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

Your students analogy is worse than lame; it's DOA! Is that what the Wright Bros., did for example, when they came up with the concept of a flying machine? They told third parties to bring whatever random material they thought appropriate to a barn and then they would build their contraption?

How many things (secondary causes) had to have happened to both Joseph in the OT and Jesus in the New before God achieved his good purpose for all the evil things that happened to both?

I can explain Isa 46:11 to you until the cows come home but it's above my pay grade to make you understand it.

The difference is that I can logically reason from what scripture actually says to justify the deduction that God is a community of three ever-existing persons ruling unanimously as One, and that one of those persons became a human being. But scripture doesn't say anything that leads logically to the idea that God exhaustively predetermines everything that comes to pass without being the author of evil and without being blameworthy for sin.[/QUOTE]

Hah...now we're getting to the heart of the matter! You're operating under the assumption that God cannot decree all things that come to pass without also being the author of sin and morally culpable for it. You see...you just admitted that your personal, finite and fallible reasoning ability is your final authority to determining spiritual truth. You're operating on the assumption that you can understand the secret things of God and his mind and all his ways exhaustively, in spite of what Isa 55:8-9 says. And so when your finite, fallible mind says that something doesn't compute in scripture, then this gives you license to invent your own theology.

Tell me, Mr. Thompson: Did God decree the Fall of Man in a creation that was characterized as "very good", or was He totally surprised, as you think He was with Hezekiah, and then had to scramble to come up with Plan B?

There is so much to ponder I barely know where to begin. But I'll start here with these thoughts borrowed from a Reformed website.

God did not coerce Adam to commit sin and fall, but he certainly ordained it. Even an Arminian who thinks that God merely allowed the fall, must admit that before God created the world he already knew what the future would be, and so it was within his Providence for such events to take place, for he could just have easily decided to prevent the fall...but He didn't. But we believe that while God did not make man sin coersively he certainly ordained such events to occur. Consider that if God did not decree the fall then evil is something completely outside His sovereign control ... If evil came into the universe by surprise for God, totally apart from His providence, then there are some things He does not know or things He is powerless over and therefore God would, by definition, lack omniscience and omnipotence. And then how do we know whether He will be able to defeat evil in the future if evil is outside God's control even though the Scripture plainly says that God ordains all events that come to pass (Eph 1:11). (emphasis mine)

This is precisely the kind of argument atheists and skeptics present. If an all-powerful, all-wise, all-knowing God could have prevented the fall, then why didn't he? But the argument continues on even more forcefully. If God is also a Good, all-loving God, how could he allow his much weaker, finite, vulnerable image-bearers get into such serious trouble? Wouldn't a loving human parent not do all in their power to protect their child from imminent danger thereby preserving the child's welfare? Isn't one of the qualities of "agape" love is that it "protects" (1Cor 13:7)? When Herod was intent on seeking out the Christ child to murder him, didn't God send an angel to warn Mary and Joseph and to provide an escape route to Egypt for the welfare and benefit of the child? Or again...what about an even much lesser person such as Sarah whom God protected from king Abimelech by rescuing her from his clutches (Gen 20:1-7)? If God knew how to protect Sarah from a wicked king, then why didn't he protect Eve from the Serpent?

All thoughtful responses are welcomed... Mr. Thompson?

Hah...now we're getting to the heart of the matter! You're operating under the assumption that God cannot decree all things that come to pass without also being the author of sin and morally culpable for it. You see...you just admitted that your personal, finite and fallible reasoning ability is your final authority to determining spiritual truth. You're operating on the assumption that you can understand the secret things of God and his mind and all his ways exhaustively, in spite of what Isa 55:8-9 says. And so when your finite, fallible mind says that something doesn't compute in scripture, then this gives you license to invent your own theology.

Tell me, Mr. Thompson: Did God decree the Fall of Man in a creation that was characterized as "very good", or was He totally surprised, as you think He was with Hezekiah, and then had to scramble to come up with Plan B?[/QUOTE]
Neither. You are presenting a false dichotomy. My opinion is that God created humans in His image and after His likeness with will, intelligence, emotions, self-awareness and other-awareness, knowing that these attributes are required to receive and express love, but in limited forms also make it possible for moral, analytical and practical imperfection., which will produce shame and guilt and relational fracture. So, He went ahead with creation, willing to bear the burden of all things that would result from creation, but hoping humans would trust Him and keep looking to Him to confirm the wisdom of their conclusions before acting on them, and willing to patiently suffer long human foolishness that would come from a failure to put God first.
"Love bears all things, hopes all things, endures all things."
No, He did not decree the fall. No, he was not surprised by man's sin. And no, I never said your straw man: that He was totally surprised by Hezekiah's repentance.

