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

[PaulThomson]

Firstly, I appreciate the work, meaning someone who actually does the homework in Scripture to substantiate their beliefs.

Question here: What man would you be referring to? A general or a specific reference?




Are you certain? How is this to be verified?



Same questions.



But, does the subjunctive mood only express contingency?

Here is some copy & paste from Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace. The only highlighting I've done is to show that Wallace says there are 1,858 subjunctives in the New Covenant Writings and that hina + subjunctive comprises about one third of those.

II. The Subjunctive Mood

A. Definition

1. General Definition

The subjunctive is the most common of the oblique moods in the NT. In general, the subjunctive can be said to represent the verbal action (or state) as uncertain but probable. It is not correct to call this the mood of uncertainty because the optative also presents the verb as uncertain. Rather, it is better to call it the mood of probability so as to distinguish it from the optative. Still, this is an overly simplistic definition in light of its usage in the NT.

2. Detailed Description

The subjunctive mood encompasses a multitude of nuances. An adequate description of it requires more nuancing than the mere notion of probability, especially in the Hellenistic era. The best way to describe it is in relation to the other potential moods, the optative and the imperative.

a. In Relation to the Optative

Descriptions of the subjunctive and optative moods in standard grammars sometimes tacitly assume that the optative was still in full flower in the Koine period. But it was in fact dying out. The reason is that it was too subtle for people acquiring Greek as a second language to grasp fully.40 You can see why: English-speaking students also have a great difficulty grasping the difference between these two moods. In the table given at the beginning of this chapter, for example, we described the subjunctive with “might” and the optative with “may.” We would be hard-pressed to state the difference between those two helper verbs, however. In the NT there are 1858 subjunctives and less than 70 optatives–a ratio of 27:1! This simple statistic reflects the fact that in the Hellenistic era the subjunctive is encroaching on the uses of the optative. The subjunctive thus, at times, is used for mere possibility or even hypothetical possibility (as well as, at other times, probability). This is especially true in conditional sentences (there are about 300 third class conditional sentences in the NT [this class involves the subjunctive], and not one complete fourth class condition [this class involves the optative]).

Chart 45 - Semantic Overlap of Subjunctive and Optative

On the other hand, sometimes the subjunctive acts like a future indicative. The two morpho-syntactic categories are really quite similar (and perhaps derive from the same root).41 In dependent clauses, for example, often it functions more like an indicative than an optative. When used in result clauses, for example, the subjunctive cannot be said to express “probability.” In any event, the one-word descriptions for the moods are meant to be mere handles, not final statements. Only careful nuancing of the moods’ uses will yield helpful insights exegetically.

b. In Relation to the Imperative

As we noted at the beginning of this chapter, the moods can be seen against the poles of actuality vs. potentiality and cognition vs. volition. The indicative is primarily used for actuality, while the oblique moods usually remain in the realm of potentiality. Further, the imperative is the primary volitional mood. However, the subjunctive is also used for volitional notions quite frequently, in particular as a hortatory subjunctive and prohibitive subjunctive. Even in dependent clauses (such as after ἵνα), the subjunctive commonly has a volitional flavor to it. An acceptable gloss is often should, since this is equally ambiguous (it can be used for probability, obligation, or contingency).

c. Summary

In sum, the subjunctive is used to grammaticalize potentiality. It normally does so in the realm of cognitive probability, but may also be used for cognitive possibility (overlapping with the optative) or volitional intentionality (overlapping with the imperative).42

It should be added here that the tenses in the subjunctive, as with the other potential moods, involve only aspect (kind of action), not time. Only in the indicative mood is time a part of the tense.


► b. ῞Ινα + the Subjunctive

The single most common category of the subjunctive in the NT is after ἵνα, comprising about one third of all subjunctive instances. There are seven basic uses included in this construction: purpose, result, purpose-result, substantival, epexegetical, complementary, and command. Its usage in the Koine period has increased from the classical as this construction came to be used as a periphrasis for the simple infinitive.

Thanks for your response.
Firstly, I see my first paragraph was truncated when I cut and pasted it from my Word document. It should have said -
"No one is required to accept the teaching of another man on the basis that that man has more scholastic qualifications. A man’s opinions are not verified by the number of his degrees, or publications, or acolytes; but by his ability to demonstrate that the facts consistently fit his thesis, and the lack of contradicting facts."

