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

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

studier

Active member
Apr 18, 2024
669
87
28
n the basis that that man has more scholastic qualifications. A man’s opinions are not verified by the number of his degrees, or publications, or acolytes; but by his ability to demonstrate that the facts consistently fit his thesis, and the lack of contradicting facts.
Firstly, I appreciate the work, meaning someone who actually does the homework in Scripture to substantiate their beliefs.

Question here: What man would you be referring to? A general or a specific reference?


Here is my thesis.

Hoti is always followed by indicative verbs
Are you certain? How is this to be verified?

On the other hand, hina is always followed by subjunctive verbs
Same questions.

so is used to introduce statements that are contingent
But, does the subjunctive mood only express contingency?

Here is some copy & paste from Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace. The only highlighting I've done is to show that Wallace says there are 1,858 subjunctives in the New Covenant Writings and that hina + subjunctive comprises about one third of those.

II. The Subjunctive Mood

A. Definition

1. General Definition

The subjunctive is the most common of the oblique moods in the NT. In general, the subjunctive can be said to represent the verbal action (or state) as uncertain but probable. It is not correct to call this the mood of uncertainty because the optative also presents the verb as uncertain. Rather, it is better to call it the mood of probability so as to distinguish it from the optative. Still, this is an overly simplistic definition in light of its usage in the NT.

2. Detailed Description

The subjunctive mood encompasses a multitude of nuances. An adequate description of it requires more nuancing than the mere notion of probability, especially in the Hellenistic era. The best way to describe it is in relation to the other potential moods, the optative and the imperative.

a. In Relation to the Optative

Descriptions of the subjunctive and optative moods in standard grammars sometimes tacitly assume that the optative was still in full flower in the Koine period. But it was in fact dying out. The reason is that it was too subtle for people acquiring Greek as a second language to grasp fully.40 You can see why: English-speaking students also have a great difficulty grasping the difference between these two moods. In the table given at the beginning of this chapter, for example, we described the subjunctive with “might” and the optative with “may.” We would be hard-pressed to state the difference between those two helper verbs, however. In the NT there are 1858 subjunctives and less than 70 optatives–a ratio of 27:1! This simple statistic reflects the fact that in the Hellenistic era the subjunctive is encroaching on the uses of the optative. The subjunctive thus, at times, is used for mere possibility or even hypothetical possibility (as well as, at other times, probability). This is especially true in conditional sentences (there are about 300 third class conditional sentences in the NT [this class involves the subjunctive], and not one complete fourth class condition [this class involves the optative]).

Chart 45 - Semantic Overlap of Subjunctive and Optative

On the other hand, sometimes the subjunctive acts like a future indicative. The two morpho-syntactic categories are really quite similar (and perhaps derive from the same root).41 In dependent clauses, for example, often it functions more like an indicative than an optative. When used in result clauses, for example, the subjunctive cannot be said to express “probability.” In any event, the one-word descriptions for the moods are meant to be mere handles, not final statements. Only careful nuancing of the moods’ uses will yield helpful insights exegetically.

b. In Relation to the Imperative

As we noted at the beginning of this chapter, the moods can be seen against the poles of actuality vs. potentiality and cognition vs. volition. The indicative is primarily used for actuality, while the oblique moods usually remain in the realm of potentiality. Further, the imperative is the primary volitional mood. However, the subjunctive is also used for volitional notions quite frequently, in particular as a hortatory subjunctive and prohibitive subjunctive. Even in dependent clauses (such as after ἵνα), the subjunctive commonly has a volitional flavor to it. An acceptable gloss is often should, since this is equally ambiguous (it can be used for probability, obligation, or contingency).

c. Summary

In sum, the subjunctive is used to grammaticalize potentiality. It normally does so in the realm of cognitive probability, but may also be used for cognitive possibility (overlapping with the optative) or volitional intentionality (overlapping with the imperative).42

It should be added here that the tenses in the subjunctive, as with the other potential moods, involve only aspect (kind of action), not time. Only in the indicative mood is time a part of the tense.


