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

And I say they are correct. When I interpret any given passage, I also have in mind the general tenor of all scripture. If you think I'm incorrect, then correct me!

Can we effectively tune out the Spirit?

God's word is a lamp to our feet and a light to our path.
The five wise virgins trimmed their lamps when they heard the cry, "The bride-goom is coming!"
The five foolish virgins had run out of oil.
A smouldering wick God will not extinguish.
A lamp's flame needs air to burn and give light.

What could the parts of the parable of Word of God as a lamp we carrybe?

We are the person carrying the lamp. The lamp may be the Bible, the full counsel of God. The wick could be an intertwining of different doctrinal threads in the Bible/interpretations of scripture passages. The light shed could be understanding issuing from the doctrine that guides our steps. The oil within the lamp could be the Holy Spirit who works through the doctrinal threads to empower a quest for purity/purification/holiness (heat) and a quest for understanding/truth (light). The flame cannot survive without the wick being exposed to air. Our biblical doctrines need to be exposed to the world in word and deed, so that incorrect aspects of doctrine can be tested and burned off and trimmed off to give a clearer brighter light.

By this parable, quenching the spirit could represent
1. doing things that prevent the Holy Spirit from getting into the doctrinal threads to empower the flame;
And 2. doing things that cause the flame (understanding) to die out.

1. would be not allowing the Holy Spirit into our doctrines to adjust and perfect them, but stubbornly insisting on holding to our traditions or our present opinions on what the Bible teaches.
2. would be making our development of doctrine a largely theoretical but unpractised exercise that the world cannot see or critique: hiding our light under a bushel".

There may be more aspects that could be teased out by others.

Interesting analogies and connections. Thanks for them.
Do you think 1Thess5:20 is connected to 5:19?

It looks to me that 1 Thess 5:19-22 go together.

19Quench not the Spirit. (Don't obstruct the Holy Spirit, the oil; from purifying your doctrine, trimming the wick; and bringing new understanding, bringing light.)
20Despise not prophesyings. (Allow that the Holy spirit may be speaking to you through other people. Soberly consider what they say to you.)
21Prove all thing. Hold fast that which is good. (Test against scripture anything presented as "Thus saith the Lord". Make public, in word and deed, what at you believe the Holy Spirit is saying. Continue doing and saying those things that stand up to public scrutiny.)
22Abstain from all appearance of evil. (Trim your lamp's wick. Drop behaviours and speech that produce evil fruit. )

Under grace we are allowed to make mistakes and to learn from our mistakes.

Can we effectively tune out the Spirit?

see here

see here

clean up your work.

There are inserted points of view of the writer of observations - whether correct or incorrect - including positing of what a few proof-texted NC Scriptures mean.

"fools" = "natural man" is another assertion not stated in the Proverbs prologue and not proven in these observations.

I thought I had already said that it is not our flesh that God appeals to?

When a TV receiver dies, the signal to that TV from the transmitter is quenched. But the transmitter is still trnsmitting. The Holy Spirit keeps transmitting even when we choose to stop listening. We have quenched the Spirit's voice, but we have not extinguished Him.

Agreed conceptually. But simple English re: quench = extinguish remains, so either can be used synonymously. He is still active but not where He has been quenched/extinguished. One extinguishes the fire in their own house, but it burns on all around it. The congregation extinguishes the prophetic speaking in it's own house, but it continues in another.

Take your own advice.

I do agree this needs to be taken in context of the church to whom the letter is written.

I think Paul is speaking about Spirit, not as it pertains to each individual's inward dwelling of the Spirit.
But corporately around >> the body.

I'd expect nothing else. You have in mind the general tenor as you see it. You inserted your general tenor into the Prologue as if it's all truth. That's very simply and succinctly called presupposition and eisegesis and by it you flavor to your liking everything that proceeds from there.