Secondly, every assertion written by scholars regarding how the grammar and syntax of koine greek should be interpreted is a working hypothesis based on the data available. It's a linguistic recreation of what scholars think the koine Greek literature we have is saying. Any claim about the proper interpretation of koine Greek syntax and grammar is derived from scientific analysis of Greek texts, and as such is open to challenge and may be falsifiable. For instance, I falsified Greenlee's thesis by showing that his first four cited proof texts did not meet the claims of his hypothesis. This is how science works. a hypothesis is "proved" (in a soft sense) when all relevant data fits the hypothesis. When there is a body of data that sits outside of the hypothesis, either the hypothesis needs tweaking, or the the hypothesis is wrong, or the data has been corrupted in some way: e.g. maybe the author or copyist was misspelling or had poor grammar skills.

If my working hypothesis says hoti is always followed by the indicative, it is "proven" by a lack of counterfactuals, and disproved by a counterfactual that cannot be satisfactorily explained as anomalous.

If anyone wants to dismiss my working hypothesis, they should supply examples of koine Greek sentences which fall outside of my thesis. Citing another experts' different thesis is not sufficient. That is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".

Your citations do not specifically address my hypothesis. Do they claim hoti is sometimes followed by other than an indicative? Do they claim that hina is sometimes followed by an indicative. I would say that the optative is also contingent, in that, in the mind of the writer or speaker, it is not yet a settled fact of reality that the thing chosen is real.

"In Ancient Greek, the optative is used to express wishes and potentiality in independent clauses (but also has other functions, such as contrary-to-fact expressions in the present). In dependent clauses (purpose, temporal, conditional, and indirect speech), the optative is often used under past-tense main verbs."

In effect, your citation support my thesis. hoti + indicative = certainty/fact in the mindd of the author/speaker.
hina + subjunctive = uncertainty/not yet a fact in the mind of the author/speaker.

This is the template by which I am interpreting John 17:3

 

[PaulThomson]

I fully understand how some take opposition to degrees and credentials. My first career I entered through a trade school that concentrated my learning to enable me to actually do a job. Within a short time I was having to train those with degrees.

Over the years, I also developed an aversion to what the world calls "experts". There are simply too many charlatans and those people want to point to in order to actually bolster some odd type of perceived personal expertise.

On the other hand I'm not quick to dismiss "authorities" just because they have degrees and citations or knowledge that I don't.

At this point it's really just about individuals. It's like just about anything, some competent, some not, some good, some bad... So, show us what you've got... (not you).

I don't dismiss an authority because I am anti-authority. But even authorities must justify their opinions and claims with evidence, and their opinions and claims should not contradict the data.

 

[PaulThomson]

As a reminder, the parallels between the types and antitypes will be limited to the more salient points that will more directly support and highlight my argument, which, again, is to show that Moses (a type of Christ) was sent to "save" only the ancient Hebrews in Egypt, which were God's elect by virtue of His covenant with Abraham wherein He promised the patrriarch that He would make a great nation out of him; and to also show that God's "firstborn" (Ex 4:22; 7:1) were totally powerless and helpless to extricate themselves from the yoke of bondage under Pharaoh -- a bondage that was decreed by God (Gen 15:12-16). In short, Israel's redemption by Moses from their physical slavery by a physical king of a physical nation in this temporal reality is the soteriological template of Christ's spiritual and eternal redemption of his Father's elect that were given to the Son, just as God gave Abraham a great nation by making one out of his own loins even though Sarah's womb was dead and Abraham was past his fatherning years.

Re claim 1. Moses (a type of Christ) was sent to "save" only the ancient Hebrews in Egypt, which were God's elect by virtue of His covenant with Abraham wherein He promised the patriarch that He would make a great nation out of him.

I presume you believe God has two wills: one preceptive and one decretive. Given that there were not only Hebrews saved out of Egypt during the Exodus, but also a mixed multitude that went with them, you would have to concede that it was not God's decretive will to save only the ancient Hebrews in Egypt. See Ex. 12:38

Re Claim 2: God's "firstborn" (Ex 4:22; 7:1) were totally powerless and helpless to extricate themselves from the yoke of bondage under Pharaoh -- a bondage that was decreed by God (Gen 15:12-16).

