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

[studier]

What is the difference between a clause beginning with hoti, and a clause beginning with hina? Do you consider hoti and hina as synonyms in KoinE Greek?

Why do you disagree that hina + subjunctive is substantival? It's a common use and it looks clear that John is simply explaining what God's will is. I have 14 English translations open and all of them interpret it this way.

 

[Magenta]

God's found another use for Judas.

Plan B?

 

[Rufus]

No. He sought out a good rabbi. Maybe in this sense he was seeking God - or more information about God and what it took to reach eternal life. It seems that's quite a thing for a TD man to be seeking.

The way it relates to Rom3:11 and Rom1 is that this young man was a Jew who did have some understanding of the God of the Jews and likely would not fit into the Rom1 rejecters of General Revelation. In fact he sees value in keeping God's Law and knows of seeking eternal life.

But ultimately he is in Adam I and remained there as far as this encounter with the Son of God went. And in rejecting God's Son, he rejected God. This seems to be to be the struggle of those who do not reject God in General Revelation and of the ones that underlie what Paul is saying in Rom1-3. In general, those in Adam I do not have an intelligent grasp of the things of God and are not seeking Him. But this cannot be absolute because there are and always have been men in Adam I who did not reject in entirety what they knew of God. And there are verses of Scripture in the Old and in the New that speak the seeking God by men.

This young man is an example of how one can reject the grace of God that at that time had put His Son on the earth to proclaim the Kingdom and Salvation to men. Yet, others did accept the Son of God. and this young man is simply one of many stories about men that teach us Biblical truths.

Exactly right. He did not know who Jesus was. He sought out a good rabbi, hoping the rabbi would tell him that he was on the right path to Paradise with all his diligent, perfect law-keeping.

Yes, in all likelihood, this rich man had some spiritual standing -- but not enough to understand that his love for his possessions made him him an idolater and put him under the wrath of God. As Job said, "to shun evil is understanding" (Job 28:28); but this man didn't even understand his own heart.

 

[Cameron143]

I understand your view of it. I view the circumcision as to the purpose of enabling a sensitivity toward spiritual matters. Like, when David prayer that God create in Him a new heart, imo, as an indication of his, David's, acknowledgment of his present condition of callousness that needed something more than he had in himself to perform.

But don't you see...David had to be spiritually sensitive to understand his spiritual estate in the first place. Those who are dead in their trespasses and sins do not have this sensitivity.

 

[Mem]

But don't you see...David had to be spiritually sensitive to understand his spiritual estate in the first place. Those who are dead in their trespasses and sins do not have this sensitivity.

I see that even Pharoah's heart had been pricked at the first Passover, which infliction was quickly calloused back over, I suppose as an effort to 'guard' against 'looking the fool,' i.e. in their wisdom, they became fools. But for other reasons, David trusted God's hand in his affliction, to operate a better a better thing for him.

 

[Rufus]

My conclusion is based upon close context parallel or closely related statements like these:

35 And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. (Jn. 6:35 NKJ)

45 "It is written in the prophets,`And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me....
47 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.
(Jn. 6:45-47 NKJ)

64 "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."
(Jn. 6:64-65 NKJ)

Without getting overly or unduly analytical (I try to avoid getting bogged down in the weeds by over-thinking passages as much as I can), I would say that when the Father grants grace to someone to come to (or seek out) His Son, that person will do so in truth -- with a sincere, honest heart. Those "disciples" who followed after Jesus after his miracle had anything but a good, honest heart. They were far more interested in his physical gifts than in Him and his forgiveness and spiritual life.

 

[Cameron143]

I see that even Pharoah's heart had been pricked at the first Passover, which infliction was quickly calloused back over, I suppose as an effort to 'guard' against 'looking the fool,' i.e. in their wisdom, they became fools. But for other reasons, David trusted God's hand in his affliction, to operate a better a better thing for him.

What is the passage that shows his heart being pricked? One doesn't need to have their heart pricked to acknowledge God. God has placed eternity in every heart as well evidencing Himself in nature to every conscience.

 

[maxamir]

Yes, it's the responsibility of all of us to test everything with Scripture and this is why I have disagreements with your views and likely why you have disagreements with mine. I know I look at many Scriptures posted here, sometimes for days with every tool in my arsenal.

However, in my view I have asked you more than once if you'd like to go through some of the Scriptures you've put forth to me that purport to substantiate the theological and systematic viewpoint you've joined yourself to, or that attempt to take shots at me. As yet, I don't recall your doing so. Nor do I recall you answering me as to whether or not we ended up closer together re: the concept of gifted faith.

Now, please, your statements about seminaries are old and tired and at best another diversion and fallacious argument. There is good and bad in and from every institution of men.

