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

Again, you made the same claim without proof. What did I say that was wrong in my posts?
Is man fallen? Is he unregenerate? Does the natural man have faith in God? Is it possible to
please God apart from faith? Has unregenerate man been given revelation from God?
Can fallen man worship God in spirit and in truth?

Had you really gone back and tried to understand what I said and reported it fully,
you would know I have been saying that the natural man still possesses all his faculties.
Why no post about that? My guess is that you would have to admit that you characterized
what I have said inaccurately and according to your own bias. You heard what you wanted to hear.

To be sure I believe man's faculties were corrupted by sin, and that mankind is different
than he was created. But clearly man can think and emote as he did prior to sin.

1. deceitful and desperately wicked
2. dead in transgression and sin
3. there is none who are good
4. their speech is corrupted by sin
5. their actions are corrupted by sin
6. ruin and misery lie in their wake
7. the way of peace they have not known
8. they have no fear of God
9. held captive by a love for sin
10. will not seek God because they love the darkness
11. does not understand the things of God
12. suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness
13. continues to willfully live in sin
14. rejects the gospel of Christ as foolishness
15. alienated from God and enemies in their minds because of evil deeds
16. estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies
17. their mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so."

I wonder how the natural man is supposed to be moved to faith in ^ that ^ condition. Oh! I know! God
may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. God’s grace is man’s only hope.


Jesus’ words in John 6:65

Not what I asked. You said because God is love that every action on His part is agape love. So, it's a natural question: how does casting someone into the Lake of Fire manifest agape love to the individual being cast in?

1. deceitful and desperately wicked
2. dead in transgression and sin
3. there is none who are good
4. their speech is corrupted by sin
5. their actions are corrupted by sin
6. ruin and misery lie in their wake
7. the way of peace they have not known
8. they have no fear of God
9. held captive by a love for sin
10. will not seek God because they love the darkness
11. does not understand the things of God
12. suppresses the truth of God in unrighteousness
13. continues to willfully live in sin
14. rejects the gospel of Christ as foolishness
15. alienated from God and enemies in their minds because of evil deeds
16. estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies
17. their mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so."

I wonder how the natural man is supposed to be moved to faith in ^ that ^ condition. Oh! I know! God
may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. God’s grace is man’s only hope.


Jesus’ words in John 6:65

If those assertions were biblically sound, and textually accurate, it could be impossible. Fortunately, the original Greek text does not demand the absolutist form of your claims about the state and abilities of man. Since the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures do not actually mean what you have written, the strict limitations on man that you are reading into scripture do not need to be accepted as axiomatic theological premises.

Is it not the thinking that man is devoid of the ability to understand/reason truth as presented in scripture and by the message of the Gospel due to his fallen nature?

Basically within the first few posts debating roger, brightflame, rufus, maxir, the guy with the picture of Jesus from the Passion movie no longer here, and others I was immediately told how stupid I was. I can go back in history and post them and when you them you clearly see them telling me my level of understanding is less than stupidity itself. That's their entire platform. The moment they present the verses they use to describe TULIP and you actually take each verse and show them where participation is happening they immediately come at you with how dumb you are.

I did a research with a licensed therapist about children brought up in an environment of verbal and mental abuse and learned most of them act the same way. And worse than that, growing up they had all types of issues. Being called stupid caused their bodies to react uncontrollably which then resulted into more insults. We're talking about high school age human beings still wetting their beds, being socially inept, bad grades, loners who became adults that attack anyone that differs with their own thoughts.

I feel like I am in a Case Study each time I log onto here every day.

If those assertions were biblically sound, and textually accurate, it could be impossible. Fortunately, the original Greek text does not demand the absolutist form of your claims about the state and abilities of man. Since the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures do not actually mean what you have written, the strict limitations on man that you are reading into scripture do not need to be accepted as axiomatic theological premises.

wow, lotta pages since then, huh?

it's the thinking that man loves darkness rather than Light because his deeds are evil. man hates the Light, and he's not willing to come to the Light for fear his evil deeds will be exposed.

not "utterly bereft of reason", though. he can probably figure out how to build a chair or something.

Because God values both, and He knows that where both those who hate Him and love to trash what is good, and His family who love Him and love to nurture what is good, are intermingling, peace and righteousness cannot attain. So, he separates them and puts each in an environment that limits the harm they can do to themselves (whom He values) and others (whom He values).

Let's look at how the discussion ran to this point.

Cameron143 said:
What actually occurred in Adam and Eve when they sinned? Why did they only hide from God and cover themselves after sin and not before? God certainly hadn't changed. What changed in man?

Cameron143 said:
I asked you a question. You don't answer my question which was designed to answer your return questions. So if you will, please answer my question and we can begin to answer your questions.
What actually occurred in Adam and Eve when they sinned? Why did they only hide from God and cover themselves after sin and not before? God certainly hadn't changed. What changed in man?

PaulThomson said:
Adam and Eve experienced guilt and shame and so came a sense of distance between them and the holy One.

