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

You are denying the Bible. I'm sure you are familiar with the truth that it is God who opens the womb. If not, you can read about it in Genesis 29 and 30. I also showed you from Hebrews 1:3 that what many consider natural processes is in actuality Jesus upholding all things by the word of His power. So the biological process by which labor begins is, in effect, triggered by Christ Himself.
What has been discovered is truly remarkable. But what it points to is not the contribution of man to birth, but the lavish ongoing and intimate care God is exercising over His creation.

If a normal birth process follows a natural physiological process, there is no need for God to intervene each and every time.

This kind of micro manager God is the logical outflow of extreme determinism.

That's your supposition. But it only matters how the Bible is using it, and not how the culture is using it.

The parable does not say how the Shepherd lost the sheep: sneaked away with the 99 while the one sheep was asleep? Or the one sheep was enticed away from the flock and did not stay within earshot of the shepherds voice.

In fact the parable equates being "found" with "repenting". So "becoming lost" would equate to being seduced into sin. And Jesus does not seduce His sheep into sin.

5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders
6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’
7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

There is no mention of "never losing one" in the parable. In fact, it distinctly says that the shepherd did lose one. I have read and meditated on the parable many times, but I don't read the parable with LOUPI lenses on.

When only the Bible uses it your way, you have an eisegesis problem.

PaulThomson said:
If you want me to chase you down your rabbit trails, let's first eat the carrot outside the hole.

If I am drowning and I cannot do enough to save myself, but a woman throws me a rope and I grab it, so that she can pull me into the safety of her boat, was she my saviour, in that context?

If a man is swimming to shore two miles out, and is quite capable of making the distance, and a helicopter drops a man in a harness, who grabs the swimmer and he is pulled up into the helicopter and delivered to the shore, did the helicopter crew save him?

From these two examples, can you give a general definition of "saviour" that fits all cases where someone is saved. You will see that I have earlier. And it is somewhat different from the LOUPI definition applied to the Bible to argue for LOUPI theology. Anyway, have a go at defining saviour that applies to all cases.

Is that your general definition of "saviour" that fits all cases where someone is saved?

Just giving your theory its due analysis. Anything less would be disrespectful and rejection without explanation.

It's not necessary and actually a ridiculous argument.

I don't share your spiritual death analogy that says man is a corpse. And you yourself agreed that man can understand certain spiritual information, so I don't know how you get to the typical TD corpse analogy either.

So the rebirth is not the same as the physical birth. Your analogy sounds more like Nicodemus misunderstanding and thinking we must enter the womb again, which gained him the rebuke of our Lord that you posted.

NKJ John 3:3-5 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

You've misunderstood me. The collaboration I've written of and posted Scripture about is in the context of the Christian collaborating in what you might refer to as [experiential] sanctification, which the Text is Phil2:11-12 speaks of as salvation.

I have however also pointed out this verse: Jn. 6:26-27 NKJ 26 Jesus answered them and said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 "Do not labor for the food which perishes, but [labor/work] for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."

• It seems to be pretty inconvenient for the systematic theology of so many, but Jesus here commanded unbelieving men to "work" for the food (Gospel information) that remains into eternal life which He gives.
• I don't think Jesus Christ is as terrified of talk about dead men working as some of His siblings are.

Physical vs. spiritual already addressed, so moving on.

I knew someone would come along and open up the synergism vs. monergism discussion. I'm not prone to caring much about the isms as men label them. I just read the Text and point things out that I see.

With that said, I'm going to scan through the rest if your post and see what Scripture you've posted (that's not not in proof text format). I'm not interested in these silly analogy battles. I do appreciate your posting the verses from John3. If you'd like to wring that out a bit more, I'm game. As it stands I think you're Nicodemus in that one, thinking we need to go back to physical birth to understand what Jesus says about spiritual rebirth.

Firstly, no Truth is inconvenient for me. I have no canned system I draw from. Every time a Scripture is discussed I look at with fresh eyes as best I can and I look at a point of view being discussed to see if I think it fits what the Text says. If someone proves to me that I'm looking at something wrongly, then I'll allow my thinking to be changed to conform to Truth. I've had to do it before. I'm not opposed to doing it as many times as needed to get to Truth. But I'm not a pushover and you've not been convincing with all your narrative and analogies.

Firstly, when a verse begins with "for" it is explaining or elaborating on what was said just before it, so I'll grab some context and see where it takes us.

NKJ Ephesians 5:1-11 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma. 3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them. 8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), 10 finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. 11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
Firstly, this is a lot of commands in a short section of Scripture and these are types of things the Christian does in collaboration with God in accomplish his salvation in fear and trembling with God providing His capabilities so the Christian can both will and do for God's good pleasure (note the tie above to the assaying of value terminology re: what is well pleasing to Jesus Christ).

cont'd

It's not a matter of whether God needs to or not; it's a matter of whether He says He does or not? So...is Jesus upholding ALL things by the word of His power?

cont'd @Rufus

So, what is darkness?

