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

I'm sorry...that kind of answer begs the question. It implies that Jesus didn't know who all his sheep were! He only knew some of his sheep by name -- not all of them -- the goats that have this inherent ability to repent, he didn't know who they were, so he didn't pray for them?. Sorry...that doesn't make sense to me.

What Paul is saying is typical New Covenant language. The command to "be reconciled to God" in v.20 follows what Paul said God had already accomplished in or through Christ. Orthopraxy always follows on the heels of Orthodoxy. This is why in Paul's epistles, he first expounds on Doctrine -- then transitions to Practice. This is because acceptable Practice must be find its ground, it's motivation, its intentions in what God has already done in Christ for us, to us, in us or through us. He's telling the church that since Christ has reconciled YOU, make sure you understand God's expectations -- that He expects you to live a life whereby you reciprocate in kind what He has already done for you.

These kinds of commands or exhortations are so often given in the NT so that hearers of the Word can confidently affirm to their own hearts that God has actually done a great work in them.

Not with your kind of convoluted answers that make no sense. Ever hear of Occam's Razor?

Occam’s razor, principle stated by the Scholastic philosopher William of Ockham (1285–1347/49) that pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The principle gives precedence to simplicity: of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred. The principle is also expressed as “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”

The Reformed answer to John 17 is that Christ prayed for only the elect -- those "in" the world, but not OF it. And this is why he didn't explicitly pray for [rest of] the world. Therefore, "world" in v.9 can only be logically understood in the limited sense by the virtue of the exclusion of both flocks of sheep.

See how easy that was? I didn't have to play the Satan card, or that God was going to steal souls from Satan (that were never his to begin with) to make them His, etc.

P.S. And I do understand why you do not see what you cannot see.

Hint....

Where was the woman before a rib was removed from Adam's side?
She was where? .... In him!

And, where is our resurrection body now being "stored?"
IN HIM!

We were chosen IN HIM to be His Bride...
Moses was not so chosen in Him...
None of the OT believers were either.

I found this to be astounding when I first learned it.

grace and peace!

Boo hooo!

Mr. spiritual bully can't force his human way of thinking upon me.
So, now he must resort to some human philosophical reasoning to try to make it work?



The way you have been functioning in your emotions and human reasoning? Needed insight, stays out of your sight.

You keep approaching us as if we are not a real new creation.
But rather, as the same old humans we used to be.

Warning....

Better get on that train before it leaves the station.......

I don't disagree with what you have stated except that I believe OT saints share in...in Christ. But I also believe there is still much more to what it is to be in Christ.

OK, let's tighten this up:

• I'll use the corpse/God hater ("corpse") analogy you've been using
• The sinner/corpse ("corpse") is responsible to (SHOULD) call upon the Lord
  • The corpse cannot repent nor believe - God tells the corpse this
  • The corpse cannot come to Christ - God tells the corpse this
  • The corpse cannot run from his sins - God tells the corpse this
    • I assume this is because he is a corpse that at some point in some way comes to understand what the God he hates tells him
    • Has the corpse now become one of the ones who does not reject the knowledge about God that God made clear in and to every man or corpse?
    • Are we skipping Rom1 and going straight to Gospel hearing?
  • The corpse's first duty (responsibility/SHOULD) is to set his seal (affirm) that God is true
    • This seems to bear out my above assumption. So now the corpse subordinates its thinking to the God it hates or hated?
    • Or is the corpse that hates God affirming God is true about Christ?
    • So the corpse is actively affirming something
      • Is this action a work?
      • Is this action repentance?
      • Is this action belief in God or based somehow in belief in God the corpse hated?
      • Is this action repentance and belief in Jesus Christ?
  • The corpse's second duty (responsibility/SHOULD) is to cry unto God for His enabling power - to ask God in mercy to overcome his enmity and draw him to Christ.
    • Didn't the corpse overcome it's enmity at its first SHOULD when it affirmed God is true?
    • Is the corpse any more?
    • Did Jesus or anyone say a corpse or a man needs to ask God to draw it or him to Christ?

I'll stop here. This just seems too convoluted. I can't even tell if your corpse concept works with this and I don't listen to Pink, so I have no idea if you and he agree with one another.

Rufus, seriously, hostilities aside, how does the above make sense? Explain the flow here.

You do know @Rufus has been explaining that no natural man seeks God, correct?

Same question.

John the Baptist said he is the friend of the Groom. Not the bride.
Different functions in God's kingdom.




grace and peace .............

God places that man on Divine Life support [grace power].

That is why we must be saved by grace!

grace and peace ............

From the passage it seems He is simply distinguishing Himself from Christ. Just as you can distinguish the groom from the best man at a wedding because the groom is the one who actually gets married, so it is equally obvious that through the testimony of John and the works Jesus was doing with His disciples, one should understand that Jesus is the Christ.

The natural man must be made able to seek God.

Grace causes such an ability by freeing up the soul and silencing the effects of the flesh,
allowing that soul enabled by grace to seek with blinders of the flesh pulled away for as
long as God determines.

That is the mechanics of the process of being drawn by God.

Read what John said please.
Quote it in your response, and then see how what you just said was slurry logic.


Here! I will make it easy for you.

Copy and paste this...

John was differentiating between being the bride, and that of being the friend of the groom!

John (OT saint) was not the bride of Christ!

Neither was Moses!

The subject wasn't about being a bride or a friend. The question was whether he was the the Christ.

John the Baptist is going to have a resurrection body.
But, it will not be the same body as the glorified Jesus' body we will have.
The glorified body like Jesus has been chosen only for His Bride.

Like Adam's body was "molded and formed" from the elements of the earth?
So the OT saints will have their resurrection bodies consisting from the elements of the everlasting New Earth.

Our bodies when resurrected will be of Heaven, not the everlasting new earth.

Share in His Kingdom. Not, share in being "in Christ."

I know this is what you believe, but the particular passage you referenced is only speaking about whether he is the Christ or not.

PaulThomson said:
If God is angry that people will not believe in Him, despite His giving them such evidence that they are without excuse for not believing in Him, and the reason they will not believe is because God has deliberately withheld repentance and faith from them, God is angry at His own actions.

Your reponse id proof that calvinism is a form of psychosis.

Psychosis refers to a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality. During an episode of psychosis, a person's thoughts and perceptions are disrupted and they may have difficulty recognizing what is real and what is not. A robot is not morally responsible for its actions just because its creator decides to blame it for what the creator programmed it to do. A man who removes the rotor from his car and then takes to his car with a sledge-hammer because it won't start calling it rebellious and sinful, is having a psychotic episode.

I never said such things but if you think that the Bible is not inspired, inerrant and infallible and are confused by what it says then it would seem that you are not yet born again and have not yet been made to understand who God truly is.

It seems that you do not yet know who man is after the Fall and somehow think that God must have lied when He warned that man would die that day (Genesis 2:17).

The Scriptures plainly declare that all are slaves to sin and Satan, his children, bear his evil image unless they are born again but people like you pervert the Gospel by declaring that the doctrine of original sin is not true and that Christ only came to make salvation possible for those who would choose Him when none desire to do so unless God has chosen them.