Is there evidence that the bondage was decreed by God as His will, rather than prophesied to happen as a consequence of decisions her anticipated the Hebrews would make, choosing ease in Egypt after the end of the famine, rather than embrace the risks of a return to Canaan. Maybe they had preferred to bask in the approval and largesse Pharaoh and Joseph instead of leaving, until suddenly the new pharaoh decided to draft them into compulsory work details. I don't think you can argue from silence, that the bondage was "decreed". Was the destruction of Nineveh after 40 days "decreed", merely because God foretold it? He relented because of Nineveh's response. Was the destruction of Israel and making Moses a great nation in their place "decreed" merely because God foretold it? He relented because of Moses' response. Maybe God's foretelling of 400 years bondage was also not decreed, but subject to change depending on Israel's response.

 

[PaulThomson]

For starters, He draws us with loving kindness and rewards those who seek Him (a Scriptural promise),
revealing Himself in a myriad of ways. He circumcises our hearts (I rarely see that one being mentioned
by most). The Holy Spirit convicts the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment. Surely that
acts as an impetus for some. He opens the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf. Because of His great
love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions.
<= From Ephesians 2, echoed in Colossians 2:13 ~ When you were dead in your trespasses and in the
uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. There are varying opinions on the
order of some of these events, some essentially claiming that an enemy of God who is hostile in their
mind toward Him and a slave to sin is free to choose to believe, and then those things will take place.
God knows and we know Scripture says none seek Him, but people do seek truth, and Jesus is the
embodiment of Truth, being Truth itself. Some believe faith itself is a gift, and Paul asked, what does
any of us have that we did not receive? His divine power has given us everything we need for life and
godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For my own
self I can state with conviction that faith the size of a mustard seed moved the mountain of my unbelief...
and coming to faith was quite the journey for me, for I resisted and ran and rebelled against what I thought
the Bible taught about God until I was almost fifty years old. It's kind of funny because not too long ago
someone said that nobody goes to bed an unbeliever and wakes up the next day believing, but I know
a former member who claimed that very thing for both herself and her husband!

Jesus' words in Matthew 17:20-21
Faith the size of a mustard seed moved the mountain of my unbelief .

Do you believe in the doctrine of irresistible grace?

 

[PaulThomson]

And I am wondering if you could further elaborate post #6498 ?

I think I thought I was replying to -

BillyBob said:
Does having the mind of Christ enable us to believe? But I seem to have replied to CSI's response to BillyBob.

 

[studier]

This is the sheer genius and beauty of typology: In a real sense its Profound Theology 101 for Dummies. God has used Temporal, Physical Reality to give us valuable Spiritual lessons on Eternal, Invisible reality.

The problem with typology as with all Scripture is that men can read into it whatever they desire and thus produce from it whatever they desire.

Did God show mercy and compassion to all in Egypt or to just his firstborn "my people"? If to just His people, wouldn't this speak to Unconditional Election? Didn't God see the misery of "my people" as opposed to all in Egypt (Gen 3:7 = typo = studier notation)

I'm not seeing what you're making out of all this.

Did God chose to work with certain peoples down through history? Yes.

Who were God's People? Israel, in the covenantal line of Abraham and Isaac. So, we really have to go back to Abraham if you want to start discussing some concept of election. By the time of the Exodus God is by choice committed by covenant and working out His Plan.

Did God "come down" to rescue everyone in Egypt (Ex 3:8; 5:23) or just his "firstborn", i.e. his people? And why would God need to rescue his elect if they had it in their own power to walk out of Egypt on their own? But if they didn't have this power, then wouldn't this speak to their Total Inability to free themselves from their bondage under Pharaoh? And would this in turn not speak to the doctrine of TD, which is at its core speaks to the inability of spiritually dead man to raise himself from his spiritual grave and reconnect himself to the Author of Life?

Again, what's the point being made? Did God need to do the work to free men from imprisonment under sin? Of course.

