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.

FollowerofShiloh

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2024
2,468
374
83
But think about this conversation for a moment:

Reformed are saying the usage of "them" in Romans 8:30 = predestined Saints.

But in John 3:16, the Reformed claims the usage of "whosoever and world" suddenly do not mean as the sentence reads.

So there's hard core proof the Reformed makes it up as they go.

If a sentence means as it reads then John 3:16 means anyone and the whole world.
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
14,700
5,312
113
62
I decided to get an independent viewpoint since we are at an impasse.


From Scholars and theologians:
1. This verse (30) has been called the Golden Chain. It describes God at work before creation, right through to the new creation .Jan 29, 2023

2. Predestination appears to involve a more rigorous necessity. It must not be interpreted in any sense that excludes free-will. Free-will is a postulate on which all the superstructure of morals and religion must rest.

To summarize definition 1 and 2:
Verse 29-30 is about the Predestination of Christ and the works of God.

And the usage of "them" are those who are saved by Free-Will.
You chose scholars that agree with you. Now share what other scholars have written.
 

FollowerofShiloh

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2024
2,468
374
83
I chose nothing.

You see unlike the Reformed who makes the Words of God (Jesus) comply to Paul, which is IDOLATRY, I make Paul's words comply to God's (Jesus).
 

Rufus

Active member
Feb 17, 2024
876
88
28
I see you don't appreciate Don Rickles-type sarcastic humor. My bad. Did not intend to offend.
I'm never offended. And Don Rickles is a choir boy next to you.[/QUOTE]

Oh...so you're just humor-impaired, generally? Kool! :cool:
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
14,700
5,312
113
62
I'm never offended. And Don Rickles is a choir boy next to you.
Oh...so you're just humor-impaired, generally? Kool! :cool:[/QUOTE]
I'm betting I've gotten more funny emojis than you. I appreciate humor. I make use of it often. Sometimes you just have to face facts...not everyone is funny.
 

Rufus

Active member
Feb 17, 2024
876
88
28
I decided to get an independent viewpoint since we are at an impasse.

From Scholars and theologians:
1. This verse (30) has been called the Golden Chain. It describes God at work before creation, right through to the new creation .Jan 29, 2023

2. Predestination appears to involve a more rigorous necessity. It must not be interpreted in any sense that excludes free-will. Free-will is a postulate on which all the superstructure of morals and religion must rest.

To summarize definition 1 and 2:
Verse 29-30 is about the Predestination of Christ and the works of God.

And the usage of "them" are those who are saved by Free-Will.
Yeah...what "scholars and theologians? From Disney World, perhaps?

And by the way, you present another straw man argument. No one on this forum ever said Predestination "excludes 'free-will'". Just because you can't understand how God's sovereignty and man's moral responsibility work together shouldn't give you or anyone else license to pervert God's Holy Word. What if God's sovereign works in his elect produce holy desires within them to repent and believe the gospel? After all, fallen man is represented in scripture as helpless with zero ability to please God. It is said of God that he rescues his elect. So how can God ever force his will upon helpless, hopeless sinners who are in desperate need of rescuing?

The only thing that some of us on this thread don't buy into is your definition of "free will". You obviously think that man's will, unlike the Creators', is autonomous, having the capability of making moral/spiritual choices contrary to one's nature. You endow fallen mankind with an ability that God Almighty himself does not possess. In essence, you say Ethiopians have the will power to change the color of their skin and that leopards have the power of will to change their spots, even though scripture says differently. And so does the Law of Identity!

You need to show from scripture how all mankind is not like the helpless guy laying face down on the road unconscious in my Free Will analogy. Apparently, you think that you're more righteous than God since you admitted that you would rescue the guy; yet if God does what you say you would do, he's a tyrannical monster. For how long have you been this conflicted?

Rom 9:14-18
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

16
It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
NIV
 

Rufus

Active member
Feb 17, 2024
876
88
28
Oh...so you're just humor-impaired, generally? Kool! :cool:
I'm betting I've gotten more funny emojis than you. I appreciate humor. I make use of it often. Sometimes you just have to face facts...not everyone is funny.[/QUOTE]

How long have you been around this forum?
 

