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

[cut drastically to save space]

No apologies needed, my friend. As they often say in Swampland where I live (FL), "I'm up to my armpits in 'gators, also". But let's see if we can try to cut to the chase of the Total Depravity doctrine. But first, I'm glad that you did say that there "seems" to be a contradiction between the distinction Reformed folks make quantitative and qualitative corruption of men's hearts. I'm well aware of this objection by NR (non-reformed) folks, which is why earlier I cited Gal 5:9 and Jas 3:11-12, as these are very important spiritual principles. In fact, this principle expressed in terms of "leaven" (evil) initially appears in scripture at the first Passover instituted in Egypt whereby the ancient Israelites were forbidden to have any leaven in their households during Passover season. They were required to get rid of every trace of leaven until after Passover. I could be wrong, and I stand to be corrected here, but this spiritual principle seems to be teaching that God requires nothing less than absolute/perfect holiness and righteousness of his moral creatures, and and anything less than this is abhorrent to a thrice Holy God. One act of sin is enough to condemn any rational, moral creature of God to eternal damnation.

The second thing I wish to caution against is that both sin (lawlessness) and godliness are mysteries (cp. 2Thes 2:7 and 1Tim 3:16, respectively). So, I don't think we're going to understand totally how sin and godliness work in the human heart -- at least not in this age.

Thirdly, while all men come into this world in Adam, which to me further means, we all come into this world as seeds of the Serpent;. nevertheless, at the same time, we also come into this world as God's image-bearers. Being that we are created in his God's image. While sin is a fatal disease of the heart and soul, if left untreated by the Great Physician, in that it has greatly marred that divine image in us -- it has disfigured it -- distorted it, which means we can't fully understand on our own what that image really means -- nonetheless it's this image that basically instills in man a God-consciousness, which I actually prefer to call a Religious-Consciousness; for it certainly seems that most men sense they have a duty to perform before some power greater than ourselves. And this truth in borne out in Natural Revelation with the plethora of world religions from which to choose.

Having said all that, let me pop a big question at you that has to do with this passage:

Luke 18:18-27
18 A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good — except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.'"

21 "All these I have kept since I was a boy," he said.

22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

26 Those who heard this asked, "Who then can be saved?"

27 Jesus replied, "What is impossible with men is possible with God."
NIV

What do you make of this passage? Should we take Jesus literally here when he said "No one is good, except God alone"? Or was he using hyperbole for some reason? But if we do take him literally, then how can we not logically infer that man must be evil, since he's not good? And Jesus was certainly not shy about calling a spade a spade, was he...ever? How many times did he call the Jews "evil"? "if you being evil know how to give good gifts to your children...(Mat 7:11). A text like this certainly seems to bear out my understanding of Total Depravity, which again doesn't mean that all men are as evil as they could be -- and this due to multiple factors which I won't discuss here to save space and time.

In fact, returning to the Luke passage above, it's obvious this rich young Jewish ruler was likely a very religious guy. First, he approached Jesus respectfully, unlike most leaders in the Jewish religious establishment. And this rich man appeared to be sincere with respect to how he kept the Law. He seemed to respect the Law, as well. But look what happened once Jesus ingeniously revealed this man's "hidden sin" -- a sin that certainly seemed to be hidden from this ruler's mind and heart. He loved something more than God, and apparently he was not aware of his sin! It appears he was far more conscious of his "law-keeping abilities". I don't know how this strikes you -- but for me, this speaks sharply to this religious man's self-deceived heart.

When this man's sin was revealed, he became "very sad". And Jesus even conceded to him that those who love money have a really, really tough time entering the kingdom. Why was he sad? Could it be that he "desired" to please God on his terms and not on God's, and Jesus exposed his hypocrisy?

The next question that comes to mind: Did Jesus think this rich man was evil also, or was he a pretty good guy trying to do his best?

Jesus' reply to this rich man astounded his disciples and prompted them to ask the very urgent question, "Who then CAN be saved"?

So, the next question begging to be asked, was Jesus' reply in v.27 more gross exaggeration or did the Lord literally mean that "what is impossible with men is possible with God"? But notice, too, that Jesus didn't answer the question of "who" can be saved. Rather, he told his disciples HOW anyone CAN be saved! We shouldn't miss the Lord's answer.