Does this speak of TD? Again, TD or RTD or? Is man unable to free himself? Again, yes. Can man know of God? Yes. Can man be cognizant of good and bad, right and wrong? Yes. Can man be cognizant of an internal struggle between good and bad? Yes. Can man understand certain spiritual things? Yes (to which you've agreed). Can man be taught about the Christian God, sin, God's Son and the need to be saved from a messed up existence? Yes, as I read Scripture. Can man have any of this information if God was not active in His grace and mercy revealing things to men? No. Is God the first cause and primary actor in redemption and salvation? Of course.

The discussion has been what faculties and abilities does unregenerate man have to hear, learn, understand and respond to what God has revealed in His creation.

I don't know if what you're saying here is your view of TD or it's RTD. TD as I understand it says much more than man needs God to free him. It says man is incapable of even understanding his dilemma and desiring a solution. As I understand you, you've been making the case that all unregenerate men hate God and want nothing to do with Him. I disagree with this from Rom1-3 and all of Biblical history, and IMO you've not remotely proven TD or RTD.

So, now, with Unconditional Election, which IMO you're not yet proving with the typology, are you suggesting the typology says all unregenerate men hate God and want nothing to do with Him, or are you just working to show that men need God to free them from being under sin which Paul's is clearly saying in Rom1-3 is their condition?





Did Israel know God? Yes, the Hebrew midwives feared God per Ex1:17. So where is Total Depravity and no one knowing God or trying to live for Him as they understood Him?

 

[PaulThomson]

Did the Hebrews in Egypt seek God when they were in slavery and worshiping idols?

Do you assume they were worshipping only idols? Who were they crying out to so that God heard their cries and sent Moses?

 

[HeIsHere]

I think I thought I was replying to -

BillyBob said:
Does having the mind of Christ enable us to believe? But I seem to have replied to CSI's response to BillyBob.

Oh yes I see, okay I understand now, thank you!

 

[studier]

If my working hypothesis says hoti is always followed by the indicative, it is "proven" by a lack of counterfactuals, and disproved by a counterfactual that cannot be satisfactorily explained as anomalous.

If anyone wants to dismiss my working hypothesis, they should supply examples of koine Greek sentences which fall outside of my thesis. Citing another experts' different thesis is not sufficient. That is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority"

You stated and I highlighted that you said "always" in your remarks about hoti and hina constructions. A quick search in Nestle-Aland 28th Revision shows hoti in 1187 NC verses and 1294 occurrences. In a morphological database I searched all uses of hina + subjunctive which says there are 918 occurrences in 605 NC verses.

If you're going to represent that these words always show what you say they "always" show, then it's up to you to substantiate your statement and explain your methodology. It's not up to me to prove your absolute statement wrong.

Are you keeping this project on this thread?

I didn't look at your updated work on John17 after you mentioned moving to another thread.

 

[Rufus]

Rufus said:
Not so confusing at all. Did A&E seek God after they sinned?
I guess it depends on few things:

What meanings does the Scripture apply to the concept of seeking God?
Did A&E need to seek God as others in history did?
Unless the Text applies the concept to A&E it's only an argument from silence either way.

I take my meaning from the post-fall narrative. God did what A&E should have done. God didn't run away and hide himself from them, did he? Didn't he go and search for them? Didn't He call out to the man? Isn't that something personal beings do when we search for one another?

Are you suggesting by your second question that A&E reacted to God in the righteous manner by hiding from him? They did the right thing, did they? It wasn't necessary for them to seek after the Lord to confess their sins? To own their sins honestly before him? And to seek his forgiveness and mercy?

Even the conscience that you appealed to as being man's moral compass malfunctioned after they sinned! Yes, their conscience rightly accused them. They felt guilt and shame. But what they didn't feel. was godly remorse for their sin. Such sorrow would have moved them to confess their sin and repent of it. But they would have none of that! The deceitfulness of sin already took root in their heart so that the best they could respond to God was by playing the blame game. They thought nothing of piling on to their original sin and lying through their teeth to God when they glibly rationalized away their personal, moral culpability.

And, yes, they even manifested the "fear of the Lord" but it wasn't godly fear! Rather it was the fear of the ungodly who at the return of our Lord, for example, will cry out to the rocks and the hills to also HIDE them from his presence. Funny, how some things never change!