• It's obviously correlated to what the sons of disobedience are and are doing.
• It's obviously what Christians were previously sharers with the sons of disobedience in.
• It's obviously related to sins.
• It obviously is related to unproductive works.
• The reason I bolded and underlined words having to do with knowledge, being deceived (by words/knowledge/thinking), undertaking the mental project of closely examining and drawing conclusions (knowledge again) is this (with just a little Greek work):
  • Eph. 4:17-21 NKJ) This I say, therefore, and testify/affirm in the Lord, that you should are no longer to walk (command) as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. 20 But you have not so learned Christ, 21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus:

• Darkness in Ephesians has to do with:
  • Walking/living
    • In a state of being without use or value, emptiness, futility, purposelessness, transitoriness (BDAG) in mind/thought
      • Having had ones faculty of thinking, comprehending, and reasoning, understanding, intelligence, mind (BDAG) darkened (by someone/something - passive verb - perfect tense so done before being in the state mentioned just above).
      • Having been estranged/alienated from the life of/from God
        • because of the lack of information about something, ignorance - lack of information that may result in reprehensible conduct, ignorance, unawareness, lack of discernment (BDAG)
          • because of the hardness, state or condition of complete lack of understanding, dullness, insensibility, obstinacy (BDAG) in their heart.
  • Whoever had become callous/despondent delivered themselves to...
• Darkness is countered by gaining knowledge or skill by instruction, learning (BDAG) Christ
  • Assuming you both heard and were taught in/by Him, since truth is in Jesus.

I'm leaving some highlighting out so you can do your own work. But "darkness" has to do with:

• hardness of heart - a complete lack of understanding - being obstinate - causing:
  • lack of information, ignorance about something - causing:
    • alienation from life from God (spiritual life)
    • darkened faculty of thinking/reasoning/understanding
      • Being in an state of mind without value, empty, purposelessness
• It is countered by gaining knowledge - learning Christ by:
  • Hearing and being taught by Him since Truth is in Him
    • So, the condition of darkness is countered by hearing and learning truth from Jesus Christ. And we still need to consider conversion at minimum because this may or may not be addressing it. IOW, what learning has countered the darkened mind because this is all being written to Christians who are being commanded to be continuously walking in light (knowledge) in Christ in Spirit?

Obviously there is a lot to be discussed here. At least we have a base to work from.

As I said earlier, Scripture only. I have zero interest in analogies, Rufus Nicodemus. All we need is in the Text.

PaulThomson said:
No. It was presented for the reason I cited in a recent post: as a counter-example to a general claim about the meaning of the word "saviour". It was claimed that someone who contributed in any way to their own rescue disqualified the rescuer from being their saviour.

If one is going to discuss any topic, one needs to use word with conventional meanings. One should not just invent a definition of a word that goes against its conventional use, and use that definition in one's argument because the conventional meaning would not support one's argument. IMy counter-example showed that LOUPI adherents are using a false definition of saviour to make their case.

No one is denying that a person who can do nothing to save himself, like an unconscious person caught in a burning building, is not saved by a saviour if they are carried out by a fireman. But that extreme case does not mean that saviour is limited to such extreme cases.

Can you give a definition of the word "saviour" that fits all cases where the word may be legitimately used? If you cannot, you really have no serious claim to being able to interpret Bible texts that use the word "saviour", because you don't know the semantic range of the word.

When you can define "saviour" in way that captures it's semantic range, get back to me. If you can't do that, you are way out of your depth discussing Christian soteriology.

The same word can be used in different ways, of course. But when selecting a use, it still has to conform to the rest of scripture.
You proffered that man aids in his salvation. That doesn't fit with all of scripture. Then you posited that creation itself shows this to be the case. This didn't hold with scripture either.
You don't address this but simply agree with a statement that was shown false using the same scripture.
So I'll ask you...does Jesus uphold all things by the word of His power?

Only the elect ultimately cooperate with God's grace.

Ok.

Man! You just don't want to get it, do you? Are either of the people in your examples DEAD!? Since not, then your analogy fails utterly and totally! God raises the spiritually dead, thereby saving their souls. Can't you see how you keep equating dead people with the living in your analogies? Conversely, my analogy of the cardiac arrest victim fits in much better with the dead, since such person is totally helpless, making him totally dependent on forces outside of himself. Such a person is not even able to cry out for help.

I am not convinced the word "uphold" means micro-manages/controls.

You've heard of entropy though, haven't you? If Jesus stopped upholding all things, the world would turn to chaos.
Actually, He's still in the process of making all things new.

He set things in motion and lets them work as He set them up to work, so in that sense yes He upholds everything.

Read John 10, the Good Shepherd Discourse.

John 10:25-30
25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."
NIV

By the way, the how or why sheep stray isn't the central point to the parable. Was not Peter a sheep who "strayed" when he denied his Lord and Savior three times!? 3 TIMES! Yet, even after Jesus predicting Peter's denial, Jesus went on to assure Peter essentially, "but I have prayed for you so that when your return..." WHEN Peter repents! Not if! But when! Satan won the battle but lost the war for Peter's soul!