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

Deut. 32:36 “For the LORD will judge His people (all the inhabitants of the earth). And He will have compassion on His servants (the church), when He sees that their (the church's) power is gone, And there is no one remaining, bond or free.

Heb. 10:29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[a] and again, “The Lord will judge his people (all the people of the earth).”[b] 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

John 5:21–25. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son (judgment of all the peoples of the earth), that all (all people of the earth) may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father.

You need to separate verses into "His people" meaning sometimes the elect, and "His people" sometimes meaning all people, so that you can sort them according to where they need to fit to keep your leaky boat afloat. From a self-centred self-important "elect" human beings point of view, "My people" is limited to the group the self-important human being belongs to. From the all-loving God's point of view, "My people" is all the people of the earth.

Belonging to Him and being His people are two different things.

Jesus said so. John 8:44

Laughlin is my daughter's family. He belongs to my daughter.
My daughter is mine/my family. And Laughlin is hers/my daughter's family. Therefore Laughlin is mine/my family too.

Jesus adversaries were Satan's defected-from-God children. Satan is one of God's sons/children who defected. Therefore Satan's children are God's defected children. Hence, John 8:44 is true, and all people, including satan's children, belong to God.

All the kids in your home are your responsibility, not just those that are your family.

All people of the earth are Yahweh's people by virtue of Yahweh owning everything He has made. Yahweh called the Israelites His people because they were His people, along with every other people. The Israelites called themselves Yahweh's people because they identified Yahweh as their creator. Israelites called other nations "not Yahweh's people" because Israelites wanted to be exclusive, elitist and superior to other nations. Other nations did not call themselves Yahweh's people, because they did not acknowledge Yahweh as their creator, even though they were Yahweh's people. No Israelite who rejected Jahweh as their creator called themselves Yahweh's people, and yet they were still Yahweh's people. Yes, they were His chosen people among all His people, and His peculiar people among all His people. But all people have always been His people.

Because of pride, human beings want to read their own superiority and the exclusiveness of their group into the Bible. They read "God's people" and think, "That's us, and not them." But to God, as Paul said, "We are all God's children".

God does say in Hosea Ch 1 of the Northern tribes, "You are not my people. You are not beloved." But what He meant was that He was not going to defend them against other principalities and powers, nor bail them out any more from the consequences of their rebellion. Of course, they were still His people, and since God is Love, He still loved them. But in the Israelites experience, it would seem to them as though God no longer loved them, and was no longer their God.

I'm all for nuance. But I am not a fan of completely redefining terms to exclude legitimate nuance.

You wrote:
"Belonging to Him and being His people are two different things.

Jesus said so. John 8:44

You belong to your father, the devil, (humeis ek patros tou diabolou este: You are out of your father the devil) and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

Why does John 8:44 prove that Jesus said, "Belonging to Him and being His people are two different things"?

Koine (Common) Greek.

Just in John the hina+subj is used in 131 verses. An example of purpose used twice: John1:7. Another example of substantive: John17:3.

Good. You understand the difference in relationship. They are not all equal.

I guess the question as it pertains to TULIP is why he walked away.

• Was he too depraved to understand spiritual truth?
  • He certainly had not rejected God from GR and beyond.
    • But living Law is not enough as we know.
• Why did Jesus not do a miracle for Him to show who He is?
  • Jesus had been revealing Himself in powers, so He didn't need to?
  • Jesus knew the man would reject Him?
  • Jesus knew the man was not one of the Elect?
  • Jesus knew our Father's reason for his seeking Jesus and desired this event for the record of how men see riches as more valuable than God is?
  • All things are possible with God, so what's up here?
• If TULIPers want to assert Election here, it seems it would have to be inserted. But why would that insertion be any more worthy than another insertion? An argument from silence issue. I'm not looking at the event more closely to see if I have any more thoughts and will leave it to you to go further.

So, why do we think it necessary to go beyond what the Text simply says? The man was a practicing Jew under Law. He knew of seeking eternal life. He knew a "good rabbi" might have the answers he needed. Jesus showed he didn't want the answers. As you point out, he was an idolater. He valued earthly wealth more than he valued God. Interestingly, assuming my interpretation re: value is correct, this is also the disease of Romans 1:28. As I said, Romans has some layers to it. We're not thinking dimensionally enough, most of the time not at all.

I know we can get bogged down, but I'm not sure there ultimately is an overly or unduly analytical state in exegesis of the Bible.

