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

[Niki7]

No, actually, what is reasonable to assume or infer or read into the text is not the point. But apparently too many people lack the integrity to admit that the text doesn't actually say they felt guilt.

backsliders all

hang em at high noon

I don't think you can evaluate a person's character by saying people lack integrity because you insist they comply with you or
suffer the consequences

again, it was obvious they felt guilt.

you start with one person and now it's 'people'. I'm not feelin it

 

[studier]

How could I refuse an invitation like that one? Okay, and? With one caveat - that we use the KJV as translated

No deal. Use whatever translation you like. I use the Greek and some Hebrew as necessary and will translate aside whatever translation you use wherever I disagree with it. If I post an English translation it'll be whatever one I think is closer to being literal. It'll rarely if ever be the KJV. If you're of the KJV only as inspired persuasion, I'll pass.

One Scripture at a time. Sufficient context to bring out what is meant. If you just want to make statements and simply proof-text with no analysis as it seems is quite typical, I'll pass.

Where were you when I copied the list of Scriptures identified in one of the Total Inability graphics that was posted and asked if anyone wanted to discuss them in detail in context?

Also, I seem to recall dismissing discussion with you earlier for some reason, or challenging you with no response. If it wasn't you, then my apology. If it was you and it goes where it did before, then my response will likely end up being the same.

What's the topic and point you'd like to discuss? Can you do your own work or will you be copying from somewhere, someone? Will you identify if/when you do?

 

[BillyBob]

BillyBob

You have to admit, there are no words to express just how handsome this guy is!

Thank goodness my disclaimer is still working, and thank you for all that you bring to this site!

 

[PaulThomson]

No, actually, what is reasonable to assume or infer or read into the text is not the point. But apparently too many people lack the integrity to admit that the text doesn't actually say they felt guilt.

I've already conceded that the exact words "Adam and Eve felt guilty" are not in Gen. 3. You have not yet offered an alternative explanation for Adam and Eve hiding from God after they ate the forbidden fruit, one in which they do not feel guilty.

Gen. 3
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

 

[Magenta]

backsliders all

hang em at high noon

I don't think you can evaluate a person's character by saying people lack integrity because you insist they comply with you or
suffer the consequences

again, it was obvious they felt guilt.

you start with one person and now it's 'people'. I'm not feelin it

I think I can. Reading what the text actually says is easy, but apparently it's too difficult for some to admit. Making reasonable assumptions is beside the point, but you keep missing that, too.

 

[studier]

Reading what the text actually says is easy,

However, understanding what the Text actually means, no matter the language, is not always easy. I wish it were, but I can understand why it's not, at least to some degree.

 

[Niki7]

I think I can. Reading what the text actually says is easy, but apparently it's too difficult for some to admit. Making reasonable assumptions is beside the point, but you keep missing that, too.

not at all.

you know, you could resolve it by stating that while the text does indicate guilt as seen by their actions towards God, it
does not say so specifically

simple...perhaps neither party is willing to see that because of prior communication. I don't know

 

[Magenta]

However, understanding what the Text actually means, no matter the language, is not always easy. I wish it were, but I can understand why it's not, at least to some degree.

This is true... However the other did not ask me what I thought the text meant, or even what is reasonable to assume. He asked me specifically to show him where he went beyond what the text actually said. I have provided examples along the way since then, each time being met with denials and excuses and rationalizations... Now I don't know about you but in my books that counts as a lack of integrity.

 

[HeIsHere]

 

[rogerg]

No deal. Use whatever translation you like. I use the Greek and some Hebrew as necessary and will translate aside whatever translation you use wherever I disagree with it. If I post an English translation it'll be whatever one I think is closer to being literal. It'll rarely if ever be the KJV. If you're of the KJV only as inspired persuasion, I'll pass.

One Scripture at a time. Sufficient context to bring out what is meant. If you just want to make statements and simply proof-text with no analysis as it seems is quite typical, I'll pass.

Where were you when I copied the list of Scriptures identified in one of the Total Inability graphics that was posted and asked if anyone wanted to discuss them in detail in context?

Also, I seem to recall dismissing discussion with you earlier for some reason, or challenging you with no response. If it wasn't you, then my apology. If it was you and it goes where it did before, then my response will likely end up being the same.

What's the topic and point you'd like to discuss? Can you do your own work or will you be copying from somewhere, someone? Will you identify if/when you do?

Well, were we to try work from different translations or sources, I don't see how we would be able to communicate, so as you said, that's a deal breaker. Anyway, my reply to pretty much everything you might have raised would probably be based around Jesus alone as Saviour, because the whole Bible was built upon and comes down to that one truth. So, the discussion might just have been one of what does Jesus as Saviour actually mean in terms of salvation.
As far as any prior in-depth discussions we've had in the past, I cannot recall any right now,
but neither can I exclude that one did occur.
Regarding topic, I believe it was you who said something about there being "other interpretative models",
and I replied to that statement - I thought everything else came from that. So, there is nothing that I feel the need to discuss with you as I am already very confident in/with my beliefs.

 

[Magenta]

@studier Thank you for your well-reasoned and intelligent response earlier. I am at work right now (on my phone) and don't have the ability to look up things and copy and paste verses as may be recquired in my response to you, but I will try to get back to it later this afternoon. For now I will say that God draws us with loving-kindness. God granting repentance was straight from Scripture also. I realize some do not have the experience of being drawn or called and that is why they may say, for instance, that they were born a Christian, have been a Christian all their lives, or didn't need God's help.

 

[studier]

Well, were we to try work from different translations or sources, I don't see how we would be able to communicate, so as you said, that's a deal breaker.

Thought that might be the case. Good enough.

