Who is the One New Man Created on the Cross?

[pnattmbtc]

I had been explaining and you keep on not understanding. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned and it seems like you cannot discern them yet. Not comparing myself with Einstein, but of what benefit will it be to a first grader if Einstein explains to him the theory of relativity? If you cannot discern that God reconciled us to Himself by the death of His Son, because you and I were not yet then in existence, can you comprehend how God was able to choose us in Him BEFORE the foundation of the world, before Adam was created?

I don't think it's a problem of lack of understanding on my part, but I don't think what you're saying is intelligible.  It's not lack of humility that leads me to this two conclusion, but the following points:

1.In addition to Scripture, there are authors I respect, such as Ellen White, people she endorsed such as A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner and W. W. Prescott, as well as colleagues, and none of these has ideas like yours.

2.In more modern times, the corporate ideas have been developed by R. J. Wieland and Jack Sequeira, and while some of what you assert is similar to some of what they assert, there are able to explain their ideas intelligibly, whereas you have not been able to explain your ideas in different words, but just repeat what looks to be unintelligible ideas.  If I were to ask Sequeira or Wieland (can't anymore, as he passed away) to explain an idea in other words, either of these would be happy to do so.  But so far you have refused.

If your idea that at the cross we, who did not exist, were attached to the body of Christ, makes any sense, you should be able to explain this idea idea in an intelligible way.  You should assign your lack of ability to explain your ideas in an intelligible way as a lack of spiritual acuity on the part of your listener, but due to a lack on your own part.

3.Nobody on this forum agrees with your ideas.  The closest is Robert, but I'm sure he wouldn't dispute that there is such a thing as righteousness by faith, nor would he argue that John was incorrect in 1 John 1:9 nor John 1:12, or that John needed to be "corrected", nor that John was contradicting Isaiah.  The Bible teaches in the multitude of counselors there is wisdom.  Do you think its possible that the reason nobody is responding to your ideas is not due to a lack of spiritual acuity on the part of everyone else but yourself, but rather due to faulty methodology on your part?

I majored in theology and studied for yeas at the seminary. I have written major papers long on the themes you are discussing.  There are others hear who have studied at the seminary and have worked for years with these things.  There are others who, while not having studied at seminary, may know more than the rest of us, and have worked at studying the Scriptures for many years.  There are certain fundamental principles that *everyone* who studies the Scriptures in a serious way knows and understands, but you violate these principles.  To mention a couple of basic principles:

a.One should not attempt to interpret an author without regard to the context of the passage, or without regard to what the author has written elsewhere.

b.One should take into account the context of the passage under consideration.

What you do is to take scattered verses out of context, and string them together in weird ways.  This isn't just a person opinion I have, but you can ask others who are not involved in our discussion, who have no dog in this hunt so to speak, for a neutral opinion, and see what they say regarding the methodology you are using.

4. I have seen the fruit of your ideas, and so far, I'm not seeing good things coming from it.  In particular, I see two things which concern me a lot.

a.Your ideas have led you to reject the clear statements of Scripture authors as "needing correction" when their ideas agree with yours.  This is extremely troubling.  I don't mean just in terms of our discussion, but it causes me to worry about you personally.  I think this is a very dangerous position to take.

b.You don't respond positively to beautiful declarations of the Gospel, but dismiss them as "mere rehash" and so forth.  We may have disagreements (I don't men specially you and I here) in this forum, but we should be able to recognize when others write beautiful and true things, irrespective of differences we may  have.  For example, I have had differences with Robert, but he not infrequently writes beautiful things I agree with, and I don't hesitate to "Amen!" him when he does so.

[pnattmbtc]

συνεζωοποίησεν verb indicative aorist active 3rd person singular from suzwopoie,w which means "to make alive together with".

Yes, I know this.  Why Paul used this is an interesting question.  Are you aware of Jones or Waggoner's idea on this point?

If God has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world (and that's long before we existed, and so tells us we ALREADY were existing in His mind

You're misunderstanding the idea here.  This isn't speaking of the election of individuals, which is Calvinism.  Adventists have never had this idea.  Adventists come from an Arminian tradition.  What Adventists have asserted for well over a hundred years is that our election is in Christ, and that this is what Paul and John or other Scriptures are asserting.

Who calls those things that are not as though they are), can He Whose infinite existence is far beyond the bounds of human space-time continuum, not able to make us spiritually alive together with His Son, before our existence?  But then again, this is spiritual and need to be spiritually discerned. And as I have observed, you seem to cannot yet comprehend spiritual things like being made alive together with Christ.

I'm not flying in the face of our tradition, and what Ellen White, E. J. Waggoner, W. W. Prescott, James White, A. T. Jones and many others have written.  Are all of these lacking in spiritual discernment, and only you are not?  Doesn't this strike you as being somewhat improbable? 

