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

[studier]

it's why i can't post day after day in a thread like this. after a while, i'd become discouraged and frustrated and my goal would shift to be more about me and less about others. until He corrects that in me, i avoid the temptation.

Wisdom in knowing one's limitations.

 

[Mem]

well, my poetic sister, i'd put you in the first group, and myself in the second.

it's why i can't post day after day in a thread like this. after a while, i'd become discouraged and frustrated and my goal would shift to be more about me and less about others. until He corrects that in me, i avoid the temptation.

i believe our Lord cares about WHY we do what we do. motive matters, you know?

I hope you would not allow yourself to be discouraged. A fresh breeze should always be welcome in here. In fact, I would say that any hope for winds of change require it.

 

[selahsays]

Matthew 24:14: And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

By the time Jesus Christ returns, everyone in today’s world will have heard the Gospel of the Kingdom.
—Selah

 

[studier]

Heresy comes from haireO, to choose.

This is a good observation. Thank you!

Words have meanings. From what I'm seeing on this thread, some don't seem to like to define the words and phrases (small groups of words) they use. Apart from agreed upon definitions of words we're simply talking past one another. We're essentially speaking different languages without mutual understanding.

Since there is so much disagreement about human free will to choose, I'm going to track this concept through Scripture a bit, to see what we can learn about "choosing" and "choice" beginning with the forms of this word "haireō"

Whether or not anyone agrees with me, I agree with the thinking that the Word of God is meant to teach us to think correctly according to truth - the mind/thinking of Christ Jesus who is the Truth. My Christological focus is to understand what He thinks. The best way I know of learning this is through an in-depth study of the Word of God under the teaching of the Spirit of God.

When I see someone like you, Paul, who actually digs into the language of Scripture, who cares enough to redeem the time allotted to him by doing such digging, I find commonality and am refreshed.

The same goes for selahsays. Thank you:

world:
οἰκουμένη

So many tools are available to us now. IMO it's irresponsible to not use them. All one has to do is search for them or ask another to assist.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

The original question....
Who did Jesus die for?

Everyone, all

His blood covers everyone, no limit to the number.
But we are only covered if we accept by faith the gift He gives.

If ever human that has ever lived are judged as saved then the blood of Jesus would save them all.
If only a few are judged as saved then the blood of Jesus will cover them.

We are judged and the blood applied or not applied depending on the verdict.

Jesus wants to save all.

If the unconverted sinner was permitted to enter heaven, with so much unselfish love around them, they would feel like an alien (out of harmony). They would be a discordant note in the melody of heaven. Heaven would be to them a place of torture; They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Jesus who died to redeem them.

It is our choice... Jesus has done all to save all.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

You could very well be right, for if the Canaanite woman was truly Canaanite according to her origins, then even the abominations, the offspring of the Devil, are also available to Messiah's Saving Plan.
Matthew 15:22 KJV - "And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil."

More than likely, this woman was a genuine Canaanite. (For me), the challenge is to understand why God would want the abominations from the Seven Nations to be completely wiped out, man, woman, child, and even the animals . . . but would then change His Plan (for them).

But . . . what do you think of the below passage set?
John 17:6-12 NKJV - "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 "Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 "For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. 9 "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 "And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled."

In verse 10 above, the word "all" is used. But clearly, "all" does not include the entire world. Because of this, when the word "all" is used in other scenarios, I take it to mean that "all" whom the Father has chosen, "all" that belong to the Lord and not of the Devil.

I ask myself, "Ok, so not all believed in Jesus, such as the Apostle Paul (prior to Salvation being granted). If Jesus knew that He would eventually save Saul while on the Damascus Road, why would this prayer not include him, the Christian killer?"

So far, this is one of those questions where I am still unsure. Furthermore, it is a very important question to ask and do our best to understand.

 

[Rufus]

In logic, the law of excluded middle or the principle of excluded middle states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true.