► b. ῞Ινα + the Subjunctive

The single most common category of the subjunctive in the NT is after ἵνα, comprising about one third of all subjunctive instances. There are seven basic uses included in this construction: purpose, result, purpose-result, substantival, epexegetical, complementary, and command. Its usage in the Koine period has increased from the classical as this construction came to be used as a periphrasis for the simple infinitive.
 

studier

Active member
Apr 18, 2024
669
87
28
I wonder if we should move this discussion to a new thread, and discuss it there, studier.
If you'd like to do so, let me know and I'll follow you there.

I'll be a bit busy today, so will have limited time.
 

studier

Active member
Apr 18, 2024
669
87
28
Agree, this is a discussion board not a tightly structured debate format of proposition, premise, inference and conclusion.
Authority and expertise of others in important.
Seems this is how the Body works. We have to rely on other parts to do what they're gifted to do as they've been placed in the Body to function.

I had a language professor who was also a statistician. The amount of work he could very routinely put into statistical analysis of grammatical structures for instance - thousands of them if necessary - was kind of staggering.

To double-check all of his work would have been a career in itself. Maybe easier now with computing power.
 

HeIsHere

Well-known member
May 21, 2022
4,435
1,722
113
Seems this is how the Body works. We have to rely on other parts to do what they're gifted to do as they've been placed in the Body to function.

I had a language professor who was also a statistician. The amount of work he could very routinely put into statistical analysis of grammatical structures for instance - thousands of them if necessary - was kind of staggering.

To double-check all of his work would have been a career in itself. Maybe easier now with computing power.
When it comes to people being "an authority" in their field I think the number of citations is usually a good indicator.
 

studier

Active member
Apr 18, 2024
669
87
28
When it comes to people being "an authority" in their field I think the number of citations is usually a good indicator.
I fully understand how some take opposition to degrees and credentials. My first career I entered through a trade school that concentrated my learning to enable me to actually do a job. Within a short time I was having to train those with degrees.

Over the years, I also developed an aversion to what the world calls "experts". There are simply too many charlatans and those people want to point to in order to actually bolster some odd type of perceived personal expertise.

On the other hand I'm not quick to dismiss "authorities" just because they have degrees and citations or knowledge that I don't.

At this point it's really just about individuals. It's like just about anything, some competent, some not, some good, some bad... So, show us what you've got... (not you).
 

Bob-Carabbio

Well-known member
Jun 24, 2020
1,318
636
113
for the Unjust/Nonelect/Unsaved whose names are not written in The Book of Life?

Chuckle!! another totally ridiculous question.

IF my name is in the "Book of life", then Jesus Died, making a SIN OFFERING for me, I had FAITH in His Sacrifice (Eph 2:8,9), and consequently I'm "Elect", and Born again.

IF my name IS NOT in the Book of life, then Jesus' death was of no value to me, since I placed NO FAITH IN IT as an offering for my SIN.
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
1,207
117
63
OK. Define this with Scripture. Show what Grace does and doesn't do.
See my Exodus Typology argument. When God "came down" to "rescue" the ancient Hebrews, was that not a graphic portrayal of his saving grace? If not, what was it?
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
1,207
117
63
Do you have an opinion on the order of these events?






It seems like this seeking God is a confusing issue based mainly on Romans 3:11.
Not so confusing at all. Did A&E seek God after they sinned? Did the Hebrews in Egypt seek God when they were in slavery and worshiping idols? And what would induce God-haters to seek Him in the first place?
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
1,207
117
63
Mr Studier, sir, to the best of my knowledge you have never answered my question re God's inability to sin. You might recall that you appealed to the consciences of men as their [best] moral compass, their moral guide even though it is as corrupt as the rest of our faculties. Here's what you wrote:

studier said:

I don't see the issue. Men with sin natures also have consciences that can cause them to strive to do good instead of evil, whether in response to natural law or written Law. Men's free will is not unrestricted, or unimpeded. They struggle between good and evil and they fail miserably at making choices for good.
But they can and do choose for good even under sin.
But good is not good enough for perfect righteousness and forgiveness is in Christ.
(emphasis mine)