Rufus

Active member
Feb 17, 2024
876
88
28
I chose nothing.

You see unlike the Reformed who makes the Words of God (Jesus) comply to Paul, which is IDOLATRY, I make Paul's words comply to God's (Jesus).
Another incoherent post. But you seem to be making a false distinction between Paul's writings and Christ's words? If so, then as stated previously, not only is all Scripture "God-breathed" into every writer, but Christ himself is the Author of the entire NT -- per Jesus himself. So, stick that little "factoid" into your hash pipe and puff on it. :coffee:
 

Rufus

Active member
Feb 17, 2024
876
88
28
There's the Word of God
There's the correct meaning to the Word of God
Then there's personal interpretation which typically is not aligned with the Word of God.
And this is what the Reformed has done.
So, pray tell...what is the brand of your interpretation of scripture?
 

FollowerofShiloh

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2024
2,468
374
83
Rom 9:14-18
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."


16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
NIV
I sometimes do not understand why Paul quotes Torah because how he uses it does not match how it happened in the Torah.


Moses asked the LORD to show Moses His Glory and God granted it with the usage of "and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.'

17 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken, for thou hast found grace in My sight, and I know thee by name.'
18 And he said: 'Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory.'
19 And He said: 'I will make all My goodness pass before thee, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.'

The way God used it with Moses is not how Paul explains it and that bothers me because Paul is using it for a whole different kind of purpose.

The Word of God should flow fluently not have 2 different meanings for same expression.
 

FollowerofShiloh

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2024
2,468
374
83
Another incoherent post. But you seem to be making a false distinction between Paul's writings and Christ's words? If so, then as stated previously, not only is all Scripture "God-breathed" into every writer, but Christ himself is the Author of the entire NT -- per Jesus himself. So, stick that little "factoid" into your hash pipe and puff on it. :coffee:
Jesus said whosoever could believe.
And the Reformed take the words of Paul's predestination and turn Jesus words into only the saved is whosoever.
So the Reformed changed the Words of Jesus to match Paul when it should be the OTHER WAY around.
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
14,700
5,312
113
62
I'm betting I've gotten more funny emojis than you. I appreciate humor. I make use of it often. Sometimes you just have to face facts...not everyone is funny.
How long have you been around this forum?[/QUOTE]
A little over 2 years.
 

Rufus

Active member
Feb 17, 2024
876
88
28
Because the Text is meant to show the process of God but the usage of some words reveal you are attempting to make into a LAW when there's no such intention.

You are taking the usage of "τούτους" to create a meaning not intended.

Kind of like John 3:16 usage of "world" and turning it into only the saved when it means the entire world.
+
Whosoever to mean someone specific.
"Whosoever" means all who believe, according to the context.

But beyond that the "world" to the mindset of ancient Jews meant only Gentile Nations, as explained previously! The ancient Jews never thought of themselves as being part of the world of Gentiles. The ancient Jews disassociated themselves from the Gentile nations; for all Gentiles were unclean, uncircumcised and unholy. Therefore, just by this fact alone, the term "world" in Jn 3:16 must be understood in the same way as John's original audience -- as being used in the limited sense.

Moreover, John proves this fact conclusively later on in 1Jn 2:2 whereby he makes a distinction between himself and his primarily Jewish audience and the world. Since John excludes himself and his Jewish audience from the world, then the phrase "whole world" can only be logically understood in the limited sense to mean Gentile nations. And that is the way it's used also in Jn 3:16. No ancient Jew would have ever thought of the nation of Israel as being part of the world of Gentiles! Israel was the chosen nation of God; the Gentile nations were totally excluded from the covenant relationship that the nation of Israel exclusively had with God.

So, yes, the "whosovers" of Jn 3:16 is referring to Gentile believers who compirse the world-- not the Jews. The "whosover" qualifies the noun "world".