Arminians and Calvinists are a subset of Christendom. Who cars whether Arminians agree with Calvinists on something. philosophically What does the Bible say? It certainly does not say anyrhing like "God ordained the fall." Not that "Before God created He already knew whaat the future would be."

To make the fall impossible, for limited beings, God would have had to make love impossible.

Implying that my view is that evil coming into the universe was a surprise for God is a strawman. God was not surprised, he knew it was possible. Why else would He say, "Man has become LIKE US, knowing both good and evil. God had obviously encountered evil before, and knew how it comes about. But Adam and Eve choosing to distrust God and instead trust the devil, was not inevitable.

You ask, "Wouldn't a loving human parent not do all in their power to protect their child from imminent danger thereby preserving the child's welfare?" No, helicopter mothers are stunting their children's growth toward maturity.

You ask, "Isn't one of the qualities of "agape" love is that it "protects" (1Cor 13:7)?" But you did not quote the verse and highlight where it mentions "protect". Because it doesn't say protect. You rad that into the text, like you do so many other things into so many other texts. You wrest two specific events of God protecting from other parts of the Bible, and hitch then to 1 Cor. 13:7 as if they are related to 1 Cor. 13:7 , which does not mention protecting at all. This is a typical Calvinist practice.

You ask, "If God knew how to protect Sarah from a wicked king, then why didn't he protect Eve from the Serpent?" God did protect Eve from the serpent. He had told Eve the truth. She was forewarned and forearmed. She chose not to use the weaponry God had supplied that would have kept her safe. How will anyone learn the danger of some threat, if they are delivered every time from ever engaging with the threat?

How and where does Romans 1 say all men reject NR or that all men suppress truth?

To the best of my ability I don't use experience to trump Scripture, but I'm going to insert some personal experience here. I don't have a lot of distinct memories about my early years that readily come to mind, but I always easily recall laying in a field looking up at the sky and the moving clouds and wondering who made them and never rejecting that wondering about who.

But again, based upon the previous paragraph, how does "men" = all men = Total Depravity just looking at Romans 1?
But "generally" does not mean all or Total.

And again, retaining the context of seeing or inserting all or Total back into Rom1, some in Israel did receive Him, which would go along with not all men reject NR. So now we could see some do receive NR and some do receive SR.

As is clear from what I said above, I can't at the moment accept that what you previously said is true.

I understand Rom3:11 by reading Ps14 and seeing that there are 2 categories of people being discussed, fools who don't understand and God's people who do. And in context there it is at a point or period of time, not a universal statement about all people all time. Then in context of Rom3:11 Paul is making the case that Jews and Gentiles are in sin, but also in the context he is out of the category of unbeliever, so now we have 3 categories of men, or 2 + subcategories. Unbeliever Jew & Gentile (fools), and believer (God's people like the non fools in Ps14).

"period!" not accepted yet based upon what I just said re: Rom3:11 cf. Ps14.

I'm going to take up 1Cor2 and Jer17:9 in a separate post to keep posts shorter.

I'd prefer to remain in Rom1 and see if we can come to agreement there. Then move on. But since I've gone this far, I'll continue and try to keep these posts separate for separate discussions.

In Romans 3 Paul is making the case against the unbelieving Jew. In doing so he is pulling from several places in the OC Scriptures to substantiate what he says, that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin. But, again, Ps14 speaks of fools and God's people. And as I said earlier, "fool" is not limited to Gentile in the Text. And lack of understanding is related to the fool in the Ps. Again, it seems to me we're heading out of context to make this universal and in all time.

In Matt13:19 Jesus speaks of the first soil as men who hear the word/message of the Kingdom and don't understand it. But this is not universal. It's only the first soil and "understand" is the same word Paul uses in Rom3:11. So, Matt13:19 seems to argue against universal lack of or inability to understand.

What does it mean that the Gospel is God's power for salvation or power from God for salvation Rom1:16? It's explained in the next verse: the Gospel reveals God's righteousness. And there's another consideration here because Paul is proclaiming the Gospel to believers and the Gospel and Salvation are not topics limited to entrance into Christ, but also development in Christ. But, back to universal lack of understanding and seeking, it seems God's Gospel has some power to save from this.

Jer17:9 rhetorically says men cannot understand their own heart, so 17:10 YHWH searches the heart - He evaluates the mind and recompenses them accordingly. This speak of a total inability to understand truth, maybe especially not truth with God's power to save men. I'd take Jer17:9 more into the realm where Paul says he doesn't even judge himself [beyond a point] but let's God do it (1Cor4:3-4).