I'll close this post with an analogy taken from Natural Revelation. How I double-check my theology derived from Special Revelation is that it must comport well with Natural Revelation. If it doesn't, then my biblical theology is wrong. It's back to the drawing board . So...if we liken Sin to a deadly poison, how much sin would be fatal to us? And what are the odds that if someone becomes deadly poisoned in one way or another that that person would actually know what toxin has infected them, and have the know-how and the resources to treat themselves quickly enough to survive? Let's liken Sin to this toxin stated below:

Scientists differ about the relative toxicities of substances, but they seem to agree that botulinum toxin, produced by anaerobic bacteria, is the most toxic substance known. Its LD50 is tiny – at most 1 nanogram per kilogram can kill a human. Extrapolating from its effect on mice, an intravenous dose of just 10-7g would be fatal to a 70kg person.

The article ends with this fascinating observation:

As Paracelsus is reported to have said 500 years ago: “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison: the dose alone makes a thing not poison.” And he had a point. Ultimately, we are surrounded by potentially dangerous substances – it’s the dose that makes it deadly.

https://theconversation.com/handle-with-care-the-worlds-five-deadliest-poisons-56089

How much underground sea water seepage would it take render a well usueless? How much leaven would it take to ruin a heart? Or how much bitter water would it take to ruin sweet spring water? While poisons ususally attack limited areas of the human body, e.g. liver, kindneys, heart, nervous system, etc., it seems that Sin is even more pernicious as it attacks ALL the human faculties, not just one or two. The entire heart of man is corrupt with evil, not just parts of it! There is no part of man's Soul that is not poisoned by Sin.

So...if you ask:"Well, then how can someone 'do good' to his fellow man, for example, and still be classified as spiritually dead", I would respectfully suggest that you're asking the wrong question. The question should be: Why is it that man cannot not sin? Why is it that man born of a woman cannot be pure before God? Could it be that the biblical answer to these types of questions is that: How can the Dead do anything that fully and continually pleases, honors and glorifies God? Only Jesus did these things always. Always! Did He come into this world in Adam? Did He come into this world spirituallyn stillborn? You're not making sense out of the doctrine of Total Depravity because you're asking the wrong questions and you're not making the ONE and only right comparison that should be made -- the one between the sons of Adam and the Last Adam. When the bar of Holy Perfection is raised to the Second Man, then we can begin to make sense out of the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity that affects all the Sons of the First Man.

I particularly address this post to our relatively new poster Mr. Studier. I recently came upon a very thought-provoking quote by a John Frame (and I don't know who he is) whereby he allegedly said:

"God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends"

Let's apply this idea for a moment to the doctrine of Total Depravity and how I understand this in the context of blbical theology (notice, please, I didn't the systematic theology of Calvinism, since I came by "Calvinism" from the pages of scripture and not from extera-biblical sources).

How I understand this doctrine from Holy Writ is that because all man's faculties are corrupt by sin, he has no inherent ability to please God as God intended (this last term being the operative one). What did God require of Man after created him? At the very least Perfect Trust and Obedience fully, completely and always, for nothing less would please, honor and glorify the Creator. Scripture employs the methaphor "death" to descrbe man's dismal and dire spiritual condition. How are we to understand this metaphor if not in terms of inability?

So, let's use another analogy from reality as we all know it. Most of us drive cars, I presume? If so, then most of know what it means when our car goes DEAD on us on road. Our car can suddenly give up the ghost for any number of reasons: dead battery, bad alternator, bad transmission, bad timing chain, etc., etc. For any of these reasons and a host of more, we consider our car "dead" because it's not moving. It's immobile. Or better yet....our car is not functioning as it was intended.

And the last reason stated above is exactly how I understand the metaphor of spiritual death. When Adam sinned, man quit functioning as God intended; and even worse, none of us can fix ourselves because all the parts (various factulties) to our human soul and heart are in a state of disrepair, and none of us have the know-how or resources or tools to implement a self-repair solution. Yes, most of us can change a flat, but our spiritual condition is infintely worse than a mere flat tire solution.

So, this brings me back to John Frame's quote. God doesn't always intend to bring about what he values in what our time-bound, finite minds would consider to be a "timely fashion". God from the very begining intended for our first parents to trust and obey him perfectly, flawlessly with pure hearts and devotion. Did God's intentions for Man fail? Or are they just delayed for several millennia which is but a very tiny blip on God's radar, since a day is as thousand years to him, and a thousdand years are as a day to Him? When we read the prophetic portions of scripture, especially Revelation we learn that God's intentions that he had for Adam and Eve will be fulfilled one day through Christ and by all the chosen people God has given to Him. The time is coming when all God's elect will perfectly, flawlessly, continuously and with a pure heart love, trust and obey God for the praise of his glory.

Can anyone say with me: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED IN CHRIST!?

