" I never knew you " --- Literal or Figurative

[mlqurgw]

This does not make the case. You still have a situation where an act at "33 AD" needs to somehow "be applied" to those who were pre-destined to be saved and yet lived and died before Jesus was born. Surely you believe that Jesus had to actually "go through with it" and die on the cross. So there is still the challenge of dealing how something that happens thousands of years after a person has died can be "retro-actively applied" to that person.

Your argument would have some merit if this "pre-destining" you speak of did not actually have to be "played out" in a real unfolding history. But it did. So we are both in the same boat on this one.

Since I hold to eternal justification it is no problem for me. I was justified in the purpose of God before the foundation of the world in the Eternal Covenant of Grace, which was a real justification. I was justified by the life and death of Christ in time when Christ actutally accomplished my justification. And I was justified in my conscience when Christ made Himself known in me by the Gospel. The fact that Jesus agreed in that eternal Covenant to be my Surety, Substitute, Representaive, Mediator and High Priest guaranteed my salvation in time and for eternity.

 

[Drew]

Give me one honest place in the Scriptures that it means all men without exception. I won't hold my breath until you find it. Wink.

I already have:

I came from the Father and entered into the world, but in turn, 1 I am leaving the world and going back to the Father

Jesus is leaving all the people in world, not just some of them.

Is that the best you have? Jesus is simply saying that He is leaving the physical and entering the spiritual.

In leaving "the world", He is leaving all people. Its not like some people will be able to say "Jesus is still with me in the world, even though he has left you suckers behind". That's the point.

When Jesus acends into the sky at the ascension there is clearly a sense in which He is indeed leaving us all. If this is not true, please tell us who He did not leave when He ascended?

 

[mlqurgw]

Now I see where you are coming from but I do not think you have a workable position here.

Let's take Abraham. Assuming we both agree that Abraham winds up "saved", you must certainly believe that he was pre-destined to be saved. Fine. But Abraham never confessed Jesus Christ with his mouth, or never knew anything about Jesus. So, apparently people can be saved without "confessing Jesus" with their mouths.

What does this mean? It undermines your argument that the free will position is susceptible to the fact that people born before Christ, or who otherwise never heard the gospel are certainly lost.

They are not - I think you are attributing a view to me that I do not hold. I do not believe I have ever claimed that a person must freely confess Jesus as saviour to be saved. If I said such a thing, I withdraw it.

The only problem with your argument is that Paul clearly says that Abraham had the Gospel preached to him. Gal. 3:8. And more than that the Lord Jesus tells us that Abraham saw His day. John 8:56 Job apparently knew of the Redeemer for he speaks of Him in Job 19:25-27. Eve expected the Redeemer for she even named her first born after Him. The first promise of Christ is given in Gen. 3:15 and He is progressively revealed throughout the Scripures.

 

[Drew]

Since I hold to eternal justification it is no problem for me. I was justified in the purpose of God before the foundation of the world in the Eternal Covenant of Grace, which was a real justification. I was justified by the life and death of Christ in time when Christ actutally accomplished my justification.

Well that's fine but that does not place you in any "better" of a position than the free-willer is in. We both have the challenge of providing an account as to how the work of Jesus on the cross "works" backward in time for someone like Abraham, who either was pre-destined to be saved or 'freely' accepted an offer of salvation.

I am trying to understand what it is you think is the specific problem with the "free will" position in respect to this whole "sequencing" or timing issue.

 

[Drew]

The only problem with your argument is that Paul clealy says that Abraham had the Gospel preached to him. Gal. 3:8.

Fair enough, but I think we are getting off onto something that is not relevant to the matter at issue. Let's say we agree that every single human person who winds up in heaven has "the gospel" preached to them whether they were born before Christ or whether they grew up in present day Borneo and never heard the name of Jesus through "conventional" means.

How does this work against the position that humans must exercise a measure of free will in respect to attaining salvation?

 

[mlqurgw]

I already have:

I came from the Father and entered into the world, but in turn, 1 I am leaving the world and going back to the Father

Jesus is leaving all the people in world, not just some of them.


In leaving "the world", He is leaving all people. Its not like some people will be able to say "Jesus is still with me in the world, even though he has left you suckers behind". That's the point.

When Jesus acends into the sky at the ascension there is clearly a sense in which He is indeed leaving us all. If this is not true, please tell us who He did not leave when He ascended?

Can you possibly stretch it any further? You are grasping at straws. You are trying to use a general to denote a specific. It just don't work. Language means something and if we are to grasp what it means we must be careful of the language.

 

[Drew]

gotta go. I will check back later....

 

[savedbygrace57]

It sure does. FOR THE WORLD. Not just the elect.

How does Jesus take away the sin of the world? By dying as "the Lamb of God", for the sake of taking away the sin of the world.

This is basic Christian 101. Clearly, you are being obtuse because you don't want to admit your error.

Jesus is the Lamb of God, according to the Book of Revelation. He died for the sake of sins - so He Himself says - and He died on the feast of the Jewish Passover. Anyone with a slight knowledge of Scriptures can put this together, unlike your absolute lack of Scriptural evidence that 'Jesus only died for the elect'.

You need to see post 103 again. The world in Jn 1:29 has its sins taken away, so no one of that world can be punished for sin.

So, that world in jn 1 29 cannot possibly mean everyone in the world without exception has had their sins taken away, for that would lead to no need of the Lake of Fire to punish some men for their sins. That scripture, actually favors that world being the world of the elect.

 

[Drew]

Can you possibly stretch it any further? You are grasping at straws. You are trying to use a general to denote a specific. It just don't work. Language means something and if we are to grasp what it means we must be careful of the language.