I doubt you begrudge those our Lord has on the earth in His Body who go to depths most of us do not (the parts of the Body lessons).

I'm comfortable with what He has had me doing and I look for and read those who go further than I do or are just focusing where I'm not. It looks like you're also comfortable with what He has you doing. That Biblical Theology we've touched on IMO will be a Body effort with input from the analysts through the 'from the mouths of babes" and everything in between. As I've said before, if we're not getting something He wants us to get, then He may send us a talking donkey.

As I'm sure you know, John 6 deals much more than just those non granted, ultimately unbelieving disciples and those in the crowds who were putting so much effort (aka work) into following Jesus around for free meals. Your point coupling grace and sincerity is understood.

As I just said, max, all done. So, just reiteration. You mistake not bowing to your fallacious argumentation with failure.

If the home is worthy, let your peace rest on it; but if it is not, let your peace return to you-Matthew 10:13

John 16: 33 These things I have spoken to you so that (hina) in Me you might have peace. In the world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.
John 17:1 These words spoke Jesus and lifted His eyes to heaven, and said,
"Father, the hour is come; glorify your Son, so that (hina) your Son may glorify You:
2. Just as (kathOs) You have given (edOkas) to Him (autOi) power (exousian) over all (pasEs) flesh (sarkos), so that (hina) everything (pan) that (hos) You have given (dedOkas) to Him (autois) He might give (dOsEi) to them (autois): aeonous life (zOEn aiOnion; anarthrous noun)
3. And this is the aeonous life (arthrous noun referring back to the anarthrous noun in v. 2), [given] so that (hina) they might know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You sent.
4. I have glorified You on earth. I have finished the work which You gave Me to do.
And now, Father, glorify Me with Your own self, with the glory which i had with You before the world was."

Jesus says in John 17:3, that the purpose of aeonous life is so that (hina) people who have it might be able to know relationally God and Jesus whom He sent.
Jesus states in John 17:3 that "this is the aeonous life". What is the referent for "this" ? What is "this" referring to in the context?

An accurate translation of verse 1b-3 IMO says,

"Give Your Son glory, so that He may glorify You; just as You have given to Him power/authority over all flesh, so that He might give to them [all flesh] everything that You have given to Him: [that is] aeonous life.
And this, [everything given to the Son], is the aeonous life, [shared with them] so that they might keep on knowing You, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom You sent.

God had already given Jesus authority to share with all humanity everything God had given Him. That is, all mankind has the potential to inherit with Christ all that Christ has been given by the Father.
Jesus wanted to add the Father's glory to those "all things".
Aeonous life is partaking of everything the Father has given to the Son.
The Son sharing with mankind all that the Father has given to Him, glorifies God.
The purpose of partaking of the aeonous life, which comprises partaking with Christ in all that the Father Has given the Son, is so that we may keep on knowing, ever more intimately and relationally, God and Jesus Christ whom He sent.

So, in this text, I believe hina also introduces a purpose clause, as it should, and not a substantive clause, as hoti would be used to introduce.

Apart from going back through all my post, I can't see what bolded vs. what I had bolded, so I'll proceed and see if I can respond.
I'm not leaving out the work of the Spirt. We just haven't gotten there yet,

Again, as I said earlier, grace is a discussion to be had. This is part of the problem with these spread out discussions. I do not deny or overlook the work of the Spirit, nor the vital importance of God's grace. IMO, we haven't gotten beyond proving any reality of what TD means or doesn't mean, and whether or not once someone's meaning is fully understood the meaning is not arguable.

And again, I've said nothing against the necessity of God's grace nor the work of God in Salvation. IMO no one has firmly established from Scripture what men under sin are and are not able to do. Some like to make the case using the analogy of "dead men" but the other side easily points out that these "dead men" are also walking and talking on earth and believing and rejecting things every day. In Scripture in Rom8 theses dead men are said to be imprisoned under sin and the wording has them in penal servitude which to me provides a picture of the good old movies of guys in striped suits with leg irons and sledge hammers breaking rocks. So, how far is it correct to take this dead men analogy and say God needs to bring them to life and then give them the mental faculty to believe?

As I said, IMO we simply have not gotten through TD.

The issue with many of these legitimate questions is that men have taken one or a few narratives from the Text and built them into inviolable doctrines. I see many examples to discuss. I do not see God as being stuck in some doctrinal box of our choosing. You mentioned David Gay in one of your posts. I'd have to locate it but I'll paraphrase and try to explain something he said in one of his writings. In essence it pertained to something that men try to pigeonhole and will debate between two positions. He simply said, the Text says both, so I accept this.

