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

[studier]

In Christ is there not an inexhaustible supply?

I think it's up to Him what supply He provides and to whom. And, as I've alluded to elsewhere, there is a purpose to His many 100's of commands in the NC. If they're being taught in a congregation, then both the wheat and the darnel are hearing them and determining what to do with them.

 

[Cameron143]

When we read for weeks and more that men are dead and can do absolutely nothing, it seems fair to respond to the posting of a verse that says men are not anything to point out that even that verse can read not that men are nothing, but are not of prominence or the main importance. And if a man is not anything, I think it fair to equate that to the man being worthless. As is usual, there are several things to think about from that verse and surrounding verses,

The worth of man is determined by God. Because man is made in the image of God, he has eternal value. Those whom Christ died for have infinite value. That doesn't mean we have to equate verses that aren't speaking about the value of man as if they do.

 

[studier]

My "inserted points" in Prov 1 are all biblical -- unless of course you still think that being a "fool" is not as bad as it's cracked up to be.

Easy to say. Virtually impossible to substantiate.

I think what the Bible properly divided/interpreted tells us about anything is what "it's cracked up to be." I don't see a lot of properly interpreting from you. I wish it weren't the case. You're quite prolific. Correct a few foundational errors and you'd probably be something.

And if you want to know what spiritual death really is, study the post-Fall narrative carefully. You might even discover the concept of separation in it in a couple of places.

I have studied the topic. And I do comprehend separation concepts. They just don't take me to the conclusions you come to.

 

[Genez]

How about you, you don't cast stones?

I used to cast stones..

Then I met this.... Stop casting stones!



grace and peace...

 

[studier]

The worth of man is determined by God. Because man is made in the image of God, he has eternal value. Those whom Christ died for have infinite value. That doesn't mean we have to equate verses that aren't speaking about the value of man as if they do.

Per your sentences: Agree. Disagree based upon Rom1:28. All men or just some? "Nothing" seems a simple connection to no value.

 

[studier]

I used to cast stones..

Then I met this.... Stop casting stones!



grace and peace...

emojis insufficient. Thanks for the laugh! Took me a minute to get to the stones.

 

[Rufus]

Slave to sin ≠ Born slave to sin

Now you're catching on! None of us were born as freemen. Biblical freedom is freedom from and freedom to. This latter aspect to freedom, which is the only "freedom" we slaves have in this Natural Word deceives, us into believing we're [truly] free. Again...a half truth is never the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There's a reason why the oath we take when swearing in court to tell the truth, includes these two absolutely essential elements: The "whole truth" infers we subtract nothing from it. And the last phrase implies, we add nothing to it that is false. This kind of Truth, then, is totally free from distortion which in turn makes it free to implant pure, unfiltered, unadulterated facts into the minds and hearts of a judge or jury so that they can, theoretically if not practically, render a just verdict based on 100% facts. If virtually the entire fallen world recognizes and acknowledges the truth I have just laid out, why is it so many professing Christians categorically reject it and insist that we slaves are free to choose to become freemen?


Furthermore, this truth about freedom is clearly taught in the bible. Is not God's word Truth? How often does the bible give stern warnings against adding to or subtracting from God's Truth?

Therefore, I caution you strongly: Do not let anyone deceive you into thinking that we, as slaves to sin and to the devil, are nonetheless freemen. At least one here believes there is such an animal in this universe as a "free slave", which is obviously a contradiction.

 

[Rufus]

Easy to say. Virtually impossible to substantiate.

I think what the Bible properly divided/interpreted tells us about anything is what "it's cracked up to be." I don't see a lot of properly interpreting from you. I wish it weren't the case. You're quite prolific. Correct a few foundational errors and you'd probably be something.



I have studied the topic. And I do comprehend separation concepts. They just don't take me to the conclusions you come to.

This is your only retort after I proved from the bible what God thinks and says about fools? The Wisdom Books constantly contrast fools with the wise. Kinda like how the bible always contrasts Adam with the Last Adam, if you get my drift. Why don't you explain to us why fools hate knowledge and wisdom? That should be an "insightful" discussion.

Then you have reached false conclusions. One of your biggest stumbling blocks is your personal, unbiblical, worldly idea of "freedom", which has led you to believe in free slaves.

 

[studier]

This is your only retort after I proved from the bible what God thinks and says about fools? The Wisdom Books constantly contrast fools with the wise. Kinda like how the bible always contrasts Adam with the Last Adam, if you get my drift. Why don't you explain to us why fools hate knowledge and wisdom? That should be an "insightful" discussion.

Then you have reached false conclusions. One of your biggest stumbling blocks is your personal, unbiblical, worldly idea of "freedom", which has led you to believe in free slaves.

see here

see here

clean up your work.