FWIW, I learned some invaluable things in seminary, got to assist in some interesting projects, and was exposed to some great tools and many scholarly works I still value being able to use and read and some even to evaluate. The nuances still being mined from God's Word astound me at times and it fascinates me how He has His people all over the earth doing all kinds and levels of works. And none of us know but a fraction of it all.

Also FWIW, I did see some things in seminary that were disturbing. But no one there worked for me and all of us have had and still have a ways to go as determined by Him.

Now, the theological system you're supporting was hardly originated by an uneducated man or carried forth by such. God uses all kinds of His people. He even used a donkey to speak once per the record He's left us. I don't think any of us is qualified to say who the greatest people were who did His work. Someday maybe we'll see how He ended up evaluating us all.

Finally, each of us is accountable to God for where He's led us and for what He's called us to do. I know why I went to seminary and I know why I got ordained and I know why I took the route I did. I have later thoughts about all of it now. I'm sure you can say the same thing about your process which led to your being where you are today.

Let's leave it here, please. And I mean from both of us:

2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself.
4 For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one's praise will come from God.
(1 Cor. 4:2-5 NKJ)

I have asked you many simple questions to evaluate what you know about Scripture and you have failed to answer them and have again reiterated the importance of not simply being myopic and looking at one Scripture but at all of Scripture and you still do not agree to do so. I am therefore left concluding that you may indeed have a lot of head knowledge but that does not translate into heart knowledge and I pray the Lord gives you absolutely no peace until you come to realise this.

 

[PaulThomson]

Plan B?

God is full of creative new ideas and is a fantastic problem solver. That's how he is able to get to His intended ends despite creaturely free will constantly taking wrong turns.

 

[PaulThomson]

Without getting overly or unduly analytical (I try to avoid getting bogged down in the weeds by over-thinking passages as much as I can), I would say that when the Father grants grace to someone to come to (or seek out) His Son, that person will do so in truth -- with a sincere, honest heart. Those "disciples" who followed after Jesus after his miracle had anything but a good, honest heart. They were far more interested in his physical gifts than in Him and his forgiveness and spiritual life.

That in bold is obvious.

And yet they still came to Jesus. Hence, they were drawn to Him by the Father, that they might believe, despite many not believing in Him after their God-induced encounter with Him.

 

[PaulThomson]

o, Mr. Studier, what I'd like to do is resume my little exposition on Luke 18 and the Rich Man's encounter with Jesus in an effort to begin answering these kinds of questions. I think it's a very likely that this moral, religious person sought Jesus out, which would make him a "seeker" of God, right? So, how would that square with Rom 3:11? Contradict it?

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 3:11
There is none understanding (present active participle), there is none seeking (present active participle) after God.

Rom 3:12
They all went out of the way at some point (aorist active indicative), they together became unprofitable at some point (aorist active indicative); there is none doing good (present active participle), no, not one.

Rom 3:13
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they were using (imperfect active indicative) deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

Rom 3:14
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

Rom 3:15
Their feet are swift to shed blood (aorist active infinitive):

Rom 3:16
Destruction and misery are in their ways:

Rom 3:17
And the way of peace they did not know (2nd aorist active infinitive):

Rom 3:18
There is no fear of God before their eyes.

The present participle expresses a continuing action at the time being referenced. the aorist indicative active is pointillist and expresses an action occurring at some point in the past. The action may have been momentary, recurring, or continuous. The aorist does not confirm which of these were true of the action reported. There are five Greek infinitives: present, aorist, perfect, future and future perfect. The aorist infinitive stands for an action

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 3:11
There is none understanding (present active participle), there is none seeking (present active participle) after God.

Rom 3:12
They all went out of the way at some point (aorist active indicative), they together became unprofitable at some point (aorist active indicative); there is none doing good (present active participle), no, not one.

Rom 3:13
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they were using (imperfect active indicative) deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

Rom 3:14
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

Rom 3:15
Their feet are swift to shed blood (aorist active infinitive):

Rom 3:16
Destruction and misery are in their ways:

Rom 3:17
And the way of peace they did not know (2nd aorist active infinitive):

Rom 3:18
There is no fear of God before their eyes.

God can and does always what He sovereignly pleases. But,in doing so, He always acts in accordance to His character. So yes, God is able to be as generous to any and all as He chooses, and He can also require that stipulated terms be met to enjoy the blessing whatever is in view. So God could do as you have proposed. The question is...can He do so and claim still to be just?

I'll assume you believe God to be just.

The scenario you suggest is not the actual scenario. In your example, the debt is not actually paid. What is necessary to secure and pay the debt has been accumulated, but not appropriated. This doesn't comport to the truth concerning salvation. The good news that the gospel proclaims that Christ has not only done all that is necessary to secure salvation, but that God has already not only accepted his actions on our behalf, but that our debt is already wiped away. We simply aren't aware of it.

