incorporate the not so very insignificant gap in the doctrine.

 

[HeIsHere]

One condition: "believe on Jesus Christ.

Amen!

 

[Rufus]

Why don't you care about all the other Scriptures I posted that essentially say the same thing as 1Tim4:10?

Where did I indicate in any way that I think "God saves all men universally" and why did you pretend to quote me above?

Are you familiar with the debates about this verse within the Reformed camps?

I don't care because of my hermeneutics methodology. Why can't you answer my three questions? For someone with such great "understanding" you sure know how to beat around the bush.

Re the implication to your interpretation: I figure that since God actually saves believers from the penalty and power of sin as their Savior, what else could I infer about God who is also the Savior of all unbelievers as well? Are you now suggesting that God is the Savior of believers in one sense and the Savior of unbelievers in a totally different sense?

 

[Rufus]

You appear to be confusing atonement for sins, a precursor to salvation, with the entire process of salvation from atonement to resurrection.

Is an authorised lifesaver at the beach a lifesaver for all swimmers, or only for the swimmers he pulls from the water?

Bad analogy. The intent behind lifeguards is that they are there to protect and save all. Yet, where is this concept taught in the bible? God's intentions for mankind are clearly revealed in the post-Fall Genesis narrative wherein he clearly saved Eve, but passed over Adam. Crystal clear!

Also, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep. No goats.

And why didn't Jesus pray for the whole world in Jn 17 that he allegedly died for?

And why didn't Jesus appear to the whole world after he rose from the dead to convince them of his identity?

And if Jesus atoned for the sins of each and every person on the planet, then where in scripture is the covenant that God made with the entire world wherein he promised to atone for the sins for all? Yet, we find no such covenant but only a unilateral covenant that God made his chosen, covenant people.

 

[Rufus]

So, why do you present your four texts earlier as proof-texts for Jesus dying for a limited number of people only, when they use the same grammtical structure as this verse? You can't realistically use ambiguous verses that comport with your interlocutor's position as evidence against his/her position.

It's not the same structure. The last phrase in 1Tim 4:10 qualifies the universal term "all".

 

[Rufus]

LOL. Here's a question you haven't answered.



I don't care about the other passages you posted. Why can't you answer it?

I answered that question about Galatians. Wake up, sleepy head!

 

[Rufus]

Where does scripture ever mentionthe term you have invented here: "the unconditional promises of the New Covenant"?

It's found in the same place as the term "Trinity".

 

[PaulThomson]

Re the implication to your interpretation: I figure that since God actually saves believers from the penalty and power of sin as their Savior, what else could I infer about God who is also the Savior of all unbelievers as well?

As their Saviour, He can save them, and will go through the process of saving them from the power of sin, if they call out to Him, just as a lifesaver can save anyone from the pull of the undertow, and will go through the process of saving them, if they call for help. The service is freely available in both cases. Both rescuers don't choose whom they are willing to save according to their past moral histories.

 

[PaulThomson]

It's not the same structure. The last phrase in 1Tim 4:10 qualifies the universal term "all".

The lifeguard at the beach is the lifeguard of all beach-goers, but especially of those struggling against the current whom he pulls from the water. He is still the lifeguard of all beach-goers.

 

[PaulThomson]

It's found in the same place as the term "Trinity".

Your book of systematic theology is not scripture.

 

[studier]

I don't care because of my hermeneutics methodology. Why can't you answer my three questions? For someone with such great "understanding" you sure know how to beat around the bush.

Re the implication to your interpretation: I figure that since God actually saves believers from the penalty and power of sin as their Savior, what else could I infer about God who is also the Savior of all unbelievers as well? Are you now suggesting that God is the Savior of believers in one sense and the Savior of unbelievers in a totally different sense?

You must mean the hermeneutic of garbage in garbage out. Yes, it is a solid principle. It can be seen functioning in your second paragraph.

