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

IMO Yes. Present unbelief toward Christ disqualifies from being presently in Christ. But present belief puts one in Christ; and in Him past unbelief is not remembered IMO.

So, in this admission, aren't you admitting that unbelief can be forgiven, and, therefore, not the unpardonable sin?

And that's just his short list, right?

Maybe. I've been told I'm slow to learn. Wonder who told me that.

Amen, brother! Good post.

And I have always maintained that the will of moral agents is a paradox. Man is totally free to choose according to the limitations of his nature. But he cannot choose to BE something that he is not! A sinner simply cannot "freely" chose to become righteous, anymore than God can chose to be unrighteous. Righteousness isn't in a sinner's DNA. At the same time, man's will is in bondage to his nature.

The work of the Spirit is ALWAYS FIRST. Both in creation and redemption.

So weed that idea out of your position. And then you can eliminate this nonsense:
"something that we no longer posses, (both the ability and liberty to choose either good or evil)"

The Bible itself is Spirit, by which men MUST either CHOOSE to believe on their Savior or refuse.
First the "choosing", then comes......the "separating" / "dividing".

Deu 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Deu 29:21
And the LORD shall separate him unto evil out of all the tribes of Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law:

Mat 25:32
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Absolutely false.

UNFALLEN Adam and Eve had the free will to make bad/wrong decisions.
Decisions that led to their "death" aka separation from God.

FALLEN Adam and Eve had the free will to make good/right decisions.
Decisions that led to "life" aka "salvation" aka "reconciliation" aka "renewed fellowship" with God.

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19because what may be known of God is manifest in THEM, for God has shown it to THEM.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, ***so that THEY are without excuse,***
21because, ***although THEY knew God***, THEY did not (CHOOSE TO) glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in THEIR thoughts, and THEIR foolish hearts were darkened.

And what part of vv. 18 & 21 don't you get? They did not choose because they had no heart for God. This is why they WILLFULLY suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. Why can't you understand that the natural man hates God!?

It's unpardonable while doing it. Other sins, on account of the atonement, are pardonable while doing them, but the unbelief that accompanies other sins is not forgiven while practising the unbelief.

Then why doesn't He say while doing them? This makes very little sense to me as you have to assume your understanding into the passage.
But again, have enjoyed the discussion.

Mark 3:29 ὃς δ᾽ ἂν (But whoever) βλασφημήσῃ (might be blaspheming; present subjunctive) εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ( to the Holy Spirit) οὐκ ἔχει (is not having; present indicative) ἄφεσιν (forgiveness) εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (into the age) ἀλλ᾽ (but rather) ἔνοχός ἐστιν (is being liable; present indicative) αἰωνίου κρίσεως (of aeonous judgement).

The primary sense of the Greek present and future tenses is to indicate a continuous action in the present or future. When the present continuous makes sense, that is the default primary sense. If the continuous sense does not make sense, the simple present may be inferred.
So, the Greek indicates that while a person is blaspheming (present continuous) the Holy Spirit, they are not having (continuous present) aeonous life; and if they continue to do so they are continuously in danger of judgement in the age/aeon to come. IMHO the other texts I have cited indicate that the sin of not believing in Jesus when the Holy Spirit bears witness to Him through words and deeds, is what Jesus means by blaspheming the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth sent to convince the world of a sin: that (hoti) they believe not on Him.

Even those who believe in limited atonement believe that the elect are already forgiven for their sins through the atonement even while doing them. So, I don't see why it should seem odd that those believing in universal atonement should believe the same about all sins of all people, except the unforgivable sin: unforgivable being understood as unforgivable in the present for as long as it is being committed in the present.

Luke 12:10 καὶ πᾶς (And everyone) ὃς (who) ἐρεῖ (will speak, future indicative) λόγον (a word) εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (at the Son of Man) ἀφεθήσεται (it will be forgiven, future indicative passive) αὐτῷ (to him)· τῷ δὲ εἰς (but to the one) τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα (the Holy Spirit) βλασφημήσαντι (having blasphemed, aorist active participle) οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται (it will not be forgiven, future indicative passive).

Greek verbs in their aorist indicative aspect present what might be considered as a momentary snapshot of an action at a particular instant in time. The action was happening when the snapshot was taken, but we cannot tell whether the action happened or was happening at other times outside of the instant the snapshot was taken.