Magenta said:
Where does it say Adam and Eve felt guilt?

PaulThomson said:
Before they sinned they were naked and not ashamed. After sinning they covered their nakedness
and blamed others. What do you think that means. They developed a fashion sense?

Magenta said:
So no text saying Adam and Eve felt guilt. Thanks.

And I know how very much you hate to admit that you do that...

PaulThomson said:
Did Jesus not bear our guilt and our shame on the cross? Why would he do that if we do not experience guilt and shame from our sin?

Prov. 11:2 When pride comes, then comes shame; but with the lowly is wisdom.

Prov. 13:18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuses instruction, but he that regards reproof shall be honoured.

Rom. 5:16 for the judgment was by one (Adam) to condemnation...

Magenta said:
Does not answer my question. Where does the text say Adam and Eve felt guilt?

Or, instead of deflecting, you could just admit the text does not say that they did.

Of course that would also show another instance where you go beyond what the text says.

Magenta said:
I don't understand why people cannot admit when the text does not explicitly say something.

Especially after that same person has wished others would stick to what Scripture explicitly states.

But that is an issue also, isn't it? People don't want to see their hypocrisy. Jesus addressed that also.

PaulThomson said:
I gave three verses. I have yet to see you explain how Adam and Eve are excluded from being subject to what those verses say. You seem to think Genesis 3 must say the specific words "Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame after eating the fruit" for the Bible to be saying "Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame after eating the fruit."

Prov. 11:2 When pride comes, then comes shame; but with the lowly is wisdom.

Prov. 13:18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuses instruction, but he that regards reproof shall be honoured.

Rom. 5:16 for the judgment was by one (Adam) to condemnation.

You seem to be hiding behind ad hominem to avoid responding to the biblical texts.



Yes. The text of Gen. 3 does not specifically say that Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame. My assertion of guilt and shame was in response to Cameron's question, "What actually occurred in Adam and Eve when they sinned? Why did they only hide from God and cover themselves after sin and not before? God certainly hadn't changed. What changed in man?"

If a direct answer to that specific question is in the text of Gen. 3, no one has pointed to it yet. When we exegete a text, we START with what the text actually says. I have never said that we should only infer from a verse what the verse itself actually says.

We THEN ask questions related to the text, such as Cameron's question. If the answer is not directly stated in the text itself, we look at the immediate context of the chapter, book, and Bible to see if there is something elsewhere that sheds light on the question re the text being studied. Do you have an answer to Cameron's question that you can lift directly from Genesis chapter 3? If not, is there some scripture that seem to mesh with Gen. 3 that would suggest an answer Cameron's question?

I cited three verses elsewhere that seem to apply to the evidence of Adam's and Eve's behaviour described in Gen. 3. Rather than agree or disagree with my application of those texts to Gen. 3 in order to better understand what the Bible is saying, you chose to ignore them and focus on trying to discredit the person citing them, in the hope that other posters would dismiss my verses because I'm a hypocrite and so whatever I say in this forum need not be taken seriously. That is ad hominem argument, and is a logical fallacy. It is a rhetorical device people use to persuade poor critical thinkers towards accepting one's own view. It is not a tactic people who want to arrive at the truth of a matter use. A seeker of truth might address the verses as they relate to Gen. 3 as well as attempt to prove their interlocutors hypocrisy with evidence, but they would not ONLY seek to prove their opponent's hypocrisy while avoiding addressing the evidence put forward.

Does their being naked and NOT ASHAMED, but then noticing their nakedness and covering it over, indicate to you any specific change in Adam's and Eve's opinion of themselves? If so, what changed?

Does Adam and Eve blaming others others indicate to you that they felt guilt? If not, to what do you attribute that behaviour by them after they had sinned?

Does Proverbs link rejecting instruction with shame? Does proverbs link rejecting insr=truction with pride? Does Proverbs link pride with shame? If so, do you yhink this has any bearing on events in Gen. 3

If Adam's transgression led to his condemnation according to Rom. 5, and God condemns and sentences the guilty, and Adam and Eve hid from God and then blamed others for their sin, do you see any possibility that Adam and Eve did not at all feel guilty?

Now we will see if you are you interested in discovering God's truth, or merely in defending your present thologicl opinions come hell or high water.

Let's look at how the discussion ran to this point.

Cameron143 said:
What actually occurred in Adam and Eve when they sinned? Why did they only hide from God and cover themselves after sin and not before? God certainly hadn't changed. What changed in man?

Cameron143 said:
I asked you a question. You don't answer my question which was designed to answer your return questions. So if you will, please answer my question and we can begin to answer your questions.
What actually occurred in Adam and Eve when they sinned? Why did they only hide from God and cover themselves after sin and not before? God certainly hadn't changed. What changed in man?

PaulThomson said:
Adam and Eve experienced guilt and shame and so came a sense of distance between them and the holy One.

Magenta said:
Where does it say Adam and Eve felt guilt?

PaulThomson said:
Before they sinned they were naked and not ashamed. After sinning they covered their nakedness
and blamed others. What do you think that means. They developed a fashion sense?