This means something is either dead (by some definition), or not dead (by the same definition). Or something is alive (by some definition) , or not alive (by the same definition).

It does not mean something is either dead (by some definition), or alive (by some definition), unless one chooses to define dead as not alive. However, dead can have a range of meanings some of which are not diametrically opposed to alive. Being dead to the world does not mean one is not alive biologically.

Red is not blue. Something that is red cannot be also blue. Saying that it therefore follows that something that is not red must be blue, is the fallacy of the excluded middle/false dichotomy.

In common language. to qualify as bad, someone or something does not need to be completely bad: it can be partially damaged, but unsuitable for some particular function as it is. And to qualify as good, they may be partially damaged, but of sufficient use to do a job sufficiently well. It is the case that something being bad (in some sense), means it cannot be not bad (in the same sense). And something that is good (in some sense), cannot be not good (in the same sense).

But something bad (in some sense", can be partially good. And something good, can be partially bad. That's just how language is used. Jesus was speaking to ordinary human beings, not nit-picky theologians and philosophers. What did He expect His commoner audience to understand His words to mean? That is the meaning I am looking for to understand His statement. You seem o be looking for confirmation of the foundational theological premises of your system.

You still don't get it. God is NOT relatively good. He is ABSOLUTELY good -- and that is HIS standard for his image-bearers -- and nothing less! This is precisely the point Jesus was getting at when he asked his question to the man. The man asking the question was thinking just like you! He thought Jesus was relatively good compared to other men. But that is not how Jesus measures Good! He measures Good on the vertical level, as his Father does. This is why he could make such an astounding statement: NO ONE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET IS GOOD, SAVE FOR GOD! Not one person CAN compare to God!

I don't know why you so vehemently oppose this easy-to-understand teaching. After all, doesn't it take only one sin to condemn a man to hell forever? How many sins did it take for Adam before he ruined the entire universe!?

And by the way, if a person isn't dead, then he is alive. And vice versa. Just sayin'... Oy Vey!

 

[Rufus]

Wisdom in knowing one's limitations.

"A man has to know his limitations" -- Clint Eastwood.

 

[Rufus]

Matthew 24:14: And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

By the time Jesus Christ returns, everyone in today’s world will have heard the Gospel of the Kingdom.
—Selah

"Everyone" in the distributive sense? What about infants, babies, toddlers, small children, the mentally incompetent, etc.?

 

[Cameron143]

Salvation is reconciliation with God, which God has already shown His desire to provide, through the demonstration of His love and mercy and desire for fellowship toward sinners through the cross. In the cross, propitiation has been made for all people, whether they knowit or not. And since God reckons faith toward Him as righteousness, any person can achieve peace with God through acknowledging His invisible deity and power and trusting in His benevolence, even if they don't know the details of the mechanism for reconciliation as revealed in the gospel. They need the gospel to experience salvation from their personal lostness and anxiety, by receiving objective assurance of salvation through the revelation of the cross. They can be reconciled, without realising it, by trusting in God according to the light they have.

So, I disagree with you, God has always made it possible for people to get saved. I just think your opinions about what salvation is and how it is achieved are blinding you to that fact.

So faith doesn't come by hearing? And hearing doesn't come by the word of God? And Jesus doesn't need to be the object of one's faith? And you think it's me who is blinded?

 

[Rufus]

[QUOTE="PaulThomson, post: 5325927, member: 327121"]I'm a Christian free-thinker. I let the Bible teach me, not the systematised claims devised by fallible men and designated by them as orthodoxy. Calling something orthodoxy does not make it truly orthodox. Orthodox means "right teaching".

As I mentioned earlier, there are different opinions on what sin causes. Does it cause God to recoil and withdraw from the sinner, because He is so holy that He will not allow Himself to be contaminated by contact with sin? In this regard, did Jesus keep His distance from unclean sinners and lepers, lest His perfection be spoiled? No. His holiness was more powerful than men's diseases and sins. Or does sin cause sinners to feel guilty and ashamed, so that they distance themselves and hide themselves from the Holy and Perfect One, mistakenly believing that God is rejecting them? That appears to be the case in the garden. Adam and Eve hid. God knew they had sinned, but was still coming near to them to meet with them to fellowship with them.

