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

God chooses to bypass man's flesh by grace.
Once the soul is made free to believe or reject?
Then that soul will know that his choice was His own, and not something God imposed upon him.

Only crazy gods make people to reject them, so to condemn them by making them unable to choose for what's right...

What you are doing is not thinking clearly, but wanting to feel a sense of resolve, because the problem makes you feel not smart enough to figure it out.

Jumping to erroneous 'dogmatic' conclusions is where you be.
Calvinism was an attempt to resolve a deep paradox.
It found a way to make up one's mind in a manner to eliminate the destabilizing effects of ambiguity that some find too painful to tolerate

That sounds very nice. Sure to warm the emotions of some.

But it does nothing to address what I took the time to explain for you.
I think you did not understand what I said.

Adam and Eve hid themselves and covered up their nakedness because someone who is evil 'denounced' them.

We still see it today needing to be taught not to be naked, with missionaries making the natives put clothes on.
The natives are fallen like Adam and Eve fell. But until the missionaries arrived with legalism? The natives felt
no shame being half naked. That is just an example of what I spoke of in my post you failed to address.

If some were not a Calvinist?
They could have been a legalistic Muslim.
Its how their particular flesh operates.

Where in the Bible does Satan denounce Adam and Eve?

Who in the Garden would have DENOUNCED them?
Its not as mild as many translations make it sound. "Who told you you are naked? "

Why would the Lord ask who told (denounced) them if it was to be an automatic response as you are claiming?

It is just as likely that they came to the conclusion themselves. It's a rhetorical question, just like God asking where they were. Or did Satan denounce them for walking openly in the garden as well?

Repeating to show how straw men are created for an obvious agenda.

Nowhere does this say I don't know and understand concepts like belief in the heart. Jesus spoke of it also. I've also redeemed much time researching every verse that speaks of belief/faith, the heart, the mind, the soul, salvation, etc. There's always more to learn, corrections to be considered, etc.

This head vs. heart terminology is very frequently used by Biblically unlearned people to make excuses for their lack of knowledge of Scripture and to tell others our Faith is what we feel. I studied and taught in S.CA for some years in an area that was/is central to many big and global mega churches and TV "ministries" and therefore filled with people attending large social clubs and entertainment centers they called churches. I had many encounters with such people and learned to always take the conversation to the Gospel ASAP. It was astounding how many could give a canned and very often erroneous gospel, but with a few questions could be shown to know virtually nothing. And being around many of these big clubs, it was inevitable to not end up seeing people speaking of loving God then going off to their sinful escapades which were just standard fare for many of those who told me about head knowledge vs. heart knowledge. Knowing Scripture was an offense to some of them, more than I care to recall. Feeling stuff in their heart was what they had been trained to think of as Faith. The entertainment centers were quite wealthy.

So, simply define your terminology and I can typically work with it unless I think it unwise to do so.

I would say it creates a paradox and then goes on to solve it with TULIP.
But I am not sure which paradox you are referring to, it may be different?

The attachment of sorrow to repentance is another Roman Catholic thing... Surprise!!

In the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate metanoia was translated as paenitentia which came to mean penance or acts of penance that had to be done if one hoped to obtain grace.

People like Justin Martyr and Augustine looked for some type of contrition for sin.

It was the Reformation that saw the new church fathers begin to go back to the Classical Greek.

Both Luther and Calvin desired to remove the concept of penance from the meaning of repentance.

They very accurately pointed instead looked at the root of the meaning of the word repentance: meta=after; noeo=to think. Put the two together and the effect of meta was “after the fact” or “afterwards.”

Away from ....towards something else.
Thus, repentance meant “to change the mind.”
Mind/heart being the seat of man, not like in western thought where mind is equated to intellect and cognitive processes.

It matters because there is a lot going on out there in christendom and it can be helpful to know who we're in discussion with. I just explained why in my previous unaddressed post.

I've already stated quite clearly that the Word, the Spirit, and God-sent proclaimers are obviously active. But there is Biblical activity and much abused unbiblical activity.

Simply define what you mean so there's no confusion and use Scripture to make your case. The Godhead's activity in God's Salvation Plan is certainly throughout Scripture and apart from Him we've got absolutely nothing. God Himself showing up in everyone's living room I'd have to see in Scripture. As I say, just be clear what you're saying. I'm not inexperienced in some very personal experiences. Nor am I inexperienced in being around prophets on many corners who had a word of knowledge God was giving the right then and there for anyone who would listen, or around people running off to the airport to go to where the spirit was moving and making people bark like dogs or have holy laughter.

If I ask you a few questions it's nothing personal and I'm just trying to know where the terminology comes from and what it means to you.

This is one of the important points in my view. The heart alone is mentioned nearly 1,000 times in Scripture and nearly 80% of those are in the Hebrew Scriptures that apply a variety of meanings to it. It overlaps with the mind and at times thinking is in the heart. It's hardly a simple, cut and dry topic of study. As you point out, western thought is not the same.

Thanks for the important input.

If that's what you want to believe? And, the exegesis I was shown was in error. You're safe.

They could not figure a way that God can take a depraved person (born that way) and make him able to choose as he desires to freed of his depravity master, the flesh.

They failed top realize that the soul is a slave. Not inherently depraved. That when the flesh is the master, the soul can not do right. And, if God can bind that master? (that is what the grace we are saved by is for)..
That some souls made free of the sin nature's power over the soul? Would actually choose to reject God after being made free to choose!

They fail to put it together according to the example we have with the angels experienced. For Satan was created perfect and with great wisdom. When Satan fell? It was not as if was like us who were born with a fallen nature.

Yes, a perfectly free mind can reject God! They can not see it.

They had a whole new frame of reference...knowledge of good and evil. They were fundamentally altered by sin. Not only were they separated from God, but they were corrupted in every aspect of their being. Before sin, their inclination was towards God and they listened to His voice and desired and delighted in His company. After, they hid from His presence and made their own way apart from His word. They didn't retain God in their thoughts.

2 Corinthians 7:10 ~ Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation without regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

It is a given that God saves through means. But we read that we are "saved by grace through faith". And Jesus tells people their faith has saved them. And God reckons faith to us as righteousness, in which case our faith in the present has saved us in the present from unrighteousness and into a living relationship with the living God.

.

Does God only save those whose faith includes creedal tenets that were innovated by Christians concerning Christ? It is faith in God, based on what God has said to an individual in their historical context, through His handiwork and the person's conscience and spirit and mind, that God reckons to him/her as righteousness. It is faith in God to believe what God has revealed to one, whatever is revealed, and such faith closes the gap between the person and God that the person had assumed existed because of their sin and/or their distrust of God. Otherwise how was it possible for did old testament saints have a relationship with God . And how was it possible for Gentiles to have any relationship with God before they confessed the New Covenant creeds about Christ?

.