You are not addressing the argument - you are just claiming that it doesn't work.

I repeat: If Jesus did not leave "all of us" behind when He left, you should be able to say that there are some people He did not leave behind?

Who were those people he did not leave behind?

 

[savedbygrace57]

I took the time to honestly answer all of your post and you dismiss it so easily as to not even interact with it? The best you can do is to ignore what I have said and infer that I could be talking about Martians? The reality is that you have no real answer to what I have posted. If you did you would offer it.

Yes, you have made some valid points, The word world Kosmos has a diversity of meanings in scripture according to Strong's lexicon :

) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

3) the world, the universe

4) the circle of the earth, the earth

5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly

a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

As you can see, Jn 1 29, the world there is limited to believers only, which are Gods Elect..

Some People do not study how God uses different words, and they only understand them in a traditional sense..

 

[mlqurgw]

Well that's fine but that does not place you in any "better" of a position than the free-willer is in. We both have the challenge of providing an account as to how the work of Jesus on the cross "works" backward in time for someone like Abraham, who either was pre-destined to be saved or 'freely' accepted an offer of salvation.

I am trying to understand what it is you think is the specific problem with the "free will" position in respect to this whole "sequencing" or timing issue.

If free will is true then men must hear and believe on Christ as presented in the Gospel in order to believe. That would leave all of the folks in China, Africa or the rest of the world, notice the qualifier, in darkness as to any revelation of Him. If he hasn't been presented then free will has no basis of belief. What was it that those who were born before Christ came into the world believed? I hold to the position that though they din't know His name or all that we know about Him they did know not only who He is but what He would do as pictured by the clothing of Adam and Eve by the skin of a sacrifice. Gen. 3:21.

 

[mlqurgw]

Fair enough, but I think we are getting off onto something that is not relevant to the matter at issue. Let's say we agree that every single human person who winds up in heaven has "the gospel" preached to them whether they were born before Christ or whether they grew up in present day Borneo and never heard the name of Jesus through "conventional" means.

How does this work against the position that humans must exercise a measure of free will in respect to attaining salvation?

I in no way hold that those in Borneo who believe have never heard in " conventional" means. I hold to the fact that all who believe have heard the Gospel. Rom. 10:14-17.

 

[mlqurgw]

You are not addressing the argument - you are just claiming that it doesn't work.

I repeat: If Jesus did not leave "all of us" behind when He left, you should be able to say that there are some people He did not leave behind?

Who were those people he did not leave behind?

I did address the argument when I said that you were using a general to denote a specific. It just isn't very good logic. I perceive you as being a logical person but when it comes to this you have abandoned your logic in favor of your emotion.

 

[mlqurgw]

gotta go. I will check back later....

I will be here, though not at all times, see the qualification, wink.

 

[mlqurgw]

I in no way hold that those in Borneo who believe have never heard in " conventional" means. I hold to the fact that all who believe have heard the Gospel. Rom. 10:14-17.

I just realized that I didn't answer your question. First you misunderstand what we believe. It isn't that we don't believe that our wills are not involved in any sense but that our wills must fisrt be changed in order to believe. Faith is the fruit and result of being born of God. That is where we differ from the free willer.

 

[savedbygrace57]

In defining the word kosmos, world, one of the definitions is:

8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

This definition can certainly apply to the Church or to the Sheep, or to the saved community.

So all the Sheep, a general collection of them is the world !

 

[francisdesales]

I took the time to honestly answer all of your post and you dismiss it so easily as to not even interact with it? The best you can do is to ignore what I have said and infer that I could be talking about Martians? The reality is that you have no real answer to what I have posted. If you did you would offer it.

To say that John was talking about a different generation than those standing right there is ludicrous. I offered my response, sorry it doesn't suit you...

Christ died for ALL men, and that redemptive act erases and overcomes that act of sin that universally is applied to men - Adam's sin. No one is about to say that Adam's act was more powerful and universally applied than Christ's, that certainly is not Paul's point. You are just presenting red herrings...

 

[Drew]

If free will is true then men must hear and believe on Christ as presented in the Gospel in order to believe.

No. I do not believe this and have stated so. One can believe in "free will" and still believe that people can be saved "through faith" even if they have never heard the gospel in the form that you and I have heard it.

Can you make a Biblical argument as to why the "free-willer" is forced into the position of saying that people who never "heard of Jesus" are lost?

 

[mlqurgw]

To say that John was talking about a different generation than those standing right there is ludicrous. I offered my response, sorry it doesn't suit you...

Christ died for ALL men, and that redemptive act erases and overcomes that act of sin that universally is applied to men - Adam's sin. No one is about to say that Adam's act was more powerful and universally applied than Christ's, that certainly is not Paul's point. You are just presenting red herrings...

What you did is dismiss my argument by not even answering any of the response I gave to each of your premises. I made my case and you just ignored it and stated over again what you have previously said. That may work for politicians but it isn't itellectually honest in a true debate. You didn't respond to my argument with an actual rebuttal but with a dismissal as though it had no merit at all and wasn't worthy of a response. That is the tactic of a defeated opponent. Make your case against what I actually said or admit that you can't respond to it.

 

[mlqurgw]

No. I do not believe this and have stated so. One can believe in "free will" and still believe that people can be saved "through faith" even if they have never heard the gospel in the form that you and I have heard it.

Then what is their faith in?

Can you make a Biblical argument as to why the "free-willer" is forced into the position of saying that people who never "heard of Jesus" are lost?

I believe I can but don't have the time to do so at the moment. Rom. 10. is a good start though.