Re your third point, what about numerous other texts that apply to sinners and how they are supposed to respond to God after they sin? How 'bout David's penitential psalms, for example? What are they chopped liver? Those psalms weren't written for all of us as examples to follow? If so, then I'd say those psalms, and a host of other scriptures as well, serve as the general tenor of scripture on the subject and, therefore, strongly support my argument -- and that my argument would not be one from silence at all since I use the three-fold context of all scripture to understand any given passage properly. If the progeny of Adam are required to follow certain spiritual protocols after they sin, then why wouldn't those protocols have also applied to our first parents?

When Job said Adam hid his transgression (Job 31:33), do you think Job was making a positive statement about Adam? And aren't there other scriptures that also speak to this subject in a negative or condemning way!?

Rufus said:
Did the Hebrews in Egypt seek God when they were in slavery and worshiping idols?

Good question. The word translated "seek*" shows up 118 times in 112 verses in one manuscript I searched. I think I mentioned this before. I haven't done the research to see how it is used and pertaining to whom. Have you?

What I do know from the Exodus account I posted in my argument, which you haven't really read but only "scanned". I do know God sent Moses on a rescue mission to rescue hundreds of thousands of Hebrews who were for the most part as idolatrous as their Egyptian captors. I do know that there is no text in the Exodus narrative itself that teaches that the Hebrews sought after God. And I do know that God, once again, sought after a bunch of sinners. God himself said he would "come down". Good enough for me to make some very logical inferences and conclusions.

Rufus said:
And what would induce God-haters to seek Him in the first place?

Another good question even as a rhetorical one. But it presupposes that all the unregenerate were and are God-haters and have no interest in Him. I don't see this presupposition as an accurate depiction of Biblical history but as a theology forced on the Text and history.

No, my argument presupposes nothing. Man is evil period! Again, the general tenor of scripture strongly teaches that inherently evil men do not come into this world loving God! Therefore, if we do not come into this world with a loving disposition in our hearts for God, that means we hate him! There is no third option! I explained this in my 5738 by pointing out how many men can overtly and publicly hate God, hate his people, hate the Messiah, hate righteousness, etc. , while many others hate God quietly, covertly, privately and in relative sense, since they love something or someone more than God. The Law of Excluded Middle applies here. No man comes into this world morally neutral. Nor is it said of any man in scripture that any come into this world loving God. But there are plenty of texts that talk about men hating him, nations hating him and the world hating him! And about men having a rebellious spirit in them from birth, etc. So, if you want to make the case that some evil men come into this world with a natural inclination, a natural disposition of heart to obey the Greatest Commandment, the onus is on you to make it.

 

[MerSee]

 

[studier]

I take my meaning from the post-fall narrative. God did what A&E should have done. God didn't run away and hide himself from them, did he? Didn't he go and search for them? Didn't He call out to the man? Isn't that something personal beings do when we search for one another?

My point was that I don't think you are bringing to the discussion any knowledge of what is contained in the phrase "seeking God" other than a basic seek to find concept. If we were to go through all of the occurrences of seek* in the Text, do you think this is the only meaning we will find?

I will tell you that neither the Greek nor the Hebrew word translated mostly as "seek" shows up until Gen9, then only a few times in Gen, once in Ex, once in Lev and then it begins showing up more in Deut. So, though you are inserting the concept into the Garden story, it is not actually there.

Are you suggesting by your second question that A&E reacted to God in the righteous manner by hiding from him? They did the right thing, did they? It wasn't necessary for them to seek after the Lord to confess their sins? To own their sins honestly before him? And to seek his forgiveness and mercy?

Is your questioning here at all serious?

My point was that they had a face-to-face relational experience with God that was seemingly beyond what anyone has had since them. There must be a reason that seeking is not mentioned until much later. The concept more akin to what you are speaking of doesn't even show up until Deut. Maybe it's used elsewhere to refer back to before this. I haven't done the work. Nor does it seem have you.

Even the conscience that you appealed to as being man's moral compass malfunctioned after they sinned! Yes, their conscience rightly accused them. They felt guilt and shame. But what they didn't feel. was godly remorse for their sin. Such sorrow would have moved them to confess their sin and repent of it. But they would have none of that! The deceitfulness of sin already took root in their heart so that the best they could respond to God was by playing the blame game. They thought nothing of piling on to their original sin and lying through their teeth to God when they glibly rationalized away their personal, moral culpability.