 

[Magenta]

Now you're catching on! None of us were born as freemen. Biblical freedom is freedom from and freedom to. This latter aspect to freedom, which is the only "freedom" we slaves have in this Natural Word deceives, us into believing we're [truly] free. Again...a half truth is never the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. There's a reason why the oath we take when swearing in court to tell the truth, includes these two absolutely essential elements: The "whole truth" infers we subtract nothing from it. And the last phrase implies, we add nothing to it that is false. This kind of Truth, then, is totally free from distortion which in turn makes it free to implant pure, unfiltered, unadulterated facts into the minds and hearts of a judge or jury so that they can, theoretically if not practically, render a just verdict based on 100% facts. If virtually the entire fallen world recognizes and acknowledges the truth I have just laid out, why is it so many professing Christians categorically reject it and insist that we slaves are free to choose to become freemen?

Furthermore, this truth about freedom is clearly taught in the bible. Is not God's word Truth? How often does the bible give stern warnings against adding to or subtracting from God's Truth?

Therefore, I caution you strongly: Do not let anyone deceive you into thinking that we, as slaves to sin and to the devil, are nonetheless freemen. At least one here believes there is such an animal in this universe as a "free slave", which is obviously a contradiction.

Galatians 4 says we were enslaved under the basic principles of the world, and slaves to those who by nature are not gods.

4 But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive our adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, you are also an heir through God.

 

[Genez]

This is your only retort after I proved from the bible what God thinks and says about fools? The Wisdom Books constantly contrast fools with the wise. Kinda like how the bible always contrasts Adam with the Last Adam, if you get my drift. Why don't you explain to us why fools hate knowledge and wisdom? That should be an "insightful" discussion.

Then you have reached false conclusions. One of your biggest stumbling blocks is your personal, unbiblical, worldly idea of "freedom", which has led you to believe in free slaves.

Why do you keep trying to find gimmick theology? 2 Timothy 4:3

 

[Rufus]

see here

see here

clean up your work.

Take your own advice. Thou dost complain too much. You did write in those links:

There are inserted points of view of the writer of observations - whether correct or incorrect - including positing of what a few proof-texted NC Scriptures mean.

"fools" = "natural man" is another assertion not stated in the Proverbs prologue and not proven in these observations.

(emphasis mine)

And I say they are correct. When I interpret any given passage, I also have in mind the general tenor of all scripture. If you think I'm incorrect, then correct me! You're the one griping! You gripe because you don't believe that the natural man hates God and his Christ, and this is why you object to the parallel I made in point 5 in post 9668 between fools despising Wisdom and the natural man hating God, which I actually supported with several scripture cites. It follows logically that haters of God would also hate his knowledge and wisdom!

And from what I posted here yesterday about how scripture depicts "fools", do you not think, generally, they are the ungodly? If not the ungodly, who are they, specifically? But if they are the ungodly, then how does this not also accurately depict the natural man? Just how many kinds of spiritual people do you think there are in this world? Are there more than two!? What's in between a saint and a sinner, or the godly and ungodly, or the righteous and unrighteous, or the upright and the wicked, or the wise and fools, or sheep and goats, or sons of light and sons of darkness, or friends of Christ and enemies of Christ, lovers of God and haters of God, prophets of God and false prophets, the redeemed and unredeemed, or elect and non-elect, or between those whom |God loves and those he hates, etc.?

Even the newborn does not escape a label. Isn't everyone imputed Adam's sin? That makes the newborn guilty of Original Sin...and therefore, legally makes that child a sinner -- NOT a saint. Not even innocent, theologically.

So, quit your silly whining and complaining and if you think you're able to correct what you perceive are my ill-conceived, erroneous insertions, go for it! If you think you're up to the task of pretending to be wise, while at best having a casual acquaintance with wisdom, understanding and knowledge (if not worse), then by all means take your best shot!

Or...I have an even better idea: Tackle the three dilemmas I identified in my 9669. At least I'd give you credit for going on a Mission Impossible. It would beat hearing your complaints ad nauseam.

P.S. Did you know that God takes no pleasure in fools (Eccl 5:4)? Feel free to add this "factoid" to the list I beamed up yesterday.

see here

see here

clean up your work.

 

[Rufus]

Why do you keep trying to find gimmick theology? 2 Timothy 4:3

Hmm...."gimmick theology"? Why would that be: Because you hold fools in much much higher esteem than you should? Don't care much for the biblical teaching about fools?

 

[Rufus]

Galatians 4 says we were enslaved under the basic principles of the world, and slaves to those who by nature are not gods.

4 But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive our adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, you are also an heir through God.

Great additional points. The human race is enslaved to so much...yet at the same time so freeeeeeeeeee TO.... Oy Vey!

 

[Magenta]

Great additional points. The human race is enslaved to so much...yet at the same time so freeeeeeeeeee TO.... Oy Vey!

Yes... the natural man is taken captive by the devil to his will but free to choose to believe, which is God's will? Such nonsense.

 

[Genez]

Hmm...."gimmick theology"? Why would that be: Because you hold fools in much much higher esteem than you should? Don't care much for the biblical teaching about fools?

Why bother with fools?

Anyone can easily spot one, if they are not one..

 

[Mem]

Reasonable conclusion. Just remember: It's not in Man's DNA to naturally love God and serve Him.

I thought I had already said that it is not our flesh that God appeals to?

 

[Mem]

Can we effectively tune out the Spirit?