In 1Cor2 Paul explains how he did not come to the Corinthians in his own abilities but wit the power of the Spirit being demonstrated, so their faith would be by God's power. So, in Paul's mind God's Gospel has power and God's power was being demonstrated by His Spirit in Corinth to assist in Paul's ministry.

By the time Paul gets to 1Cor2:14 he is speaking to Christians - even to mature Christians (2;6) who have had the "deep things" of God - the "things God has prepared for those who love Him" revealed to them by His Spirit. This is not talking about the foundational Gospel. In context, the natural/soulish/unspiritual man does not receive these deep things of God - they are foolishness (note the correlation fools) to him - he is not able (cannot) to know them.

TULIP has always concerned me. But I've chosen to look at any and every Scripture presented no matter what theological system is presenting it.

I'm discussing gifted faith with @maxamir on another thread.

Ok...
Remember what Jesus told the Disciples?
He would make them "fishers of men".

There's a virtual sea of chaos of people. Just a few are salvageable for salvation. You can't see the salvageable ones because of the sea....but they are in there just the same ...
So you cast a net and see what comes out. Maybe nothing....maybe something....

Of course there's some truth to this, but there are more layers to it and not all men are the same. Man does have a conscience and Paul deals with Gentile obedience to Law he wasn't given in writing. I can't see from the Text that I don't have to go along with a total inability of all men to come to know that something is wrong with them, to assess their lives, and conclude there has to be something better. Coupled with not rejecting NR but wandering around in worldliness along comes SR at the right time and some listen and learn and believe (John6). As time goes on we might even see how God was there all the time and all of our stupid decisions and resulting circumstances led us to the right time and place to listen to Him. And there was the power of His Good News.

A favorite reference of mine. I taught it as a foundational command once. It's one of the commands I retain fairly easily, actually. It's why I study His Word in Spirit (as best I can know) and came to the point of not relying on any systematic theology. I'm not too impressed with man, and I am one.

May do so, but between you and @maxamir and some others, my capacities are waning and I need to apply the first clause in 1Tim4:8 more than I do.

@Rufus

Just correcting my erroneous double-negative in #5,550

On the other hand, there is Eph 1:11. If God did not decree the Fall then this means sin that was spiritually and physically catastrophically disastrous to our first parents and to this earth found into this world apart from God's will. And this implies that someone or something is greater than God and was able to bring evil into God's "very good" creation in spite of God's goodness, power, and knowledge. How do we know evil will not intrude again in the eternal, visible kingdom?

Huh? Why is love impossible without sin in the world? The three Persons of the Godhead did not love each other in eternity before the creation? Or The Father did not love his sinless, perfectly righteous, holy Son Jesus because he wasn't a sinner? And there will be no love, I suppose, in the eternal, visible, sinless kingdom in the next age?

Well, you pretty much said that God was taken by surprise at Hezekiah's reaction to the prophet's bad news about the king's imminent death, which is why God changed his mind. So there is that.

So, is this modern philosophy of parental care (i.e. "helicopter mothers") found in the bible? I supposed Mary and Joseph should have ignored angel's warning and command to let the Christ child deal with Herod? Survival of the fittest and all of that, right? What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger?

But what happens when the "helicopter" crashes and burns? A mother warns her 7 year old to never cross the street without first stopping at the corner and looking both ways, whether on foot or bicycle. But one day, her little one is in the street racing other kids on their bikes and the mother is sitting on the stoop of her house on a corner and perceives that her child is not going to stop at the corner where a car is fast approaching because sees her kid is intent and engrossed on winning the race. I guess in your world a mere "warning" is synonymous with protection, so the the mom should just sit tight and not move and see what happens when/if that car meets up with a child's bicycle, right? After all, how many warnings should a kid get, right?

Don't you know that the scriptures teach that the strong are supposed to protect the weak and vulnerable, even as the Lord protects them!? See Ps 12:5; 41:1; 72:13; 82:3-4; Act 20:35, etc. And are not sheep among the most weak and vulnerable animals upon the earth, which is why they need shepherds to protect them!? Did not David himself rescue sheep from the jaws of death of both lion and bear? Isn't Jesus supposed to be our Good Shepherd? What does a shepherd do: Only warn his sheep!? But evidently Jesus never got the memo on "helicopter moms".

Actually, two of my versions of the NIV does say "protect"!

1 Cor 13:7
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
NIV

And God does protect his own, don't you know?

2 Thess 3:3
3 But the Lord is faithful, and he will strengthen and protect you from the evil one.
NIV

Hmm...except when He doesn't, I suppose?

BUT....protect is what God does...Ps 23:1-7; 32:7; Isa 43:2, etc.

So, in your world a "warning = actual, real time protection? Also, you conveniently overlook that fact that the warning God gave Adam (NOT Eve!) warned about fatal consequences. It's one thing for parents to allow their kids to learn lessons the hard way that they'll soon not forget, yet something else altogether to learn a hard lesson from which they'll never recover!