But I see the issue quite clearly, which is why I have pursued this "issue" with you on several occasions The Creator and his created image-bearers have something pretty big in common: Both have the inability to do something. The Creator cannot lie, cannot sin, cannot deny himself. Likewise, his image-bearers have the inability to be good, righteous, pure and holy, since we cannot not sin. And since you appealed to the consciences of God's image-bearers as being the primary (?) cause "to strive to do good instead of evil", then do you also see God's conscience as the primary cause for all his good, righteous and holy choices? Is it God's conscience that ultimately defines him, as you seem to think it is with his image-bearers?
 

studier

Active member
Apr 18, 2024
669
87
28
See my Exodus Typology argument. When God "came down" to "rescue" the ancient Hebrews, was that not a graphic portrayal of his saving grace? If not, what was it?
You did quite a bit of work. I glanced through the first part.

If you'd like to identify some specific part of it and discuss it. I'm happy to.

My preference is to work through NC Scripture to see what it tells us about grace and truth that came in Christ.
 

studier

Active member
Apr 18, 2024
669
87
28
Not so confusing at all. Did A&E seek God after they sinned?
I guess it depends on few things:
  • What meanings does the Scripture apply to the concept of seeking God?
  • Did A&E need to seek God as others in history did?
  • Unless the Text applies the concept to A&E it's only an argument from silence either way.
Did the Hebrews in Egypt seek God when they were in slavery and worshiping idols?
  • Good question. The word translated "seek*" shows up 118 times in 112 verses in one manuscript I searched. I think I mentioned this before. I haven't done the research to see how it is used and pertaining to whom. Have you?

And what would induce God-haters to seek Him in the first place?
  • Another good question even as a rhetorical one. But it presupposes that all the unregenerate were and are God-haters and have no interest in Him. I don't see this presupposition as an accurate depiction of Biblical history but as a theology forced on the Text and history.
 

studier

Active member
Apr 18, 2024
669
87
28
Mr Studier, sir, to the best of my knowledge you have never answered my question re God's inability to sin.
Actually I did answer you at one point as I recall. I also don't see the reason or the logic in the question, which may have been a part of my answer.

ou might recall that you appealed to the consciences of men as their [best] moral compass, their moral guide even though it is as corrupt as the rest of our faculties. Here's what you wrote:
Actually, as you've indicated, you've inserted "best" which I didn't say. Also, I've said a lot more about men throughout history who did have faith and who did not turn from God as He revealed Himself through time.

But I see the issue quite clearly, which is why I have pursued this "issue" with you on several occasions The Creator and his created image-bearers have something pretty big in common: Both have the inability to do something. The Creator cannot lie, cannot sin, cannot deny himself. Likewise, his image-bearers have the inability to be good, righteous, pure and holy, since we cannot not sin. And since you appealed to the consciences of God's image-bearers as being the primary (?) cause "to strive to do good instead of evil", then do you also see God's conscience as the primary cause for all his good, righteous and holy choices? Is it God's conscience that ultimately defines him, as you seem to think it is with his image-bearers?
Again, what's your actual point and where have I, as stated above, placed such a strict focus on men's conscience rather than making it a factor among other factors?

Does God have a conscience? His image-bearers are not the same as Him. They have similarities based upon God their Creator but that's about it.

Also, I think you'll find that people in Adam I in the Biblical account of history had faith, did do good, were said to be righteous, even perfect in their generation. I think we both agree that they still needed what only YHWH's Christ would ultimately provide, but the version of humanity you seem to favor does not match the Biblical, historical account of all people.
 

Rufus

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2024
1,207
117
63
You did quite a bit of work. I glanced through the first part.

If you'd like to identify some specific part of it and discuss it. I'm happy to.

My preference is to work through NC Scripture to see what it tells us about grace and truth that came in Christ.
Well, you did initially appeal to OT saints as evidence or proof that they apparently came to saving knowledge of the coming Messiah on their own, apart from much or any direct involvement with God's [effectual] grace as a precursor to their faith? So, the best way to challenge your OT saints appeal is to stick with the OT.

