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

Thanks for the discussion. Blessings.

Yes.

Ah. My apologies. Thanks for clarifying that (finally!). But it was not just one example of someone having
said something, but having it agreed with or justify someone else saying it. So you fall into the second camp.

Have you answered yet how you agreed before you were born to be part of the body of Christ?

Or whether you disagree with being conformed to His image, since you said that applies to others, not us.

"It is not given to you to drive my car" does not mean you cannot drive my car unless I give it to you.
It is not given to you to fly to London for a week" does not mean you cannot fly to London unless I give it to you.

That is incorrect and precisely why I included the below verse in my prior post - to make that distinction clear. However, the Holy Spirit
is given (they become indwelt) WHEN someone becomes saved - and from/because of that, and only from/because of that, is spiritual understanding acquired. It is you who is saying that spiritual understand PRECEDES being saved.

[1Co 1:2 KJV] 2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

"hear and believe" is not what's under discussion. The issue is HOW does someone hear. I did not say that belief is not activated through/by hearing, I said that to truly hear spiritually can only come through the Holy Spirit.

And those verses DO NOT SAY what you said they do - they do not say they didn't have the Holy Spirt - that was YOUR assumption. The Holy Spirit falling upon someone is not the same as being indwelt by Him. You need to post verses that specifically say that someone can acquire true spiritual understanding apart from having the Holy Spirt (or something similar to that), as my verse specifically says it only happen BY having the Holy Spirit.

It is not given to you to understand what it means that something isn't given.

It also says the opposite to what you said about God wooing. So, it shows that, "Who are you O man to contradict God?" applies to you with your previous false claim.

I wasn't aware another stupid comment, similar to my own, was made.

Have you answered yet how you agreed before you were born to be part of the body of Christ?
Or whether you disagree with being conformed to His image, since you said that applies to others, not us.

Click to expand...

I believe everyone is chosen to be a Believer before they're born. But foreknowledge knows who will and who will reject it when the chance is presented. The Bible states the [only people] who was "not ever" written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world are those who will choose to worship the AC/Beast and take the MOB. Everyone else has a chance to be in the Book of Life.

Calvinist and Calvinique apologists hate grammar and syntax. They just select isolated words and phrases and cobble them together to make a message to their own liking. They behave with scripture like someone who is assembling a hostage note from words clipped out of a newspaper.

My ilk can be persuaded by the power of the message of the Gospel and we accepted His gift of salvation, we did not earn it, we were not selected, we trusted God for it.

Sam: How did you come to be a Christian?

JoAnne: I was persuaded by the message, the truth in the Gospel message.

Sam: Same here, do you feel you had an advantage or help to believe.

JoAnne: No the message was powerful, it was God's appeal to me to trust in and believe His promise.

Sam: Amen sister, “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” -Hebrews‬ ‭4:12‬

And you know what JoAnne no one can boast because the message of the Gospel is the same now and forever and God holds us responsible for how we respond to HIS message.
He is not the God of false hope giving to some what He denies others.

You do realize the verse literally begins with to them that ARE SNCTIFIED in Christ.
Sanctified means they are already Saved. So Paul is talking to SAVED people, not unsaved people.
You are correct and why I only said this is what the Bible said. Why would I give a personal viewpoint when the Bible is the answer? The Bible said the Holy Spirit comes while they are hearing. It never shows before hearing. So why would I believe in something other than what the Bible claims?

Aren't you the quintessential surgeon on this thread -- perhaps even the entire forum? But for your info, a particular spiritual truth is often expressed in different ways in scripture. This is why Spiritual Life, as one example, is expressed as "birth" to emphasize that life is a gradual process, and why it is expressed as "resurrection" that emphasizes the one-time miraculous act of God.

I'm neither of the above, and those who can't argue ideas always label and characterize the beliefs of others falsely. It's bearing false witness and is sinful.
Just as there are some things a person can appropriate for themselves, there are other things which one cannot. Simply because one thing is possible doesn't make all things possible. What kind of fallacy were you employing?

So you used the word rape first and not Roger? Oh, plenty of ridiculous things have been said. They have
been discussed a fair bit in your presence and also explicitly mentioned in the post of mine you quoted.
But if you described God being a rapist to Roger's belief, then my apology was made in haste and not
required, since it is as you say your "personal definition to what Roger posted," and not what Roger said.

Maligning God's character and then saying that is Who we believe in and serve, looks like double jeopardy.

Me? Never! I would never use that word in that context. It is exactly and directly contrary to what I believe.

PaulThomson said:
Why is drug rape not an appropriate characterisation of the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace? In drug rape the rapist, without the victim's prior consent, injects a [foreign] chemical that makes the victim, [who would otherwise reject him], want to be intimate with them; and in calvinist irresistible grace, God, without the person's prior consent, injects [foreign] calvinist faith[/heart/spirit] into a person, that makes the person, [who would otherwise reject Him], want to be intimate with God.

No. I did not have my own will before He created me.
No, I did not have parents before I had them.
No, setting boundaries does not replace my own will with a foreign will. I can still choose to want or not want the boundaries.
No. Paul was left with his ability to decide whether he wanted or did not want to go where God sent him.

But when the Calvinist and Calvinique apologist ascribes to God an act of taking away my own will that hates Him and unilaterally replacing it with a will to love Him by injecting Calvinist faith/new heart/ new spirit into someone, that is the Calvinist or Calvinique apologist ascribing faith rape/heart rape to God.

NO, Roger made it seem like he woke up one day and was saved. And I was jabbing at him like what are you trying to say here that God forced you to be saved even against your will [which is a definition of the word that I said].

You aren't hearing what I've been saying. I agree those people WERE saved - I've said they were. But The point is
how did they come to believe. I said they were saved, and when saved were given the Holy Spirit, by which, they believed.
So, they were saved, given the Holy Spirit, heard, believed, not the reverse.

The Holy Spirit indwells someone when they become saved and never leaves them- by which indwelling, they become born-again. So, the Holy Spirit is present within someone before, during, and remains after they hear.
But basically, I didn't follow your reply.
Anyway, unless you can provide the requested verses, I think we're done