So, the question is, "When, in relation to the time that the blasphemer will not be being forgiven, was the instant that Jesus had in mind when the blasphemer had spoken against the Holy Spirit, such that s/he will not be forgiven? Could it be a snapshot of their behaviour at times immediately before their not being forgiven. The person speaks against the Holy Spirit and the immediate consequence is that they are not being forgiven for doing so. This state of guilt maintains until the person repents and believes in the Holy Spirit's testimony to Jesus. Then this warning no longer applies, since the person has not just blasphemed the Holy Spirit, but has validated Him. So, the Greek tenses here allow for unforgiveness being the immediate consequence for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but that consequence being undone by some future agreement with the Holy Spirit concerning Jesus.

I also note that this parallel passage in Luke does not have any contextual connection to people attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. The context here is about confessing and denying Jesus.

8Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
9But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.
10¶And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Like you said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

okay, thank you for your interpreting health of others how each thinks and feels and believes or not believes. It sounds like you have gone through troubles and seen much harm from others too, there is an angst in your writings, I feel that and might be wrong.
God simply desires for all to trust God and know Jeremiah 29:11 is for them too. Other's but in and become billy goats as I have seen that too. love you as God Loves us all first, is for all in reconciliation, the message from the disciples we are reconciled, so be reconciled back to God in thanksgiving and praise too, thank you Father and Son. Then one goes out in love to all as received from God through Son for them

Not at all. The gospels are really thorough in building out the narrative of the relationship of the Jews and Christ. These men would strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. They were self righteous and they were the ultimate cancel culture. If one of them would have ever said that any god was greater than God. They would have picked up stones and stoned that individual amongst them.

As far as doctrine and understanding what the written word said about God in a intellectual way they were not wrong. We don't find Christ correcting them in that way. In fact Christ said do as they say not as they do. When it came down to keeping the law Christ said they did so on the smallest of details but they had missed the weightier of matters. They would strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

They were about appearance and self righteousness so they kept the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. So saying any god was stronger than God was not something they would have done nor does it fit the narrative of the picture, motivation, or attitude of these men.

Them saying he was in league with the devil was a normal response from them about Christ. John 8 breaks it down pretty good to show these elements of who they were and their consistent actions.

Of course the chapter starts with them bringing a woman caught in adultery to Christ to be stoned. So to surmise they would have stoned one of their own for saying another god was greater is something they would have done.

John 8:46-48

46Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
48Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

We can see here that them saying he was of the devil was not new as a response from them towards Christ. We also see that they are saying they do not have or worship the same God. They did this by calling him a Samaritan.

We know from the narration of Christ meeting the woman at the well that the Jews did not count the Samaritans as Jews nor did they find they had the same God since the Samaritans were in their eyes not children of Abraham.
This point of Christ not being of them nor serving the same God was also driven home earlier in verse 41

41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Then in verses 49-52 we read,
49Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
51Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.

So we can see again that calling Christ of the devil was nothing new for them and they did not recognize Christ as serving the same God as them as he was the one actually serving God and it was them who served the devil. Their deception brought on by self righteousness blinded them to that fact.

So when they said that Christ was casting out demons by Beelzebub. It was their norm to link him as in league with the devil. They were not at all saying that Beelzebub was stronger than God as they did not believe they and Christ had the same God or that Christ was even of them.

So why I found that @Cameron143 understood the narrative and you did not. Hence why I agreed with him. I found that your analysis and conclusion was taken from a void of not understanding the narrative and context of the gospels when it comes to how God showed just who these men are. As well as the expected outcome that consistently happened when they interacted with Christ.

Ultimately I find the point was Christ was still merciful because he was full of love. He warned them even though they hated him, that their hate for him could dig them a hole they would not get out of. As their hate could lead them to speak blasphemy that would never be forgiven. He was warning them out of love even though they hated him.

So, in other words, they were suffering from a first century version of Trump Derangement Syndrome: Jesus of Nazareth Derangement Syndrome. He threatened their hold on the levers of power they controlled, and they were fixated on eliminating/cancelling Him by whatever means necessary.: they would say anything and do anything, no matter how blatant, absurd and deliberate the lie, to bring Him down. Such committed and deliberate enemies of the truth could never enter in the Kingdom of God and His Christ. Their extreme hatred of Him made it impossible for them to kiss the Son with sincerity and receive Life.

Only, I would disagree with the "a hole they would never get out of" part. I would say, "a hole they could only get out of only by finally embracing the truth", as Saul of Tarsus eventually did.

Well done!

Who gives this a red x? Strange.

The X is white, with a lovely red background.