[Samie]

I don't think it's a problem of lack of understanding on my part, but I don't think what you're saying is intelligible.  It's not lack of humility that leads me to this two conclusion, but the following points:

1.In addition to Scripture, there are authors I respect, such as Ellen White, people she endorsed such as A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner and W. W. Prescott, as well as colleagues, and none of these has ideas like yours.

And why should I waste time posting ideas already known before?

2.In more modern times, the corporate ideas have been developed by R. J. Wieland and Jack Sequeira, and while some of what you assert is similar to some of what they assert, there are able to explain their ideas intelligibly, whereas you have not been able to explain your ideas in different words, but just repeat what looks to be unintelligible ideas.  If I were to ask Sequeira or Wieland (can't anymore, as he passed away) to explain an idea in other words, either of these would be happy to do so.  But so far you have refused.

Intelligibility of ideas depends on the reader. Again, the theory of relativity is UNINTELLIGIBLE to a first grader.

If your idea that at the cross we, who did not exist, were attached to the body of Christ, makes any sense, you should be able to explain this idea idea in an intelligible way.  You should assign your lack of ability to explain your ideas in an intelligible way as a lack of spiritual acuity on the part of your listener, but due to a lack on your own part.

This is why I pointed out that you don't yet understand this fact in the same way you don't understand how God was able to choose us in Him before the foundation of the world when no single homo sapiens yet exist.

3.Nobody on this forum agrees with your ideas.  

There's one, I know of. But even if there's none, so what? Did anybody agree with Copernicus when he first presented his heliocentric theory?

The closest is Robert, but I'm sure he wouldn't dispute that there is such a thing as righteousness by faith, nor would he argue that John was incorrect in 1 John 1:9 nor John 1:12, or that John needed to be "corrected", nor that John was contradicting Isaiah.  The Bible teaches in the multitude of counselors there is wisdom.  Do you think its possible that the reason nobody is responding to your ideas is not due to a lack of spiritual acuity on the part of everyone else but yourself, but rather due to faulty methodology on your part?

It could be both. But neither of those reasons automatically makes an idea Scripturally incoherent.

I majored in theology and studied for yeas at the seminary. I have written major papers long on the themes you are discussing.  There are others hear who have studied at the seminary and have worked for years with these things.  There are others who, while not having studied at seminary, may know more than the rest of us, and have worked at studying the Scriptures for many years.

That's why I say you are not yet understanding these things. Scriptures speak of those ever learning yet do not come to a knowledge of truth.

There are certain fundamental principles that *everyone* who studies the Scriptures in a serious way knows and understands, but you violate these principles.  To mention a couple of basic principles:

a.One should not attempt to interpret an author without regard to the context of the passage, or without regard to what the author has written elsewhere.

b.One should take into account the context of the passage under consideration.

What you do is to take scattered verses out of context, and string them together in weird ways.  

It's you who says I do. And I know why.

This isn't just a person opinion I have, but you can ask others who are not involved in our discussion, who have no dog in this hunt so to speak, for a neutral opinion, and see what they say regarding the methodology you are using.

Then, should that deter me from telling what I know is truth as it is in Scriptures?

4. I have seen the fruit of your ideas, and so far, I'm not seeing good things coming from it.  In particular, I see two things which concern me a lot.

a.Your ideas have led you to reject the clear statements of Scripture authors as "needing correction" when their ideas agree with yours.  This is extremely troubling.  I don't mean just in terms of our discussion, but it causes me to worry about you personally.  I think this is a very dangerous position to take.

Thanks for your concern. I'm a bit worried about your position, too: you simply refuse to learn.

b.You don't respond positively to beautiful declarations of the Gospel, but dismiss them as "mere rehash" and so forth.  

It's not the declaration of the Gospel I don't respond positively to; it's to your own unscriptural declaration.

We may have disagreements (I don't men specially you and I here) in this forum, but we should be able to recognize when others write beautiful and true things, irrespective of differences we may  have.  For example, I have had differences with Robert, but he not infrequently writes beautiful things I agree with, and I don't hesitate to "Amen!" him when he does so.

Sorry, but I cannot say "Amen" to what you are insisting that people were not yet reconciled to God when Christ died despite EXPLICIT Bible declaration.

[Samie]

Yes, I know this.  

Then, you should have written "to make alive together with" and not "together with Christ".

Why Paul used this is an interesting question.  Are you aware of Jones or Waggoner's idea on this point?

What I am aware of is what Scriptures say.

You're misunderstanding the idea here.  