Ez. 28:11-17; Is 14:12-14.[/QUOTE]

I have good news and bad news for you. The good is that you got the two central OT passages right. The bad is that you misinterpret them.

First of all, God threw Satan to the earth after he had sinned in heaven (Ezek 28:17c). If Satan had sinned on the earth, then how could he have been thrown [out of heaven] to the earth? Satan and all his followers were cast down to the earth after they defiled God's holy heaven with their sin.

Even Isa 14:12 confirms this truth. For the text says that Lucifer fell from heaven -- he was CAST down to the earth.

In fact, the Hebew term "gada" (Strong's 1438) tranlsated in the NIV as "cast down" is a very strong word that denotes "to fell a tree; generally, to destroy anything". Why would God have cast down to earth or "destroyed" a holy angel who had not sinned yet? Satan's fall occurred in heaven which is why the passage also says "How you have fallen from Heaven". God didn't "let" Satan occupy the earth, as you claimed; rather, he literally tossed him out of heaven to the earth on his butt rather uncerimoniously in no uncertain terms.

Nice try, but no cigar.

I read your #5,601 and am putting together some thoughts. Will get back to you when I can.

I saw this as I was shutting down. A few quick observations for now:

• I did notice you said "biblical theology." The more biblical theology and the less systematic theology the better IMO (all here is IMO as I presume no authority).
• There are some good thoughts here. There is a definition in the main word (as I recall) translated as "sin" in the Hebrew that says it means "deviation." So in this sense, I see sin as deviation from what we were intended to be. It's an interesting study. It seems to go well with some of what you say.
• I've had my own version of the quote you've supplied. It's less eloquent, but in essence says God will have His way. It's absurd to think otherwise. I enjoy those verses that speak of His looking down and laughing with derision. And I enjoy the Messianic Psalm 2 Paul used to evangelize as it in essence says to the kings of the earth, Kiss the Son lest He be angry. It's easy to throw a little colorful language with this one to get the point across.
• Knowing where TULIP goes, I'm cautious when I see "inability" mentioned and highlighted. It get's pushed too far for my tastes as I do Biblical Theology. Inability to please is one thing. Inability to hear and learn and believe is another and is much more nuanced and may not be a one size fits all situation in regard to what assistance might be provided and when.

Thanks!

BTW, I had to laugh when I saw this following opening statement in your above post:

Cut drastically? Oy vey...

I know. A gross understatement if there ever was any. I tried to keep as much of your post as I could, so I lobbed off a little at a time to keep my reply and your post within forum limits; but I kept getting the error message.

I don't have a problem with Total Depravity and man's inability simply because man cannot not sin, which means man isn't functioning spiritually as God intended because he cannot. Yet, the day is coming (Praise the Lord!) when that will change forever. Whatever spiritual understanding the unregenerate have in this age, whatever religious desires they may have, whatever decent moral inclinations they may have, etc. -- all of these are corrupted by man's evil heart; hence the desperate need of the New Heart from God promised under the New Covenant. Each of us comes into this world DOA spiritually, since we're all born in Adam.

You seem to dichotomize pleasing God generally with the very ways we could please him -- hearing, learning, believing. I see this as a false dichotomy because the hearts of unregenerate men are full of poison -- sin, evil, wickedness. Even the hearts of moral, religious people such as that young rich ruler who apparently sought Christ out! Think about that! He actually sought Christ out -- only to have Jesus reveal the man's utter hypocrisy -- his sin hidden or suppressed within him that he was too self-deceived to perceive. This moral, religious, "well-intentioned" man went away very sad. (This guy could be the quintessential example of the old adage, "The road to hell is paved with GOOD intentions".) There's no record that he cried out to Jesus for forgiveness, is there? Or even for help to overcome his idolatrous heart either, right? What klnd of soil do you think would characterize this rich man's heart?

I see man's heart condition as being incurable by any of the world's standards. And since man cannot heal himself spiritually, then the only way he'll ever get to see God is by the Savior's sovereign, effectual grace.

From the perspective of man there are those who indeed seem to do good but from God's perspective all of the good that man seems to do is simply filthy rags before Him (Isa 64:6). Sin is not simply what a person does but what a person is. People sin because they are sinners and all who sin do so because they are slaves to sin as Christ confirmed in John 8:34 and are children of the devil doing his will (1 Jn 3:8-10) unless they are born again.