I did answer your questions from one point of view. Your hermeneutics and indoctrination and [possibly] limited understanding of language prevent you from understanding me. But I also acknowledge that no matter what there will be disagreement. IOW I don't profess to have a solution anyone will accept, although I do know that some, even some in Reformed, do not agree with Limited Atonement.

Do you have a problem with this statement, 'God is Savior'? Can you explain why?

Do you have a problem with this statement, 'God is Savior of the world'? Can you explain why?

 

[Rufus]

Even though this is all still about TULIP (the 1Tim discussion being about the L in TULIP standing for Limited Atonement) I've separated the 1Tim4:10 discussion from this above quoted one.

I'm also familiar with this debate within the Reformed camps over conditional vs. unconditional covenants. I don't expect to resolve anything with you, but it's an interesting discussion that also remains unresolved within the Reformed systems.

It seems at heart a pretty simple problem. Under the U in TULIP, standing for Unconditional Election, if there are any conditions in the Covenant, then TULIP loses the U.

It's been some time, but I too have been taught the covenants and how they've been classified as unilateral vs. bilateral, unconditional vs. conditional. Honestly, to begin with, this too is something I've for the most part set aside in my personal studies. In my experience men simply make too many mistakes with the Text. I can go back and draw upon these interpretations if I need to.

You mention the Abrahamic Covenant. It's classified as unconditional. Then we read a verse like this one and it at least makes me wonder if we know what we think we know:

NKJ Gen 26:2-5 Then the LORD appeared to him and said: "Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land of which I shall tell you. 3 "Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. 4 "And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; 5 "because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."​

So, simply put, I now just read and analyze Scripture as best I can in Christ in Spirit. Among all the "I will" statements you made emphatic for your purposes, some of which we can also see in these verses, exists a causal clause. The faith, obedience, and faithfulness of Abraham is well covered in Scripture. It's things like this in Scripture that made me begin to question all the authoritative pulpit pounding of men and their systems.

In order for you to protect TULIP, we're now going to be presented with a distinction and separation between the Gospel of Jesus Christ which contains conditions for men, and the New Covenant "I WILL" statements of God positing that there are no conditions in the NC.

So, you said you can present this case. Please do. Start where you will. Maybe the big picture of why and how the Gospel and the NC are separate in this view. My one request is that you take it slowly so both of us can try to keep these posts more brief.

Gen 26 states the reason why God chose Abraham but the text doesn't address the unconditional nature of the promises that God made with Abraham.

I really don't want to get off on a tangent with the Abrahamic Covenant (even though it sets the precedent for the unilateral NC), but it's really easy for anyone with spiritual eyes to see what kind of Covenant it was. In fact, I'll let you tell me: In Gen 15, who ratified the covenant: God, Abraham or both? Likewise, for the New Covenant who ratified it: Christ, his disciples, the entire world for whom he is the Savior and for whom he allegedly died, or all the aforementioned? How you answer this question determines the nature of both covenants.

It seems it's only people who have their own personal, worldly, fleshly theological agendas who are most inclined to represent key theological issues as being far more complicated than they are, and then appeal to the "great debates" throughout Church history in an attempt to support their primary premise, and then conclude it's really tough to be dogmatic on those issue. How convenient.

Finally, yes, indeed there is a difference between the NT Gospel and the New Covenant. Clearly, the former has demands; while the latter has only divine guarantees of fulfillment. I see you're still struggling with these facts! (Which is why you and PT want to conflate the two so badly!) Having a hard time reconciling the two, are you? Permit me to give you a leg up on that big bad pony.

You see, if you had paid careful attention to what I wrote in my Exodus typology exposition, I pointed out when the Israelities finally had their spiritual HA, HA moment --when they finally woke up from their sleep of death! But you were too dull to understand, even though I went out of my way to draw attention to Moses' concluding remarks about the Exodus out of Egypt, the truth did not resonate in your heart, did it?