It's what Scriptures EXPLICITLY say. "God choose us in Him before the foundation of the world". I simply believe it. You refuse to. You want Scriptures to say what you think it should have said but did not.

This isn't speaking of the election of individuals, which is Calvinism.  

It is speaking of CHOOSING us all - Adam & Eve and all their descendants - in Him, not just a selected few as Calvinism teaches.

Adventists have never had this idea.  

That's why I am presenting it.

Adventists come from an Arminian tradition.  What Adventists have asserted for well over a hundred years is that our election is in Christ, and that this is what Paul and John or other Scriptures are asserting.

Of course our (and that includes everyone) election is in Christ. God had chosen us - Adam & Eve and all their descendants - before He created this earth. This is why people are born with their names in the Book of Life. That's pure grace-based salvation. You teach people gets only reconciled when they believe, and that's salvation by works. But you remain incorrigible so far.

I'm not flying in the face of our tradition, and what Ellen White, E. J. Waggoner, W. W. Prescott, James White, A. T. Jones and many others have written.  Are all of these lacking in spiritual discernment, and only you are not?  

I don't say they do; they just didn't realize this truth before. No one among those you mentioned believed they already knew all the truth in Scriptures.

Doesn't this strike you as being somewhat improbable?

Maybe. But I could not be detracted from propagating the truth, especially by what you say.

[pnattmbtc]

Intelligibility of ideas depends on the reader. Again, the theory of relativity is UNINTELLIGIBLE to a first grader.

This doesn't work.  I can explain the theory of relativity to you in words that you could understand, even as a first grader.  You should be able to explain your ideas in clear simple language.

Me: If your idea that at the cross we, who did not exist, were attached to the body of Christ, makes any sense, you should be able to explain this idea idea in an intelligible way.  You should assign your lack of ability to explain your ideas in an intelligible way as a lack of spiritual acuity on the part of your listener, but due to a lack on your own part.

Samie: This is why I pointed out that you don't yet understand this fact in the same way you don't understand how God was able to choose us in Him before the foundation of the world when no single homo sapiens yet exist.

You're misunderstanding this text too.  This isn't SDA theology.

Me: 3.Nobody on this forum agrees with your ideas.  

Samie: There's one, I know of. But even if there's none, so what? Did anybody agree with Copernicus when he first presented his heliocentric theory?

Who?  Yes, many agreed with Copernicus.

Me: The closest is Robert, but I'm sure he wouldn't dispute that there is such a thing as righteousness by faith, nor would he argue that John was incorrect in 1 John 1:9 nor John 1:12, or that John needed to be "corrected", nor that John was contradicting Isaiah.  The Bible teaches in the multitude of counselors there is wisdom.  Do you think its possible that the reason nobody is responding to your ideas is not due to a lack of spiritual acuity on the part of everyone else but yourself, but rather due to faulty methodology on your part?

Samie: It could be both. But neither of those reasons automatically makes an idea Scripturally incoherent.

It's not the Scripture that's incoherent, but your ideas.  You should be able to express them simply and coherently.

Me: I majored in theology and studied for yeas at the seminary. I have written major papers long on the themes you are discussing.  There are others hear who have studied at the seminary and have worked for years with these things.  There are others who, while not having studied at seminary, may know more than the rest of us, and have worked at studying the Scriptures for many years.

Samie: That's why I say you are not yet understanding these things. Scriptures speak of those ever learning yet do not come to a knowledge of truth.

Again, I'm taking issue with Scripture, but with what you have been presenting.  Even here, in this whole, so far, you aren't saying anything to express your ideas clearly.

Me: There are certain fundamental principles that *everyone* who studies the Scriptures in a serious way knows and understands, but you violate these principles.  To mention a couple of basic principles:

a.One should not attempt to interpret an author without regard to the context of the passage, or without regard to what the author has written elsewhere.

b.One should take into account the context of the passage under consideration.

What you do is to take scattered verses out of context, and string them together in weird ways.  

Samie: It's you who says I do. And I know why.

This is puerile.  If you find fault with something I've posted, you should quote it, and present some sort of argument.

Me: This isn't just a person opinion I have, but you can ask others who are not involved in our discussion, who have no dog in this hunt so to speak, for a neutral opinion, and see what they say regarding the methodology you are using.

Samie: Then, should that deter me from telling what I know is truth as it is in Scriptures?

Yes, of course.  If what you "know" were really true, a neutral observer should be able to agree with your methology.  Otherwise you should be skeptical about what you think you know.

Me: 4. I have seen the fruit of your ideas, and so far, I'm not seeing good things coming from it.  In particular, I see two things which concern me a lot.

a.Your ideas have led you to reject the clear statements of Scripture authors as "needing correction" when their ideas agree with yours.  This is extremely troubling.  I don't mean just in terms of our discussion, but it causes me to worry about you personally.  I think this is a very dangerous position to take.