Man after the Fall is as evil as he needs to be to go to Hell and potentially as evil as he could be but not definitely as evil as he could be lest there be no degrees of evil or its associated greater condemnation as Scripture confirms. The scale for the effect that evil has upon man is 10/10 as confirmed by the words of God Himself in Genesis 6:5 when He said that man had become "only evil continually". Therefore when men compare themselves to each other there will always be someone who is more evil than another. This does not make that person to be good in God's eyes who puts the nail in the coffin of man's supposed goodness by proclaiming that whatever is not from faith is sin (Rom 14:23).

I have never said I am part of a theological denomination and absolutely object to some of the doctrines of those who call themselves Reformed as I have already explained with NCT which is not a denomination but an overall understanding of Scripture which the Doctrines of Grace are and you will find that just about all who agree with NCT are also adherents of the Doctrines of Grace because this is the plain truth of Scripture which was rediscovered by those during the Reformation and points to grace alone as being the foundation for the work of God among men unto salvation and not anything that man does or will do.

Everything must be tested by the Scriptures and I congratulate you on your desire to seek to do so but please understand that God decrees that doctrine which is simply teaching be done through those He ordains to do so otherwise there would be need to teach or evangelise the world as all that would be needed is to just give people a Bible and let them learn for themselves.

Do you have a church you attend and a pastor that you submit to and learn from?

So we have a “bait” thread about none other than Saivation again. Almost 300 replies. Dear Lord

God wills/desires various things. His will/desire to decree X and His will/desire to allow Y and His will/desire to rescue Z are not three different kinds of will. They are all God's will/desire. There is no need to divide God's will into different wills: decretive and preceptual.

God wills/desires X and then He decides whether He will act upon His will/desire for X , or will forego that will desire. He wanted to destroy the calf-worshipping Israelites and make a new nation out of Moses, but He did not follow though on that will, after Moses interceded for the people. Love does not always demand its own way. Will-power is not will. You can will without the power to actualise what you will. A free will is not the same thing as omnipotence.

Look up a dictionary and post a definition of sovereignty. Sovereignty does not mean what calvinists mean by sovereignty. If God is sovereign and nothing happens in heaven or earth that is not God's will, as calvinism claims, why does anyone need to pray for God's will to be done anywhere?

Satan came before God with the other sons of God in heaven at the beginning of the book of Job. If sin cannot exist in heaven, how did satan get in there?
You are muddying the waters with philosophical speculations. Try to stick with scripture. Where does scripture say a saint in heaven will never be able to want to depart from His perfect will?

I found myself considering how TD does or doesn't conform to Scripture when looking at your other post I haven't answered yet. I'll take it up when I do.

You may know this, but just to make certain, my 'hearing, learning, believing' comment was in reference to how we initially believe. I was discussing Faith on another thread. If you and I continue this track, we will inevitably be getting into it. Grace is a part of this also.

Re: the rich young man story: Yes, he sought (seeking) Jesus. And he for whatever reason called Jesus "good" and Jesus as He always does used this remark in an interesting way. In this story Jesus used it to ask him a question, which engages the thinking process. In my view, one of the things Jesus did right there was ask the man not only about good (God) and thus (evil), but who he thought he was talking with. Jesus could very easily been asking him, 'who do you think I am' which is the real question for all men.

Matthew 19:21 brings out something about this event. At the beginning of Jesus telling him to sell & give his wealth, Jesus said "if you want to be perfect...then come follow Me." Obviously we can stop right here and fill a few pages discussing what's contained in this one verse. This is new era reality for sons who in the old era are children. Since the child/young man saw more value in his wealth than in Christ and perfection, and since there's no indication he ever believed who Jesus was (even though I see Jesus prompting him to consider just that), I'd probably say he was first soil and the wealth birds ate the seeds on the trampled soil. I'd also consider that the child being of Israel was someone who had not rejected God at General Revelation (and his upbringing) and had some amount of positive consciousness about God (knowing God / keeping His commandments). But rejection of Jesus as the Christ is the ultimate rejection of God who sent Him, which takes me back to some of what I was saying about Rom1. Not everyone rejects the knowledge of God, but even those who do not reject Him remain in their sin until someone asks them, "who do you think I AM?"

As for the TD and balance of that system, was this child of Israel unable to understand or did he simply make a choice? This is why I brought out "perfect" in Matthew. The child/young man knew he needed more for eternal life. He knew there was more to the faith of Israel. He sought out a "good teacher" and that "Teacher" asked him to consider who he was talking to and what he truly thinks of God, the only one "good." "Perfection" not only carries the connotation of unblemished (like the sacrificial animals in Israel) also means "completion." We find the commanded concept in Deut18:13 and we find Jesus commanding it in Matt5:48 as He's into the Sermon that speaks of His Law. Point being, the young man had asked for eternal life, which Jesus made parallel to perfection/completion - something in language the child of Israel would recognize. But he made the choice to retain what he had rather than to give it up and pursue perfection with what turned out to be the only one who could take him there.