• I accept the potter and the clay lesson. God does what He wants within the bounds of His perfect essence.
• If God wants to drop a John the Baptist into history, then He obviously does so.
  • Could John have rejected his role or was he created on the potting wheel for that role?
• How and why were Zacharias and Elizabeth righteous before the Lord walking blamelessly before God chose to have an angel talk to Zach?
  • Did their piety before God have something to do with God using them?
• Why was Lydia worshipping (in allegiance to and serving) God before God opened her heart to pay attention to Paul?
• In Acts 2 who are we to comment on the who, what and why of the 3,000 souls who were added? Why do we even question such things?
  • With God all things are possible [in salvation] and I don't have Him in a box thinking He needs to do the exact same thing with every individual throughout the ages. And by this I mean only that He seems to work whatever personality He works with to do whatever He determines to do and in whatever way He determines to do it righteously, justly, perfectly.
• You ask what may be in men that may make a difference. Your thoughts on this:
  • Jesus told us with great emphasis in John 4 what God was looking for (seeking) in the new era - men who would bow in obeisance in Spirit and Truth because God is Spirit.
    • I'm not saying this is the only thing to look at, but I am saying Jesus made it VERY clear what God is looking for. Jesus used this word typically translated as "worship" 8 times in 4 verses (as I recall). This is quite intensive emphasis in our Text. I remain astounded that we don't pay more attention to this.
    • These verses John 4:21-24 end with Jesus saying we "must" worship in Spirit and Truth. This word translated as "must" speaks in its main sense of something being a necessity - something that has to be.
    • So, we have 2 main things here that God is seeking:
      • Men who will bow in obeisance to Him
        • This is correct orientation to God as the absolute authority.
      • Men who will bow to God's authority in Spirit and Truth
        • We take this to mean different things. It can be translated a few different ways.
        • One of the ways I seen it explained is "Spiritual Reality"
        • So, men who will bow to God who is Spirit in the true reality, which is Spiritual Reality - the things unseen.
        • I'd also include in this reality all the things we're told about the deposit of the Spirit we have in us, and all His work in us under the New Covenant and Law of Christ.
        • I'd also include in this reality the Truth - Jesus Christ the Truth - the correct meaning of His Word.
        • And so on...
  • What's the difference in men?
    • How about no matter how intelligent or unintelligent, or by any other standard we want to ask about, we just narrow down to those who will obey Him based in the true reality which is Spiritual Reality.
    • When we dig in and see that Faith in the Text is one side of the coin of the realm and Obedience the other, this just fits the John4:24 lesson.
    • When God draws men to His Son and [sovereignly] grants to His Son men who hear and learn from Him and believe in His Son, what is God looking at in men He grants? Maybe Jesus told is in John4. Maybe He told us very clearly.

So, I'll ask you to look at yourself as I have looked and still look at myself - do you have any doubt whatsoever that you will continue to love, honor, and obey the one true Lord Jesus Christ and our one true Father in Heaven for the rest of your days? If you say, "NO" then I would say that you - no matter how smart or dumb, or pretty or ugly, or what color, or what of the only 2 genders there are, or etc. - have Biblical Faith. I'd also say that how and when you came to Faith was probably circumstantially differently than how and when I did.

Scripturally and experientially, I as yet have seen no better answer than this criteria for who God is seeking. They fit perfectly into the Spiritual Reality of all things and they fit perfectly into the New Covenant era in Christ who learned obedience though what He suffered, was perfected, and became the leader of Salvation for all who obey Him (Heb5:9) which is also to have Biblical Faith in Him (many verses) and the Father who sent Him (many verses).

But the other 4 doctrines are based upon TD. IMO there are problems with the T and some or all of the others.

Maybe but probably not. As I said or intimated elsewhere, I'm watching some of the new perspectives on Paul and some of the work being done analyzing the Text compared to Hellenistic rhetoric. As you know and agree re: some things NCT, I'm also watching some of the NCT perspectives, particularly re: Law and probable mistakes men have made with it since the Early Church Fathers and later turned into Creeds and Confessions.

I've seen some things others have noted re: the NC Writings responses to Greek Philosophy and I've seen some other things in my personal studies. For example, we like to use Heb11:1 as a definition for Faith because it says "Faith is..." I don't view this as a definition but I do use it as part of the explanation of Biblical Faith.