 

[studier]

@studier Thank you for your well-reasoned and intelligent response earlier. I am at work right now (on my phone) and don't have the ability to look up things and copy and paste verses as may be recquired in my response to you, but I will try to get back to it later this afternoon. For now I will say that God draws us with loving-kindness. God granting repentance was straight from Scripture also. I realize some do not have the experience of being drawn or called and that is why they may say, for instance, that they were born a Christian, have been a Christian all their lives, or didn't need God's help.

Thanks for the notice.

Re: the drawing of God, look at John6 and very close context.

I noticed the granting of repentance from 2Tim. Some discussion about context there but an interesting reference.

 

[HeIsHere]

Thanks for the notice.

Re: the drawing of God, look at John6 and very close context.

I noticed the granting of repentance from 2Tim. Some discussion about context there but an interesting reference.

Repentance is granted, but “granted” does not mean “to effectually cause.”

Saying that God grants men the choice to repent is completely different from saying God decides whether or not men will repent.
Again it is reading into the text what is not there.

 

[BillyBob]

If those assertions were biblically sound, and textually accurate, it could be impossible. Fortunately, the original Greek text does not demand the absolutist form of your claims about the state and abilities of man. Since the original Greek and Hebrew scriptures do not actually mean what you have written, the strict limitations on man that you are reading into scripture do not need to be accepted as axiomatic theological premises.

Just admit it! When the Bible proclaims something that hurts your ears, then it is always seems to be a figure of speech, hyperbole, extreme exaggeration.

 

[Magenta]

Thanks for the notice.

Re: the drawing of God, look at John6 and very close context.

I noticed the granting of repentance from 2Tim. Some discussion about context there but an interesting reference.

You are welcome! Check out 1 Cor. 4:7 also which asks the question, what do you have that you didn't receive from God?

 

[PaulThomson]

A few questions about this. Since I see your ability to get into the Text, I'll ask like this:

1. Romans 1:18 concerning God's wrath is written in the context of His Gospel and its power being here for all who believe.
2. Do you see most of Romans 1:18 onward being Paul's theology? The reason I ask is because I'm reading an interesting piece that's positing that quite a bit of what Paul is saying is actually in the voice of an interlocuter.
3. Here're my main points and questions in regard to what you've said about God values above:
   1. In Rom1:28 the word used twice is dokimazō.
      1. This word in its most basic sense has to do with determining worth, value.
      2. I read this verse paraphrased as saying some men determined it of no value to have God in practical knowledge. IOW, God and His sovereign rule and power and divinity was of no practical value to them.
      3. God therefore gave them over to their minds of no value - their worthless minds.
         1. They saw God as worthless - so God saw their minds as worthless.
   2. How does this correlate to God loving everyone?
      1. Do we really need to push His love or His being love to the extent we do?
      2. Does God love evil?
         1. Jesus Christ loved righteousness and hated lawlessness, therefore God anointed Him...
      3. Does God truly value beyond a point, those who do not value Him?
         1. Of what ultimate value is a man who sees God as worthless?
            1. Isn't Gehenna a continuously burning garbage dump?

Wuest has a explanation of the difference between of agapaO and phileO in his "Bypaths in the Greek New Testament" series.

Yes, I see most of Romans 1:18 onwards as Paul's theology.

The intrinsic value in something includes the intrinsic value of its parts. 90% of a 10% rotten apple is intrinsically good, even though the apple taken as a whole is bad. We are body, souls and spirit. A man with a reprobate mind may have some good opinions. A man with a reprobate spirit still has the potential to be a saint, if he repents and loves God. That potential is an intrinsic good. So God can be revolted by and angry at the sinner on account of his sin-corrupted parts, but love and woo the sinner, on account of his presently good elements and those extant faculties that have the potential to function for good. God could love even devils, if they have the potential for repentance, even though they are also presently hated for their preponderance of evil and are presently destined for isolation and destruction.

Evil is that which is not intrinsically good. So, IMO God does not treasure/love evil. As long as aspects of the image of God remain in a person, there is something there for God to love. A man who sees God as worthless, is as many believers once were. And yet God did not consider us worthless in that state.

Gehenna could be anything from a real physical place or a metaphorical description of a real experience. Either way, it will not be pleasant. One should not want to end up there when one has the option of being with and in God, who is love.

 

[PaulThomson]

Just admit it! When the Bible proclaims something that hurts your ears, then it is always seems to be a figure of speech, hyperbole, extreme exaggeration.

I can read and translate Koine Greek well enough to know that the semantic range of a text is wider than calvinists allow.

 

[Magenta]

You have to admit, there are no words to express just how handsome this guy is!

Thank goodness my disclaimer is still working, and thank you for all that you bring to this site!

Thank you, BillyBob! Very handsome indeed! But then I am of Irish descent, and so may have a greater penchant than some for the beauty of spuds lol. Thank you for your sense of humour! I may have changed you from an Idaho baking potato to a Yukon gold or perhaps a russett... The saying was very similar to something I learned from my in-laws...

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

I can read and translate Koine Greek well enough to know that the semantic range of a text is wider than calvinists allow.

Koine Greek became extinct in the 3rd Century and why the English Texts are inferior because there are no reference points. Bottom line, Koine Greek, literally just means the common Greek of the Apostle's Day. And the variants between then and now are found in definitive's not reasonable meaning. So if a script states man does not understand God based upon because man is natural without the infilling of the Holy Spirit. It means just that.

I did not go through the list given. But I assume because if we add/remove the Holy Spirit to the list it clearly will change the outcome and meaning to all of them. So knowing that much we know "natural man" in his "sinful state" is not walking around feeling guilty for his actions because he is not comparing his actions to the Morals of God.

That's why HEARING the Gospel is the key. It opens the ears. That allows the Spirit of God to input conviction.
Hearing = Believing.
Jesus said: 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. <---it begins with HEARING the Gospel.