I see 2 things in your argument that are flawed, in my opinion:
1. You diminish grace in salvation by adding the work of men. Rather than an individual merely needing to believe the truth concerning what Christ has done, one must also have to appropriate or receive somehow this for themselves, and
2. Your understanding of salvation renders God unjust. Under your view, God has accepted Jesus payment for an individual's debt, and requires some to still pay it a second time. It's not that I believe God could not do this, but that He cannot do so and remain just.

Your final statement is the logical conclusion of believing as you do, but it is not biblical. Jesus came to save His people from their sin, not their unbelief. Unbelief is merely one of a litany of sins we are saved from.

Why do you disagree that hina + subjunctive is substantival? It's a common use and it looks clear that John is simply explaining what God's will is. I have 14 English translations open and all of them interpret it this way.

can you suggest some other hina clauses, outside of John 6, that are substantival, and not result clauses?

 

[Mem]

What is the passage that shows his heart being pricked? One doesn't need to have their heart pricked to acknowledge God. God has placed eternity in every heart as well evidencing Himself in nature to every conscience.

Exodus 12:32 Pharoah calls Moses and Aaron to send them into the desert to worship God and concludes with, "...And bless me also."

but two chapters later, at Exodus 14:5, ".... Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, “What have we done? We have released Israel from serving us.”

 

[Rufus]

Indeed. And it's quite a continuing process among men to being working towards this.

Yet throughout Scripture we see men oriented to God with the light they had. Some are even said to be righteous in their generation and a friend of God. Some upon the arrival of Christ were awaiting Him and living blamelessly with the light they had. Our Text just does not speak only in the language of TD.

Again, as I just pointed out, not all men, but generally speaking, yes.

But, "sincerely" is not stated in the Text. It's stated as an absolute to make a point, But underlying the point is the Text spoke in many places about seeking God and that there were fools who said there is no God and there were others who were God's people who obviously had not rejected the existence of God. At times it looks like these people fell away and were commanded to seek, but this would be to return to Him.

There are simply more layers to this in Scripture.

Yes, grace is a necessary discussion, one that deserves its own detailing from Scripture, so it too is properly understood.

10 I believed, therefore I spoke, "I am greatly afflicted."
11 I said in my haste, "All men are liars."
(Ps. 116:10-11 NKJ)

Context.
17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.
19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.
20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.
22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
(Rom. 7:17-24 NKJ)

This is not a TD man, but a man stuck in a conflict. And this is probably why TD is being turned into Total Inability = TI.

This is a man who did not reject the existence of God at General Revelation, nor at any other time did he reject God's existence and it is beyond unlikely that he never sought God even though stuck in Adam I. Paul is his own example of why Romans 3:11 cannot be absolute but his making a point in general and possibly at a certain point in time in history (via David per Ps14) that bothe Jews and Gentiles were under sin.

There is work going on today that considers Paul's language in Rom7 to be Hellenistic rhetoric where he is not necessarily speaking about himself but in general terms about the struggle of men who did not reject God but knew they had this internal battle. When Paul says "I," one way is to look at it as "the I" and it is this "I" that men who do not reject God's existence see struggling with their flesh when they try to deal with pleasing God by His Law. IOW, Paul is not alone in this struggle. It is the fate of all men in Adam I who accept the existence of God and struggle with the flesh until:

25 I thank God-- through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. (Rom. 7:25 NKJ)​

​

Agreed, but again, as I've said elsewhere, we all can say we have a Biblical Theology, and all systematics say they do, and all self-studied can say they do. I'm really hesitant to make such a claim. It's like the old west, there's always a faster gun. And some days we just eat crow.

.

Jesus did teach this among a large crowd which included some Disciples and some false disciples who walked away after being offended by His teaching.

44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 "It is written in the prophets,`And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
(Jn. 6:44-45 NKJ)

Verse 45 is from Isa54:13 and explains verse 44.
The phrase "taught by God" is actually an adjective, so "they shall all be taught ones - learned ones of God."
Jesus uses this phrase from Isa to base His conclusion:

• God draws men [by teaching them]
  • The men who hear and learn from the Father - and become God's learned ones - come to Me (in context come to Jesus = believe in Jesus).

The only thing here is God teaches > men hear and learn > men come to/believe in Jesus.

• Our belief is God's work John6:29.
  • In context we simply have God doing the work to teach men about His Son whom He sent = God drawing men to His Son > men hearing and learning what God teaches about His Son whom He sent = men becoming God's learned ones > men believing in God's Son whom he Sent.
• Then the real twist most really don't like to deal with:
  • Jesus commands unbelievers to work for the food (God's teaching about His Son) that remains for eternal life, which Jesus gives because the Father sealed Him to do so John 6:27.