From my reading, I believe that eastern orthodoxy leans more toward the latter view; but western orthodoxy toward the former. Can they both be orthodox? Maybe both are only partly orthodox. I don't ask, "What does so-called orthodoxy prescribe?" I ask, "What do the scriptures say?

If the latter is the case, an occasional stumble by one saint from faith in heaven, in the light of the perpetual sacrifice, once for all (creatures and time) is not likely to infect and destroy the holiness of God and the other saints, and is not outside of the reach of the cross for the stumbler. We will not need to be enslaved to sin and destroyed by it any more. But that does not mean there will be no possibility of sin any more. My God is quite able to devise solutions to such problems in the ages to come. He has chosen not to give a lot of detail to us about the coming ages, but enough detail about the present age for us to navigate our way by that light into aeonous reconciliation with Him.[/QUOTE]

Ahh...a "free" thinker. Free from what? And Free to think how? By the grace of God, I am neither a "free" thinker or a "closed" minded one either. The problem with the former type is that their mind is so open, they often cannot filter out the garbage that flows into their minds along with good things. And the problem with the latter is that their mind is so closed -- such a steel trap -- that they tend to filter out virtually everything, including the good. Rather, Scripture has taught me to take a third option: To be a critical thinker. To think God's thoughts after Him! After all, He is the LOGOS.

Thank God the Law of Excluded Middle doesn't apply to all things.

 

[Rufus]

"God saves any for their own sake! "

What does that mean to you? For their own sake???

In other words, God doesn't save anyone because they deserve it. He saves all for his own Name's sake.

 

[Rufus]

PT said:
Salvation is reconciliation with God, which God has already shown His desire to provide, through the demonstration of His love and mercy and desire for fellowship toward sinners through the cross.

You mean just like what God did with Eve when he reconciled her to himself?

 

[BillyBob]

Great OT passage! One of my favorites. I think, generally, there is a big assumption in the Church today that God didn't work effectually with his OT saints to bring them to faith and repentance. But that isn't the sense I get from the OT scriptures, generally, and certainly not from the passage you quoted. And there is a very intriguing and interesting passage in the Gospel of John that adds weight to and justifies my beliefs in this area.

John 14:16-17
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
NIV

I think many of us gloss over this kind of passage, forgetting that Christ and his disciples up until the Cross were under the Old Covenant. Jesus very plainly told his Old Covenant disciples that they KNEW the Holy Spirit because He lives WITH you -- which in some sense (that I admittedly don't understand) must differ from the Holy Spirit actually indwelling them. But the point remains: His Old Covenant disciples were still under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God was actively working among Christ's disciples and very likely all God-fearing Jews.

Whaddya think <g>?

The Old Testament has a rich record of the work of the Spirit, but He was not poured out on all flesh under the Old Covenant. Instead, certain men were filled with the Spirit at certain times and only for certain duties. It was rather selective: Joseph was filled with the Spirit of God. Even Pharaoh recognized this! (Genesis 41:38). Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?”

 

[Cameron143]

I find it hard to believe that everything God does is obviously God working. What scripture tells us that?

I qualified my statement with what followed...when God does what only God can do, it must be God. So technically you are correct, the qualification given was sufficient for understanding the meaning: the works of God can be seen. And just like Jesus, we can do what we see the Father doing.

 

[studier]

haireō

First a definition from the BDAG Lexicon. I'll transliterate the main word in parenthesis, the definitions, and whatever else I'll explain a bit:

204 αἱρέω (haireō)
• αἱρέω fut. mid. αἱρήσομαι; 2 aor. εἱλόμην and εἱλάμην 2 Th 2:13; Hs 5, 6, 6; α-forms in Tdf., W-H, M., Bov., N.; ο-forms in V., t.r.; s. also ἀν-, ἐξαιρέω (Hom.+).