An interesting thing I saw some time ago is that this language in Heb11:1 contains 2 of the main words used to speak of the Socratic Method of reasoning. Simply put, I think there is way more going on in the NC Writings to deal with Hellenism and integrate Jew and Gentile into one Body than was previously thought. Not only were the NC Scriptures written in common Greek developed by Alexander who had conveniently [for God!] brought the known world together to some major degree, but the main writer God chose to write most of the NC was an educated Jew and a Roman citizen raised in Judaism and in a Hellenized world. It seems naive to not be digging deeper into this. Some of the Body are doing the digging no matter what the rest of us think.

I like watching God work.

Just flagging you. I'm heading out for the day. If you have time and care to, would you translate John 6:39-40 including any context you think important as you propose it should be translated? I'll look back later assuming I return.

Do you think hina+subj is ever substantival? More particularly appositional? I'd note that you'd have to be going against Greek scholarship if you said, No.

Yes, I see a choice as well. And the unregenerate (hereafter TU) made the only choice they could make given their state of spiritual death, depraved heart and evil nature. But TU do not want to understand, so this is why they suppress the truth by their wickedness (v.18). And why do they suppress the truth? Because they do not want to retain the knowledge of God in their hearts and minds. So,if they don't want to understand because of their corrupt heart, then how can they? Aren't all our choices driven by the desires of want or need?

Yes, God made his existence clear to all men, especially to Adam! How did that work out for him? And Adam did not come into this world with any corrupt spiritual baggage, as all his progeny have for all these millennia.

God made certain things plain through Natural Revelation -- through his creation. But that is not the same as saying that God gives spiritual understanding to all men -- that he enlightens their minds and hearts so that they can understand. Or to borrow Creation language that Paul used with the Corinthians, Romans 1 doesn't say that God "made his light shine in men's hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of His majesty, glory, power and attributes through what he has made". I submit to you that this is why there is not even a hint in Romans 1 that any unregenerate ever responded positively to God's Natural Revelation. And we mustn't forget that God revealed things about himself through his creation from the very beginning! Adam (who by the way was a very brilliant man) saw everything all of us have seen for thousand of years, yet God did nothing to prevent him from disobeying.

And if you're wondering why I limit Romans 1 to unregenerate sinners, it's because of the concluding Indictment Paul makes of the "entire human race" in Romans 3 -- an indictment that cannot include God's chosen people, since all his elect are fully justified in Christ.

But do the exceptions make the Rule? This is a big question. And the larger ones even are the kinds of questions I asked toward the end of my 5673. The huge question that is begging to be answered is Why and How did the exceptions differ from the general rule? Were the Abels, Enochs, Noahs, Abrahams, Moseses, Davids, Joshuas, etc. fundamentally different spiritually from all the reprobates who perished in their sins?. Or since these exceptions did indeed respond differently to God than their counterparts, could it be that God himself is the fundamental difference that accounts for why these exceptions even exist in the first place!? As for me and my household, I say the answer is to be found in this latter question. And I'm quite confident of this for two reasons: First, because Unconditional Election occurred in the post-fall Garden; and, secondly, because Paul essentially tells us that all men (in the distributive sense) come from one lump of clay; yet, the Potter had the divine prerogative to make a second lump from the first (Rom 9:21). Lump Number 1 = Adam from whom all the human race descends naturally and spiritually. Lump Number 2 = ultimately the Last Adam who descended from Eve's godly line, as opposed to the Serpent's ungodly spiritual seed.

So..."What do you think?"

I in no way meant to discount or diminish scholarly efforts put in by those who have been called to do just that. We are all called to study the Word diligently, carefully and prayerfully. But at the same time, I try to avoid straining at gnats just to swallow camels whole. I'm a big fan of the KISS principle. And while there is milk and meat to God's word, I also know there is a profound simplicity to the Word so that even a child can grasp the gospel.

Fair enough. But this is why I''m hoping you will address my questions, as you find time, that I presented to you in 5673 & 5718 re the fundamental spiritual differences that must exist between believers and unbelievers that will account for why and how the former accepts spiritual truth, while the latter rejects it. There has to be some qualitative spiritual difference between the two groups that would adequately explain their choices.

The unregenerate do not experience the intense spiritual conflicts that Paul did. TUs are generally pretty comfortable in their sin.