Bottom line, he knew what he was being asked to do and he walked away. That's choice. Did he realize Who he was talking to and walk away? I'm not certain, yet. But he walked away from what he knew he needed, or that God required of him even as a child of Israel. So, in reality he turned his back on God and this also goes back to Rom1 because the language in Rom1:28 most literally says they saw no value in having God in their experiential knowledge, so God turned them over to their of no value (worthless) minds.

It's like I was saying, there are a lot of layers to what Paul is saying in Romans 1. It's not just a cut and dry no unbelieving man ever in all of time seeks God. This is underlying in Ps14 and in other verses in Scripture. We can look at Romans1 and 3 and see the general concept of men under sin. And then we can look for the next level.

This is one of the reasons I am unstuck from systematic theologies and why I immediately recognized it when you said "biblical theology" in your other post. I lot of systematics are stuck at a level that causes some of their parts to militate against the whole, which is Biblical Theology. It all has to fit together and most of us are stuck in the weeds arguing systematics.

I'm pretty much on my own with our Teacher now, and for some time. I was ordained after seminary, which I attended in my forties after coming to understand that my relationship with our Lord was more valuable than my career, which I walked away from in response to some very clear and realized circumstantial direction from Him. I decided not to be a full-time pastor, passed on an offer to start a church with a group I was teaching, and went the teaching route for about 20 years in that and a different locale. My focus in seminary was Greek and my teaching ended up being non-systematic, quite a bit of topical studies, and simply and mainly trying to get people to read and understand the Text and gain an appreciation for the depths of it, which we are still mining.

Maybe we can now have some added appreciation for who we each are in Christ. Your requiring I heed the teaching of an ordained Pastor was misplaced. My experience on these forums is that any ordination authority one may think he has, is virtually meaningless and better left behind. This is also part of why my focus is simply on what the Word says and means. This is where the authority lies.

Re: NCT. I'm glad we found that commonality, but IMO it is another system because men are coming from a system which is a part of them and are [hopefully] searching for a Biblical Theology, which most if not every system thinks it has. I appreciate the search and I appreciate that men are willing to find things that may militate against the systems and the Confessions and the Creeds, which will and likely has made them enemies of many. But this is men and theology. What I appreciate mostly, is the search for Truth, the understanding that we're not there yet, and the willingness to walk away from whatever is necessary to find it.

I have good news and bad news for you. The good is that you got the two central OT passages right. The bad is that you misinterpret them.

First of all, God threw Satan to the earth after he had sinned in heaven (Ezek 28:17c). If Satan had sinned on the earth, then how could he have been thrown [out of heaven] to the earth? Satan and all his followers were cast down to the earth after they defiled God's holy heaven with their sin.

Even Isa 14:12 confirms this truth. For the text says that Lucifer fell from heaven -- he was CAST down to the earth.

In fact, the Hebew term "gada" (Strong's 1438) tranlsated in the NIV as "cast down" is a very strong word that denotes "to fell a tree; generally, to destroy anything". Why would God have cast down to earth or "destroyed" a holy angel who had not sinned yet? Satan's fall occurred in heaven which is why the passage also says "How you have fallen from Heaven". God didn't "let" Satan occupy the earth, as you claimed; rather, he literally tossed him out of heaven to the earth on his butt rather uncerimoniously in no uncertain terms.

Nice try, but no cigar.[/QUOTE]

Ez. 28:17c says that God WILL throw satan down. So, at the time Ezekiel wrote, satan was not yet cast down to the earth. Satan was still coming and going between heaven and earth in the days of Job. See Job Ch.1. If he had access to heaven in Job's day, then he must have had access to heaven in Adam's day.

Is. 14:12 is a prophecy concerning the king of Babylon, the spiritual being over the Babylonian empire. Satan was not thrown down until Jesus was killed and raised and glorified. God anticipated Satan would be there challenging and accusing Jesus to the Father after His resurrection, as Zec. 3 describes. So your timing is a bit out of synch with the scriptural timeline.

Genesis 6:5
Berean Standard Bible
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and
that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time.

King James Bible
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

God wills/desires various things. His will/desire to decree X and His will/desire to allow Y and His will/desire to rescue Z are not three different kinds of will. They are all God's will/desire. There is no need to divide God's will into different wills: decretive and preceptive.