Sorry, but you're just making things up here. You don't know what they felt, nor what they knew or could understand from such an experience. All we're told is that God told them they would die. Nowhere I know of are we told that He had told them what to do if they failed Him.

Re your third point, what about numerous other texts that apply to sinners and how they are supposed to respond to God after they sin? How 'bout David's penitential psalms, for example? What are they chopped liver? Those psalms weren't written for all of us as examples to follow? If so, then I'd say those psalms, and a host of other scriptures as well, serve as the general tenor of scripture on the subject and, therefore, strongly support my argument -- and that my argument would not be one from silence at all since I use the three-fold context of all scripture to understand any given passage properly. If the progeny of Adam are required to follow certain spiritual protocols after they sin, then why wouldn't those protocols have also applied to our first parents?

Same answer. And yes you are arguing from silence if you cannot point to Scripture that informs us that A&E and anyone else you want to point to knew what God desired and required of them.

When Job said Adam hid his transgression (Job 31:33), do you think Job was making a positive statement about Adam? And aren't there other scriptures that also speak to this subject in a negative or condemning way!?

Well, firstly, there is a question to whether or not Job is speaking of Adam or of man. This can be seen in some translations. The same can be seen in some translations of Genesis.

Once again, what point are you trying to make - that Adam was a God-hater and wanted nothing to do with God? Is this another all unregenerate men are TD or RTD? Are we back to TD instead of UE?

What I do know from the Exodus account I posted in my argument, which you haven't really read but only "scanned". I do know God sent Moses on a rescue mission to rescue hundreds of thousands of Hebrews who were for the most part as idolatrous as their Egyptian captors. I do know that there is no text in the Exodus narrative itself that teaches that the Hebrews sought after God. And I do know that God, once again, sought after a bunch of sinners. God himself said he would "come down". Good enough for me to make some very logical inferences and conclusions.

Again, you're arguing from silence because seeking God is really not a topic of discussion until Deut. You're also reading past the fact that some Hebrews in Egypt had a proper fear of God. The Text uses wording in certain ways for certain reasons and we get ourselves into trouble by thinking we can just insert words and concepts because we think it's logical. The word for "seek is used once in Ex at 18:15. So, I'm not seeing any Scripture in that story itself that speaks of God seeking anyone, nor that seeking God is even a topic.

BTW, this is in part why I only scanned your Ex work and asked rather that you bring only a portion into discussion at a time. Typologies, let alone Scripture, are very easy to insert concepts into to make arguments.

No, my argument presupposes nothing. Man is evil period!

Sorry, but I'll stop at this quote and won't read on. You just asserted a presupposition telling me your argument presupposes nothing.

Yes, both Jews and Greeks are under sin in Adam I. But your use of "evil period!" is being stated in apposition to all men are God-haters and have no interest in God. I've said I disagree with this. You've taken us into a typological narrative to assert your case from Exodus where one of the first things we're told about Israel in Egypt is that there were Hebrew midwives who had the [proper] fear of God.

TD or RTD, whatever the similarities or differences, IMO has an unbiblical view of the capacities of man under sin and a view that makes all unregenerate men and women into God haters who want absolutely nothing to do with Him. The Biblical record clearly does not support this as I read the Text. And this is why I attempted to bring out some considerations of Biblical history when we began discussing Rom1-3. There is context to what Paul is discussing including historical context. As a few of us have attempted to bring into discussion, not all concepts are gnomic - timeless principles to be transported all over the Text.

 

[Cameron143]

My point was that I don't think you are bringing to the discussion any knowledge of what is contained in the phrase "seeking God" other than a basic seek to find concept. If we were to go through all of the occurrences of seek* in the Text, do you think this is the only meaning we will find?

I will tell you that neither the Greek nor the Hebrew word translated mostly as "seek" shows up until Gen9, then only a few times in Gen, once in Ex, once in Lev and then it begins showing up more in Deut. So, though you are inserting the concept into the Garden story, it is not actually there.



Is your questioning here at all serious?

My point was that they had a face-to-face relational experience with God that was seemingly beyond what anyone has had since them. There must be a reason that seeking is not mentioned until much later. The concept more akin to what you are speaking of doesn't even show up until Deut. Maybe it's used elsewhere to refer back to before this. I haven't done the work. Nor does it seem have you.



