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

No, I am making a case that we all hear.

This removes the predestined issue that only saved people hear.
But Jesus shows us we all hear and we allow ourselves to be saved or we place other things in the way and ultimately reject God.

I have not said only saved people hear. I don't recall anyone else saying it either.

Now if you wanna discuss ear circumcision, that would be a different issue...

If grace cannot be refused and Christ cannot be freely accepted.....

the logical implication becomes that God could have foreordained the salvation of all, just as easily, just as righteously, as He foreordained the salvation of only some.

Even if we accept the out of context, proof texts of "inability" the moral dilemma remains and there is no covering up this morally ambivalent god, some apologists even say evil god.

I cannot even believe this is even something that needs to be debated, but since people seem to be indoctrinated we have no choice but to defend the Gospel of Christ Jesus.

Any doctrine that denies the power and sufficiency of the message of the Gospel and requires a grace that cannot be refused is non-biblical.[/QUOTE]

Only by worldly, fleshly, carnal, ungodly logic. Do you really think that God thinks like we do, and that his ways are ours? Might wanna ponder Isa 55:8-9 someday.

Never said you did. But many people are reading. You are doing wonderfully

I cannot even believe this is even something that needs to be debated, but since people
seem to be indoctrinated we have no choice but to defend the Gospel of Christ Jesus.

I normally don't read extensive posts, but I've found myself combing through yours. Given that perhaps this is only to find fault, I've yet to find many with maybe a few exceptions *providing notice that I'll address if I encounter said fault.

God grants (the possibility of) repentance that otherwise the law only foreshadowed in the temple's sacrificial system. In that system, which is a figure of the reality, no one was 'chosen' in being granted repentance. Surely, that fact would be of relevance in reality. Or so I would think.

Thank you. I think you have some sense of there being middle ground which
allows for the complexity of what is involved in the process of being saved.

I also cannot understand how those who follow this system cannot see this!

How does one feel okay making Jesus a liar. "Believe" but you can't believe.....oops!!

Thank You!

I understand many things are involved that we really are unaware of. The Bible is like reading an outline at times and we're left guessing but what is point A and B here? And still at the same time, we just cannot throw things into the mix because none of it was ever written to be included. So it leaves us to be very generic in our answers. One day we will know for certain. But today, we only can really go by what the Bible claims.

Thanks, but I have no idea of what you're talking about.

I have commented on it a number of times from the angle of, how did Jesus fulfill all righteousness
in being baptized by John? This seems to get skipped over a lot, but it is my contention that Jesus
fulfilled all righteousness in having John baptize him because John, of the house of Levi, his father
being a Levitical priest, was an instrument in the transference of the priesthood to Jesus, which then
signaled and necessitated a change in the law. It was also part of the Torah law that priests undergo
ritual cleansing before taking up their priestly duties (limited in age between twenty-five and fifty).

It's really simple. All of us are prisoners of our Essence (nature); for we cannot not sin. Even God is a prisoner of his; for he cannot lie, cannot deny himself, cannot be tempted. So God and we his have this inability thingy in common, don't we? But...since God cannot do some things, does this mean that he is not a free moral agent?

1 John 1:10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

The Bible uses that turn of phrase. Is the Bible slandering those who disagree with it? There is a difference between inadvertently making someone a liar, and deliberately doing so. Maybe Calvinists are doing so inadvertently. But the consequence of dismissing Jesus' words because they don't fit one's own theories, or reinterpreting His words with novel definitions that are not recognised common parlance, in order to make Him appear to be saying what we would prefer Him to say, could be fairly fit the idiom: "making Him a liar." That doesn't mean the person using the expression is correct. And I don't see any point in getting all bitter about someone accusing me of something I know isn't true. I can just try yo give a coherent argument that explains why I think they are wrong.

Reason can triumph over figure of speech slinging.