What I had keyed in on within your post was the possibility of translations, although risking erring, erring on the side of caution that "the spirit" is speaking of the Holy Spirit. This 'general consensus' is useful in assume what every reader is referring to when the speak of 'the spirit' but there is still the possibility that the writer might actually be referring to the individual's innate spirit in juxtaposition to his innate flesh. I.e., "the double-minded man is unstable in all his ways", that is, a man that follows the leading of his flesh as much as the leading of his spirit risks finding himself to have gone insane and so has effectively 'tuned out' his spirit by allowing his flesh to continuously 'talk over' it. However, it is most likely that you are referring to The Spirit, That Spirit which witnesses to our spirit that we are sons of God, and I would have to take a minute to consider, then, whether we effectively tune out The Spirit or if, actually, tuning out our spirit is effectively tuning out The Spirit. But, to me, this would seem to be the case, at first glance.

 

[Hakawaka]

Hey, Magnetta, here's another great passage that clearly implies the captivity of man, and that you might want to use in your collage:

Eccl 8:8
8 No man has power over the wind to contain it;
so no one has power over the day of his death.
As no one is discharged in time of war,
so wickedness will not release those who practice it.
NIV

There are very profound implications to this passage. The last two lines in part "b" are parallel to the first two lines in part "a". So...when "a" says that no man has power over the wind or over the time of his death, this idea of impotency or powerlessness carries right over to "b", since this part of the passage is making a conclusion to the first part. Just as men cannot discharge themselves during a time of war (implying helplessness), so, too, those who practice wickedness ("wickedness" being personified here) cannot be released from it! Those who practice wickedness or evil are clearly under its power. Totally helpless!

"Wickedness" here could be likened to a slave master like Pharaoh...or Satan (the Strong Man)! The only way the Wicked are going to be released is by God's supernatural power which he exerted against Pharaoh, for example, when he freed the Hebrew slaves from their evil master in Egypt, or by the power to which Christ alluded when he spoke of plundering the Strong Man's house, whereby the Strong Man is tied up so that he can be robbed of his possessions (Mat 12:29).

This is actually a great argument in Eccl 8:8. I see this.

But once again I ask: Explain to me WHY does God exhort people to remain in the faith, be stedfast, dont quench the Spirit, dont turn back to the world if none of these are possibilities for the elect? The letters are addressed to the called, the elect in the churches....

How do calvinists interpret the parable of the sower as well?

I will promise you guys I will put on the calvinist hat as soon as someone explains these in a sensible manner. Im not against calvinism out of emotion or "its not fair" from a human perspective. I just dont see these warnings and parables having any meaning in the reformed system, thats all.

 

[studier]

What I had keyed in on within your post was the possibility of translations, although risking erring, erring on the side of caution that "the spirit" is speaking of the Holy Spirit. This 'general consensus' is useful in assume what every reader is referring to when the speak of 'the spirit' but there is still the possibility that the writer might actually be referring to the individual's innate spirit in juxtaposition to his innate flesh. I.e., "the double-minded man is unstable in all his ways", that is, a man that follows the leading of his flesh as much as the leading of his spirit risks finding himself to have gone insane and so has effectively 'tuned out' his spirit by allowing his flesh to continuously 'talk over' it. However, it is most likely that you are referring to The Spirit, That Spirit which witnesses to our spirit that we are sons of God, and I would have to take a minute to consider, then, whether we effectively tune out The Spirit or if, actually, tuning out our spirit is effectively tuning out The Spirit. But, to me, this would seem to be the case, at first glance.

Interesting thoughts. I'm having similar ones as I'm working through quite a bit of Scripture on that phrase in 2Thess - en sanctification [of] S(s)pirit and faith [of] truth. There is an obvious interplay in the sanctification verses between God sanctifying us, including our spirit, and our living a sanctified life. Outside of Thess there is the filling of the Spirit and men speaking by the Spirit. The Spirit's activities in many cases are seen through what men are saying and doing. Let's say that command to not extinguish the spirit is speaking of congregational activity (see 1Thess5:20 also), then extinguishing the Spirit may well be the Holy Spirit speaking through the human spirit and to extinguish one is to extinguish both with the main focus being the HS.

FWIW re: translations, so it's not just me: NET 1 Thessalonians 5:19 Do not extinguish the Spirit.

I had a discussion about Pneumatology with my main languages professor about some of these S vs. s issues. He expressed his thinking that there is still a lot of work to be done on this. A similar translation issue is in the terminology "faith [of] Christ" vs. "faith [in] Christ." There are many places in the Text translated as [in] that are likely [of]. No matter what some want to think, there is still a lot of scholarship working out such issues. And one of those issues is what I'll just call a duality or an underlying concept like we're discussing re: Spirit vs. spirit vs. Spirit/spirit. Similarly, is it always Sanctification or is it Sanctification/sanctification (I'm pretty certain you see what I mean) - is there really and ultimately Sanctifying work by God in Salvation without a sanctified life being lived out by those He's Saving? I know one sect of Soteriology leans hard in that pendulum swing. I disagree with it.