1. act. take καρπὸν αἱρῶν if you pick fruit Dg 12:8 (text uncertain; s. Bihlmeyer ad loc.).

2. mid. (so exclus. in NT, Tat., Ath.) choose (s. Nägeli 19f) w. double acc. (Hdt. 1, 96; Jos., Ant. 9, 106) Hs 5, 6, 6. τινὰ εἴς τι someone for someth. 2 Th 2:13. W. acc. prefer (Diod. S. 17, 29, 3; 17, 48, 2; Jos., Bell. 6, 330) Phil 1:22; likew. μᾶλλον αἱ. w. inf. foll. and ἤ w. inf. (Pla., Ap. 38e; Diod. S. 11, 11, 1 μᾶλλον εἵλοντο τελευτᾶν ἢ ζῆν; Περὶ ὕψους 33, 5; Appian, Bell. Civ. 4, 117 §491) Hb 11:25. —B. 743. DELG. M-M. TW.

Observations:

1. In the active ("act.") voice of this verb (which means the subject is dong the action stated in the verb): it means to "take." The example given is to pick/take fruit.
2. In the middle ("mid.") voice (which I'll let another explain below) this verb means to "choose" and in certain constructions takes on the nuance of "prefer."
   1. The "voice" of a verb can be seen in the spelling of the word and tells us what the meaning of the verb is. We can see the difference in meanings between the active voice and the middle voice.
3. Middle Voice defined (from Greek Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace) (highlighting is mine:
   1. II. Middle Voice
      
      Definition
      
      Defining the function of the middle voice is not an easy task because it encompasses a large and amorphous group of nuances. But in general, in the middle voice the subject performs or experiences the action expressed by the verb in such a way that emphasizes the subject’s participation. It may be said that the subject acts “with a vested interest.” “The middle voice shows that the action is performed with special reference to the subject.”14 Perhaps the best definition is this: “The middle calls special attention to the subject . . . the subject is acting in relation to himself somehow.”15
      
      The difference between the active and middle is one of emphasis. The active voice emphasizes the action of the verb; the middle emphasizes the actor [subject] of the verb. “It, in some way, relates the action more intimately to the subject.”16 This difference can be expressed, to some degree, in English translation. For many middle voices (especially the indirect middle), putting the subject in italics would communicate this emphasis.
      
4. Conclusion: the emphasis on choosing is placed on the one making the choice. In general this middle voice verb emphasizes the choosers participation. It can be said that the chooser is acting with a vested interest. Perhaps the best definition is that the chooser is acting in relationship to himself somehow. The chooser's choosing relates more intimately to the chooser.

There are only a few Scriptures in the NC containing haireō but they look at first glance to be loaded with things to consider in regard to understanding choosing per this word.

For now, I find the above middle voice of haireō to be interesting, especially point #4 above. It seems to point to strong self-interest which I've seen many speak critically about.

There are also other words that mean to "choose."

 

[studier]

"A man has to know his limitations" -- Clint Eastwood.

As well as the flip-side. To know one is to know the other. Then the choice - the magnum, or life assuming the grace and mercy of the one with the magnum.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

More thoughts on how to understand the term "world" in scripture. Since there is a very large spiritual component to the biblical definition of this term, I thought I would "mathematically" express how this term very often talks of one of two very distinct spiritual groups. (Ms. Selahsays, maybe this will make it easier for you to understand.)

Group 1 = Non-Elect in Adam

This group is physically IN AND spiritually OF this world.

Group 2 = Elect in Last Adam

This group is physically IN this world but NOT spiritually OF it.

Therefore, in order to understand the term "world" in the distributive sense to mean each and every person, the context of the passage must make it crystal clear that it's talking about both groups simultaneously. The passage must be talking about the Elect and Non-Elect. So, with this understanding let's apply the "math" to Jn 17:9.