Now, I surely have to think you know enough about the Exodus account to have drawn some inferences, opinions and conclusions over the years about God's redemptive work on behalf of the Hebrews in Egypt. So, I ask:

Did God show mercy and compassion to all in Egypt or to just his firstborn "my people"? If to just His people, wouldn't this speak to Unconditional Election? Didn't God see the misery of "my people" as opposed to all in Egypt (Gen 3:7)

Did God "come down" to rescue everyone in Egypt (Ex 3:8; 5:23) or just his "firstborn", i.e. his people? And why would God need to rescue his elect if they had it in their own power to walk out of Egypt on their own? But if they didn't have this power, then wouldn't this speak to their Total Inability to free themselves from their bondage under Pharaoh? And would this in turn not speak to the doctrine of TD, which is at its core speaks to the inability of spiritually dead man to raise himself from his spiritual grave and reconnect himself to the Author of Life?

Certainly, this easy-to-understand, graphic portrayal of Redemption of God's OT people doesn't require us to do deep dives into the weeds of nuances in the original languages, or ponder how many angels can dance on a pinhead, will it? This is the sheer genius and beauty of typology: In a real sense its Profound Theology 101 for Dummies. God has used Temporal, Physical Reality to give us valuable Spiritual lessons on Eternal, Invisible reality.

And one last thing: When the Israelites reached the Red Sea and turned to see Pharaoh and his army in hot pursuit...and the Sea was at their backs while Pharaoh was in front of them bearing down hard and fast, do you think that any of the Israelites had thoughts coursing through their minds about all their inherent strength and great internal resources they had to extricate themselves from the imminent danger that was about to crush them? I don't think so! For Moses wrote:

Ex 14:10-12
10 As Pharaoh approached, the Israelites looked up, and there were the Egyptians, marching after them. They were terrified and cried out to the LORD. 11 They said to Moses, "Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you brought us to the desert to die? What have you done to us by bringing us out of Egypt? 12 Didn't we say to you in Egypt, 'Leave us alone; let us serve the Egyptians'? It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!"
NIV

There was no boasting about their free will. No one seemed to think their conscience was going to come to their rescue. No one was thinking about all this natural faith with which all men supposedly come into the world. I don't see any of these clever theories even remotely hinted at in the text.

Or do you think that most them of thought, "O, woe is me...I'm TOTALlY UNDONE!" As in helplessly and hopelessly so! And this is why Moses wrote what he did after the Hebrews crossed the Sea and watched it crash down on Pharaoh and his army and chariots:

Ex 14:31
31 And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant.
NIV
 

BillyBob

Active member
Dec 20, 2023
282
103
43
Texas
No problem, BillyBob.
He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:2


Thanks for waiting for my reply. My mouse went crazy and I have been unable to copy/paste until I could go and get a new one! I never realized how much a mouse meant to me until this happened. I have come to the conclusion than man is totally worthless without a mouse.

That being said, a conversation came up on what “the whole world” indicated. The non-reformed folks enjoy pointing at this verse as a means of discrediting Limited Atonement. However, in doing so, it causes a conflict with many other statements in scripture. I think we must all agree, scripture cannot oppose itself.

From what you provided the verse would read:
He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the world to come.
This would take into account all who are saved and eliminate all who are not saved. Otherwise, if not saved, they would not be in the world to come. (please let me know if I did not understand your thoughts).

In my search to find out what others thoughts were, I came across an explanation by John Samson, the pastor of an independent church in Arizona. John Samson is the founding pastor-teacher of King's Church in Peoria, Arizona.

Normally us Texans would never listen to someone from Arizona, but his paper titled Understanding 1 John 2:2 was very well written.
In his explanation, he says if we are to understand John's message we must:
  1. Consider the Author - who wrote the book? (what was his background, language, culture, vocation, concerns, education, circumstance, what stage of life?)
  2. Consider the Audience (why was the book written? who was the audience? what would these words have meant to its original recipients?)
    With this in view, John writes of Jesus Christ being "the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only (Hebrews), but also for the whole world (the Gentiles)."

