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

Well Said

From Ephesians 1:4-6

I can only speak for myself.
I was not raised as a Christian. However, as the years went on I was slowly began to see the world around me and come to the understanding that God had to be the creator. But, my struggle continued because I was unable to see and understand that I could be forgiven. But a simple sermon on a certain Sunday convinced me otherwise. I heard the message that day and understood that even a sinner such as I could be forgiven!
It wasn't the end of my journey but it was the beginning!
Was I raped? Not hardly! I am forever thankful.... I do not consider this rape, but consider it to be a blessing that I never deserved!

Inappropriate comparison in what sense? Forcing oneself upon another - forcing someone to do something against their will?

Time to get past this. Though I would not have used the analogy personally, I understood it.

You're continuing to put forth mischaracterizations. I never said you're a Calvinist because you disagree with me. I said your doctrinal positions are as TULIP.

If you'd like to state again what you believe spiritual death is and includes in regard to what the unregenerate can and cannot do and what God does and when in order to save him, please state it again clearly and we'll discuss the similarities to TULIP and or Arminianism.

Maybe you have a hybrid belief and we can drop some letters. Maybe you don't.

Can you describe your position even in your own words apart from either ism? I'm truly not stuck on either of them. But I can recognize when someone says something that conforms to them.

Your verses, do they describe what the characteristics of what a Believer is?

Holy, Blameless, Adopted and all done by and through Jesus?

So, before the foundation of the Earth, God described what a Believer would be like in Him [Jesus]?

Another mischaracterization. Moving first and enabling is not forcing someone to do something apart from one's will.

I don't recall seeing anyone here take exception to God moving first.

You're either misunderstanding or creating more straw men.

All God did was define what a Believer would be like in Him [Jesus] before the foundation of the Earth. Holy, Blameless, Adopted and all done by and through Jesus . So no one had any part of that definition. But we all have a part of becoming that when we accept Christ when His offer is made known to us.

From Theologians. Theologians are Bible Professors in Bible Colleges.


(Rom 8:29-30) Notice the conjunction, “for”’; it ties what is about to be said with what has just been said. We know what God has done for the Old Testament saints, those that He “already knew, He predestined, (aorist indicative, completed action) to be conformed to the image or likeness of His Son. They died long before Jesus was even born but they are still a part of the promises of God! God planned from the beginning to bring their salvation to completion in Christ Jesus. Moreover, those He predestined (aorist indicative, completed action) He justified (aorist indicative, completed action) and those He justified He glorified (aorist indicative, completed action). If Paul had any intended notion that he was speaking to the Roman Christians he would have used the same tense he used previously in verse 16, that being the aorist passive subjective. He did not do so because he was speaking here of the Old Testament saints who had already died but God had provided hope for.


Theologians claim Paul in Romans 8:29-30 are speaking about the Old Testament Saints who God FOREKNEW and PREDESTINED to be conformed to be like Christ.

PaulThomson said:
Show me a biblical text where my definition does not apply: where a saviour does not rescue people from harm that they could not deliver themselves on their own.
Judges 3:15 calls Ehud a saviour (Greek: sOtEr).
Ehud saved the Israelites, but they contributed something to their salvation from the Moabites.

Obviously, in some cases they could and did take part in their salvation/deliverance. Sometimes God said stand still. Sometimes His people were required to do something to be saved, like look at a bronze serpent. It's not an either/or option with God. Sometimes faith is evidenced with standing still. Sometimes it is evidenced with acting.. Obeying the command to stand still, is doing something.

Your response is baffling. Their looking, which they were told to do, completed their faith. Anyone who had heard that they must look, and had understood that they must look, but had not looked when they could have looked - any faith that they might have claimed to have would have been dead, abiding alone. They would not have been saved. Just as those who heard they should stand still, but had not completed their faith by standing still, and had instead run ahead into battle, would not have been saved.

Jesus does not equate "being found" with "having faith". He could have said "There is much rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who believes, and then you would be basing your conclusion on what the text says. But He said, "There is much joy in heaven over one sinner who repents," which means I am basing my conclusion on what the text says.

Grace and peace.

Borrowing from another, please see Rom8:29 under the U in TULIP.

So far it seems your views fit the T. Now we have the U.

What's next?

I do not feel guilty about how I see someone saying God made them be a Believer and they had no say in the matter like God just did it whether they wanted it or not.

But I do see that You Magenta are offended.

And we are wrong to offend others.

For Offending You Magenta I am sorry.

But the way I see how some claim that God can just make you be something without consent or you being for it seems criminal in my opinion.

And I do not serve a God who is Guilty of such Coercion!

How so?

Again, I don't read all you write, so simply clarify something and bring me up to date.

Care to discuss comprehension of Scripture?

More ad hominem, BTW.

Dangerous thing to do around here.

No. He spoke plainly enough in the Sermon on the Mount when He began His ministry. But those who hated God would not receive it, but came at Him to dispute about the legal requirements of the Law vs. Jesus doctrine. So Jesus began to use parables. He said that he did so so that the nay-sayers would not understand.

That kind of Jew had been unwilling to hear God's words spoken to them plainly for centuries, but had chosen to stop their ears and close their eyes. to God's words and signs. Speaking in parables to them gave them nothing to argue theologically against. Are they going to argue about how shepherding works and how seeds are planted and grow? Since it was God's will that Jesus cast out no one who came to Him, and these antagonists were coming to disrupt Jesus' ministry with theological arguments, drawn by the Father, the strategy was to make the adversarial walk away of their own free will, leaving the genuine seekers to ponder on the meaning of the parables and to observe the perfection of the Lamb.

I'm not a big emoji fan. Nicely done. Thanks for saying this.

Will forgiveness be granted?

The Greek word "akuo" can mean "hear" or "listen". So, Jesus could be saying, "He who has ears to hear, let him listen." This makes the most sense to me. "You have ears. Use them to pay attention to what I am saying. Don't just passively hear, in one er and out the other."