God wills/desires X and then He decides whether He will act upon His will/desire for X , or will forego that will desire. He wanted to destroy the calf-worshipping Israelites and make a new nation out of Moses, but He did not follow though on that will, after Moses interceded for the people. Love does not always demand its own way. Will-power is not will. You can will without the power to actualise what you will. A free will is not the same thing as omnipotence.

Look up a dictionary and post a definition of sovereignty. Sovereignty does not mean what calvinists mean by sovereignty. If God is sovereign and nothing happens in heaven or earth that is not God's will, as calvinism claims, why does anyone need to pray for God's will to be done anywhere?

Satan came before God with the other sons of God in heaven at the beginning of the book of Job. If sin cannot exist in heaven, how did Satan get in there?
It is fine for you to philosophically question and speculate. But you should not be claiming certainty concerning speculations that are not confirmed by scripture. Where does scripture say a saint in heaven will never be able to want to depart from His perfect will?

Yes, God could desire to sin if He wanted to, but that does not mean he would ever want to, or that He would follow through on such a desire, if He did some time happen to want to sin. "Love does not demand its own way." 1 Cor. 13. Scripture implies that God would not follow through on such desires, because it says God cannot sin. Saying God cannot lie does not imply that God cannot want to lie. God could want to lie but not follow through on His desire for moral reasons.

And yet Jesus was God in flesh and Jesus denied Himself and took up His cross; and .told us we should deny ourselves and take our cross. Context obviously nuances what "to deny oneself" means.

And yet believers are in Christ and Christ is in God; and if anyone says he has no sin, he is a liar. and the truth is not in Him So, again, context must nuance what phrases such as "in Him is no darkness at all" mean.

I'm just flagging you with the above quote to also save some space:

With all the discussion of good vs. evil, (agree, God is good and men are not) the point remains that the TD concept is the base from which comes the concept that man can do absolutely nothing in the salvation by grace through faith process - not even hear and learn and believe even though some Scriptures speak this way.

But this makes sense if we just let quantitative vs. qualitative say what it seems it really has to say: If the full quantity is fully corrupted, then there is no good left in the quality. The leaven has fully leavened. The water in the spring is bad/evil. The fruit is putrid, etc...

Let me draw this back to Romans for a moment:

• I agree with you that Paul is explaining mankind in 3:9 on - mankind in general - but I see some tension here, something underlying the story, or another level to the story. I'll explain a bit:
• • Collectively all mankind was under sin
  • You used the phrase "God Consciousness." I see this as what Paul is discussing in Rom1. Some reject the knowledge of God that God reveals in them and they want nothing to do with Him - they see no value in God. It's not clear that all men respond this way. But, as I said earlier, even if some men do not outright reject God, no man can be righteous just because he sees some value in having God in his experiential knowledge. Even if some men live rightly to whatever degree by their conscience, men begin in sin and they remain in sin. So Paul can effectively say in general, no one is righteous, no one understands, no one seeks God, etc.
  • • But, underlying this discourse is the fact that there are some who retain some light and live according to conscience per natural law (which is also of God). And in the Psalms and other Scriptures that Paul quotes are the fools and the wicked who are contrasted by God's people.
    • When we look at "understands" it is a word that means to have an intelligent grasp of something that challenges one's thinking or practice. Most literally just in the word form it denotes placing together - like putting it all together. It seems to be speaking of not having an intelligent grasp of something vs. having a complete and lasting inability that cannot be overcome, or a lack of ability to be pondering it.
    • When we look at "seeks" unless we're prepared to review 450-500 verses to fully understand the word and harmonize all its applicable uses, we're likely a bit deficient in our conclusion. There are many places in the Text, both Old and New that speak of men seeking the Lord, seeking His Kingdom, etc. There are commands to seek and proverbs about seeking. IOW, there's a tension in this language of seeking as I think there is a tension in what Paul is saying in Rom1 in entirety. He is simply making the case that all men are under sin and Jews are no better the Gentiles. Like any misinterpretation, we can make this what it is not.