I wish He were here to straighten us all out on Biblical Theology. Some day...

But you leave out an extremely important salvific element to what I bolded above: The Holy Spirit. Men are born again by the Word and the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a key promise of the New Covenant. And it He who gives understanding. In fact, Jesus also gives us understanding (1Jn 5:20; Lk 24:45; 1Cor 2:10).

One final thing: Whatever light believers had in the OT....that light, too, was given solely by God's grace. Has anyone in scripture ever been saved apart from His grace? Even David implored God to take not the Holy Spirit away from him! David relied on the Word and the Spirit for his salvation and walk with God.

All anyone here has to do (and you're certainly welcome to take your best shot) is show me from scripture where inherently evil men, with no goodness in their nature, are able to make good, godly choices apart from God's grace, then that would bring down the entire wall of the Five Doctrines. I need to know how bad trees can bear good fruit. It's really as simple as that.

And there is one other thing. If evil men can make good choices, then please also explain to me how men are not ultimately their own saviors. Joe and Tom both hear the Gospel. Joe accepts the truth of the Gospel, believes it in his heart and repents. Tom, conversely does not. Since both men are in Adam and both are evil, then what made the ultimate difference between the two that would account for one coming to saving faith and the other rejecting the truth? Joe was smarter? More religious? More pious? Wiser? Joe was more powerful than his own evil heart? Or Joe knew how to change his own nature?

P.S. And you're right about OT saints being oriented toward God and responding to the light God gave them, etc. And that the text doesn't just talk about TD. Neither do Four of the Doctrines of Grace speak to Total Depravity.

And one other thing....Paul was a believer in Rom 7. A young believer, very likely. Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones wrote an excellent commentary on Rom 7 and makes a strong case for what I just stated. So...no, I'm not interested in doing Rom 7. Get the book.

 

[Cameron143]

Exodus 12:32 Pharoah calls Moses and Aaron to send them into the desert to worship God and concludes with, "...And bless me also."

but two chapters later, at Exodus 14:5, ".... Pharaoh and his officials changed their minds about them and said, “What have we done? We have released Israel from serving us.”

I'm familiar with the story. But you said Pharoah had his heart pricked. I was wondering what passage you believe says this specifically.

 

[PaulThomson]

Why do you disagree that hina + subjunctive is substantival? It's a common use and it looks clear that John is simply explaining what God's will is. I have 14 English translations open and all of them interpret it this way.

Can you suggest some other hina clauses, outside of John 6, that are substantival, and cannot be result clauses?

Sorry, my previous post was accidentally added to a post I was working on, and the 5 minute window was closed before I noticed.

 

[PaulThomson]

Jesus came to save us from our sins, not our admission into life. Salvation deals with sin. Admittance is the by product.

Actual the purpose of God giving His Son, according to John 3:16 is "so that whosoever believes in Him might have aeonous life". It does not say "so that their sins might be forgiven". Sins are forgiven because they are an obstacle to the prime goal of having aeonous life, which Jesus defines as "to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent (John 17:3)

 

[Mem]

I'm familiar with the story. But you said Pharoah had his heart pricked. I was wondering what passage you believe says this specifically.

in the context that i (my right shift key is defunct so I'm don't mind if I fail to capitalize where I otherwise should) provided you after Pharoah lost his firstborn son.

 

[Cameron143]

in the context that i (my right shift key is defunct so I'm don't mind if I fail to capitalize where I otherwise should) provided you after Pharoah lost his firstborn son.

I understand what you are saying. I'm asking for the particular phrase or sentence that carries the meaning of a "pricked heart".

 

[Cameron143]

Actual the purpose of God giving His Son, according to John 3:16 is "so that whosoever believes in Him might have aeonous life". It does not say "so that their sins might be forgiven". Sins are forgiven because they are an obstacle to the prime goal of having aeonous life, which Jesus defines as "to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent (John 17:3)

In that case, Jesus doesn't need to die for those who never believe. There is no need because they will never be given eternal life.

Not that I agree with what you said. Matthew 1:21 tells us that He came to save His people from their sins.

 

[PaulThomson]

But you leave out an extremely important salvific element to what I bolded above: The Holy Spirit. Men are born again by the Word and the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a key promise of the New Covenant. And it He who gives understanding. In fact, Jesus also gives us understanding (1Jn 5:20; Lk 24:45; 1Cor 2:10).

The Holy Spirit does not need to be inside a person's spirit for Him to create in them a new spirit that is holy enough for Him to make His home in. Men hear the word, and if they believe it and put their trust in Christ, from outside of them the Holy Spirit gives them a new spirit, and then He moves into that new spirit with the Father and Son.