A third principle he mentioned in the article relates to the concept of considering the author's context. This refers to looking at all of a person's writings - John's writings, Paul's writings, Luke's writings, etc. When we look elsewhere in John's writings we notice in his Gospel an exact parallel in John's use of words, which gives us a great deal of insight as to what he (John) was referring to.

In John's Gospel, chapter 11, verses 51-52, John wrote these words, "he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."

In conclusion he stated:
"There is little doubt that this is how John's initial audience would have understood this expression. "The whole world" means "people of all kinds, including Jews, Gentiles, Greeks, Romans, and whatnot" as opposed to "ours only" i.e., the Jewish nation. What the apostle John is saying in the John 11 passage is particularly significant: Christ died so that he might gather "the children of God" the elect, from the whole world."


I believe therefore that rather than undermining the case for Christ's death for His elect sheep, 1 John 2:2 actually affirms it. When we understand the verse in its Johannine context (the writings of the Apostle John) then the correct interpretation becomes very clear.


Regardless of the interpretation, it is my opinion that 1 John 2:2 will forever be in dispute!
 

studier

Active member
Apr 18, 2024
669
87
28
Well, you did initially appeal to OT saints as evidence or proof that they apparently came to saving knowledge of the coming Messiah on their own, apart from much or any direct involvement with God's [effectual] grace as a precursor to their faith? So, the best way to challenge your OT saints appeal is to stick with the OT.
I appealed to history because you chose a NC Scripture that references the Psalms and other OC Scripture and you made statements in regard to all unregenerate in Adam I.

As I recall, you've yet to deal with men from Abel on acting in faith. As for typology, it seems Hebrews 11 at minimum is providing some typology that should be used to consider what men in Adam I, like his first generation sons and onward, could and could not do in the degree of knowledge and relationship they had with God.

I will note here that you have switched the conversation from TD to UE. Is this how you propose to prove TD or RTD, not by the NC Scripture that you've referenced but now through lengthy typology and switching around within TULIP?

You've pointed me to your typology narrative. Are you now selecting one point from it to discuss, or are you adding to it?

BTW, when I quoted Scripture to discuss Scripture in context, all I did was take your proof-text and post sufficient context to look at what that Scripture actually said in context in a published English translation. There was no need to go any deeper because it was very easy to see how it did not support your point.

I'll look at your post more closely, but I'll pass on the fallacious argumentation of the type you're using like 101 Dummies and angels on a pin.

BTW, if it's any help, I have no issues with God being first cause and primary in everything restorative. It's simply a matter of what exactly He does and what He requires from men in response with the faculties He knows they have.
 

rogerg

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2021
3,464
513
113
I believe therefore that rather than undermining the case for Christ's death for His elect sheep, 1 John 2:2 actually affirms it. When we understand the verse in its Johannine context (the writings of the Apostle John) then the correct interpretation becomes very clear.


Regardless of the interpretation, it is my opinion that 1 John 2:2 will forever be in dispute!
No problem with the timing of your reply and thanks for posting it. I guess it goes without saying that I've reached a different conclusion than you have for a variety of reasons - too numerous and in-depth to go into here, but probably requiring its own thread
in order to do the topic justice. But as long as you're satisfied and confident in your conclusion, no need to continue with it further.
I guess we've managed to validate the last sentence of you post (lol).
 

BillyBob

Active member
Dec 20, 2023
282
103
43
Texas
However, the comment
I believe therefore that rather than undermining the case for Christ's death for His elect sheep, 1 John 2:2 actually affirms it. When we understand the verse in its Johannine context (the writings of the Apostle John) then the correct interpretation becomes very clear.
That was John Samson's conclusion, not mine. Just goes to prove how bad my writing skills are! :censored:
 
Jun 13, 2024
17
19
3
19
Gloucester
However, the comment
I believe therefore that rather than undermining the case for Christ's death for His elect sheep, 1 John 2:2 actually affirms it. When we understand the verse in its Johannine context (the writings of the Apostle John) then the correct interpretation becomes very clear.
That was John Samson's conclusion, not mine. Just goes to prove how bad my writing skills are! :censored:
I understood what you said, your writing skills are fine Billy.