A final few notes for this post:

• I can't accept this quantitative and qualitative concept the way it's being presented (mainly in TD descriptions I read and I'm not certain I grasp your presentation of it well enough). It may be in part because I know the rest of the acronym and at this time, I'm quite far from accepting some points that stem from the base. When we get into logic, if a conclusion is wrong, it can point to the premise being wrong.
• But there are some concepts of quantity and quality that do strike me as being Scriptural as I’m thinking and writing through this:
  • Quantity:
    • All men are/were under sin. No exceptions in Adam I.
    • All men have had knowledge of God from General Revelation and God revealing things about Himself in them.
    • This is at its base, corporate Adam I discussion.
  • Quality:
    • Commensurate with Quantity, the Quality of all men under sin is bad/evil
    • This Quality is relative and different among men when comparing men with men.
    • Maybe we're seeing some of this relativity based upon how men have responded to General Revelation - IOW some are carrying a bit of retained light and some were just handed over to darkness by God for complete rejection of Him.
      • But I see a choice being made here by men. God provided the information and God made it clear and God allows men to choose Him or to reject Him. At this time I don't see this being any different with other revelation from God. If someone tells me it's different “Because Scripture says so” please be prepared to identify and go through such Scripture(s) one by one in detail. Otherwise, thank you for your opinion.
    • Maybe we're seeing some of this in the internal struggles between good and evil in many men.
    • Maybe there are so many variations in the theme that it's impossible for us to determine and this in part ties to the point in Rom1 where Paul speaks of the lost cause of unbelievers judging in matters of sin among unbelievers. They're all ultimately just involved in and supporting sin in one another.
  • Maybe you’ll see some commonality and/or some disagreement in all of this. There is certainly a discussion to be had re: quantity and a quality regarding men. When I read TD explanations, the way it’s typically worded leaves me having to disagree, even though I may be agreeing with some of it above.

This must all come back to the Text at some point, and it all must come as strictly from the Text as we can accomplish. We’re obviously not the first ones to go through this exercise. But, at this point I don’t rely on others’ work for many to most things Scripture without critical review to the best of my ability in Christ in Spirit. I certainly don’t accept conventional systematics and typical proof-texting methods which anyone can do. I’m pretty certain you understand why I don't.

Wow! Another advocate of NCT! Kool!

I can relate to what you say about God's gifts to his Church, e.g. teachers, pastors, etc. When I was a young Christian, I went through the gambit of eschatological-soteriological systems, beginning with Dispensationalism (very short lived), CT for a season until I saw serious problems with that system, as well, and then finally onto NCT. And I have for the most part extra-biblical works to thank for opening my eyes to see the viability of this latter approach. No pastor at any local church espoused NCT.

Conversely, I came by the Doctrines of Grace honestly -- through my own study of the scriptures, my own personal salvation experience -- and of course the indispensable aid of the Holy Spirit who is the ultimate source of all Understanding. I have a fair size library of Christian books but I think I can count on one hand how many commentaries I actually have. After learning the sound principles of hermeneutics and how to apply them to the text, and how to use the NC as my interpretative lens it was pretty much the Holy Spirit and myself. I didn't want to rely on or be unduly influenced by the teachings of men. The vast majority of my books are topical studies, reference works or language study aids. I do have a few study bibles but I never use any of them for daily personal study or devotionals -- for the same reason stated above, i.e. undue influence.

So, you just conceded that God decides whether or not he will ACT on his desire. And since temporal reality isn't the only reality in this universe, then in metaphysical reality we should understand the act of willing to also include to power to actualize. As stated the other day, my neighbor desires to walk, but no one in this temporal reality has the power to make that happen. The fact that she can have the desire to return to a normal life but does not have the [will] power bring that desire to past proves that at least on a fundamentally different level of reality, mere desire alone can be insufficient. A great biblical example of this fact is seen with Jesus' miracle of healing blind Bartimaeus. This man desired very much to regain his sight, yet he knew it was not in his power to do that, so he cried out to Jesus. Jesus was, evidently, willing to heal him and did so on the spot (Mk 10:46-52).

Also, even temporal reality people have desires all day long that they never act upon. Someone desires to buy an expensive sports car, but for whatever reason he doesn't follow through on the desire by making it happen. In fact the opposite happened. He became unwilling to buy the vehicle, even though he still desired it.

So, you couldn't address the question I raised about the Lord's prayer and instead want me to consult a dictionary? Okay. Whatever floats your boat.

Main Entry:sov£er£eign£ty
Variant:also sov£ran£ty \-t*\
Function:noun
Inflected Formlural -ties
Etymology:Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soverainet*, from Old French, from soverain
Date:14th century

1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

Re your question about prayer: As stated previously, God ordains all the means to his ends, and that would include a means of grace called prayer.


Shirely U. Jest with such an inane question about Satan in Job. Is Satan in heaven now? Will he ever be in heaven in the future? Will Satan be on the restored Edenic earth? Good grief, man! Your theology is so impoverished -- so removed from scripture that you hardly ever give straightforward answers to questions that challenge your beliefs. But it even gets worse with you: You read your presuppositions into Job 1 and 2 and you see Satan and his fallen angles as being in heaven, even though the two texts don't say that! Why couldn't Satan and his demons encountered God at the "gates" of heaven? Or since Heaven isn't even mentioned in the passages, why couldn't they have presented themselves to God totally outside of God's heaven?

