Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR
- Thread starter MerSee
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
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?
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?
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:
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.
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:
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.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
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.
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.
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!
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!
[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.
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.
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?”
-
1
-
1
- Show all
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:
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."
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:
- 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.
- 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."
- 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.
- Middle Voice defined (from Greek Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace) (highlighting is mine:
- 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.
- II. Middle Voice
- 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."
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.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
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.
.......
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.
.......
-
1
-
1
- Show all