Ex 14:29-31
29 But the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. 30 That day the LORD saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians lying dead on the shore. 31 And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant.
NIV

Moreover, it not only took the climatic, incredible miracle of the parting of the sea, but we know that God performed numerous other signs and wonders prior to that point. The moral to the story is that God's supernatural power (i.e. Effectual Grace) clearly preceded the people's faith in Him and in Moses. AND...the Fear of the Lord also preceded their trust in both God and Moses. Wow! Fear of the Lord! Didn't we just study that theme in the Wisdom Books and see that this divine GIFT is the precursor to knowledge, wisdom and understanding? And isn't this gift also promised in the New Covenant to God's chosen, covenant people (not to be confused or conflated with the world)?

Do you still need to have more dots connected for you?

 

[studier]

Bad analogy. The intent behind lifeguards is that they are there to protect and save all. Yet, where is this concept taught in the bible?

So far, I think the lifeguard analogy of @PaulThomson seems pretty good. See my post #9967 for my

God's intentions for mankind are clearly revealed in the post-Fall Genesis narrative wherein he clearly saved Eve, but passed over Adam. Crystal clear!

It won't do any good, but just to add to the record, your theory of Adam & Eve is not shared by many. It's not much of a foundation to build upon.

Also, Jesus laid down his life for his sheep. No goats.

NKJ 1 Tim 2:5-6 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

And why didn't Jesus pray for the whole world in Jn 17 that he allegedly died for?

NKJ John 17:20-23 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

• The bold underlined are purpose clauses. Jesus' prayer in those clauses is for the world.
• The first underlined portion is for future believers which follows Jesus' statement about then current believers.
• The way I read all this, it conforms very nicely to 1Tim4:10 and all the Scriptures in my above linked for your convenience post that compare to 1Tim4:10.

And why didn't Jesus appear to the whole world after he rose from the dead to convince them of his identity?

Must have something to do with God's Plan for human history and why Jesus has not appeared to the whole world since His ascension and session. There is also Jesus' blessing like this one:

NAS John 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

And if Jesus atoned for the sins of each and every person on the planet, then where in scripture is the covenant that God made with the entire world wherein he promised to atone for the sins for all? Yet, we find no such covenant but only a unilateral covenant that God made his chosen, covenant people.

See 1Tim2:5-6 & others in my above linked for your convenience #9967 a other Scriptures that have been referenced for you in this thread re: Unlimited Atonement.

The discussion re: unilateral vs. bilateral, unconditional vs. conditional covenants has just begun. @PaulThomson for one has already provided some Scriptures re: the condition of Faith. Without speaking for him, my assumption is that he is anxiously awaiting as I am to see how you reason the distinct separation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the New Covenant Mediator from the New Covenant He implemented.

The lengths some will eisegete to protect a TULIP...

 

[Rufus]

You must mean the hermeneutic of garbage in garbage out. Yes, it is a solid principle. It can be seen functioning in your second paragraph.

I did answer your questions from one point of view. Your hermeneutics and indoctrination and [possibly] limited understanding of language prevent you from understanding me. But I also acknowledge that no matter what there will be disagreement. IOW I don't profess to have a solution anyone will accept, although I do know that some, even some in Reformed, do not agree with Limited Atonement.

Do you have a problem with this statement, 'God is Savior'? Can you explain why?

Do you have a problem with this statement, 'God is Savior of the world'? Can you explain why?

I have no problem with either, providing they are interpreted properly in the triune context of scripture. And you have not answered any of my three questions. Perhaps you'll like Door Number Four better? God is the Savior of believers and unbelievers alike for how long precisely: For all eternity even though he did not or could not save unbelievers from the eternal penalty of their sins, or does He cease being their Savior on Judgment Day or on the day they die?

If you don't like that door either, how 'bout Door Number Five? How can God be the Savior of believers and unbelievers alike when He isn't even the God of the [spiritually] dead but only of the [spiritually] living (Mat 22:29-32).

And if you don't like either of the above Doors, what about Door Number Six? If God is the Savior of each and every person in the world, then why didn't he save Adam after he sinned?

You see...this is a major reason I strongly favor my inerpretation of 1Tim4:10: It presents zero problems with the rest of the bible.