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

....and yet there will be some way around this absolute truth too, waiting. lol

Jesus does make a distinction between hearing and understanding and hearing and not understanding. If someone believes that that is a function of the hearer I get that. But if understanding is a function of revelation, hearing is no longer a function of the hearer, but is a function of one's spiritual estate.
I don't believe every reference to hearing must of necessity include the spirit. But neither does it mean none do.
As Christians, we ask God for understanding and wisdom. Why? Because we recognize that there are spiritual truths and realities beyond our natural abilities.

There is no way around the truth. The only way is to change it or create false truths.

The view that God grants repentance, spiritual hearing to individuals on a case by case, denying others, is non-scriptural and maligns God

So it is very understandable why people push back and sometimes quite hard.

John 12:40 explains, "for this reason they were unable to believe" following an account of Jesus performing signs in their presence and they still did not believe, that which precedes the statement, "This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet."
“Lord, who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
I'd like to answer those questions with, "the arm of the Lord has been revealed to those who has believed their message." I think that explains my view of it succinctly.

Now, back to "for this reason they were unable to believe. For again, Isaiah says:"
40“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so that they cannot see with their eyes,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn,
and I would heal them.”
This speaks toward Israel blindness in part for the purpose of bringing in the Gentiles.
God hardened those that were already not believing to not be able to believe, working it all out for our good. However, elsewhere there is mention that this is temporary, if I recall correctly.

I get it...you believe sin is an appropriate response sometimes. That doesn't malign God.
I left a question on the table for you and you refused to answer. And it's obvious why. You would have to admit your understanding of God would have to be altered if you answered truthfully.
If you have the expectation that I should listen to what you post and make every effort to understand your position and treat you with respect and dignity, please afford me the same courtesy.

Cameron143 said:
I never said that fallen man cannot respond to God, the Gospel, his surroundings, or any other stimuli. But he can only respond according to his nature.

@cv5 said:
Your pretentions in the matter are utterly demolished effortlessly in just a few of passages.
And there are HUNDREDS more to back these up.

Mat 12:41
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

Rev 2:22
Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Act 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

Act 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Gen 15:16
But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

God gave the land of Caanan at least 400 years to repent (more like 642). They did not. Then came the judgement.

Except for the Gibeonites. Who DID repent. They believed God (doubtless their spies had the Scriptures themselves!), recognized their CERTAIN DOOM, heeded God's warning, sued for peace, no conditions. Were acquitted, and secured a covenant of peace and life. Which they scrupulously maintained throughout their entire history. The most loyal and committed group of GENTILE believers in all of the Bible.

Bet you did not know any of that.......right @Cameron143 ?

Well not sure this a scriptural thing but certainly a St. Augustine view.

However, once again this does not mean that natural man is born morally incapable of responding to the power of the Gospel message!!

The inability to be perfect does not equate to the inability to trust in the perfect One and the message He has given for the ages

to believe in HIM and His work on mankind's behalf.

Do you believe the natural man receives spiritual understanding from God?

The Derek Webb video was really good, very sad, but we cannot put our heads in the sand, there are dire, real world consequences to "reformed" theology.

Thank you.

Not sure. It could mean something like hearken or listen diligently. I'm still studying the passage.

Now liberals aren't called to keep unity, but Christians are.

Your question was unrelated and I perceived your question to be a deflection from the morally ambivalent god created who bequeaths spiritual hearing to some and not others when they both hear the Gospel message.

Question: how (and why) does one "keep unity" with any group of so-called Christians that actually believe that the tribulation has already happened? And that the Second Coming likewise has already occurred?

Question: how (and why) does one "keep unity" with any group of so-called Christians that actually believe that the tribulation has already happened? And that the Second Coming likewise has already occurred?

If "keep unity" involves submitting to error, then call me a rebel.

Here's what's disrespectful...I've never read Augustine. But you, and many here, feel the need to label everyone into different camps. This is no different from what liberals do. And it's devisive.
Now liberals aren't called to keep unity, but Christians are. And just as I dismiss liberal's false delineations, I dismiss your delineation.
I appreciate that you took the time and effort to share. Grace and peace.

You seem able to do so with @HeIsHere. Maybe copy that?

I explained what it was that I thought was divisive. No need to speculate and possibly divide more.