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

So, God only described destroying Nineveh? What does that even mean?

No. I choose to be led of the Spirit. Jesus did always what He saw the Father doing. Do you see the Father causing division? Do you see the Father implying false motives? Do you see the Father causing confusion?

Sometimes what someone says is exactly what they mean. I get that we have some different understanding of doctrine. I don't get why you think it's your responsibility to change another's point of view. Sure, plant and water, but leave the growing to God. When I see that what I'm sharing is making no impact, I know that it's time to move on. You are free to do as you choose.

There have been some on here claiming to be Southern Baptist promoting TULIP.
I just was made to understand that TULIP is a Reformed Doctrine.
Are you saying that your Southern Baptist Church does not preach TULIP or 5 Doctrines of Grace?

Are you playing the victim?
When did Followers of the Most High God become victims?

When you keep needing to create new terms and categories, and to divide biblical texts so that they fit into your new categories in order to keep your theological boat afloat, you are patching a lot of leaks in your boat.

Are we free to sin without punishment?

It looks like freedom from sin is slavery to righteousness. Is this freedom without limits?

This is a command to our volition. It seems we're not completely free to go back into bondage without consequence and thus, once again, our freedom has limitations.

Obviously this concept of freedom with limitations is biblical. Freedom without limitations is the unbiblical fallacy being used to attempt to prove another unbiblical fallacy.

Finally!

PaulThomson said:

You haven't given an example. You have merely restated your claim that a lot of people has claimed that "God would be violating the sanctity and integrity of a person's free moral agency if He ever sovereignly moved against that moral agency."

Who has even claimed that there is such a thing as "the sanctity and integrity of a persons free moral agency. Free will does not mean one's free moral agency. Free will means the freedom to keep or change one's own desires. One can keep one'sown desires against doing something while being forced to do it.

But God unilaterally changing our desires ,so that we cannot keep our own desires against doing something even though we want to keep them, is a violation of free will. Free will is not about moral agency, i.e. the ability freely to do moral or immoral acts.

Please try to challenge the definitions others use for free will, not straw man definitions.

Often, the same words translated as desire and want are thelO and thelEma., the words used for will as verb and noun respectively. Wisdom/folly, discrimination/ignorance and judgment/instinct prioritise and rein in the competing desires to yield to the one the person decides is the most important desire., which is then pursued.

The heart is the invisible part of a person, their soul and spirit. Giving a new, clean, perfect spirit that is able to commune boldly, guilt-free and shame-free with God is giving a new heart, even if the mind is only changed a little at this stage. Some data about God and ourselves is changed, but most of our operating system continues to need radical upgrading/transformation/renewal.

The unbelieving man is more than his flesh. He is also mind and spirit. The man, whether believer or unbeliever, who sets his mind on what his flesh can experience, is fleshly/carnal/soulish/natural. The man, whether believer or unbeliever, who sets his mind on what his spirit can experience, is spiritual. The one who sets his mind on the things of the flesh cannot please God and is at enmity with God. The one who sets his mind on the things of the flesh can please God, but still might not please God, if the spiritual things he sets his mind are not godly. Scripture does not say that the unbelieving spiritual man cannot receive any teaching from God. It is only because you have forced your Calvinist assumptions into scripture that you believe the unbeliever who is setting his mind on spiritual things cannot receive teaching from God.

God does not show favouritism. Ig God were to unilaterally change the desires of some so that the can be spared hell, but leave others’ desires unchanged so that they must surely be condemned to hell, He would be showing favouritism, and be breaking His own word and be condemned as a sinner. I don’t believe He shows partiality.

Exercise your free will and show that you can stop harassing people.

It seems to me I make posts and then people quote me [YOU quoted me to begin this discussion few days ago - I didn't quote you]. If they don't like what I have to say then why quote me? I am only going to say what I believe the Bible claims.

Before calvary, God drew men to Jesus through the words and deeds He did through Jesus, which were controversial and attracted attention away from their everyday lifestyles onto checking Jesus out. So, they came to Jesus drawn by the Father, some to be healed, some to hear wise teaching, some to defend their traditions against His innovations, some to find evidence to justify killing Him, some to kill Him. The Father drew people to Jesus so that they might believe and receive aeonous life.

Since His resurrection, Jesus is drawing people to Himself through the words and deeds He is doing through the church and the Holy Spirit, with the same results, to the same end.

Exercise your free will and make the choice to stop communicating with me. This is my third request.

You mean definitions made up and imposed upon the Bible to generate and shore up a novel otherwise-unbiblical theology.

Your conclusion is erroneous and you cannot prove otherwise.

There. All done. Copying your form of argumentation is much easier.

You can always put me on ignore.

But yet you keep quoting me like you have from when you did out of the blue from a few days ago.

I thought this poster had 13 people on ignore. Maybe he's realizing that there's not much content to read and interact with once nearly everyone has been ignored.

He's too busy being a victim.

He starts a conversation and it goes the way he did not intend so he starts posting poor me.

Pretty narrow reality, isn't it...

You know not of what you speak, sir. To be under slavery is to be under the submission to a dominating, controlling influence, such as the ancient Hebrews were under Pharaoh in Egypt. So, in one respect you are right: slavery "inhibits" the will, which primarily means the will is prohibited from doing something. The will is discouraged from free or spontaneous activity. For the human will to be truly free, it would have to emulate God's will since His is free from all sinful influences from within and without, which is why he cannot lie, he cannot deny himself, he cannot be tempted. Yet, are you going to deny that God isn't a free moral agent due to the dominating, controlling influence of his holy, righteous and good nature? Are you going to deny that He isn't free because he cannot be a sinful slave and act like one? Because not even God Almighty can be something that He is not!?

With all due respect, your whole idea of "freedom" is satanic and worldly! You NR have turned the biblical teaching of freedom on its head! You call bitter sweet, and sweet bitter. You call evil good, and good evil. You call freedom slavery, and slavery freedom! How is any NR going to handle the eternal, visible kingdom when the saints are in their glorified states? Don't you know that there will be no sin in heaven or the eternal kingdom No one will be able to sin! Just like God cannot choose to sin! So, by your worldly understanding of "freedom", I suppose you would have infer from the eternal state that the saints will have no free will? To be consistent with yourself, you'd have to conclude this -- because in your world real freedom is choosing what we want! Real freedom, according to the worldly wise, can only be had when we get to choose what is right and wrong! True freedom can only exist we have the ability to choose to sin or not!

What in the world do you think Jesus meant in Jn 8:36!? "Free indeed"...from and/or to do what!?

And from all your bragging about how the redeemed saints of God can still freely choose to sin even though, we're slaves to righteousness, you evidently never read Rom 6:14. It's one thing to "stumble" into sin, and something else altoegether to "fall" into the lifestyle of sin.