Jesus clearly prayed for two groups of elect: His Jewish disciples in his presence and, therefore, by extension all believing Jews. This group consist of his Jewish sheep. Likewise, the 2nd group he prayed for are his sheep from a different flock (Jn 10:16) -- the Gentile elect who would come to believe on him through the evangelizing of his Jewish flock, with the divine purpose being that both flocks would become one in the Body of Christ.

By Jesus explicitly not praying for the world, we can only understand this exclusion as referencing only Group 1. And since he did in fact pray for Group 2 who are also IN the world (along with Group 2), then their exclusion from the world means this term must be understood in the limited sense since both groups are most definitely not included in the term "world".

1Jn 2:2 has a little different twist to it since John is referencing both kinds of people in Group 2. He excluded the Jewish flock (to whom he was primarily writing) by clearly making a distinction between them and the Gentile flock also IN the "world" with "but". And it's not surprising that John did this because the ancient Jewish mindset was that the chosen covenant people of God were never a part of the pagan Gentile nations that comprise the rest of the world. Most ancient Jews were loathe to even enter the homes of Gentiles.

Someone might object and say it's arbitrary and convenient for me to assume that the Gentiles included in the term "world" don't include the non-elect Gentiles as well. My retort would be if this were the case, this would present more than few a theological problems. For example, why didn't Christ pray for the non-elect Gentiles of the world for whom he his is the "atoning sacrifice", according to John? Another problem are the many verses that limit the atonement to "many" versus all in the distributive sense. These would present many contradictions, etc.

Also, way back in my 2117, I exegeted 1Jn 5:19 which teaches that the "whole world is under the power of the evil one". I showed in that post how understanding the term world in that passage as consisting of both the aforementioned groups would present some serious contradictions, also. One of the major ones is that that kind of interpretation would immediately contradict v. 18 And also, it would imply that Jesus epically failed in one aspect of his earthly mission which was to destroy the works of the devil (1Jn 3:8). Therefore, the only logical and biblical way to understand the term "world" in 1Jn 5:19 in the limited sense in that John is referring only to Group 1. After all, it is the spiritually dead in Adam who love the things of this world.

You know very well this is a doctrinal view and not what the Bible actually claims.

Everything you posted matches your doctrine and not the Bible. That should tell anyone everything they need to know.

We already know the Greek word being used means Cosmos [κόσμον], the whole Universe.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

As his undeserving children upon whom he lavished his precious love which motivated him to be merciful, compassionate and gracious to us for the sake of his Beloved Son. I have been born of God for over 40 years and to this day I still haven't found a text that says God saves any for their own sake! God does all things for his glory and for his Name's sake!

So there's no reason, by your post alone, to think those who never heard the Gospel will be saved like your Reformed Coalition claims.

 

[Genez]

It's not unbiblical at all. First, you deny a well established law of logic -- The Law of Excluded Middle. If someone is dead, then they cannot be alive. If someone is in pain, then they cannot be painless. And in either of these cases, there is no middle! There is no third option. A person is either dead or alive. Or one feels pain or not. Period..

Over simplification can be dangerous,,,,

But it has an appeal with the simple minded.

One who is asleep can not be awake.
But, one who is dreaming while asleep can receive vivid dreams from God
and be made more awake to reality than if he were awake and not sleeping.

In the process of being drawn by God one can be made aware of what could not be seen if already spiritually alive.
Actually, that is how God does it. Its unobtrusive and in one's thoughts making one free to make ones choices totally free of coercion.


Period.

 

[Genez]

In other words, God doesn't save anyone because they deserve it. He saves all for his own Name's sake.

What was Jesus?

A total moron???????
Dying on the Cross for NOTHING?

God so loved the world ..... Remember that?

You do not love something that can not be loved!!!!

Maybe this will make you start thinking and not just repeating things others tell you is the right thing to say as to gain their approval.

God created us to be loved.
Grace wants to transform us into what His original intent was for our being.

.......