Also, this interpretation doesn't present any contradictions with other scriptures the way a unviersal interpretation does. God most emphatically does not love each and every person in the world per a large hosts of OT scriptures.

And this interpreation is in sync with the Last Supper passages that teach that Jesus laid down his life for many or for you (the disciples in the upper room with Him). See Mat 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:19. So, how in the real world does "many" = all in the world in the distrubitive sense?

And the proper interpetation of Jn 3:16 explains nicely why Jesus explicitly excluded the world in his High Priestly prayer to his Father (Jn 17:9). Jesus' prayer is limited for his elect because this is for whom he died -- per Jesus' own words at the Last Supper.

None of what I just wrote presents any problem whatsoever with any scripture.
 

Rufus

Active member
Feb 17, 2024
876
88
28
The Holy Spirit.
I do not live by any set doctrine but the Words of Jesus nor follow any man made Creed.
Then how come you can't believe Jesus when he tells for whom he died (Mat 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:19)? How do you get "many" or "you" to = each and every person in the world?
 

Rufus

Active member
Feb 17, 2024
876
88
28
I sometimes do not understand why Paul quotes Torah because how he uses it does not match how it happened in the Torah.


Moses asked the LORD to show Moses His Glory and God granted it with the usage of "and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.'

17 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken, for thou hast found grace in My sight, and I know thee by name.'
18 And he said: 'Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory.'
19 And He said: 'I will make all My goodness pass before thee, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.'

The way God used it with Moses is not how Paul explains it and that bothers me because Paul is using it for a whole different kind of purpose.

The Word of God should flow fluently not have 2 different meanings for same expression.
But God was compassionate and merciful to Moses since He granted his servant his request. Did Moses force God to what he asked?
 

FollowerofShiloh

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2024
2,468
374
83
"Whosoever" means all who believe, according to the context.

But beyond that the "world" to the mindset of ancient Jews meant only Gentile Nations, as explained previously! The ancient Jews never thought of themselves as being part of the world of Gentiles. The ancient Jews disassociated themselves from the Gentile nations; for all Gentiles were unclean, uncircumcised and unholy. Therefore, just by this fact alone, the term "world" in Jn 3:16 must be understood in the same way as John's original audience -- as being used in the limited sense.

Moreover, John proves this fact conclusively later on in 1Jn 2:2 whereby he makes a distinction between himself and his primarily Jewish audience and the world. Since John excludes himself and his Jewish audience from the world, then the phrase "whole world" can only be logically understood in the limited sense to mean Gentile nations. And that is the way it's used also in Jn 3:16. No ancient Jew would have ever thought of the nation of Israel as being part of the world of Gentiles! Israel was the chosen nation of God; the Gentile nations were totally excluded from the covenant relationship that the nation of Israel exclusively had with God.

So, yes, the "whosovers" of Jn 3:16 is referring to Gentile believers who compirse the world-- not the Jews. The "whosover" qualifies the noun "world".

Also, this interpretation doesn't present any contradictions with other scriptures the way a unviersal interpretation does. God most emphatically does not love each and every person in the world per a large hosts of OT scriptures.

And this interpreation is in sync with the Last Supper passages that teach that Jesus laid down his life for many or for you (the disciples in the upper room with Him). See Mat 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:19. So, how in the real world does "many" = all in the world in the distrubitive sense?

And the proper interpetation of Jn 3:16 explains nicely why Jesus explicitly excluded the world in his High Priestly prayer to his Father (Jn 17:9). Jesus' prayer is limited for his elect because this is for whom he died -- per Jesus' own words at the Last Supper.

None of what I just wrote presents any problem whatsoever with any scripture.
But we go by how Jesus meant "world" to mean not how the Jews perceived it.
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
14,700
5,312
113
62
A little over 2 years.
Heck...I don't think I've been here two months. So...give me a chance to catch up. ;)[/QUOTE]
Sure. Happy laughing. But I don't think the Don Rickles approach will work these days. So maybe follow Clint Eastwood's advice...improvise, adapt, overcome.