Samie: Thanks for your concern. I'm a bit worried about your position, too: you simply refuse to learn.

I love learning.  I've learned lots of things at this forum.

b.You don't respond positively to beautiful declarations of the Gospel, but dismiss them as "mere rehash" and so forth.  

It's not the declaration of the Gospel I don't respond positively to; it's to your own unscriptural declaration.

No, it's the Gospel.  There have been many beautiful things presented by many different authors, and I've not seen any response to anything.

Me: We may have disagreements (I don't men specially you and I here) in this forum, but we should be able to recognize when others write beautiful and true things, irrespective of differences we may  have.  For example, I have had differences with Robert, but he not infrequently writes beautiful things I agree with, and I don't hesitate to "Amen!" him when he does so.

Samie: Sorry, but I cannot say "Amen" to what you are insisting that people were not yet reconciled to God when Christ died despite EXPLICIT Bible declaration.

You should be able to recognize that if your understanding of what you are calling an explicitly Bible declaration were true, it shouldn't result in the fruit being displayed.  For example, 1 John 1:9 says that if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive our sins.  This is more explicit than the quotes you present.

The whole Bible teaches that forgiveness is conditional.  Matthew 6:15 and Mark 11:26 are two texts which come to mind.  Are you going to say that Matthew and Mark need correcting too?

If you are forced to conclude that inspired writers need correction in order to hold a view you hold, how explicit could it really be?

[pnattmbtc]

Yes, I know this.  

Then, you should have written "to make alive together with" and not "together with Christ".

Why Paul used this is an interesting question.  Are you aware of Jones or Waggoner's idea on this point?

What I am aware of is what Scriptures say.

You're misunderstanding the idea here.  

It's what Scriptures EXPLICITLY say. "God choose us in Him before the foundation of the world". I simply believe it. You refuse to. You want Scriptures to say what you think it should have said but did not.

You're choosing to believe something the Scriptures explicitly don't say.  It says we were chosen in Christ, not individually.  Our "chosenness" depends upon our being in Christ.

 

This isn't speaking of the election of individuals, which is Calvinism.  

It is speaking of CHOOSING us all - Adam & Eve and all their descendants - in Him, not just a selected few as Calvinism teaches.

Adventists have never had this idea.  

That's why I am presenting it.

Adventists have been correct on this.  God doesn't look into the future and individually choose people.

Adventists come from an Arminian tradition.  What Adventists have asserted for well over a hundred years is that our election is in Christ, and that this is what Paul and John or other Scriptures are asserting.

Of course our (and that includes everyone) election is in Christ. God had chosen us - Adam & Eve and all their descendants - before He created this earth. This is why people are born with their names in the Book of Life. That's pure grace-based salvation. You teach people gets only reconciled when they believe, and that's salvation by works. But you remain incorrigible so far.

You're not honoring what the word "reconciled" means.  What do you think it means?  I don't know what you think the passage means, but it cannot mean "reconciled" according to the definition of the word, which means to restore friendly relations among two parties at odds with one another.  This is why I'm asking you to explain what you mean using other words, because the words you are using don't make sense.  You are simply misquoting scripture, and saying this is what the Scripture explicitly says, but this cannot be the case, because, in addition to it not making sense, it leads you to reject inspired writers.

I'm not flying in the face of our tradition, and what Ellen White, E. J. Waggoner, W. W. Prescott, James White, A. T. Jones and many others have written.  Are all of these lacking in spiritual discernment, and only you are not?  

I don't say they do; they just didn't realize this truth before. No one among those you mentioned believed they already knew all the truth in Scriptures.

They certainly knew a lot more than you! (or I).  What I believe, I believe to be in harmony with that these others taught.  Yes, the Lord presents new light, but new light should not contradict light the Lord has already presented.  And this is a big problem with your ideas; they lead you to reject light (e.g. 1 John 1:9 and John 1:12, and John 1:18 I suppose).

Doesn't this strike you as being somewhat improbable?

Maybe. But I could not be detracted from propagating the truth, especially by what you say.

This is a bad sentence.  First of all, it assume you are propagating the truth.  The Scriptures says, "To the Law and to the Testimony; if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them."  If you were propagating the truth, you wouldn't be contradicting 1 John 1:9 and John 1:12. (and this is by your own admission!).  You yourself recognize you are contradicting Scripture, which I don't get.  Why would you think me "incorrigible" when it is you who are, according to your own testimony, contradicting Scripture?  Why do you not think *you* are being incorrigible?  What further proof do you need that your are off base than the fact that your ideas lead you to openly contradict Scripture?  What would constitute proof of being wrong to you, if this doesn't?