I hear what you're saying, however, as a "reporter" of the Bible, I see a completely different Element to God, and it is this:

Our Powerful, Almighty God has always had an Eternal Plan which He causes all events recorded in His Heavenly Scroll . . . to take place. This is a most unpopular view, but that's fine with me. I merely report what I have found in His Holy Word, which He desires that we Understand and Know. Therefore, I do not see a God who randomly changes his mind about things, but rather, the Bible reports that all that He has done is part of His Eternal Plan, right down to the number of days we shall live.

Isaiah 34:15-17 NIV - "The owl will nest there and lay eggs, she will hatch them, and care for her young under the shadow of her wings; there also the falcons will gather, each with its mate. 16 Look in the scroll of the LORD and read: None of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate. For it is his mouth that has given the order, and his Spirit will gather them together. 17 He allots their portions; his hand distributes them by measure. They will possess it forever and dwell there from generation to generation."

Whether we view the owls and falcons as symbols as something greater than themselves, this would not change the reality of the Heavenly Scroll, that God's Holy Mouth has called all orders, and that the Holy Spirit performs the Work.

I am sorry if I didn't answer your question adequately, but this is the best answer I have.

Thank you. I think you have some sense of there being middle ground which
allows for the complexity of what is involved in the process of being saved.

Actually...you didn't address the subject it all. But what you wrote I agree with totally. So, it's good.

Now...I wrote what I did earlier to try to make the point that the issue of "free" will or free moral agency is not as simple and cut 'n' dry as most would like to make it out to be. Many people, if not indeed most, define free will as this autonomous, powerful faculty that can rise above the host's nature -- so far above it -- and even in defiance of the other faculties that reside in the host's heart -- that it can empower the host to become something he is not, which is anti-scripture and anti-law of logic -- the Law of Identity. And, again, even God Almighty cannot do what I just said in the sentence above.

But in addition to the problem stated above, there is perhaps even a greater one because it's more fundamental to the biblical definition. Very few people (I think) understand what the bible means by "free". What does it truly mean for a man's will to be "free"!? And how should we think of this freedom: Freedom from something or freedom to do something? Or both?

I'm contemplating tackling this issue mostly for the like-minded or undecided folks here; for the openly hostile detractors of the Doctrines of Grace will still refuse to see the truth -- apart from divine intervention, of course.

Understanding the Gospel message is NOT out of reach of the natural man and his natural abilities.

At the same time it hardens the heart of those who have not been enabled.

Gotchya. I thought that I answered the question with clarity, but then I'm just a human.

When you create a thread to discuss "free will," send me a message pointing to the thread. I'd love to see what you have to say. To date, and I have asked so, so many, to give me an example of what it would look like to have their "free will" violated. Typically, I receive ridicule and belittling in return. Pretty crazy, if you ask me. But . . .

Anyway, "free will" is a most interesting topic, particularly if a person believes in the Circumcision of Christ. That said, because virtually all "christians" reject this teaching, the topic of "free will" is about as exciting as pulling teeth with spoons.

Actually...you didn't address the subject it all. But what you wrote I agree with totally. So, it's good.

Now...I wrote what I did earlier to try to make the point that the issue of "free" will or free moral agency is not as simple and cut 'n' dry as most would like to make it out to be. Many people, if not indeed most, define free will as this autonomous, powerful faculty that can rise above the host's nature -- so far above it -- and even in defiance of the other faculties that reside in the host's heart -- that it can empower the host to become something he is not, which is anti-scripture and anti-law of logic -- the Law of Identity. And, again, even God Almighty cannot do what I just said in the sentence above.

But in addition to the problem stated above, there is perhaps even a greater one because it's more fundamental to the biblical definition. Very few people (I think) understand what the bible means by "free". What does it truly mean for a man's will to be "free"!? And how should we think of this freedom: Freedom from something or freedom to do something? Or both?

I'm contemplating tackling this issue mostly for the like-minded or undecided folks here; for the openly hostile detractors of the Doctrines of Grace will still refuse to see the truth -- apart from divine intervention, of course.