Sorry, but you're just making things up here. You don't know what they felt, nor what they knew or could understand from such an experience. All we're told is that God told them they would die. Nowhere I know of are we told that He had told them what to do if they failed Him.



Same answer. And yes you are arguing from silence if you cannot point to Scripture that informs us that A&E and anyone else you want to point to knew what God desired and required of them.



Well, firstly, there is a question to whether or not Job is speaking of Adam or of man. This can be seen in some translations. The same can be seen in some translations of Genesis.

Once again, what point are you trying to make - that Adam was a God-hater and wanted nothing to do with God? Is this another all unregenerate men are TD or RTD? Are we back to TD instead of UE?



Again, you're arguing from silence because seeking God is really not a topic of discussion until Deut. You're also reading past the fact that some Hebrews in Egypt had a proper fear of God. The Text uses wording in certain ways for certain reasons and we get ourselves into trouble by thinking we can just insert words and concepts because we think it's logical. The word for "seek is used once in Ex at 18:15. So, I'm not seeing any Scripture in that story itself that speaks of God seeking anyone, nor that seeking God is even a topic.

BTW, this is in part why I only scanned your Ex work and asked rather that you bring only a portion into discussion at a time. Typologies, let alone Scripture, are very easy to insert concepts into to make arguments.



Sorry, but I'll stop at this quote and won't read on. You just asserted a presupposition telling me your argument presupposes nothing.

Yes, both Jews and Greeks are under sin in Adam I. But your use of "evil period!" is being stated in apposition to all men are God-haters and have no interest in God. I've said I disagree with this. You've taken us into a typological narrative to assert your case from Exodus where one of the first things we're told about Israel in Egypt is that there were Hebrew midwives who had the [proper] fear of God.

TD or RTD, whatever the similarities or differences, IMO has an unbiblical view of the capacities of man under sin and a view that makes all unregenerate men and women into God haters who want absolutely nothing to do with Him. The Biblical record clearly does not support this as I read the Text. And this is why I attempted to bring out some considerations of Biblical history when we began discussing Rom1-3. There is context to what Paul is discussing including historical context. As a few of us have attempted to bring into discussion, not all concepts are gnomic - timeless principles to be transported all over the Text.

Just an aside, as you mentioned face-to-face relationship:
Do you believe God was manifest physically in the garden?
Do you believe what Adam and Eve experienced in the garden pre-fall is superior to the indwelling believers experience now?

 

[PaulThomson]

No, it does not make perfect sense, especially since I have given you several examples from the NT where it would not. Paul was clearly speaking aphoristically --making a concise statement of principle. For example, when Jesus told the Jews you are evil, he was stating a principle. He wasn't saying well...sometimes you're evil, and other times not so much. He was stating that there was a principle of evil within them. He was making a statement about their ESSENCE which never changes! This is why later on in the same epistle he wrote about the "law of sin" and "law of death" (Rom 7:23, 25; 8:2). Clearly, he was talking about the PRINCIPLE of sin and death.

When the koine Greek present tense makes sense read as present progressive, that is how it may be taken. And the default meaning of the koine Greek present is progressive present. Guaging by your responses, you don't seem to understand what the present progressive is. You seem to be confusing with progressive pointillist or aorist.

You say "For example, when Jesus told the Jews you are evil, he was stating a principle. He wasn't saying well...sometimes you're evil, and other times not so much."

Actually, he was using language as we usually do. When buying apples, an apple is good, if it is all good. If it is in any degree rotten, we call it a bad apple. We are not intending to say anything about the essence of the apple. Only God is good, because only God is 100% good. We are evil because we are not 100% good. But that does not mean there is nothing good in us. Jesus himself said those who are evil can do good, such as giving good gifts to their children.

 

[PaulThomson]

You stated and I highlighted that you said "always" in your remarks about hoti and hina constructions. A quick search in Nestle-Aland 28th Revision shows hoti in 1187 NC verses and 1294 occurrences. In a morphological database I searched all uses of hina + subjunctive which says there are 918 occurrences in 605 NC verses.

If you're going to represent that these words always show what you say they "always" show, then it's up to you to substantiate your statement and explain your methodology. It's not up to me to prove your absolute statement wrong.

Are you keeping this project on this thread?