Secondly, it is not my purpose to detract you from propagating "the truth", or even falsehood, but it has been my hope that you would present your ideas with other words, something that can be understood, and something support by evidence in the way of cogent arguments, and that you wouldn't rely on poor methodology such as ignoring context and plucking verses from hither and yon.

I'm still wondering what you think the phrase "by the cross we are attached to the body of Christ" means.  If you can't explain this in other words, then it's just gibberish to you.  It's like the Hindus or other religions that repeat meaningless phrases, such as Christ cautioned against.  We should be able to explain why we believe what we believe. 

[pnattmbtc]

Please at least answer this; when you assert that at the cross all mankind was attached to the body of Christ, what did the cross have to do with this?

[Samie]

My position is clear: People are born heaven-bound unless deleted from the Book of Life. This is grace-based salvation. All had been saved by grace through Christ before time began and chosen before the foundation of the world as Scriptures say. 2 Tim 1:9,10; Eph 1:3-5.

Your position: People are born hell-bound unless they believe. Works-based salvation.

Why should I exchange a grace-based salvation for one that is works-based?

[Samie]

Please at least answer this; when you assert that at the cross all mankind was attached to the body of Christ, what did the cross have to do with this?

I have answered all you want answered including what you are asking now. And it appears you don't understand those answers because spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Repeating what I have posted is just waste of time and space.

[8thdaypriest]

John 12:32  "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." (NRS)

"Draw" - that's the key word.  He would DRAW all people to Himself.  NOT "attach" - in one second - encompassing all time past and future. 

And HOW does He "draw" us.  He "draws" us to Himself, as we come to UNDERSTAND the meaning of the cross.  (We must HEAR of it first - of course.)  We come to understand the depth of the Father's love for us, and His son's love for us.  THAT is how we are "drawn".  And WHEN we believe, at THAT MOMENT, we become part of "His body", His church. 

We speak of the US Senate as an "august body".  We speak of a "body of water".  It's a large gathering together of something.  The "church" is a body of believers, over which God the Father has appointed Christ as "head".  The entire whole of mankind IS NOT "the church".    Ergo, the entire whole of mankind is not, and never was "the body of Christ". 

[8thdaypriest]

My position is clear: People are born heaven-bound unless deleted from the Book of Life. This is grace-based salvation. All had been saved by grace through Christ before time began and chosen before the foundation of the world as Scriptures say. 2 Tim 1:9,10; Eph 1:3-5.

Your position: People are born hell-bound unless they believe. Works-based salvation.

Why should I exchange a grace-based salvation for one that is works-based?

BECAUSE our God is NOT a manipulator!!!  He does NOT bypass the free will of His created beings.

He does not, and never has, "saved" anyone against their informed will.   He will not transport directly into His eternal Kingdom, pagans who have never HEARD of Him, or of His Son.  Neither will He give "eternal life" to infants and young children, who likewise have not HEARD of Him, or UNDERSTOOD the CHOICE to be made. 

He WILL resurrect all such person, who died in ignorance, AFTER the 7th millennium, as "the rest of the dead" whereupon, they will LEARN the things of God, and then CHOOSE whom they will serve. 

Blessings, Rachel Cory, prophecyviewpoint.com

[Samie]

God chose us in Him before the world was created. We cannot undo that. We start out in this world already chosen. But because of free will which God does not violate, we can choose to be not among the inhabitants of heaven by not overcoming evil with good. And only overcomers will not be blotted out from the Book of Life.

8thdaypriest and Pnatt are teaching works-based salvation by teaching that people are born hell-bound until they believe. They teach that people are born not chosen and hence hell-bound despite EXPLICIT Bible declaration that God chose us in Him BEFORE the foundation of the world.

[Samie]

Pnatt insists that unless man first believes he could not be reconciled with God. And when a person is not reconciled with God, the person is bound for hell instead of heaven.  It simply follows as per Pnatt's position that people are born hell-bound.  But Scriptures tell us that BEFORE this earth was created, God already chose us in Him (Eph 1:3-5).  The choosing was done BEFORE Adam and Eve were created, before any human being came into existence. Hence, people are born already God-chosen. And if born already chosen, then, born heaven-bound.

Ephesians 1:3-5   ³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:  ⁴ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:  ⁵ Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

Yet Pnatt counters that Eph 1:3-5 is addressed to the believers only.  If Pnatt is right, then, God only chose the believers, and that would be Calvinism. But Pnatt repudiates Calvinism. So, although the letter was addressed to the Ephesian believers, the choosing mentioned in the letter which God did before the foundation of the world, covered every man.  And since it covered every man, then people are born chosen, and therefore heaven-bound.