Now, having said all that, allow me to turn up the heat up some by pointing to one of the two huge elephants (as if one weren't bad enough) that were hiding in plain sight in the Garden. Elephant Number One: Satan! Please explain how the Evil One entered God's "very good" pristine creation apart from the Creator's decree. If there had been no Satan in the Garden, would there have been a fall? How did Satan get there? We have to infer that Lucifer already fell and was cast down from heaven...so, why didn't God cast him down directly to the fires of hell, which he has prepared for him the other fallen angels (Mat 25:41)?

On the other hand, it doesn't qualify the number of men by explicitly saying "some" or "many". But this doesn't mean that Paul isn't referring to a specific class of men either. In fact, this is what I see in the passage. He's referring to "all" men of a particular class. Verse 18, I think, makes this clear. The kind of men Paul has is mind are godless, wicked men who wilfully suppress God's plain truth.

Other characteristics of these men are their pride and self-deception (vv. 21-22) and their natural inclination to religiousity via idolatry (v. 23). To this very day, we see this inclination, as there are far more "religious" people in the world who believe in a "higher power" in one form or another than there outright athesists. But, ironicaly, even with this latter group, no one exalts and worships the creation more than atheistic evolutionists who invented their god Natural Selection, to which they must unwittingly ascribe all manner of God-like attributes, even though they'll vehemently deny this. But I digress...

Then v. 28 goes on to say that these wicked men did not think it worthwhile to retain God in their knowledge! Does not scripture everywhere testify to this truth!? First the the Flood. Then the Tower of Babel. Then the covenant people of Israel themselves. Then all the surrounding pagan nations, etc, etc.

In short, then, this wicked class of men are the Totally Depraved. As such, they simply do not want to know truth about God, let alone know him personally.

I just explained this in my last post (5554).

But who in Israel received him? Wouldn't it be people like Peter? And how did Peter "receive" his Messiah? How did he know Jesus was the Messiah? Thankfully, Jesus told him how (and us!), cp. Mat 16:17.

Hah...we're getting close. You see two categories, as I see two classes. I see Rom 3:11 as being the explicit, universal answer to the rhetorical question asked in Jer 17:9. The answer applies to ALL the unregenerate -- not to just the Jews. I don't see more than 2 categories. For there are only two kinds of spiritual people in the world, and this was very clearly established by God's decree in Gen 3:15. See also Rom 9:21, which is precisely what God did in Gen 3:15. And since unregenerate Jews and unregenerate Gentiles are all in Adam, then there's no real spiritual distinction between them.

But they are not all men, correct?

Weren't you connecting Rom3:11 back to Rom1 and saying, no men understand and none seek after God is universal and all time?

Difficult to follow this post. Looks at first like you're talking to yourself.

From the numerous encounters I've had with the unsaved, I'm convinced that virtually all men know they're imperfect. But again, the inclination of the unregenerate heart is for people to compare themselves on the horizontal level -- NOT the vertical level! No one ever sees themselves as part of the world's problems. Political people point to those in opposing political parties, as being the problem. Within Christendom, people point to different sects or denominations as the problem. Adherents to other world religions, point to all those other religious people who don't subscribe to theirs, etc, etc. Also, the natural tendency is for these imperfect people to make things right by their version of God. This fact accounts for the common thread that runs through all world religions, save for biblical Christianity: justification by works.

But even more importantly that the testimony from Natural Revelation is the testimony from Special Revelation! And this testimony says that all men are the same! All men come into this world in Adam, which makes or made us spiritually dead. But when God's elect pass from death into life, this is not our own doing, but God's! It is solely by his grace that any of us are in Christ Jesus.

Fair enough!

They are all the Unregenerate in the world. Paul cannot possibly be talking in absolute terms when he said, "no one"; for that would necessarily include the regenerate, born again believers who have passed from death into life. I see Rom 3:10ff, therefore, as the Universal Indictment against all men in Adam -- Jews and Gentiles alike. It cannot be an indictment against those in the Last Adam!

All men are physically born into Adam I, yes. But this does not mean that all men reject NR, nor that all men reject Natural Law, nor that all men in all of time do not seek God, which is where we began discussion.

But now we're out into theology instead of in Scripture. And there are several Scriptures that were pointed and counter-pointed and now may be left out of further discussion.

So, does Rom3:11 say that no unbeliever in all of history, seeks God?

Does Romans 1 say that no unbeliever in all of history seeks God?

Does Romans 1 say anything about Election?

How are either of these sections or verses of Scripture used to prove T or U or I assuming you adhere to these or some or?