Job 1:6
6One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"[/io]
NIV

Rufus said:
You say God has free will because he can desire anything he wants. Really? So God could desire to sin if he wanted to? But scripture doesn't teach that! The bible says that God CANNOT sin. There's a huge difference between "wanting" and the inability to want! The bible does not say God doesn't want to lie. It says, he CANNOT lie. The bible doesn't say that God doesn't want to deny himself; rather it says he CANNOT deny himself, etc. What if God's inability to sin is because he could never even have that kind of desire in his heart? Doesn't scripture teach that "God is Light and in him there is no darkness at all" (1Jn 1:5)? If God had the ability to want to sin -- the ability to desire to sin, would that not mean that there is darkness in him, since all sin springs internally from the desires of one's heart, and needs no external expression to become sin, according to Jesus?

Yes, God could desire to sin if He wanted to, but that does not mean he would ever want to, or that He would follow through on such a desire, if He did some time happen to want to sin. "Love does not demand its own way." 1 Cor. 13. Scripture implies that God would not follow through on such desires, because it says God cannot sin. Saying God cannot lie does not imply that God cannot want to lie. God could want to lie but not follow through on His desire for moral reasons.

Pt said:
And yet Jesus was God in flesh and Jesus denied Himself and took up His cross; and .told us we should deny ourselves and take our cross. Context obviously nuances what "to deny oneself" means.

And yet believers are in Christ and Christ is in God; and if anyone says he has no sin, he is a liar. and the truth is not in Him So, again, context must nuance what phrases such as "in Him is no darkness at all" mean.

Click to expand...

Jesus did not deny Who or What he was in terms of his essence. What he denied was his own will (self) because he was sent into this world to do the will of the Father, which he always did perfectly. Lk 22:42 is a great example.

So, in your world `1Jn 1:5 cannot and should not be taken at face value, as an absolute truth. We have to spin it with nuances to bring God down to our level -- a very typical inclination of the hearts of those who deny the truth of the Doctrines of Grace and the Sovereignty of God. If God could desire to sin, then that would reveal darkness within his own heart, since all evil desires find their source in the heart. In your world, "cannot" cannot mean "unable to do otherwise". Maybe your god is quite imperfect after all, if he can't express himself better.

And talk about circular reasoning in what I bolded above! But what if his desire is stronger than his "moral reasons"? If there is imperfection (darkness) in God that would account for his evil desire in the first place, so why couldn't that darkness also affect his reasoning powers and cause him to rationalize moral reasons away in favor of his evil desires? "A little bit of leaven (evil) leavens the WHOLE lump" (Gal 5:9)!

All believers in Christ have been forgiven ALL their sins. Not only are they forgiven, but Christ's righteousness has been imputed to them. Therefore, when God looks at his saints (sinners such as we still are), he doesn't see our sins -- he only sees Christ's imputed righteousness. ALL sins of God's saints that they have committed from cradle to grave have been borne by Christ in his body! And God has removed them from us as far as the east is from the west. So, no, there is no darkness in God or Christ due to the sins of his elect.

So, now I have another question you. Since you believe that God could indeed sin if he wants to, then you must also believe that we his image-bearers could also live perfectly pure and holy and righteous lives if we want to?

Is God just?
Is it just to punish someone one for a debt that has been paid?

You make a good point with you questions. However, I believe you may be understanding this inaccurately. If you owe 200k on a house and a man comes to town to pay the mortgage for all in the area if they will simply accept the gift from him, and yet you never accept the gift and then the bank forecloses on your house because you did not pay the debt, is it wrong for the bank to have foreclosed on the house because your debt was not paid even though there was someone in town who could have paid the debt for you?
The payment Jesus made for our sins on the cross was paid for all, but each person must accept the gift from Him. This requires a belief in Him and the humility to acknowledge that you owe the debt. Many refuse this gift and some are never told of this man who will pay the debt for them and so they will stand in judgement with a debt they cannot afford to pay.

Is this just? Of course it is. We earned the debt through our sin. It is ours to pay. I am thankful to Jesus that my debt was paid when I humbled myself before Him, acknowledged my sin and the need for Salvation. I am now free from this debt, and I owe it all to Jesus. Therefore, I tell all I know of the Son of God who can pay this debt for all who will believe.