Again, because of free will which God does not violate, people who although are born heaven-bound, can still choose to be not among the inhabitants of heaven by not overcoming evil with good. And only overcomers will not be blotted out from the Book of Life.

[Wingnut]

 

Pnatt insists that unless man first believes he could not be reconciled with God. And when a person is not reconciled with God, the person is bound for hell instead of heaven.  It simply follows as per Pnatt's position that people are born hell-bound.  But Scriptures tell us that BEFORE this earth was created, God already chose us in Him (Eph 1:3-5).  The choosing was done BEFORE Adam and Eve were created, before any human being came into existence. Hence, people are born already God-chosen. And if born already chosen, then, born heaven-bound.

Ephesians 1:3-5   ³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:  ⁴ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:  ⁵ Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

Yet Pnatt counters that Eph 1:3-5 is addressed to the believers only.  If Pnatt is right, then, God only chose the believers, and that would be Calvinism. But Pnatt repudiates Calvinism. So, although the letter was addressed to the Ephesian believers, the choosing mentioned in the letter which God did before the foundation of the world, covered every man.  And since it covered every man, then people are born chosen, and therefore heaven-bound.

Again, because of free will which God does not violate, people who although are born heaven-bound, can still choose to be not among the inhabitants of heaven by not overcoming evil with good. And only overcomers will not be blotted out from the Book of Life.

It says in the scripture quoted that there would be a group of firstfruits.  It never states that it knew each one by name.  I can predict with certainty that my fig tree will produce firstfruits and then the larger main crop.  Fig trees just do that.

What you are implying is that God knew every fruit by name, and that those names were written in the book of life from the foundation.  You have no proof for that.

Likewise when Jude 1:4 says

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

...it does not say that every saint's name is known, only that there would be saints, and many of them.

If their names were known and written from the start in the book of life, that presupposes God can foretell the future, and that everything is predestined.  Which contradicts you even, because then God would know which names to write in the Book of Life, and He would leave out those not predestined to make it.  

 

If the future is so accurately predicted that individual names are written from the start in the BOL, then it makes no sense to me why God, knowing everything from the start, would write in the BOL the names of even those who will not make it.  Your theory wants to have its cake and eat it.

 

In practical terms, if you believe we have to accept Jesus and overcome to keep our names in the book of life, how does this differ in practice from what all Christians believe they have to do?  All that you have let happen, is let a whole lot of children and babies into the kingdom, who may grow up to choose or reject God.

 

[Samie]

It says in the scripture quoted that there would be a group of firstfruits.  It never states that it knew each one by name.  I can predict with certainty that my fig tree will produce firstfruits and then the larger main crop.  Fig trees just do that.

What you are implying is that God knew every fruit by name, and that those names were written in the book of life from the foundation.  You have no proof for that.

Do you have proof that God knows you by name? But does He not know your name? I believe that what God told Jeremiah is applicable to us too:

^NKJ Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations."

I believe it is a simple thing for Him Who can create the INNUMERABLE worlds to know the  names not only of all men but also of both plants and animals, here in this world and in the other worlds in the more than 150 billion galaxies of this ever expanding universe. He even knows the number of the hairs upon your head.

Likewise when Jude 1:4 says

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

...it does not say that every saint's name is known, only that there would be saints, and many of them.

So when your wife tells you, "Your children are all here", she does not know the names of her children, because she did not mention their names one by one? Do you know that Christ Who is one with the Father, calls His sheep by name?

John 10:3   ³ To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

If their names were known and written from the start in the book of life, that presupposes God can foretell the future, . . .

You are not aware God can foretell the future? Here's that verse you may have not yet read:

^NIV Isaiah 46:9-10   ⁹ Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.  ¹⁰ I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come . . .

. . . and that everything is predestined.  Which contradicts you even, because then God would know which names to write in the Book of Life, and He would leave out those not predestined to make it.

Are you a Calvinist agent? I am not. God chose us all - Adam and Eve and all their descendants. No one left out.

Ephesians 1:3-5   ³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:  ⁴ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:  ⁵Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will

If the future is so accurately predicted that individual names are written from the start in the BOL, then it makes no sense to me why God, knowing everything from the start, would write in the BOL the names of even those who will not make it.  Your theory wants to have its cake and eat it.

There is blotting out of names from the BOL, brother. Did you know that?

In practical terms, if you believe we have to accept Jesus and overcome to keep our names in the book of life, how does this differ in practice from what all Christians believe they have to do?  All that you have let happen, is let a whole lot of children and babies into the kingdom, who may grow up to choose or reject God.

You teach that people are born not written in the Book of Life, which implies people are born destined to hell UNTIL written in the BOL. I teach that people are born written in the BOL which implies people are born heaven-bound UNTIL deleted.  That’s the difference.