I didn't look at your updated work on John17 after you mentioned moving to another thread.

I have started a thread on John 17:1-3.

I gave references to verses that comport to my thesis. I invite you to give one or two verses that you believe do not fit my thesis. Just as I provided four verses that conflicted with Greenlee's thesis, which is the data which I used to justify my distrust of his theory. Science falsifies theories with data, not by merely naming an expert or two who have a different opinion.

I would like to see how well my hypothesis stands up to an assault of evidential data. I think you could be a worthy critic, if you could launch some of your sources' proof-texts at me over in the other thread.

 

[studier]

Just an aside, as you mentioned face-to-face relationship:
Do you believe God was manifest physically in the garden?
Do you believe what Adam and Eve experienced in the garden pre-fall is superior to the indwelling believers experience now?

Yes & Yes: NKJ Genesis 3:8 And they heard the sound 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 among the trees of the garden.

I think the down payment of the Spirit that we have now (2Cor5:5) will pale compared to what we will have and be like when we're out of this flesh and resurrected in actuality and finality and living and walking with Him face-to-face.

 

[Cameron143]

Yes & Yes: NKJ Genesis 3:8 And they heard the sound 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 among the trees of the garden.

I think the down payment of the Spirit that we have now (2Cor5:5) will pale compared to what we will have and be like when we're out of this flesh and resurrected in actuality and finality and living and walking with Him face-to-face.

As to the 2nd part, in John 14 Jesus speaks of a tabernacling that He and the Father will do. Hebrews 4 speaks of meeting in the throne room of God. 2 Peter speaks of believers being partakers of the divine nature. Still you believe sinless Adam was in a higher estate than any believer?
Why does Jesus say that there is none born of a woman greater than John the Baptist, and yet also say the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he...Matthew 11:11?

 

[studier]

As to the 2nd part, in John 14 Jesus speaks of a tabernacling that He and the Father will do. Hebrews 4 speaks of meeting in the throne room of God. 2 Peter speaks of believers being partakers of the divine nature. Still you believe sinless Adam was in a higher estate than any believer?
Why does Jesus say that there is none born of a woman greater than John the Baptist, and yet also say the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he...Matthew 11:11?

I see your questions of what A&E experienced in the context of God manifest physically in the Garden. Thus my answer.

A&E had some period of time living in innocence without sin in the world. Have you ever wondered what such an existence was like - living in innocence, in the Garden of God with no sin effects, walking with and talking to the pre-incarnate Lord as He brought His creation before you to collaborate with you on how it was to be named based upon how it was created to function? We've never known an existence apart from sin.

What we have now is a portion of what we will have and will be and we still reside in the flesh doing battle against the flesh (Gal5:17) with many commands, instructions, and warnings re: how to function in Spirit and not in sin. We live in a sense of already and not yet - so what we are is not yet manifest (1John3:2). What we will ultimately be will be His best because we will have been conformed to His likeness. The best is yet to come and experientially is not here yet.

 

[Cameron143]

I see your questions of what A&E experienced in the context of God manifest physically in the Garden. Thus my answer.

A&E had some period of time living in innocence without sin in the world. Have you ever wondered what such an existence was like - living in innocence, in the Garden of God with no sin effects, walking with and talking to the pre-incarnate Lord as He brought His creation before you to collaborate with you on how it was to be named based upon how it was created to function? We've never known an existence apart from sin.

What we have now is a portion of what we will have and will be and we still reside in the flesh doing battle against the flesh (Gal5:17) with many commands, instructions, and warnings re: how to function in Spirit and not in sin. We live in a sense of already and not yet - so what we are is not yet manifest (1John3:2). What we will ultimately be will be His best because we will have been conformed to His likeness. The best is yet to come and experientially is not here yet.

What Adam and Eve experienced must have been incredible for the reasons you stated and a host more. And while we aren't a finished product, the realities I mentioned for the believer are far superior to what was originally present with Adam and Eve. The problem for most is they never access what is available.

 

[BillyBob]

What Adam and Eve experienced must have been incredible for the reasons you stated and a host more. And while we aren't a finished product, the realities I mentioned for the believer are far superior to what was originally present with Adam and Eve. The problem for most is they never access what is available.

A wise man once said, and I borrow it from time to time, “What we are intended to be, we have not yet become”.