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

So men apparently never lost the faculty of Faith.

I really truly believe that when I’ve said in the past that, because no one knows if they are Elect or not, but that even if you don’t know, if you run to the Lord after hearing the Gospel, that makes you Elect. You apparently didn’t agree or whatever. So move on now, sister. Good gravy!

Yes, what you say is true concerning sight. It's not true concerning faith. People without sight can please God. People without faith cannot. The reason I don't believe your example is suitable is because we are not talking about faith in general, but faith in Christ specifically.
And I'm not trying to exasperate you. The Charlie Brown response seems to suggest I might be.

No. Man has faith in a variety of things. But not in Christ. What man lost was his ability to discern things the way he originally could.

Why did Adam and Eve cover themselves and hide after sin, but never before?

I dunno. Thanks, but I don't want to judge anyone. I will say we're all still learning biblically speaking, me probably more than anyone else, and my biblical interpretations evolving/refining. I think what is important though, is what we say now. Hopefully,
when one of us learns something new, that lesson will be passed on to the rest of us.

Of course he did. Adam knew God because God was right there talking to him.

Oh brother…

We all hold some truth falsely. So over time, our poor understanding will inevitably temper how we understand other scripture. In other words, because I believe a scripture says one thing, another verse must be reconciled to fit with our previously held understanding.
The Bible itself often fosters this in the way it is written. And if we are not careful, we are all prone to error. Thankfully, one day there will be a unity of the faith. In the meantime, forums like this are good to work these truths out, if we are able to do so preferring others to ourselves. Would that this were always my motivation.

Adam transgressed. Not much said re: Adam and Faith. But Faith is correlated to obedience, so his transgression might also infer a lack of Faith.

Abel had Faith, though. So any view that men after Adam could not have Faith seems wanting to say the least. And the Seed of the Woman was promised in the Garden and Eve is seen to have responded to it.

In my view it's always been about Faith / Obedience and always will be.

You using text to speech is not you reading. You are just evading the truth of the logic of my argument. Just saying.

But you did say:

And it was in response to a post about Adam and Eve.

I suppose the issue is about where we place our faith, and in whom/Whom.

Prove it, please. Would you post what it is I’ve said in that other thread you mentioned where you say I’ve changed my stance? Thanks.

But you did not say the person without eyesight is reading.

I have probably seen too many of your evasions and deflections and logical fallacies.

Along with your unwillingness to admit to the truth of some matter.

Like going beyond what Scripture says.

You are reading more into the text than it says, in order to use it as a spurious proof text for your theological system. The logical limits to claims re the faith sentence are the same as the logical limits to the claims of the sight sentence. Now, to protect your system, you are resorting to another logical fallacy, special pleading, in order to claim there must be a distinction between the logical limits of the two claims, because one is about spiritual things and one is about physical things..

That's your version of what I did. From my perspective, I simply disagreed with your understanding.
So let me ask...what exactly happened to Adam and Eve in the fall? What changed, if anything?

I said, "Without sight it is impossible to read this text, does not mean that all people who cannot read this text have no sight."

Someone being able to hear this text being read via a text to speech programme, or a computer reading the text without having sight, does not affect the validity of the underlying logical syllogism.

Does, "Flowers don't have faith, but nevertheless they please God," disprove "Without faith it is impossible to please God"?
I argued that "Without faith it is impossible to please God" does not mean "all those who displease God are without faith". I did not argue that "Without sight it is impossible to read this text" means "it is impossible for this text to be read by anything without eyes."
Nor did I argue that Without faith it is impossible to please God" means "It is impossible for God to be pleased by anything without faith."

Maybe you could address my actual argument, rather than try to muddy the waters to hide the facts.