[Wingnut]

You teach that people are born not written in the Book of Life, which implies people are born destined to hell UNTIL written in the BOL. I teach that people are born written in the BOL which implies people are born heaven-bound UNTIL deleted.  That’s the difference.

You say the above as if you were offering something wonderful.  I consider it peddling snake oil.

1.  I DON'T preach that folks are destined to hell.  I teach that they are destined to death.

2. I DON'T teach that they are heaven bound (as you teach) which is snake oil, because they are not.

3. I DO teach that we are given this mortal life and an opportunity, as adults, to choose Christ and eternal life.  Only then when they make this choice are their specific names written in the book of life.  Even then it can be blotted out.

4. How do you think it helps anyone to tell them their names are written in the book of life, when they are not?  They have to accept Christ first.

5. Even under your best-case scenario, they are worse off under your scenario since (according to you) they need to overcome to remain written there.  But you just lull them into a false sense of security by not demanding that they seek eternal life at the foot of the cross.

6.  And saying God knew Jeremiah from the womb proves my case.  Does not say he knew Jeremiah from the foundation of the world.  Only that God knew Jeremiah at the time he was conceived.

7.  God foretells the future by deciding to do something, and then doing it - completely different to what you are saying.

Do you believe that rubbish that some preachers preach, that God knows everything you will ever do, before you do it?

Am I a Calvanist?  I don't know.  You tell me.

I did a search of the phrase "book of life".  There are 8 references to this and NOT ONE says that the all names are written there by default, as you claim.

[Samie]

You say the above as if you were offering something wonderful.  I consider it peddling snake oil.

And it appears you have bought one without knowing it.

1.  I DON'T preach that folks are destined to hell.  I teach that they are destined to death.

So, you are saying that God who gives life to all men and wants them all to be saved, caused their death-destined birth. You have such a nice idea about our God of love: One who destines people to death. Yet Scriptures say:

^KJV Ezekiel 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD:

2. I DON'T teach that they are heaven bound (as you teach) which is snake oil, because they are not.

I understand why you are saying that. You don’t yet fully understand the gospel.

3. I DO teach that we are given this mortal life and an opportunity, as adults, to choose Christ and eternal life.  Only then when they make this choice are their specific names written in the book of life.  Even then it can be blotted out.

4. How do you think it helps anyone to tell them their names are written in the book of life, when they are not?  They have to accept Christ first.

And that makes your teaching works-based salvation: choose first before written.

5. Even under your best-case scenario, they are worse off under your scenario since (according to you) they need to overcome to remain written there.  But you just lull them into a false sense of security by not demanding that they seek eternal life at the foot of the cross.

How can one seek eternal life when one is still spiritually dead? You are teaching an impossible scenario.  Since when can the dead seek?

6.  And saying God knew Jeremiah from the womb proves my case.  Does not say he knew Jeremiah from the foundation of the world.  Only that God knew Jeremiah at the time he was conceived.

Which shows you don’t understand the verse. It says “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”, and that could go back even before the foundation of the world. Just like saying, before 2015, which could mean any date BEFORE 2015 and that includes even before the foundation of the world.

7.  God foretells the future by deciding to do something, and then doing it - completely different to what you are saying.

That’s what you want the Scriptures to have said but did not.

Do you believe that rubbish that some preachers preach, that God knows everything you will ever do, before you do it?

It’s  rubbish for you, NOT for them and me. I have shown you the verse to this effect but you want Scriptures to say what you want them to say, and mean what you want them to mean.

Am I a Calvanist?  I don't know.  You tell me.

If you don’t know what you are, then the more you don’t know what you tell others about what you know.

I did a search of the phrase "book of life".  There are 8 references to this and NOT ONE says that the all names are written there by default, as you claim.

Read between the lines.  Dig deeper for the truth.  Search for the golden treasure; it usually lies deep beneath the surface.

[Wingnut]

Samie

Tell me what this gospel of yours really has to offer which is different to what traditional Christianity has to offer.

Let's eliminate the idea of an ever-burning hell from the equation, unless you believe in one.

Tell me the practical advantages of what you have to offer.   Sell me on this shortcut to eternal life.

[Wingnut]

Hi again Samie

I just want to apologise for the tone of my above two posts.

You are not peddling anything.  If anything you are saying that God is very nice because His default setting is "we all start out written in the Book of Life".

That is your opinion which I respect, even if I don't share it.  

[Samie]

Samie

Tell me what this gospel of yours really has to offer which is different to what traditional Christianity has to offer.