My observations of your observations were not only instructive of your error in methodology but highly rhetorical. I've also given you a couple observations re: words used in Scriptures that you could chase down if you so desired. You in turn use them to add to your arsenal for ridicule. I point out to you that the word translated as "fool" is used 20+ times and you lay out a list of 60+ telling us what "fool" means and thus ignore any nuances in the Text which uses different words you're lumping into one list. And you don't even explain your methodology so someone doesn't think twice about using your presuppositional work to make into her concept of art poetry.

I suppose you're still trying to prove what you think Rom1 is all about from Rom1:21-22 and how this all ties to the natural man. One of the problems with your methodology is your use of English translations. I gave you a lead on something you for the most part ignored. It looks to me with brief glance that the words (2) Paul uses in Rom1:21-22 translated "foolish" and "fool" are not the words used in Prov1. They may connect somewhere so some overlap may be concluded, but this takes some work to prove.

I've offered several times to go through brief sections of Scripture with you verse by verse and word by word. You've never taken me up on it. IMO you show little to no willingness to be corrected by anyone including by Scripture. I'm not going to do your work for you. To do so would be a full-time job. I and others it seems will simply be pointing out the errors we see in what you write.

I've not read past you first paragraph in your quoted post.[/QUOTE]

Well...whatever Hebrew or Greek word in the LXX were used in those 64 texts, all 64 had ONE thing in common: None of those passages spoke well of "fools"! Fools are the ungodly and the ungodly are fools! And guess what: The natural man is neither wise or godly.

And my hermeneutical method is sound and honest. I interpret scripture in its 3-in-1 context, and make no apologies for it. There's the Immediate, Intermediate and Macro context to all scripture. And when people ignore these three contexts, their interpretation of the Immediate or Intermediate will invariably contradict one or both of the other contexts. Our primary job as honest interpreters of scripture is to rightly understand scripture as the homogeneous, unified, indvisible coherent single body of truth that it is! When we ignore this hermeneutical principle, we unwitting subtract from the WHOLE. thereby perverting and corrputing the Truth, which effectively destroys the whole truth so that we're left with falsehood. So no, I don't read into texts. Rather I'm always cross-checking and cross-referencing with other relevant passages to make certain that any given text under my consderation is in harmony with all scripture; for God cannot lie, but men do all the time!

When you were in seminary, did you sleep through your hermeneutics class?

And of course, you didn't read past my first paragraph. In your world ignorance is bliss and can serve as a convenient excuse. You read my posts like you read scripture.

I do when I have discussions with someone capable of making observations from Scripture. I don't fold easily, but I do consider quality arguments and go back to the drawing board as necessary.

For example, @PaulThomson and I have been having a grown-up conversation about some actual issues from Scripture on another thread that have required us to dig back into some very foundational interpretive considerations. Last I saw we remain in some disagreement but it's respectful and productive (IMO) and remains on point with some required methodology. For me it's been iron sharpening iron and I appreciate the discipline.

You're all over the place and run away from working from Scripture at any depth, in context, while making up your own methodologies and eisegeting wherever and whenever you please. Then you call such process, 'using the tenor of all Scripture.' You're trying to convince some who can see very clearly what you're doing.

Again, this is as far as I've read your post. You know by now that you're not writing for my benefit but for your fan base. Have a party...

If you want me to read one of your posts more completely, then open with Scripture and begin explaining what you see and make clear what point you're attempting to make. I've seriously lost interest in your ad hominem and non-credible methodologies.

Yes... the natural man is taken captive by the devil to his will but free to choose to believe, which is God's will? Such nonsense.

Now, that's a deep question. But let me ask you this: Who ultimately is in charge in this world: God or Satan? Also, cannot an all-knowing, all-wise, all powerful God work through evil and bring good from it? Joseph in the OT? And Christ and his Cross in the New? Didn't Jesus himself declare that "the Son of Man will go as it has been decreed" (Lk 22:22)? Even the wrath of man shall praise God, i.e. glorify him (Ps 76:10)!

Romans 8:28

Romans 8:28