Magenta said:
So no text saying Adam and Eve felt guilt. Thanks.

And I know how very much you hate to admit that you do that...

PaulThomson said:
Did Jesus not bear our guilt and our shame on the cross? Why would he do that if we do not experience guilt and shame from our sin?

Prov. 11:2 When pride comes, then comes shame; but with the lowly is wisdom.

Prov. 13:18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuses instruction, but he that regards reproof shall be honoured.

Rom. 5:16 for the judgment was by one (Adam) to condemnation...

Magenta said:
Does not answer my question. Where does the text say Adam and Eve felt guilt?

Or, instead of deflecting, you could just admit the text does not say that they did.

Of course that would also show another instance where you go beyond what the text says.

Magenta said:
I don't understand why people cannot admit when the text does not explicitly say something.

Especially after that same person has wished others would stick to what Scripture explicitly states.

But that is an issue also, isn't it? People don't want to see their hypocrisy. Jesus addressed that also.

PaulThomson said:
I gave three verses. I have yet to see you explain how Adam and Eve are excluded from being subject to what those verses say. You seem to think Genesis 3 must say the specific words "Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame after eating the fruit" for the Bible to be saying "Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame after eating the fruit."

Prov. 11:2 When pride comes, then comes shame; but with the lowly is wisdom.

Prov. 13:18 Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuses instruction, but he that regards reproof shall be honoured.

Rom. 5:16 for the judgment was by one (Adam) to condemnation.

You seem to be hiding behind ad hominem to avoid responding to the biblical texts.



Yes. The text of Gen. 3 does not specifically say that Adam and Eve felt guilt and shame. My assertion of guilt and shame was in response to Cameron's question, "What actually occurred in Adam and Eve when they sinned? Why did they only hide from God and cover themselves after sin and not before? God certainly hadn't changed. What changed in man?"

If a direct answer to that specific question is in the text of Gen. 3, no one has pointed to it yet. When we exegete a text, we START with what the text actually says. I have never said that we should only infer from a verse what the verse itself actually says.

We THEN ask questions related to the text, such as Cameron's question. If the answer is not directly stated in the text itself, we look at the immediate context of the chapter, book, and Bible to see if there is something elsewhere that sheds light on the question re the text being studied. Do you have an answer to Cameron's question that you can lift directly from Genesis chapter 3? If not, is there some scripture that seem to mesh with Gen. 3 that would suggest an answer Cameron's question?

I cited three verses elsewhere that seem to apply to the evidence of Adam's and Eve's behaviour described in Gen. 3. Rather than agree or disagree with my application of those texts to Gen. 3 in order to better understand what the Bible is saying, you chose to ignore them and focus on trying to discredit the person citing them, in the hope that other posters would dismiss my verses because I'm a hypocrite and so whatever I say in this forum need not be taken seriously. That is ad hominem argument, and is a logical fallacy. It is a rhetorical device people use to persuade poor critical thinkers towards accepting one's own view. It is not a tactic people who want to arrive at the truth of a matter use. A seeker of truth might address the verses as they relate to Gen. 3 as well as attempt to prove their interlocutors hypocrisy with evidence, but they would not ONLY seek to prove their opponent's hypocrisy while avoiding addressing the evidence put forward.

Does their being naked and NOT ASHAMED, but then noticing their nakedness and covering it over, indicate to you any specific change in Adam's and Eve's opinion of themselves? If so, what changed?

Does Adam and Eve blaming others others indicate to you that they felt guilt? If not, to what do you attribute that behaviour by them after they had sinned?

Does Proverbs link rejecting instruction with shame? Does proverbs link rejecting insr=truction with pride? Does Proverbs link pride with shame? If so, do you yhink this has any bearing on events in Gen. 3

If Adam's transgression led to his condemnation according to Rom. 5, and God condemns and sentences the guilty, and Adam and Eve hid from God and then blamed others for their sin, do you see any possibility that Adam and Eve did not at all feel guilty?

Now we will see if you are you interested in discovering God's truth, or merely in defending your present horologic opinions come hell or high water.

What exactly is God doing in or among men so they can come to Jesus / believe in Jesus? It seems to me that the way this verse is translated can open the door to almost any idea someone desires to have. But what is Jesus actually saying according to John?

They were saved first and from/by/through that, they recognize Jesus and come to Him.

That's one theory.

If not, then it can't be by grace.

Continuation of the theory. But there are other interpretive models.

If I say "and?", will we then launch into a multi-day debate which in the end will change no one's mind?

Not unless you want to get into the depths of Scripture in context. From what I've seen very few want to do this. I do agree with you that it doesn't normally change minds, but I've seen instances where it does help the resolve of some who remain more in the background. That's one reason actually discussing Scripture more in depth is good. As God said about His Word not returning to Him void. It does its job in both directions - maturing and hardening - no matter what side of the equation we think we're on.

Seems to me like it is a very reasonable inference, that there were feelings of guilt and shame given their actions, in fact sometimes the actions are showing what they were feeling, isn't that the point essentially.