Traditional Christianity offers salvation by believing in Christ. I don’t offer salvation. I am bringing the good news of salvation that God through Christ & Him Crucified, has saved us all – Adam & Eve and all their descendants! BUT He Who so loved us does not violate our freewill, and we can still decide and refuse to live with Him throughout eternity by NOT overcoming evil with good.

Traditional Christianity portrays God as a father who upon seeing his children drowning puts out a raft and tells his children to go to the raft for safety.  Those who refuse to go, along with those who did not hear his instructions, are left to drown while the father pitifully looks at them drowning. I portray God as a father who placed all His children aboard the raft in safety. Those who decide to leave the raft may do so at their own risk.

[Samie]

Hi again Samie

I just want to apologise for the tone of my above two posts.

You are not peddling anything.  If anything you are saying that God is very nice because His default setting is "we all start out written in the Book of Life".

That is your opinion which I respect, even if I don't share it.  

Apology accepted. Nothing to worry, brother.

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: My position is clear: People are born heaven-bound unless deleted from the Book of Life. This is grace-based salvation. All had been saved by grace through Christ before time began and chosen before the foundation of the world as Scriptures say. 2 Tim 1:9,10; Eph 1:3-5.

Your position: People are born hell-bound unless they believe. Works-based salvation.

Why should I exchange a grace-based salvation for one that is works-based?

I wonder what do you think my position is.  I've asked you repeatedly not to misrepresent my position, but to quote something I've written, but you keep doing what you want to do instead, which is to not quote something I've written, but to misrepresent my position, basically just making stuff up.

Well, unless you quote something I've said, I have no recourse, other than to simply state that what you are stating is false, that this isn't my position, and to ask you to please stop misrepresenting what I'm saying and please quote something I've actually said.

What you should do is not exchange falsehood for truth.  What's wrong with that?  That your position is false is clear in that it leads you to reject Scripture!  This is by your own admission.  Again I ask, if you hold a position which forces you to reject Scripture, what would cause you to admit error, if that doesn't?

Rather than allowing Scripture to be the judge of truth, you are holding yourself above Scripture, and allowing whatever ideas you hold to be the judge of what is truth, and if you have to reject Scripture to do so (such as 1 John 1:9, John 1:12, John 1:18), you do so.  I don't understand why you don't perceive this to be a problem.

[pnattmbtc]

Please at least answer this; when you assert that at the cross all mankind was attached to the body of Christ, what did the cross have to do with this?

Samie: I have answered all you want answered including what you are asking now. And it appears you don't understand those answers because spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Repeating what I have posted is just waste of time and space.

You haven't answered what I've asked.  You've refused all along to answer what I've requested, and simply claimed that you have answered my questions, which is not at all the same thing.

You repeat the phrase, "Christ attached everyone to his body at the cross" (something like this, apologies if this isn't word perfect), and when I ask you to explain that this phrase means, you refuse to do so, which leads me to believe that you have no idea what it means.  If you had an idea, you should be able to explain what it means using other words, yet you cannot.

But, even though you cannot explain what this means, it leads you to openly reject Scripture, such as 1 John 1:9 and John 1:12.  And there are others I've mentioned, in Mark and Matthew, which you haven't commented on, where Jesus speaks of forgiveness being conditional.

If you have to reject Scripture to hold a position, you cannot complain about the Scriptural positions that others hold on the basis that they are rejecting Scripture.  This should be obvious. 

[pnattmbtc]

Perhaps the biggest problem in what Samie is presenting, is summed up by a complaint of Wingnut:

But you just lull them into a false sense of security by not demanding that they seek eternal life at the foot of the cross.

This is a big problem.

Also, regarding the accusation towards myself viz a viz traditional Christianity, I will once again quote the following, which I've quoted many times:

How, then, are we to be saved? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," so the Son of man has been lifted up, and everyone who has been deceived and bitten by the serpent may look and live. "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of theworld." John 1:29. The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. The heart, the mind, are created anew in the image of Him who works in us to subdue all things to Himself. Then the law of God is written in the mind and heart, and we can say with Christ, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." Ps. 40:8. (The Desire of Ages 175-176)

I think this is a very clear explanation of how the plan of salvation works, taken from John 3.  Notice that "His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour."

It is necessary that we come to the foot of the cross, and we will, if we do not resist the drawing of the Savior.  So there's no room for complaint here that people are hell-bent, because God is drawing all, and if a person simply choose not to resist, God will save him/her.

That's not too much to ask, is it?

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: I portray God as a father who placed all His children aboard the raft in safety. Those who decide to leave the raft may do so at their own risk.

This is actually fine.  There is no need to reject 1 John 1:9 or John 1:12 to hold this position.

The raft of safety is being in Christ, which any person will be, if the do not refuse the love of God shining from the cross leading them to repentance.